Polygamy

[Draconalis]

Shit... in the US, the ER (which isn't officially called the ER anymore, I just can't remember what it IS suppose to be called) will treat everything... it just wont be free... not by a long shot.

ED? Yeah, that's it... ED, Emergency Department... cause it's not a room... (No one ever called it the ED)

 

[BRex21]

How bout that the head of the penis is designed to trap and remove sperm left by other males?

"Designed"?

Look, if you want to discuss religious matters, I don't think this thread is the appropriate one.

The suggestion that the penis is "designed" implies intelligence behind it, and that means you're way into the realms of creationism.

The evolution of the species (and it's appendages) have no design or thought behind it. So stop talking nonsense...

While I wasn't advocating for intelligent design and in fact using the word "designed" in a rhetorical sense sort of the way this guy uses the word "sculpted" to say exactly the same thing http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus&page=2 he is not of course implying that anyone specifically formed your penis out of a lump of clay, as some religions dictate, but rather that there is a specific purpose to the way it is formed.

Personally I thought this was simply as widely accepted as the usual answers to where do babies come from, but if you REALLY want to see the science behind it here is a semi-recent study http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Penis%20shape%20and%20sperm%20displacement.pdf .

Sorry, im going to go with academic procedures on this one. And they wouldn't accept a paper where you describe how evolution has some sort of "design" or "purpose" since it's not scientific.

Words like "designed", "sculpted" and "purposed" actually appear quite commonly in evolutionary texts. They in no way imply a designer or intelligent meddling in evolution but rather that the eventual result was something with a practical application to survival.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest it. We don't have detailed observation of ancient humans, but we have the biology of said ancient humans, no amount of society is going to change that.

A) Our sperm include a type of sperm that actively fights and kills other men's sperm

B) Our penis is shaped to displace the sperm of others in the incident of "sloppy seconds" to better ensure that the 2nd donor's sperm have a better chance of fertilization.

C) Studies have shown that men unconsciously penetrate deeper when they think their partner has been with another man.

And that's only a handful of biological evidence that I'm aware of that, suggests otherwise to your claim that there is "no evidence"

That still doesn't PROVE that humans are polygamous by nature, sorry. You see sperm are not the same thing as live human beings, and the "behaviour" of sperm isn't representative of the behaviour of human beings.

Also, I'd really like to see how those studies that you claim showed that men unconsciously penetrate deeper when they thin their partner has been with another man were conducted. If they actually were conducted at all that is.

It does not prove humans are polygamous by nature, but it strongly supports it. If competing with multiple sex partners was such an issue that the by-product was a population whose very physiology is prepared to fight off competing partners even to its own detriment it would certainly imply infidelity. In the event that ancient humans were primarily monogamous our ancestors would have higher chances of reproducing if sperm were more benevolent towards one and other, and at the very least shape and behaviour would provide no advantages, at least none that anyone has seen.
The level of proof you seek may simply be unsustainable, I would point out that you cant "prove" evolution. It is merely a theory that fits all known facts, more often than not falls perfectly in line with new discoveries, and has been reviewed by thousands of scientists who have gotten the same results. It is however still a theory, Much like gravity.

Edit:

Oh, and "Mate for life" in the rest of the animal kingdom is incredibly rare, and the other creatures that have sex for fun, are not mate for life creatures. Nor are any of our closest animal relatives.

Doesn't matter. Evolution has proved that the strategy is a beneficient one for genetic survival. It doesn't matter how "rare" it might be or if our closest animal relatives are monogamous or not. That still doesn't prove anything about humans.

There are no animals who could serve as reasonable analogies to humans, because no other animal on this planet possess the advanced brains that humans have. And it's those brains that make the matter of determining our nature and sexuality in an objective sense so difficult.

Prominent scientists who study biology and human behaviour knows this and don't make unscientific blanket statements like you have. So I find it kind of amusing that you believe that you can be so arrogant just because YOU SUBJECTIVELY happen to think that there is a distinction between love and lust. And naturally you purposefully interpret any studies and findings in a way that supports your views.

