What is so wrong with polygamy?

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male

okay, then can you explain to me how describing in very matter-of-fact detail how exactly pre-historic man handled mating and finding partners, down to the exact number of years he used to spend with each, is something other than conjecture?
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
A lot of "common knowledge" throughout the years in the sciences and the social sciences has turned out to be bogus.

Phrenology and leeching are two examples that spring immediately to mind.

I'm with Ryan on this one.
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
okay, then can you explain to me how describing in very matter-of-fact detail how exactly pre-historic man handled mating and finding partners, down to the exact number of years he used to spend with each, is something other than conjecture?

No I can't. You seemed like a bright guy. This is getting ridiculous and way off topic.

At any rate, I'll quote myself:

"The four year itch is commonly known among anthropologists."

Knowledge is truth (epistomological arguments aside.)

Truth cannot be conjecture.

Why on earth are you claiming that conjecture is knowledge?
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Polygamy as a legally binding concept would be disastrous. The reason people find monogamy restricting is that they apply restrictions to it that aren't necessary and certainly not required. Open marriage is the answer. It retains the legal necessity of marriage while allowing far more personal freedom than would be found in a strictly one on one relationship. For the most part, people are more than satisfied with having one romantic partner. Even polygamists (publicized ones, anyway) have a favorite. Sexual relationships, however, are not as exclusive as romantic relationships. This is why an open marriage works. If a couple's relationship is strong enough, they can deal with it. If it isn't, chances are they probably shouldn't have married in the first place. In the end it all works out.

I find this a little odd coming from you, since you say you're in a committed relationship with two people. Does the one who is not your favorite know that he or she is occupying the low rung in your trio?

Some of us don't require having a single relationship that take precedence over all others. It IS possible to love more than one person at a time. What's a little tricky is being secure enough to allow those you love to do the same. So much so that this has shaped our notion of love and exclusivity to the point that whenever we start having feelings for one person some of us automatically assume we have to stop caring about anyone else. Some people function that way. I definitely do not.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
No I can't. You seemed like a bright guy. This is getting ridiculous and way off topic.

At any rate, I'll quote myself:

"The four year itch is commonly known among anthropologists."

Knowledge is truth (epistomological arguments aside.)

Truth cannot be conjecture.

Why on earth are you claiming that conjecture is knowledge?

It was ridiculous a long time ago. You were talking about the mating habits of prehistoric man. I said this was conjecture. Go look at your own posts.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Knowledge is truth (epistomological arguments aside.)

Truth cannot be conjecture.

also, what kind of completely bullshit half-assed argument is this crap? Lots of people know that Allah will defeat the Great Satan. That makes it true? Lots of people know that zionists were behind collapsing the world trade center. Lots of people know that Canada is a shitty second-rate country. Does that make it true?

Cats have assholes.

Lots of assholes post on LPSG.

Therefore many people who post on LPSG are owned by cats.

Do you see how dumb this sounds?

I'm still not sure I believe you actually know the definition of conjecture. Look it up. Scientists theorize all the time. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean we should talk about their theories or ideas as if they are observable fact. Close your social constructivism textbook for a minute and come join us in the real world.
 

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,367
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
The word "conjecture" has a negative connotation suggesting that the conclusion drawn is based on flimsy (or no) reasonable research.

I would be quite offended if someone were to call one of my papers published in a peer-reviewed journal "conjecture" even though the conclusions drawn in them are theories, mostly because my theories are generated from a collection of facts that I helped to prove.

I only bring this up because "serial monogamy" is a pretty well known trend in anthropology, and calling it "conjecture" is at this point, to me, like calling Darwin's theory of evolution "conjecture". Probably because I have read literature describing not only what conclusions anthropologists can draw about primitive man's behavior, but how they draw those conclusions and what type of data support them.
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
"The seven year itch is bogus. It's actually four. Our prehistoric ancestors tended to have only temporary sexual relationships.

This is how a relationship cycle typically went:"

these are not the words of a man who understands conjecture.

