Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Poly familiesFollow

#52 Jan 20 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
Dammit, Catwho, why'd you have to link that webcomic?!?!

Must be a girl thing. I looked at it, read a few previous strips and quietly backed away.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Jan 20 2012 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Can't be worse than Moon Over June.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Jan 20 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
****
5,550 posts
Quote:
Must be a girl thing. I looked at it, read a few previous strips and quietly backed away.


Also more parents = more Christmas and birthday presents. The only way you'll alienate your child is by sheer jealously from tiny haters.



Edit :
Quote:

Can't be worse than Moon Over June.


I just googled that, you son of a *****.

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 8:15pm by Tarub
#55 Jan 20 2012 at 11:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Dammit, Catwho, why'd you have to link that webcomic?!?!

Must be a girl thing. I looked at it, read a few previous strips and quietly backed away.


Pretty much, yeah. It's a soap opera with college students and evil squirrels.
#56 Jan 20 2012 at 11:08 PM Rating: Excellent
catwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Dammit, Catwho, why'd you have to link that webcomic?!?!

Must be a girl thing. I looked at it, read a few previous strips and quietly backed away.


Pretty much, yeah. It's a soap opera with college students and evil squirrels.


I haven't done anything else for the last... two hours? At least.

Seriously hate you.
#57 Jan 21 2012 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Must be a girl thing.


Yeah, I read it all I don't see what's so great about it.
#58 Jan 21 2012 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
I think I like it because it's 100% exactly how my friends and I were in college.

Actually, how some of them still are.
#59 Jan 21 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
A few things need to be said in this thread:

1. The idea that polygamy is somehow contrary to the way humans are constructed has no grounds in science. Furthermore, most human societies have been polygamous in some form or another (polygamy by both sexes, polygamy by one sex, multiple marriages, open marriages, etc.) Furthermore, until about 1600, the three most advanced civilizations in the world (China, Ottoman, Central American) all practiced polygamy as a norm.

(Our concept of the North American indigenous peoples as being savage actually primarily comes from their sexual practices and religion. Settlers were largely in awe of their technological prowess--their cities were several times larger than the top European cities combined. They had efficient and cohesive waste removal and water delivery systems. They were able to create islands in lakes to produce fertile farming land. And, on that note, their farming techniques were 6-10 times more efficient than European techniques. They were extremely learned, and had pioneered all of their technologies themselves).

The only thing that Europeans did better was seafaring and war. And that's because they imported all of those technologies from the Chinese or Ottomans.

But with the European rise to power, and the influences of globalization, their value systems were spread.

Do you know why Europeans hated polygamy? Because they were obsessed with personal property. Everything was hierarchical, which requires absolute control over female sexuality, or else you couldn't be sure of lineages through which to transfer property and power.

That's seriously the only historical reason we have to explain the important of monogamy in Western culture. Nothing in Christianity prohibits monogamy (in fact, it endorses the idea of multiple wives). Both Roman and Germanic traditions (from which we derive modern European culture) both endorsed degrees of polyamory.

But what you find is that, once the first-son system becomes standard in European tradition, both marriage and monogamy become extremely controlled and enforced.

So, no, anyone who tries to use the argument that polyamory will "confuse" a child, because they are somehow hardwired to understand the concept of having only one mother or father is really relying on something that has no support in either biology or history.

And studies show, very clearly, that children flourish in situations where they have supportive families far more than any other structure. Because polyamorous families face unique challenges, they generally become families out of a commitment to it--they take a proactive stance in the family, and work hard for it. That creates an enviornment for children that is vastly superior to the average monogamous household. And divorce is often held as really ******** with kids minds. But know what's found to be WAY worse than that? Kids raised in households with loveless marriages. Hearing your parents criticize each other, fight with each other, etc. are all more damaging to a child than a civil divorce will be. If you are fighting a lot, but can figure out a way to divorce without putting your kid in they middle of it, they'll be way better off.