But that's not science. So stop trying to claim that your views have scientific support.

I think this is funny, you seem to be using even less science than the people you are debating, You accused me of Christianity because of semantics, and your usual argument seems to be akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALA. While i would agree its not good science to say such things are "rare" and therefore simply don't apply, Draconalis still has a valid point. To bring more vulgar science into it, Most gorillas seek very few sexual partners, some even mate for life. They, like virtually all species that do this have small testicles, as they require less sperm production and quite frankly making more than you need is a waste. Chimpanzees on the other hand live lives more along the lines of F**k everything that moves have larger testicles in order to increase the likelihood of offspring with each partner. Physiologically we fall much closer to the Chimp than the gorilla. This on its own proves nothing, but if you examine the relation between testicle size and promiscuity in the entire animal kingdom you find a striking correlation. It would just be wrong to exclude humans from that, or to assume that somehow our brain simply trumps all biological understanding.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

SNIP

Hmm Pardon my intrusion sir, but is it you or Draconalis that is Pro-Polygamy?

You've proven to bring up valid points and I might have misread a bit.

We're both Pro-Polygamy.

I might not be polygamous myself, but I wish those who are all the best and have no criticism whatsoever for their practices of polygamy... Provided that they're honest and open about it that is.

Getting girlfriends/boyfriends and then cheating on them in secret and justifying it by calling yourself polygamous is just disgusting behaviour. If you're going to be polygamous, all people you have sex/romantic relations with should be made aware of that fact if they don't know about it. But this behaviour is hardly a norm for polygamous people (most of them I know of are honest and open about the whole "deal" and I hope that they are in the majority, and the few cheating scumbags are in an insignificant minority).

Anyway, both me and Draconalis are Pro-Polygamy. What we're arguing is the matter of love and lust and how people have different views and feelings about it, and that some consider love and lust to be pretty much inseparable, while others don't.

Draconalis argues that no one thinks that love and lust are inseparable and that everyone makes a distinction. Or he's trying to argue that those who do make a distinction have reached some sort of "profound understanding" of some "fact of life" that people who don't make a distinction haven't.

I argue that the perception of love and lust and their possible inseparability, is a completely subjective matter. That everyone experience and percieve love and lust differently, and that they are in fact inseparable for some people (i.e they can't love anyone they don't feel lust for, and can't have lust for anyone they don't love etc.).

I also argue that it's completely fine that it is that way. That there is no "right" or "wrong" views in the matter of subjective perceptions of experienced emotions.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Polygamy is marred by the cult image. People see one guy crawling with women and assume the girls must be sexual slaves. But most of all, its tradition. Its like Mary Jane. No good reason for it to be against the law, but it always has been so it will continue to be for awhile.

Back on the sexual slave thing, this brings to mind the BDSM lifestyle that would involve multiple partners acting as "slaves" and "masters/mistresses". Is that legal? Never looked into that.

The law makes no provisions concerning BDSM relationship, so long as no one attempts to have more than 1 marriage occurs. I'm a sub involved with a married top, and both of the married partners have a sub each, and he law doesn't care, provided we're not all trying to file taxes together, or claim benefits from one another.

My captcha was 'THE JAWASTEM'. That's either strangely coincidental, or very disturbing.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It would just be wrong to exclude humans from that, or to assume that somehow our brain simply trumps all biological understanding.

No it wouldn't be wrong. Mainly because our brain is so incredibly complex and give rise to such a wide variety of behaviours (some even counterproductive to genetic survival) that you can't just use the same biological principles for humans that you've used when observing animals.

Animals just do not possess the same ability of self-reflection and abstract thinking as humans do. They also do not possess the ability of communicating complex and abstract ideas that humans do.

