• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Polygamy (Split from Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack)

I live a good portion of the time in a muslim area, on the border of where ISIS just had a war with the Philippine government. We were there with helicopter gunships and bombers flying overhead, they leveled the city next door to us, just a pile of rubble now.

I know how these people think, I talk to them at length about this very thing. They look at American culture and call our 13 year old girls whores. They parade around with their near-naked bodies on display - sexualized tots, sexualized adolescents, sexualized teens, they actually cite accurate statistics like 6% of US 13 year olds already having intercourse. FAR more are having some kind of sex and half of them by age 18 have had intercourse - almost zero of them married.

Unmarried teen pregnancy, single mom worship, men having sex with men, women with women, sex change operations - to them it is ghastly soddom and gommorah promiscuity at VERY young ages so how ironic to paint them as the sex perverts.

You point out muslim girls having sex that are MARRIED. Having children and raising families at 13, as if that was horrible? Are you out of your mind? Billions of people are cool with this, and logically so.

There is no welfare state in those cultures generally but let me be specific about the muslims where I live. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is highly discouraged. A mortal affair.

A man must be assigned responsibility for children. Marriage is how you do it. It is not of concern whether he has one wife, two, whatever - as President Duterte (1/4 Moro) himself asserted while defending legal polygamy in the Philippines in a major speech... it is a matter of supporting the children.

You are not going to get permission under Shariah to take on another wife if don't have the resources. It is going to be just like me, as you get older and more established, are wiser and infiniately more lecherous, you get another FAR younger partner. And everyone is cool with it, everyone knows, both families, the exact rights and responsibilitites of every adult worked out face to face.

By age 18, half of American kids have already had intercourse. In the muslim world, the only way they had intercourse is if they were MARRIED. Who cares what age they are, it is proper. The improper sex is in the USA, not vice-versa. And that is what produces children without fathers to support them.

They wear the full burka, just the eye slits, in our neighborhood. A young muslim girl is escorted by an adult male from the family, and boy do they march her quickly, all business.

The purpose of protecting the women this way (you view it as imprisoning) is that a dowry is coming (bride price) from the man's family.

What the families are doing is joining forces, not buying and selling a girl. The ensuing children are from both families. The expectant father's family is investing in the bride's family, and this again is important where there is no welfare state.

A son to be proud of runs a business and makes a bunch of dough with hard work and honest trade. He can help support his aging parents. There is no welfare state for seniors either. The kids take care of the parents as the grim reaper draws nigh.

A daughter to be proud of can do the same thing. Except her business is in the home, making children. With a guy who runs a business and makes a bunch of dough with hard work and honest trade.

His number of wives is irrelevant. He either has sufficient dowry or not. A guy who is a doctor or architect, he can keep two families better than one man that sells cigarettes on the streets. How is this guy on the street going to pay for the children?

You don't let a daughter of any age fall in love with the guy selling cigarettes on the street. You do not even let her speak to him without guardianship. Because you have one shot with this daughter, when she is young and maximally fertile, fantastically beautiful, and she is not competent to make the decision.

It is EXACTLY what Americans argue about their own 13 year olds, 14 year olds, whatever the age of consent law prohibits. They cannot decide. It is statutory rape.

Well exactly so in the muslim world, but it is treated far more severely. Unless you are married, and that is highly encouraged. Be fruitful and multiply. The girl has passed from the protection of the father to the protection of the husband. Her children are provided for.

This is true in America too. You can marry at these ages, when you are insisting the girl cannot decide! So you actually agree on that point with the muslims, your society agrees they can be married off when both sets of parents approve along with a judge. What is the difference?

Look at this PC hypocrisy of insisting American girls cannot decide sex for themselves, despite the rampant sexualization of those very girls, of producing an epidemic of fatherless children and single mothers...

With all the horrific statistics on children of single mothers. The most abused. The least likely to succeed educationally, the most likely to end up committing crime, and to perpetuate even more fatherless children the next generation...

That is the result of Western culture. The kids are going to have sex if you do not directly chaperone them. Sex produces children, and there is no welfare state in the communities I speak of. So therefore the adults are in charge of making the sex decisions.