The only issues those kids will face is social pressures. And the argument about controlling family structures to protect children from those is the exact same one that was historically used against all non-nuclear families (from divorced parents to ***** parents).

And all that does is further stigmatize those families, making the whole thing worse.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#60 Jan 21 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Furthermore, until about 1600, the three most advanced civilizations in the world (China, Ottoman, Central American) all practiced polygamy as a norm.
Last I checked, each of those has collapsed since the 1600's.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#61 Jan 21 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
It was also the norm to marry your own cousin, sleep with ten year olds, and to be the 30 year old elder of your village.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Jan 21 2012 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
I wouldn't say it was the norm to sleep with 10 year olds. Just because Muhammad had a 9 year old wife doesn't mean everyone did. Smiley: tongue Sure, women got married off when they were more girls than women, but they at least had hit puberty so they could bear children. Otherwise, what would be the point? Thirteen and fourteen year old wives weren't that uncommon, but ten year old wives were.
#63 Jan 21 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Look it up. In the Middle Ages, in the Jewish community most girls were married off between the ages of 3 and 12 and one day. It was 1947 before Indonesia created a law that girls had to be at least 16 before marriage. If you want really messed up look up the Marquesas Islands. The greater point I was making was that if you're going to argue that historically something was considered the norm and therefore is okay to do now then your argument for pedophilia and incest has to be the same or you're a hypocrite: It was okay then, so it should be okay now. It's a dumb argument. Use better, more logical ones. Like how polygamy isn't going to damage the kid physically or psychologically (at least not any more than monogamy, anyway), and will be much harder on the adults involved than the kid.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Jan 21 2012 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Belkira wrote:
catwho wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Dammit, Catwho, why'd you have to link that webcomic?!?!


Discover the 7 years of archives? Smiley: cool


I'm rating you down every time I see you.

If I have time to come to Zam while I catch up on this comic....


GODDAMMIT!

I just spent an hour and a half reading this. It doesn't help that I work at UF so I get almost all the college-only references. I did laugh at this one... http://candicomics.com/d/20071130.html

Ah, party schools.

Oh, right, polyamory. Uh... what Joph said.

Edited, Jan 21st 2012 3:31pm by LockeColeMA
#65 Jan 21 2012 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I thought of it more along of lines of: "something might not be okay, but there's a good reason people may be wired a certain way." You know since evolution doesn't happen overnight and what not. *shrugs*
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#66 Jan 21 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Yeah that was the way I read it too. Digg was saying all that to show that humans aren't hardwired for monogamy. Although I don't think he was trying to argue the opposite either, necessarily.
#67 Jan 21 2012 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
****
5,599 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Provided you know who the Father is, raising a kid with a Mom, Dad, "Uncle", & or "Aunt" would solve the questions issue.

I don't see anything wrong with this, but for the sake of your potential child, you'll need to be discreet about it until they're old enough to understand.


I don't think this is really how someone should be goign about it.

You should be open with the kid from the start about it - it doesn't foster a healthy environment when the parents are hiding something that significant from their kid.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#68 Jan 21 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Parents hide significant facts from kids all the time. Some things, a kid just doesn't need to know.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#69 Jan 21 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, I don't think that's something kids need to know until they're older. I'm not going to sit my 4 year old down and tell her that Mommy has special hugs with Uncle Erik, just like she does with Daddy. I mean kids aren't stupid, they will probably be able to tell which parent is close with which other adult in the house. The significance of that closeness is probably something they will come to realize gradually as they get older and learn about sex and relationships. Then if they want to ask for clarification, they can and I'd be honest with them.

Despite what some people think, the absence of information is not necessarily hiding something.
#70 Jan 21 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
At the risk of spinning this off on a tangent:

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
1. The idea that polygamy is somehow contrary to the way humans are constructed has no grounds in science. Furthermore, most human societies have been polygamous in some form or another (polygamy by both sexes, polygamy by one sex, multiple marriages, open marriages, etc.) Furthermore, until about 1600, the three most advanced civilizations in the world (China, Ottoman, Central American) all practiced polygamy as a norm.