And due to the overt simplicity to animal brains as opposed to human brains, this make animal behaviour a lot more predictable and easy to draw concluscions from than human behaviour.

ALso consider the fact that we haven't even mapped out all animal behaviour yet. Scientists constantly learn new things about animal behaviour which shatters yesterdays perceptions, things like certain species of birds that we usued to believe were monogamous actually proved to be polygamous and in some isntances vice versa.

Then there's the "sneaky fuckers"-phenomenon. Previously, pretty much the entire academic world believed that darwinism was about survival of the "strongest", since male and female parties of different species of animals tended to prefer the strongest and most robust mate, and then they discover that members of some species are actually not as strong or robust but they manage to procreate anyway because they decieve the opposite sex in different ways into procreating with them.

So the most reasonable standpoint in this discussion is that there is a whole lot of uncharted territory here. And even IF we were to mapp all animal behaviour, human behaviour would still be a lot more complicated to map the same way. Since animal behaviour is driven a lot more by hereditary impulses being tickled by external stimuli (like the instincts in certain land predators to start chasing something they see running away from them). They don't reflect or think about it, they just "do".

Human behaviour doesn't work the same way. Humans reflect and ponder. Sometimes over ideas that are completely abstract and internal. That makes analogies in the animal kingdom useless, and it's also pretty useless to look at a few simple biological features and simply reach a concluscion that all humans are promiscuous by nature, and at the same time disregard the infinitely wide spectrum and variation of human behaviour occuring, both now and since ancient times.

Remember that we are a species building things like atombombs and creating virus-strains that could wipe out our entire species without having any hope for survival. That's severely counterproductive in terms of survival, so you can't just apply simple "survivalist"-theories to humans like you do to animals, because each such assumption will ultimately prove to be inaccurate.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Its alright if you're into it. Islamic law allows it, but you have to be able to support each wife equally, so thats the way i think it should be. you can marry 2, 4, 8, 20, 1000 women if you want. Just make sure each gets and equal share of the financial pie and each gets an equal share of affection and love from you.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Its alright if you're into it. Islamic law allows it, but you have to be able to support each wife equally, so thats the way i think it should be. you can marry 2, 4, 8, 20, 1000 women if you want. Just make sure each gets and equal share of the financial pie and each gets an equal share of affection and love from you.

Islamic law is a fucking hypocrite however, since you can be damn sure that a woman is not allowed to have several husbands according to it, regardless of how able she'd be to support each husband.

 

[Beliyal]

It does not prove humans are polygamous by nature, but it strongly supports it. If competing with multiple sex partners was such an issue that the by-product was a population whose very physiology is prepared to fight off competing partners even to its own detriment it would certainly imply infidelity. In the event that ancient humans were primarily monogamous our ancestors would have higher chances of reproducing if sperm were more benevolent towards one and other, and at the very least shape and behaviour would provide no advantages, at least none that anyone has seen.

Wouldn't this indicate that nature was strongly against polyandry only? I don't seem to understand how does this support polygamy; in my opinion, it only shows that women having multiple men was not desirable so penis evolved to eliminate the possibility of women being fertilized by the previous mate, which means that the penis (men) didn't want competition (which, in turn means, that women should only have one mate). Besides, as women can only be fertilized by one person at the time and then have to invest much more resources, time and energy into pregnancy and birth, polyandry as a biological mean of reproduction is quite silly (if we're talking about instincts and pure biology, not taking into account how many women today don't care about reproduction and want multiple partners to have sex with for pleasure).

Polygyny though, makes sense, especially if the population lacks in numbers (men specifically), as one man can easily fertilize all women in the village and bear a hundred children within a year. So if the population ratio is more in favour to women, it would make sense for one man to have multiple women, to maximize the potential of the population, by every woman bearing a child (say, the ratio is 80:20, if the population was monogamous, only 20 women would have a child, while a remaining 60 would be left without a mate and without the potential to contribute more people to the society, and that would not be good for such a population). It also makes sense for a highly patriarchal society where only men can earn and contribute to the society so they would be doing women a "favour" by taking multiple women and taking care of them and their children, leaving less women and children in poor conditions.