Except that they really are. And it is uncommon a 13 year old is married off in any case. She is going to be older, but nevertheless it is going to be an "arranged" marriage to a significant degree if not outright assigned.

Their idea of family relationships is that love grows between man and wife over time, not this romantic love idea the west has lately taken favor with. In it's wealth and decadence. It's utter depravity. Not even pretecting their 13 year olds. I see why they despise you.

The women, they see it as sensible with rare exceptions and those are rich princesses that can shoot their mouths off. You will call them brainwashed. And they will call yours brainwashed. Look how you cram feminism and LGBT down their throats relentlessly from the earliest age.

You are godless. They got you cold there. You say so what. They say there: he just proved how vile he is. Not even seeing why you need God, what filth.

I have to navigate both of these worlds to some degree, but the one thing I see both of you, American mainstream PC Culture and the muslims, is saying 13-17 year old girls cannot decide for themselves about sex.

One of them, the muslims, insist on linking it to marriage. The other permits it for marriage too, but absolutely lays the red carpet out for premarital sex by teens and propagates a culture of single mothers and fatherless children. Dependent upon the government, and with all the attendant bad social outcomes statistically.

We report, you decide.


This just shows that the opposite of an absurdity is often a different absurdity.

Girls are most fertile and desirable at thirteen (really?), so that fertility and desirability must be exploited somehow (really?), so let's compare present-day Western and traditional middle Eastern ways of doing so, to see which has the better outcomes.

Either the parents and mullahs make all the sex decisions (in ways that are lifelong binding; hence, everyone has their sex decisions made for them by others); or there's unbridled licentiousness and babies abandoned in the streets. Young people making their own decisions within limits set by their elders and society? Nah, that's not extreme enough to satisfy anybody!
 
But you could also have women with several male partners in that deal, so it could, assuming the two sorts of relationships are rather equal in numbers, balance out. Of course, we have no data for that.

But we do have data. Aside from the commonality of polygyny and rarity of polyandry in history, there's stuff like the Gini coefficient for online dating I posted above. Men find a wider range of women sexually attractive. Women find a narrower range of men sexually attractive. It's not a small difference, it's a big one, and it will favor polygyny over polyandry very heavily.
 
So we're basically at a "Polygamy will inherently lead to harems" impasse.

Is misogyny and polygamy cause and effect, or both symptoms of the same cause so it's possible to have one without the other.

It's not like polyamourous relationships that aren't nothing more then misogynistic old men with harems of disenfranchised women aren't a thing. People can have stable, fair and open, relationships with multiple people. I don't see why "making it official" is going to turn some switch on that and turn it into harems or sister-wives or whatever.

You're trying to look at the polygamous relationship in isolation. But that's not how society works. What you do affects what other people do.

Everyone within a given polygamous relationship may be totally happy with it, and everybody in it treats everyone else in it really well. And if there's only a few of those, no big deal. But what if there are a lot of them? Even if taken in isolation, each of those polygamous relationships is fine, that will STILL produce a lot of men with no prospect of finding a sexual partner. And these sexually frustrated men will act out. So no matter what the people in the relationships are doing, you're still going to breed social pathologies.

And as those pathologies take hold, the polygamous relationships that form in the presence of those pathologies won't all be OK, even considered individually.
 
........

And if there's only a few of those, no big deal. But what if there are a lot of them? Even if taken in isolation, each of those polygamous relationships is fine, that will STILL produce a lot of men with no prospect of finding a sexual partner. And these sexually frustrated men will act out. So no matter what the people in the relationships are doing, you're still going to breed social pathologies.


You seem to be taking it as a given that polygamous relationships will be entirely one man / many women, leading to these men "with no prospect of finding a sexual partner." This would discount the number of gay men around, and also the possibility of women having their own harems.

Another giant flaw in your argument is the prison population in the United States. We have more than 2 million people incarcerated, with around 90% of them being male and mostly in the young age demographics. Based on this alone, all things being equal, there are around 2 million "extra" women out there whose only sexual outlet might be a prison pen pal.

