"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Strawberry]

He didn't insult anybody, he's just pointing out a fact that fans of polygamy often overlook. Demographics dictate that for every man who has two wives another man is left with no prospect of a wife. It doesn't take Einstein to work out which men will get to monopolise the available women and which will get left behind.

 

[Strawberry]

Except in modern society, where it is no longer a matter of life and death for a woman to get "a man of her own", poor low status men are left single already. Quite a few women prefer to stay single than to be stuck with a jerk.

Poor, low status does not equal jerk. At the moment a jerk may be rejected, but a man with a low paying, low status job can still find a woman - usually one with around the same earning power and education as himself.

 

[Mark6]

He didn't insult anybody, he's just pointing out a fact that fans of polygamy often overlook. Demographics dictate that for every man who has two wives another man is left with no prospect of a wife. It doesn't take Einstein to work out which men will get to monopolise the available women and which will get left behind.

As I said, it happens already.

 

[Ziggurat]

How many millions of men did you just insult here?

None. I made no claim about who was low-status. But do you deny that men have varying status, and that some of them are logically going to be low status? Because if your point is just that this truth is uncomfortable, well, that's none of my concern.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except in modern society, where it is no longer a matter of life and death for a woman to get "a man of her own", poor low status men are left single already. Quite a few women prefer to stay single than to be stuck with a jerk.

Some are, but certainly not all. And the number makes a difference. And I think the number would go up a lot.

 

[Mark6]

He didn't insult anybody,

I know that. (Maybe I should have included a smiley) I was pointing out a hypocrisy. Once you defined "low status men" as a valid category -- which it is, -- being asked if you are a member of said category is hardly an insult.

 

[Strawberry]

As I said, it happens already.

Not to anything like the same extent that legalising polygamy would allow.

 

[Marduk]

He happens to be right. Can't you do the math yourself? The human race is roughly evenly divided into two sexes, so there simply aren't enough women to go round for every man to have multiple wives. In a society where men are allowed to have more than one, who do you think gets left single - the rich, high status males, or the poor, low status ones?

no one in this thread is saying it will be just men with multiple wives, it will also be women with multiple husbands and even then theres only a very small percentage of the population who'd be interested in either,

This thread isn't about arguments made of straw, its about equality for people to live their lives how they want, your approach seems to be that people will only be happy when people decide to live their lives how you want

None. I made no claim about who was low-status. But do you deny that men have varying status, and that some of them are logically going to be low status? Because if your point is just that this truth is uncomfortable, well, that's none of my concern.

are you low status ?

 

[Strawberry]

No, that's not my position. I'm just pointing out the demographic reality which makes polygamy impractical, I couldn't care less how other consenting adults choose to live their lives. You want a harem of 20? Knock yourself out, just don't expect society to give all 20 the legal status of wives because that has implications for other peoples' lives too.

 

[Marduk]

No, that's not my position. I'm just pointing out the demographic reality which makes polygamy impractical, I couldn't care less how other consenting adults choose to live their lives. .

you mean you couldn't care less as long as low status males can still get laid
are you a low status male ?

You want a harem of 20? Knock yourself out, just don't expect society to give all 20 the legal status of wives because that has implications for other peoples' lives too.

who said 20, I have 2 already and wether or not I marry them is irrelevant as apparently I'm still depriving some poor low status male somewhere a sex life
so don't you see, if I was allowed to make honest women of my partners, that wouldn't affect anyone at all, so there goes your demographic argument

btw, the ratio of sexes aren't equal, its about 107 men for every 100 women, what about those seven low status males who can't find a woman,

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?

Yeah. Santorum recently replied with that same old fallacy, while giving us that typical stupid "I-got-ya-now-with-my-incredible-undisputable-logic-didn't-I?" smile.



Someone in these forums replied to it brilliantly, in saying that such argument is as stupid as arguing "Well, if it's okay for a man and a woman to marry, why is it not okay for a man to marry several women?"

 

[Strawberry]

you mean you couldn't care less as long as low status males can still get laid
are you a low status male ?

I'm not a male at all, and don't worry I have no problem getting laid. Thanks for your concern though.

who said 20, I have 2 already and wether or not I marry them is irrelevant as apparently I'm still depriving some poor low status male somewhere a sex life
so don't you see, if I was allowed to make honest women of my partners, that wouldn't affect anyone at all

Whether or not you marry them is very relevant. With the arrangement you currently have one or both can up and leave at any time, and move on to find a husband or just move on. Once you marry, its more complicated and more permanent.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know that. (Maybe I should have included a smiley) I was pointing out a hypocrisy. Once you defined "low status men" as a valid category -- which it is, -- being asked if you are a member of said category is hardly an insult.