However, I don't think what we are "biologically" or "instinctively" matters really. We have a civilization and what we were thousands of years ago has no place in today's society. I have nothing against polygamy in general, but it would create numerous problems; legal and population problems. Wealthy and/or good looking people getting the exclusive possibility to mate and reproduce, while large chunks of people would not have any possibility whatsoever to get a mate; in today's world, that would be problematic (a similar problem already exists in India for example, where, due to traditions, it is frighteningly common for a couple to abort if they are told they're expecting a daughter; in some places, it already created a vast difference between the number of men and women and many men know their entire lives that they will never get a mate. It probably produces a hostile, highly-competitive environment with a lot of tensions). Also, by only a small chunk of the population actually reproducing, wouldn't we kinda lose the genetic diversity (assuming that polygamous people would be a significant part of the population)? Of course, legal problems can be fixed, but it would require quite a bit of fixing and law changes. As I said, I don't have anything against polygamy in general, but I do consider it to be somewhat... backwards (though, I am probably being subjective). Monogamy creates a better environment for children, because the parents know it's their only offspring and they invest more in it. Going around, fathering and mothering dozen children like it's some type of a commune where children don't know who their parents are, doesn't sound like a healthy environment for a human being in this day and age, because no parent would feel obligated to invest in some of their offspring, or they would invest in a "favourite" one, while neglecting others. Of course, there will be polygamous couples that don't want to reproduce; what I mentioned is only the extreme example which shouldn't be taken as absolute truth because it isn't. There is no way of knowing how would it develop. Still, I don't think our biological preference for polygamy or monogamy, whatever the preference is, should influence our final decision and laws. Times when we lived by applying the laws on nature on our society are long gone. I see no reason to act on something simply because it is "biologically correct". If you are genuinely polygamous and you find polygamous partners, it should be enough of a reason. Some people are like that, just as some people are gay, despite the fact that in the past, I highly doubt that polygamy was introduced because "some people were like that" and not because of political reasons, patriarchal traditions or the stabilization of the population.

Personally, I would not be able to live in such a relationship. I don't really understand how someone can be comfortable while knowing that the person you love has a relationship with someone else too. Maybe that's just my selfishness talking, but if I like someone, and someone likes me, I don't see the place for a third, fourth or tenth person in the relationship, I should be enough, and if I'm not enough, then the person doesn't like me that much after all, and we should part our ways. However, those who are comfortable with it, are fine by me. I just believe it's not yet the time for such relationships to make a legal comeback to the society; many things have to be settled, changed and fixed for it to function properly, (though, some alternatives would be okay) and we still haven't even fixed the laws about two people in marriage, regardless of gender (with some exceptions, I saw someone post a link to a legalized polygamous marriage in, surprise surprise, the Netherlands). Also, another reason for my personal disliking of polygamy would be that I don't want some wealthy hot bitches to hog all men for themselves, and leave us poor, average, less fortunate souls mate-less for life

 

[Draconalis]

Draconalis argues that no one thinks that love and lust are inseparable and that everyone makes a distinction. Or he's trying to argue that those who do make a distinction have reached some sort of "profound understanding" of some "fact of life" that people who don't make a distinction haven't.

Actually, I was (not) arguing it more litterially. As mentioned before, love and lust are two different emotions produced by two different chemical reactions.

Wouldn't this indicate that nature was strongly against polyandry only? I don't seem to understand how does this support polygamy; in my opinion, it only shows that women having multiple men was not desirable so penis evolved to eliminate the possibility of women being fertilized by the previous mate, which means that the penis (men) didn't want competition (which, in turn means, that women should only have one mate).