So assuming, for sake of argument, that most polygamous dudes end up with 4 women in the harem, that would allow for half a million harems before we hit the break-even point where even one sexually-frustrated man can't find a woman. :rolleyes:

Oh, and if these guys are just looking for sex, they can find millions of single females over age 65 that might be willing to meet their needs, since the female population over 65 is 8 million people greater than the male population. Maybe some senior harems are in order.
 
You seem to be taking it as a given that polygamous relationships will be entirely one man / many women, leading to these men "with no prospect of finding a sexual partner." This would discount the number of gay men around, and also the possibility of women having their own harems.

Whatever relationships gay men enter into doesn't affect the balance of the heterosexual sex market, a point which should be self-evident and which I've previously made explicitly as well. And I've already discussed at length why polygyny will always be more popular than polyandry. Have you been paying any attention?

Another giant flaw in your argument is the prison population in the United States. We have more than 2 million people incarcerated, with around 90% of them being male and mostly in the young age demographics. Based on this alone, all things being equal, there are around 2 million "extra" women out there whose only sexual outlet might be a prison pen pal.

Men cycle in and out of prison. It's mostly a temporary condition. But if you're low status, that tends to be permanent, and when being low status means no prospective sexual partners, well, that's no sexual partners, ever.
 
But we do have data. Aside from the commonality of polygyny and rarity of polyandry in history

Which, as I said, is not data since they could very well be the result of the treatment of women rather than a cause.

there's stuff like the Gini coefficient for online dating I posted above. Men find a wider range of women sexually attractive. Women find a narrower range of men sexually attractive. It's not a small difference, it's a big one, and it will favor polygyny over polyandry very heavily.

We're not just talking about sex, however.

But am I correct that your principal argument is therefore: more women would be swept up by these sorts of relationships (presumably congregating around the most desirable men) leaving less desirable men celibate and causing social unrest?
 
Whatever relationships gay men enter into doesn't affect the balance of the heterosexual sex market, a point which should be self-evident and which I've previously made explicitly as well. And I've already discussed at length why polygyny will always be more popular than polyandry. Have you been paying any attention?
Your "argument" for this assertion has included a smattering of cherry-picked stats from online dating sites in one magazine article from a conservative website, and the following:
That's not an assumption, it's an observation. That's overwhelmingly the direction it goes, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone actually familiar with humans.

If you have some other evidence, please feel free to present it, because, as I noted above, your appeal to emotion / appeal to tradition doesn't cut it on this forum.

Men cycle in and out of prison. It's mostly a temporary condition. But if you're low status, that tends to be permanent, and when being low status means no prospective sexual partners, well, that's no sexual partners, ever.

Sex, relationships and even marriage are mostly a temporary condition that we cycle in and out of. Who has no sexual partners, ever?
 
Your "argument" for this assertion has included a smattering of cherry-picked stats from online dating sites in one magazine article from a conservative website, and the following:

I've got data. You aren't satisfied with it, but you have none at all. The idea that polyandry will be as popular as polygamy is based on what... the axiomatic belief that men and women are the same?

Have you met humans?

Sex, relationships and even marriage are mostly a temporary condition that we cycle in and out of. Who has no sexual partners, ever?

Probably more people than you think. Plus, when women aren't available, sometimes substitutes are found.
 
Not true at all. In British Columbia the laws were recently changed so that even unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples in the event of a split. From this perspective, marriage is so important that they have extended the benefits to those not married and even those who didn't want to be married.

You no longer need to be married to enjoy most, if not all, of the benefits of being married in many places today. I think the normal way of viewing this is that it actually makes marriage less important.

Really? There are a lot of polyamourous people who wish to live together, do, and make it work well. Making sure that all parties are equal seems to me to be in society's best interest. Even if the proportions are small, ie.- 100,000 people in a nation the size of the U.S., what is the issue of protecting their rights. It's exactly the sane as with a married couple.

Marriage is a social custom but above else it's a legal status ascribed to people. You can legally protect peoples rights in sexual and intimate relationships without necessarily legally recognizing their marriage.