Except that polygamy in those cultures (hell, in pretty much all cultures in history that practiced it) primarily revolved around men controlling women and treating them like property. It was just as much about inheritance and family lines (and power/wealth) as such things were in Europe and arguably moreso. The number of wives didn't have anything to do with how liked you were, or how great a husband you were, but how wealthy and powerful you were. You took the females of other less wealthy families off their hands in return for them gaining a connection to your family. The idea of idealizing this form of polygamy is somewhat silly.

There are pretty close to zero examples of polygamy in history in which women were not treated as property. Polygamy existed up until more modern concepts of equal rights started to appear (and yes, in wester culture first). That's not to say that monogamy in Europe was all peaches and roses, but it absolutely was a step in a better direction. That's not also to say that a modern re-interpretation of poly relationships is invalid either. I'm just saying that using the historical precedence of polygamy to support any sort of argument on the issue is fraught with peril.

As to the "wired for monogamy" bit. I'm speaking more biologically and relationship wise. Polygamous relationships throughout history have pretty much always been social constructs arising from management of wealth/power relationships. Even within those arrangements, there's always a pecking order. And even in them today we see people think of one as the "primary" and the others as add ons. While I don't discount the possibility of a group of people having a truly open marriage where all are equal partners and all are equally "primary" to everyones else, the overwhelmingly consistent fact is that people tend to pair up in their relationships. Not making any kind of moral judgment here, just making an observation.

Quote:
(Our concept of the North American indigenous peoples as being savage actually primarily comes from their sexual practices and religion. Settlers were largely in awe of their technological prowess--their cities were several times larger than the top European cities combined. They had efficient and cohesive waste removal and water delivery systems. They were able to create islands in lakes to produce fertile farming land. And, on that note, their farming techniques were 6-10 times more efficient than European techniques. They were extremely learned, and had pioneered all of their technologies themselves).


This is almost completely incorrect. Where the hell did you learn this? Some nutty liberal history professor with an ax to grind? First off, the large agricultural cities were not in North America. They were in central and south America. And for the most part, they were already in decline when the European settlers arrived (or were already lost in ruin as was the case in South America).

And while they were impressed, they were hardly in "awe" of those cities. The Egyptians build really large cities 2000 years earlier, but that didn't make them particularly advanced. Just had a large population and lots of time. While you can certainly say they'd pioneered all their technology, the fact is that the folks living in the Americas when Europeans arrived were stone age level of technology. They never invented the wheel, let alone any form of science, nor had they learned to smelt metals. They were just as impressive to the Europeans as if they'd been transported 3000 years into the past into Mesopotamia. So... Not much.

Quote:
The only thing that Europeans did better was seafaring and war. And that's because they imported all of those technologies from the Chinese or Ottomans.


Where they imported it from is irrelevant. The reality is that because of their isolation, the American natives never developed the kinds of technologies that the people in Europe, Africa, and Asia had developed and were at an extreme disadvantage as a result. The Europeans were not just better at seafaring and war. That's silly. They were better at construction, better at math, better at writing, better at metalworking, better at cloth making (ie: they could actually do it), etc. These things meant that they were better at seafaring and at making war, but it's absurd to isolate the result from the cause. They were better at those things because they were at least a few thousand years ahead of the natives in terms of technology.

Quote:
Do you know why Europeans hated polygamy? Because they were obsessed with personal property. Everything was hierarchical, which requires absolute control over female sexuality, or else you couldn't be sure of lineages through which to transfer property and power.


Yeah. Because that wasn't the driving force behind polygamous marriages either. The Europeans hated polygamy because they had adopted a moral code which prohibited it. Call part of that the Catholic church creating a sacrament, maybe call part of it an early move towards gender equality in society, whatever. But their reasons were philosophical, not economic or political. As I've said before, the same economic and political reasons apply to polygamy as apply to monogamy.