The biological need to adapt to competing with multiple males is a pretty huge leap to "Woman should only have one mate." They didn't have one mate, and that didn't change, thus men changed to compete with the other men. Human anatomy may very well have literally changed before woman took to a single mate due to social changes.

However, I don't think what we are "biologically" or "instinctively" matters really. We have a civilization and what we were thousands of years ago has no place in today's society.

We still have those urges, we just suppress them. Some more than others. Look at how many are injured of territorial claims (Aka boyfriends beating the shit out of guys that talk to their girls). How many children are sired by parents that society deems children themselves due to unchecked lust.

It's all still there, we just like to pretend it's not.

Monogamy creates a better environment for children, because the parents know it's their only offspring and they invest more in it. Going around, fathering and mothering dozen children like it's some type of a commune where children don't know who their parents are, doesn't sound like a healthy environment for a human being in this day and age

It's not a community that we have much experience with. Who's to say that communal raising of children really is a bad thing? Hell, it's almost what we do when we shove all of our children into day-cares. It might not fit well with this day and age, but that doesn't mean it's a less healthy environment.

It would just be wrong to exclude humans from that, or to assume that somehow our brain simply trumps all biological understanding.

No it wouldn't be wrong. Mainly because our brain is so incredibly complex and give rise to such a wide variety of behaviours (some even counterproductive to genetic survival) that you can't just use the same biological principles for humans that you've used when observing animals.
-Snip

Your own argument seems to counter this claim. We're always learning more about animal behavior and it changes from day to day. The only difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we can fight our instincts. And really, animals can be taught to do that as well. Hell, I'd go so far as to say the only reason WE fight our instincts is because our parents teach us to just as we teach our dogs.

I also believe that our "incredible complexity" may be derived from several millennium of fighting our instincts. Our bodies tell us one thing, and we do the other. What kind of stress does that cause on our psyche?

Much can be learned about our ancient, less socially restricted selves, through the animal kingdom.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Your own argument seems to counter this claim. We're always learning more about animal behavior and it changes from day to day. The only difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we can fight our instincts. And really, animals can be taught to do that as well. Hell, I'd go so far as to say the only reason WE fight our instincts is because our parents teach us to just as we teach our dogs.

I also believe that our "incredible complexity" may be derived from several millennium of fighting our instincts. Our bodies tell us one thing, and we do the other. What kind of stress does that cause on our psyche?

Much can be learned about our ancient, less socially restricted selves, through the animal kingdom.

No it doesn't because how could we possibly know if "fighting our instincts" isn't an integral part of our nature? (i.e our natural behaviour)

Also, if "fighting our instincts" (an extreme oversimplification on your part but let's use that wording for the sake of convenience) is an "unnatural" (not sure how ANYTHING happening in the current reality could ever be "unnatural" in any way since it doesn't defy any natural laws) after-construction then someone, somewhere in some time had to be the first to engage in that behaviour, right?

It doesn't matter if you try to argue that it is "taught" because it had to start with someone, and what are you going to say of that primordial "instinct fighter" of the human race? Are you going to call that individual "unnatural"? How do you know for sure that it wasn't natural to do just that from the very beginning?

Your entire argument pretty much bottles down to a simple case of appeal to nature, the thing is, we as observers can't ever truly understand what nature "wants" or if it is even capable of "wanting" anything. Thus it's impossible to claim that some behaviours displayed by humans are more "natural" than others, since we're all by-products of nature, ANYTHING we say or do is natural by definition.

Also, didn't you previously say that you were going to ignore me and pretty much dismissed everything I had to say? Not very consistent of you to start responding to my posts again...

 

[Draconalis]

Also, if "fighting our instincts" (an extreme oversimplification on your part but let's use that wording for the sake of convenience) is an "unnatural" (not sure how ANYTHING happening in the current reality could ever be "unnatural" in any way since it doesn't defy any natural laws) after-construction then someone, somewhere in some time had to be the first to engage in that behaviour, right?