Is marriage just about sex then? If a couple can fall in love then why not three people? Or four? Or more?

No it's not "just" about sex. But there seems to be no good reason for why, if someone wants multiple partners, why the state should recognize any polygamous marriages as legally valid.

If someone wants to have a harem with nubile young women and men that they copulate with frequently and impregnate repeatedly, what good reason would there be for them to be in a legally recognized marriage with all of them?
 
Last edited:
Which, as I said, is not data since they could very well be the result of the treatment of women rather than a cause.

It's not a one-way street. There are feedbacks in both directions.

We're not just talking about sex, however.

Doesn't change anything. The imbalance still exists, even if we broaden the scope of relationship interests.

But am I correct that your principal argument is therefore: more women would be swept up by these sorts of relationships (presumably congregating around the most desirable men) leaving less desirable men celibate and causing social unrest?

Basically, yes.
 
I've got data. You aren't satisfied with it, but you have none at all.

Data? Come on, man. You linked to an author's opinion and interpretation of a few dating-app stats in a magazine article. And I notice that you're attempting to reverse the burden of proof. What argument have I made that would require statistics to back it up? Except for the population stats and prison stats - do you really need links for those?

The idea that polyandry will be as popular as polygamy is based on what... the axiomatic belief that men and women are the same?

"The idea that polyandry will be as popular as polygamy" has been made by whom here? Or are you erecting this strawman to guard against your growing field of logical fallacies? YOUR argument was that we will create sexually frustrated men by allowing polygamy. It then follows that you believe one man / many women will be the dominant paradigm. You can back up your assertion if you like.

Have you met humans?
Like your appeal to common sense here. You have a whole row of these, next to the appeal to traditions, which look to be blooming early this spring.
carlitos said:
Who has no sexual partners, ever?

Probably more people than you think. Plus, when women aren't available, sometimes substitutes are found.
"Probably more people than I think" is the kind of hard data you have delivered in this thread, yeah. Oh, the Taliban rapes. Now you're adding red herring to the list. Or are you suggesting that the allowing polygamy in the United States will lead to little boys being raped? Please tell me you aren't suggesting that, but if you are, please connect the dots for us.
 
Only because the majority likes the minority to conform to its values before it grants them equality. Gay people shouldn't have had to assimilate and act like straight people to achieve equal rights. Monogamy is not universally valued.

I missed this when I posted above. Thanks for sharing that.
 
So should the government takes steps to stop people from dating multiple partners? Or does it only become a problem with harems and inequality and men hoarding all the women when it becomes "official?"
 
So should the government takes steps to stop people from dating multiple partners? Or does it only become a problem with harems and inequality and men hoarding all the women when it becomes "official?"

Government regulation of dating and sex would be a radical expansion of government's role and power, which is arguably not justified even if dating multiple people simultaneously is a problem.

But we've already got government involved in marriage. And legalizing polygamy wouldn't actually get government out of marriage. Some people advocate getting government out of marriage completely (which would also put polygamy on an equal footing with monogamy), but that's an unpopular view which is less likely to catch on than just legalization of polygamy.
 
Once again technology will solve the problem. Once we achieve at-will sexual orientation reversal methods and cheap sex robots everything will be much better.
 
Once again technology will solve the problem. Once we achieve at-will sexual orientation reversal methods and cheap sex robots everything will be much better.

Cheap sex robots might help alleviate a lot of what's wrong in the middle east.
 
And an understanding of human behavior.

Would you accept such a level of evidence from anyone else?

Sometimes our "common sense" understanding of things turns out wrong. In fact, it turns out wrong very, very often, hence my request. Do you have anything beyond a subjective interpretation that we could all verify regardless of opinion or life experience?
 
If consenting adults want to enter into a relationship that doesn't hurt anyone, they should be able to.

It's... distasteful for the overall society to basically go "Yeah you aren't hurting anyone, but we don't feel like dealing with the fallout so we're just going to invoke the vague 'harmful to society' to make it easier on us."
 

Back
Top Bottom