Quote:
That's seriously the only historical reason we have to explain the important of monogamy in Western culture. Nothing in Christianity prohibits monogamy (in fact, it endorses the idea of multiple wives). Both Roman and Germanic traditions (from which we derive modern European culture) both endorsed degrees of polyamory.


Nothing in Judaism does. The Romans were monogamous to a fault, so I'm not sure where you got that bit of falsehood. The idea of monogamous marriages was adopted pretty early in the Catholic Church, almost certainly because that was the Roman tradition, so when the Church became the official religion of Rome, the practice was adopted and has been maintained ever since. The point is that it was a social movement. The Romans didn't practice monogamy because it was the best method for maintaining wealth and power. In fact, it caused them all sorts of problems. It would have been much easier if Roman leaders could take multiple wives, but it was barred by tradition and law. This didn't stop them from divorcing and remarrying as a means to "move up" politically, but they absolutely were not polygamous.

The Church went a step further with this, making marriage a sacrament and thus making divorce a violation of church law. Whole Henry VIII bit followed from that if you recall, and to the creation of the Anglican Church. Again though this was social.

Quote:
But what you find is that, once the first-son system becomes standard in European tradition, both marriage and monogamy become extremely controlled and enforced.


Nope. Had nothing to do with it. The "first son" tradition was well established in cultures which allowed polygamy. You need to figure out if what you're talking about is exclusive to one side before making such claims.

Quote:
So, no, anyone who tries to use the argument that polyamory will "confuse" a child, because they are somehow hardwired to understand the concept of having only one mother or father is really relying on something that has no support in either biology or history.


Whether it will confuse the child is only part of the issue though. I think people spoke of that only in the context of a "limited polygamy" situation, where you have a couple who are married, but also have aunts and uncles in an extended relationship. The confusion would be between existing cultural assumptions and wondering why mommy is sleeping with uncle instead of daddy. Obviously, that's not going to be confusing if you have established polygamous marriages, so this is somewhat circular. However, we don't legally allow such marriages (for all the historical reasons I mentioned earlier). So as long as that is the case, there will be confusion and problems for kids growing up in that sort of situation.

Quote:
And studies show, very clearly, that children flourish in situations where they have supportive families far more than any other structure. Because polyamorous families face unique challenges, they generally become families out of a commitment to it--they take a proactive stance in the family, and work hard for it. That creates an enviornment for children that is vastly superior to the average monogamous household. And divorce is often held as really ******** with kids minds. But know what's found to be WAY worse than that? Kids raised in households with loveless marriages. Hearing your parents criticize each other, fight with each other, etc. are all more damaging to a child than a civil divorce will be. If you are fighting a lot, but can figure out a way to divorce without putting your kid in they middle of it, they'll be way better off.


/shrug I think you're over idealizing polygamy though. As I said earlier, if the odds of two people getting a divorce is X, what are the odds that one person out of 5 or 6 will want a divorce at some point? More than X, right? If the harm is from someone who was a parental figure leaving, or parents falling out of love, that's going to happen just as often, but since there are more people, it's more likely to affect any given child. So if you do adopt a full parental role for all adults in the marriage for all children which result, you're actually increasing the odds of that sort of separation effect on the children.


Obviously, you could eliminate this if you make it illegal for people to divorce, but then aren't we just moving in the wrong direction here? What started out as an attempt for a more "open" form of marriage has to become less so to work. Nothing is perfect. I think you're imagining that the bad things that happen in monogamous relationships will somehow not happen in poly relationships. But I don't see any rational argument for that to be the case. Each spouse in a poly relationship is just as likely to "fall out of love" or even begin to hate/despite any other spouse as they would if they only had one. In a monogamous marriage, that means there's one connection to worry about. The relationship between person A and person B. But if you add just one person, you triple the number of potential relationships which could go bad (A-B, A-C, B-C). You add two people, and now you've got (A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D, C-D). Add another and you've got (A-B, A-C, A-D, A-E, B-C, B-D, B-E, C-D, C-E, D-E). Any one of those relationships sour and it produces a negative effect for the whole. And let's face it the strain of managing such a large group wold be pretty tough as well.