Yep, just like any other abnormality in nature. It was passed on and on till it overtook the norm and became the norm. Very similar to how physical changes manifest and become dominate.

Also, yes, I AM talking in "extreme oversimplifications" because this is a forum, I am not a scientist, and I am not standing before a body of my peers in a scientific field discussing my latest theories and break-throughs. I'm some random guy on the internet making observations off what I know, and what I continue to learn.

You're some random guy on the internet stating opposing view points that I feel are very scwed or wrong, and you've yet to do anything to change my opinion of that.

Provide me with your own scientific observations, or papers, to read, and I will gladly read them. I love learning. You may even persuade me to your side of the fence. I wont, however, change the way I discuss something on the internet on an open forum. You want a far more detailed intellectual debate, first prove to me that you're worth that effort, and then hit me up in a more private setting.

 

[Beliyal]

However, I don't think what we are "biologically" or "instinctively" matters really. We have a civilization and what we were thousands of years ago has no place in today's society.

We still have those urges, we just suppress them. Some more than others. Look at how many are injured of territorial claims (Aka boyfriends beating the shit out of guys that talk to their girls). How many children are sired by parents that society deems children themselves due to unchecked lust.

It's all still there, we just like to pretend it's not.

True, I agree. Though, it seems like people are using our instincts to justify certain things and it brought a bad name to many of the said instincts. I believe we should strive more to suppress our "bad" instincts (such as the ones you mentioned for example), instead of putting ourselves in the position to say "Well it's just our instincts, we can't fight them". Not to say that polygamy should be labelled as such, I just have a feeling that a lot of people are using this "instinct excuse" to justify the fact that they just have a fetish for multiple partners. Still, it's an interesting theme and although I personally dislike it, I do believe that some time in the future, it will be considered a normal way of life (to people that are attracted by such things, of course). The only problem I see then would be people who think they can handle it, but can't and will end up abusing the law, but hey, there are people abusing laws and non-laws all the time.

Monogamy creates a better environment for children, because the parents know it's their only offspring and they invest more in it. Going around, fathering and mothering dozen children like it's some type of a commune where children don't know who their parents are, doesn't sound like a healthy environment for a human being in this day and age

It's not a community that we have much experience with. Who's to say that communal raising of children really is a bad thing? Hell, it's almost what we do when we shove all of our children into day-cares. It might not fit well with this day and age, but that doesn't mean it's a less healthy environment.

Of course, as I said, I was mostly being subjective. Polygamy is really something that I couldn't be able to live with so it seems a bit odd. There's nothing inherently wrong with this kind of raising of children, it's just the uncertainty of how could it end up looking like in real life.

It's a complex matter, and it would require many changes, not just to the laws that everyone mentioned, but also to our society.

 

[Draconalis]

True, I agree. Though, it seems like people are using our instincts to justify certain things and it brought a bad name to many of the said instincts. I believe we should strive more to suppress our "bad" instincts (such as the ones you mentioned for example), instead of putting ourselves in the position to say "Well it's just our instincts, we can't fight them". Not to say that polygamy should be labelled as such, I just have a feeling that a lot of people are using this "instinct excuse" to justify the fact that they just have a fetish for multiple partners. Still, it's an interesting theme and although I personally dislike it, I do believe that some time in the future, it will be considered a normal way of life (to people that are attracted by such things, of course). The only problem I see then would be people who think they can handle it, but can't and will end up abusing the law, but hey, there are people abusing laws and non-laws all the time.

Oh, please don't misunderstand. Our instincts are never a justification. We have over ten thousand years of civilization enforcing our Will Power over such primal needs, but when the slip ups happen, you can understand it, if nothing else.

 

[Draconalis]

Edit:

I don't even know what just happened there... My post wasn't there, then it was there twice...