Nonsense. "Ugly" is a valid category. But if you ask if someone here if they are ugly, well, that's an insult. Same with stupid, or short, or smelly, or whatever. Talking about a category in the abstract isn't the same thing at all as identifying someone with that category. You don't actually believe what you're saying, you're just hoping that I won't be able to explain why your position is nonsense.

 

[Marduk]

I'm not a male at all, and don't worry I have no problem getting laid. Thanks for your concern though..

I take it back sorry, so being an expert on women, can you tell me how many of your fellow femmes are only interested in rich high status men, a percentage of the women you know would be fine

Whether or not you marry them is very relevant. With the arrangement you currently have one or both can up and leave at any time, and move on to find a husband or just move on. Once you marry, its more complicated and more permanent.

ahh I see, so I would face the same issues that every other married couple have then, being married therefore would have to be a decision that I don't take lightly

 

[crimresearch]

He happens to be right. Can't you do the math yourself? The human race is roughly evenly divided into two sexes, so there simply aren't enough women to go round for every man to have multiple wives. In a society where men are allowed to have more than one, who do you think gets left single - the rich, high status males, or the poor, low status ones?

Or...

...In the US, (which doesn't have a widespread culture of polygamy, but does have a widespread culture of rejecting monagamy), such a major change wouldn't neccessarily follow the simplistic pattern of 'All the boys and girls partner up... Ooopsy! We're out of girls'.

 

[Marduk]

Nonsense. "Ugly" is a valid category. But if you ask if someone here if they are ugly, well, that's an insult. Same with stupid, or short, or smelly, or whatever. Talking about a category in the abstract isn't the same thing at all as identifying someone with that category. You don't actually believe what you're saying, you're just hoping that I won't be able to explain why your position is nonsense.

so are you ugly ?
or are you a low status male ?
are you stupid ?
or short ?
or smelly ?
or whatever ?

questions aren't insults, its statements which are

 

[Strawberry]

I take it back sorry, so being an expert on women, can you tell me how many of your fellow femmes are only interested in rich high status men, a percentage of the women you know would be fine

Being an expert on men, could you tell me how many rich, high status men would be interested in using their position to get as many women as possible? A percentage of the ones you know would be fine.

ahh I see, so I would face the same issues that every other married couple have then, being married therefore would have to be a decision that I don't take lightly

Yes, only twice over. We're back to basic math again - you're not really a couple when there's three of you.

 

[Strawberry]

Or...

...In the US, (which doesn't have a widespread culture of polygamy, but does have a widespread culture of rejecting monagamy), such a major change wouldn't neccessarily follow the simplistic pattern of 'All the boys and girls partner up... Ooopsy! We're out of girls'.

No, it wouldn't necessarily, and I'm not making the prediction that it would. I'm just pointing out that it would allow the potential for it.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're back to basic math again

He's not very good at that, since apparently he thinks 5 > 71.

 

[The Greater Fool]

The polygomy being spoken of is not only men with multiple wives, but women with multiple husbands, and multiples of each with multiples of the other.

I'm not sure what "Low Status Male" has to do with the mix. A woman that would enter a multiple marriage for/because of money, which is what is being claimed, are the same women now that seek a monogomous marriage/relationship (or even quiet/side relationship) for/because of money. Either way, this woman is not going to end up with a Low or Mid Status Man. Monogomy/Pologymy, it's a wash.

In point of fact, Polygomy would OFFICIALLY get this type of woman off the market, and out of our (Low-Mid Level Status Men) way, not that we'd actually be frequenting the same night clubs anyway.

As a Mid-Low Status man, I was not interested in women with a primary interest in money. I needed a woman interested in geeeky, nerdy, quirky, and fun. Fortunately, High Status males aren't seeking that woman as a trophy, nor she him. So, polygomy wouldn't affect THIS search either.

Oh... there are plenty of "Low-Mid Status" women out there (a lot more than the "women will be victimized crowd want to admit) that would not want a #2 slot anywhere, but would be thrilled to be the one and only of a Low-Mid Status man that loved and treated her right.

As someone pointed out statistics that about 2% of people are wealthy enough, with various factors why not all of them would go polygomous, there would not be a heck of a lot of Polygomy going on. Further, (and again) we're not talking ancient patriarchical polygomy with harems, but polygomy were all of the parties must agree to it. I think a fair number of those "First Trophy Wives" have enough oomph to have a "Non Plural Marriage" clause in their contract, or find another man that will accept such a clause.

All the arguments against are women are too weak or dumb or greedy to function in their best interest. This is nonsense.