Dude, you are claiming that conjecture is truth but they are, obviously, antithetical. I'm not going to entertain this argument any more. I'm only going to discuss polygamy on this thread.

You insult decades of research just for the sake of argument.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
okay I can't stand this. since you're too lazy to look it up:

con·jec·ture 1.the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2.an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

What does this have to do with truth? You haven't made a lick of sense at any point throughout any of this. You shouldn't have even responded in the first place, as I was merely stating a personal preference for the way information is stated on these boards.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The word "conjecture" has a negative connotation suggesting that the conclusion drawn is based on flimsy (or no) reasonable research.

I would be quite offended if someone were to call one of my papers published in a peer-reviewed journal "conjecture" even though the conclusions drawn in them are theories, mostly because my theories are generated from a collection of facts that I helped to prove.

I only bring this up because "serial monogamy" is a pretty well known trend in anthropology, and calling it "conjecture" is at this point, to me, like calling Darwin's theory of evolution "conjecture". Probably because I have read literature describing not only what conclusions anthropologists can draw about primitive man's behavior, but how they draw those conclusions and what type of data support them.

Then you need to buy a friggin' dictionary and share it with rec.
 

Quite Irate

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
701
Media
34
Likes
26
Points
248
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
I find this a little odd coming from you, since you say you're in a committed relationship with two people. Does the one who is not your favorite know that he or she is occupying the low rung in your trio?

Some of us don't require having a single relationship that take precedence over all others. It IS possible to love more than one person at a time. What's a little tricky is being secure enough to allow those you love to do the same. So much so that this has shaped our notion of love and exclusivity to the point that whenever we start having feelings for one person some of us automatically assume we have to stop caring about anyone else. Some people function that way. I definitely do not.
I did say for the most part. I didn't mention myself because I thought it was unnecessary and would only confuse the issue. I would love to be able to marry more than one person. If it was legally accepted, my partners and I would have at least seriously thought about it already. I just know that if a standard was set for state recognized polygamy-based marriages, it would be a legal nightmare. My view has nothing to do with love. I don't think of marriage as a sacred institution - I think of it as a business contract. As far as I'm concerned, real love transcends things like the official legal status of a relationship. I'm operating under the notion that marriage's first function is business, with a secondary use as a gesture of love and devotion. Do you see what I'm saying?
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I am currently reading 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins and as far as I have read, we are uncertain as to whether it is natural for us do be polygamist or not. There was one section on testes size, which stated that we don't have large testes, the reason we would have large testes would be to fight off other males sperm. This of course is only one of the factors and like I said I don't think anyone is certain on the matter

There's two other fascinating physiological characteristics of humans that suggest that we are naturally promiscuous.

The first is the shape of the penis. It has a plunger shape that is commonly thought to be made for pulling out sperm of rivals. Many herding animals that have harems, such as most ungulates (ie. horses) have this shape.

The other characteristic is sperm. There are three kinds: the swimmers, the fighters and the blockers. The goal of the swimmers is to get to the ovum as quickly as possible. The goal of the blockers is to entangle themselves and create a wall that will block any other sperm from passing. The fighters will try to stab other sperm much like how the swimmers dig into the egg.

I believe that both of these characteristics, and many others, suggest that our ancient ancestors were naturally promiscuous.

Then there are the bonobos...
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I did say for the most part. I didn't mention myself because I thought it was unnecessary and would only confuse the issue. I would love to be able to marry more than one person. If it was legally accepted, my partners and I would have at least seriously thought about it already. I just know that if a standard was set for state recognized polygamy-based marriages, it would be a legal nightmare. My view has nothing to do with love. I don't think of marriage as a sacred institution - I think of it as a business contract. As far as I'm concerned, real love transcends things like the official legal status of a relationship. I'm operating under the notion that marriage's first function is business, with a secondary use as a gesture of love and devotion. Do you see what I'm saying?

yes. thank you for clarifying.