 

[Beliyal]

True, I agree. Though, it seems like people are using our instincts to justify certain things and it brought a bad name to many of the said instincts. I believe we should strive more to suppress our "bad" instincts (such as the ones you mentioned for example), instead of putting ourselves in the position to say "Well it's just our instincts, we can't fight them". Not to say that polygamy should be labelled as such, I just have a feeling that a lot of people are using this "instinct excuse" to justify the fact that they just have a fetish for multiple partners. Still, it's an interesting theme and although I personally dislike it, I do believe that some time in the future, it will be considered a normal way of life (to people that are attracted by such things, of course). The only problem I see then would be people who think they can handle it, but can't and will end up abusing the law, but hey, there are people abusing laws and non-laws all the time.

Oh, please don't misunderstand. Our instincts are never a justification. We have over ten thousand years of civilization enforcing our Will Power over such primal needs, but when the slip ups happen, you can understand it, if nothing else.

I understand, don't worry. Still, some people will always make such excuses, unfortunately, even when it's not just a slip up, to avoid responsibility. However, it has nothing to do with polygamy specifically though.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Yep, just like any other abnormality in nature. It was passed on and on till it overtook the norm and became the norm. Very similar to how physical changes manifest and become dominate.

But then, how is it NOT a part of our true nature then? Evolution IS a part of nature. Now if evolution favoured that specific behaviour enough so that it survived and became dominant, how the hell could you argue that it's somehow unnatural or "not according to our true instincts/selves/whatever"?

It's like saying that birds are "unnatural" for flying around in the air and that their "true selves" are really land-based dinosaurs because the birds of today happen to be descendants of dinosaurs.

When does these "abnormalities" as you call them stop being abnormalities and an integral part of the species in question? And how do you know for sure that we're actually talking about an "abnormality" and not something that's been around in all of us since day one?

Can't you see that glaring flaw in your logic?

Also, yes, I AM talking in "extreme oversimplifications" because this is a forum, I am not a scientist, and I am not standing before a body of my peers in a scientific field discussing my latest theories and break-throughs. I'm some random guy on the internet making observations off what I know, and what I continue to learn.

You're some random guy on the internet stating opposing view points that I feel are very scwed or wrong, and you've yet to do anything to change my opinion of that.

Provide me with your own scientific observations, or papers, to read, and I will gladly read them. I love learning. You may even persuade me to your side of the fence. I wont, however, change the way I discuss something on the internet on an open forum. You want a far more detailed intellectual debate, first prove to me that you're worth that effort, and then hit me up in a more private setting.

I love it how most of your response is more about defending your methods of arguing rather than a confrontations of the argument's I've presented.

Also, why do I have to hit you up in a more private setting? Are you afraid of "losing internet points" if I happen to point out the flaws of your logic and you admit that im right? Is this some sort of competition to you?

I hope not, but if so, then I'd really recommend you relax a bit and stop care so much about the opinions of random strangers on the internet. And I assure you that im not going to try to use such an instance against you in discussions about other topics here or anywhere else (just because I made a good point here, it doesn't mean that you can't do it in regards to another topic).

 

[Draconalis]

But then, how is it NOT a part of our true nature then? Evolution IS a part of nature. Now if evolution favoured that specific behaviour enough so that it survived and became dominant, how the hell could you argue that it's somehow unnatural or "not according to our true instincts/selves/whatever"?

It's like saying that birds are "unnatural" for flying around in the air and that their "true selves" are really land-based dinosaurs because the birds of today happen to be descendants of dinosaurs.

When does these "abnormalities" as you call them stop being abnormalities and an integral part of the species in question? And how do you know for sure that we're actually talking about an "abnormality" and not something that's been around in all of us since day one?

Can't you see that glaring flaw in your logic?

My logic is fine. You're the one that is misreading and putting words in my mouth. Humans have instincts, we just ignore them mostly. The abnormality is ignoring those instincts. No other creature in the animal kingdom ignores their instincts to the level of humans. Flying for birds and dinosaurs, none of that matters.

I love it how most of your response is more about defending your methods of arguing rather than a confrontations of the argument's I've presented.