Like I've said before, I'd love to see this sort of thing work. I'd even love to see it become more of the norm. But I think it's naive to believe that it's at all some sort of magic social/family bullet.

Edited, Jan 21st 2012 4:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Jan 21 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
That is assuming that person C has a relationship with person A and person B. Those types of relationships are called triads and are pretty rare for obvious reasons. It's difficult enough finding another partner for yourself, let alone finding another partner who is also compatible with your primary, and everyone involved wants to pursue that sort of relationship dynamic. There is a reason those of us in the poly world call attractive bisexual women who are looking to date a couple, a unicorn. The more likely situation is one where person A is with person B and person C. Person C might have an additional partner as well. Whether or not person D is also tied romantically to person A or person B is dependent upon each individual situation. But still, the more people you add to a circle, the less likely overlap is going to occur. Although that's not always the case. There's actually quite a bit of overlap within my circle of friends, but the majority of those relationships are more "friends with benefits" not anything serious.
#72 Jan 22 2012 at 2:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
This is almost completely incorrect. Where the hell did you learn this? Some nutty liberal history professor with an ax to grind? First off, the large agricultural cities were not in North America. They were in central and south America. And for the most part, they were already in decline when the European settlers arrived (or were already lost in ruin as was the case in South America).

And while they were impressed, they were hardly in "awe" of those cities. The Egyptians build really large cities 2000 years earlier, but that didn't make them particularly advanced. Just had a large population and lots of time. While you can certainly say they'd pioneered all their technology, the fact is that the folks living in the Americas when Europeans arrived were stone age level of technology. They never invented the wheel, let alone any form of science, nor had they learned to smelt metals. They were just as impressive to the Europeans as if they'd been transported 3000 years into the past into Mesopotamia. So... Not much.


They did invent the wheel, they just didn't use carts for what I would imagine would be obvious reasons. Very little metal about, either.
#73 Jan 22 2012 at 3:02 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
I forget. Who pioneered the concept of zero as a mathematical idea?
#74 Jan 22 2012 at 3:06 AM Rating: Good
Indians.
#75 Jan 22 2012 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
They did invent the wheel, they just didn't use carts for what I would imagine would be obvious reasons. Very little metal about, either.

Lack of draft animals, mainly. They did have wheels, they just mainly used them for decoration and toys and stuff. When your best animal is a vicuna and you're traveling up a mountainside, it makes more sense to throw your bags on its back than to try and have it pull a wagon.

The Mayan culture was in decline, largely due to being consumed into the Aztecs. The Aztec and Inca culture were not in decline prior to European contact. Obviously they were post-conquest 'cause that's what conquest will do to ya.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Jan 22 2012 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
Aripyanfar wrote:
I forget. Who pioneered the concept of zero as a mathematical idea?


Kavekk wrote:
Indians.


I’m not entirely sure by how that pertains to the conversation at hand, but the number zero first came about from the Babylonians need to have a place holder in their sexagesimal (base 60) counting system. They incorporated it as a place holder on their abacuses to denote a difference between 61 and 3601. You could say that Mayans first used it in their place-value system to denote a numerical value and they first started counting with it (0,1,2,3). (I assume you are talking about their calenders.) But the Babylonians used it as a place holder to represent fractions more accurately too. So to say who ‘pioneered it.’ I’d think it wasn’t Mayans, but the Babylonians. Even though it wasn’t used as we would think of it today. It was used in math. Which still gets used awkwardly today. Look at a phone or the top of a keyboard. 0 still gets put in bad places now. I don’t regularly start counting with 0 either. Poor number 0.

Sorry for the sidetrack.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 296 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (296)