Polygamy, Polyandry, Group Marriage

[IglooDame]

Yeah no I don't think women sign up for abuse even if that's the inevitable outcome. Nor do I think we should give legal status to abuse, even if hypothetically they 'signed up for it'.

Being a "breeder woman" is not necessarily abusive, depending on your opinion of Stepford Wives, I suppose.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I mean cool but I personally don't want it at all in my society. I also do not think legalizing poly marriage will lead to the kind of normalization you all envision that leads to an egalitarian outcome.

 

[H4run]

Man, refusing to legalizing polygamy also not egalitarian, you are not giving society a chance just because of some bad apples. I respect you Hobb but I disagree with your argument here.

 

[IglooDame]

I mean cool but I personally don't want it at all in my society. I also do not think legalizing poly marriage will lead to the kind of normalization you all envision that leads to an egalitarian outcome.

Neither will it lead to a proliferation of Warren Jeff type situations that seem to be the first thing that comes to mind for you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@haroon
I agree that society sucks and is the reason why we can't have nice things.

Neither will it lead to a proliferation of Warren Jeff type situations that seem to be the first thing that comes to mind for you.

It's odd to me that you all can talk about how this should work in theory but when I point out the valid example we have of how this can work in our society, the response is just: Not like that

Edit: And notice that I have said multiple times that the majority of these relationships probably won't be problematic

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah no I don't think women sign up for abuse even if that's the inevitable outcome. Nor do I think we should give legal status to abuse, even if hypothetically they 'signed up for it'.

The problem is that if they do sign up for it, it legally isn't abuse. The source of the problem being the blind signing up. Not to be difficult here, but just to bring things into perspective...before you and your wife got married did you investigate the laws in your state regarding married couples and what does and does not constitute spousal abuse? Did you investigate California laws that apply before you moved here? (and by the way, there should never be "well this cooperative is licensed in state A but operating in state B, because that makes for a legal quagmire as to jurisdictions...if a 'married couple' moves to a different state they should examine the laws of that state and get relicensed to operate there, just like any other partnership)

Approaching the problem from "we need to be totally clear in exactly what this license does and does not allow" doesn't resolve the problem when ninety-nine percent of the people getting the license have no earthly idea what it entails. What is needed is something that draws attention to something that in everything except marriage is common knowledge; read and understand the contract before you sign it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The problem is that if they do sign up for it, it legally isn't abuse.

Stockholm syndrome is a thing.

You can also agree to something and then be trapped in it against your consent due to various means. And it's not always explicit abuse that traps people either.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Being a "breeder woman" is not necessarily abusive, depending on your opinion of Stepford Wives, I suppose.

Being a "breeder woman" is not abusive at all if that's what the woman wants to be. It's gone pretty wildly out of fashion, but I'd probably still be married to my first wife if I had just kept providing her with a comfortable home and a steady stream of fresh children to adore her as the older ones grew into rebellious ingrates.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We are talking about two different things now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Stockholm syndrome is a thing.

You can also agree to something and then be trapped in it against your consent due to various means. And it's not always explicit abuse that traps people either.

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not in favor of "you signed it without looking, so now you are stuck." I'm in favor of "quit signing ____ without _____ looking."

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not in favor of "you signed it without looking, so now you are stuck." I'm in favor of "quit signing ____ without _____ looking."

And yet I can't use any modern service without signing up to impossibly long and dense jargon that I can't decipher. It's almost as if we have structural social issues that prevent egalitarian outcomes even in simple contractual relationships. Apple decides to screw everyone over in the T&C's and we just have to take it. Now bring in patriarchal structures and dynamics and sex and personal power into the equation and extrapolate the outcome.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We are talking about two different things now.

You sure about that? Not that I disagree, I just think that the two different things I think we are talking about are not the same as the two different things that you think we are talking about. I'm pretty sure we agree on the problem. And I'm also pretty sure that our disagreement over the solution stems from me being really interested in something with the potential of working, where you are really interested in finding a world populated by better humans in which you could live.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You sure about that?

Yeah dude, I'm sure.

 

[IglooDame]

It's odd to me that you all can talk about how this should work in theory but when I point out the valid example we have of how this can work in our society, the response is just: Not like that

Well first, those examples are of cults. You'll note that they are "functioning" without any loosening of polyamory laws. Pointing to them as how it could work in our society is not really useful, because no one is thinking "I could lead a cult and have my choice of young girls, if only they took away those meddling polygamy laws."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah dude, I'm sure.

Well, since in the rest of the post (which you edited out) I agreed, that's a good thing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

"I could lead a cult and have my choice of young girls, if only they took away those meddling polygamy laws."

It's part the legal question but also the normalization question. How society actually adapts to the changing laws is an open question. We have one example in our own culture where this was normalized along unhealthy lines even if when it was not legal. You keep saying that it doesn't have to be that way and I don't buy it. I also don't think it's worth the risk at this time, nor do I think society does either.

Well, since in the rest of the post (which you edited out) I agreed, that's a good thing.

What did I write? I think I started to have a thought but aborted it before it fully formed and I legit don't remember now.
(I'm being totally serious, I don't know what else I started to put in that post)
Edit: Oh you meant I edited out the rest of your post! My bad. But no I don't think we were talking about the same thing vis a vis breeder women.

 

[IglooDame]

It's part the legal question but also the normalization question. How society actually adapts to the changing laws is an open question. We have one example in our own culture where this was normalized along unhealthy lines even if when it was not legal. You keep saying that it doesn't have to be that way and I don't buy it. I also don't think it's worth the risk at this time, nor do I think society does either.

I've already seen long-term, real-world polyamory relationships. I'm not just saying "it doesn't have to be that way", I've seen proof - I've talked with proof - that it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And yet I can't use any modern service without signing up to impossibly long and dense jargon that I can't decipher. It's almost as if we have structural social issues that prevent egalitarian outcomes even in simple contractual relationships. Apple decides to screw everyone over in the T&C's and we just have to take it. Now bring in patriarchal structures and dynamics and sex and personal power into the equation and extrapolate the outcome.

This stems from monopolization. Apple hires a legion of attorneys to draft up documents that protect them in every conceivable way, and update them as new ways are conceived, and if you say "hey, I can't parse through all this crap, I'm not signing," they can and will say "go somewhere else then" knowing full well that you have nowhere else to go. If you and your wife had sat down and written out "this is what marriage means to us, legally, financially, sexually, in regards to child production, etc" ahead of time there would have been no army of lawyers inserting legal angles for the exclusive protection of one party, because if one party tried that the other party could, and should, say "yeah, not signing on, going somewhere else."

 

[IglooDame]

They're called prenups, right?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've already seen long-term, real-world polyamory relationships. I'm not just saying "it doesn't have to be that way", I've seen proof - I've talked with proof - that it doesn't have to be that way.

Well lookie here:

Edit: And notice that I have said multiple times that the majority of these relationships probably won't be problematic

And I could be 100% wrong about all that, but the perception that this would be the outcome is probably what the majority of people believe if you put it to a vote. So the country isn't ready.

Edit: The majority of something can be OK for society and yet we still consider the totality of the thing to be considered bad. See gun ownership.