Also, why do I have to hit you up in a more private setting? Are you afraid of "losing internet points" if I happen to point out the flaws of your logic and you admit that im right? Is this some sort of competition to you?

Maybe if you didn't argue like a pompous jack ass or ignore my points, or bend and misinterpret them so badly, or spout off non-sense to make your own points seem more valid, I'd take you more seriously.

Private channels mean I don't have a need to be understood by all, only one person. I don't give a damn what people think about me, and I'm not here to "win" anything. Shit, I don't even have a reputation on these forums to be tarnished in the first place.

Really it's my own fault for giving you another chance and responding to you though. for that, I apologize. I'll rectify the mistake immediately.

 

[Draconalis]

Hell... has anyone else here, who's been following along with the topic, interpenetrated what I've been saying in the same manner as HL? Should I work better are getting my point across? Or do others understand my points and feel he has no leg to stand on?

 

[NinjazInside]

Someone just reminded me of another reason. When i think of Polygamy i do think of Islam. Thanks to comedy shows etc. TV mainly. And currently the Islamic Religion has not garnered many people in western society to look upon it in a good light. Due to how they are portrayed by their extremist faction/s most notably suicide bombings etc. When something is represented by that, you can't help but be repulsed. But thats just my input could be wrong for all i know just think that for every reason it SHOULD be legal there is more than likely an equal number why people would think it SHOULD NOT.

And just remember a system is easier and cheaper to keep the same. And in the economic climate the world is in not much change is going to happen that does not involve cutting back.

 

[Nickolai77]

I really don't see how people don't get this whole dom/sub thing... I'd say it was self-explanatory. Masters/mistresses have slaves, they get the slaves to do many a thing be it sexual or not, a failure of the slave to obey is generally punished, sexually or not. The slave is free to leave any time if they're serious about leaving, otherwise it'd be illegal, and so they wouldn't be there if they didn't get something out of it too, whatever that is. Generally it is up to the prospective slave to do the asking. It's all really rather simple.

I get the CONCEPT, I just don't mentally 'get' why anyone would want to be a slave. I've certainly never woken up one day and said "I feel like wearing a collar and being somebody's sex slave for the next 10 years!" or "Man I need a sex slave, that would be great!" But that's simply an inability for me to understand as it isn't my kink. I'm sure there are people don't 'get' why I'm a furry or why I play DnD instead of baseball.

Though, it could be the whole having an authority figure idea, make life easier by not making one's own decisions. Though I have to ask, if they were working in an office and you called them and said they had to come home at once to say, clean up the kitchen after you made some food, even if it meant they got fired, would they typically obey? I'm rather confused about the logistics of such a situation, given the highly individualistic set-up of American society.

Anyway, as long as it's between consenting adults I can't complain. (Well, I can, but I don't feel like it).

As for polygamy, I'd say it's a combination of the majority opinion on morality and tax law as to why it hasn't been legalized. I saw a neat documentary of a four person relationship with two guys and two girls who weren't married, but living happily together.

Dude, it's a sexual fetish, and if that kind of thing doesn't turn you on then i wouldn't even recommend trying to understand it. I've personally never understood why people get turned on by feet for instance, i just don't get turned on by feet, but then again i bet foot fetishists would be mythed at my own fetish's. Human sexuality's a weird thing, but can do relationships wonders if both partners are sufficiently experimental and tolerant. I never understood my ex-gf's fetish, but hey if you indulge in it for them (even if it doesn't turn you on personally) like i said it's great for a relationship, you get positive results.


OT: Personally i would prefer traditional monogamous relationships, polygamy/andry or whatever just seems excessive. I'm hetrosexual so i'd only be in a relationship with other women, and while i suppose it would be nice to have multiple female sexual partners, i see it as being kind of hard to fairly dish-out the love- both physically and romantically-to all women concerned equally.

But of course, each to their own.