7 ms·

On the other side of the polyamory issue, I am not sure the weakening of marriage is all that good. Single parenthood doesn’t seem to be that good for the child

On the other side of the polyamory issue, I am not sure the weakening of marriage is all that good. Single parenthood doesn’t seem to be that good for the children and I also dont see how polyamory solves the issues of paternal responsability. I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Polyamory also seems to ignore certian aspects of human sexual competition that aren’t really compatible with civilization. I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society.

_dczq 8y ago
==I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Would you say the same about prostitution?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Would you say the same about prostitution? We haven't exactly messed with it too much over the millennia. It's acceptableness to society and the way prostitutes are treated by society has remained roughly constant after you adjust for the baseline trend of increasing personal freedom and decreasing violence.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    not really. Prostitution has been regarded in VASTLY different manners depending on the time period and/or place you were in. Life was much different for a Greek Heteara than it was for a woman working in an Aztec Cihuacalli. (But both lives were pretty good truth be told. One was elite and rich, the other would be considered a soccer mom by today's standards. Not rich, but definitely upper middle.) And then life is different still for the average american streetwalker or escort. (Some can be rich, but majority are very poor. And they are all scorned by society. At least the holier than thou types in society.) In today's America, or even in ancient and contemporary China, prostitutes have nowhere near the status of the Hetaera, or even the women working in the Cihuacalli's. Life for contemporary American prostitutes is probably pretty hard at the mean. So societal acceptance and society's treatment of prostitutes very much depended, not surprisingly, on which society or culture you were talking about.
    - padobson 8y ago
      For those interested, there seems to be some discussion of Cihuacalli in Law and the Transformation of Aztec Culture: https://books.google.com/books?id=NdB-XuZ4VPEC&lpg=PA139&ots=ygk3mos8UK&dq=Aztec%20Cihuacalli&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=Aztec%20Cihuacalli&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=NdB-XuZ4VPEC&lpg=PA139&ots...
  - watwut 8y ago
    Detailed article about prostitution during Victorian era: https://revisitingdickens.wordpress.com/prostitution-victorian/ https://revisitingdickens.wordpress.com/prostitution-victori... It does not seem to be the same as now.
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    Not even close. Prostitution has a hugely varied place in the world today, and it's basically impossible to say anything about prostitution that holds true across history.
alpineidyll3 8y ago
The most conserved marriage agreement in recorded history is a property agreement, usually with women regarded as second class humans. The largest and most durable civilizations for example ancient China, endorsed plural marriage until the immediate past. It is totally inaccurate to call modern marriage with equality a conserved social structure.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ashleyn 8y ago
>I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society. Or perhaps "society" shouldn't be so arrogantly entitled to intrude on the consensual relationships I may choose to enter. With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.
- padobson 8y ago
  You make a good point. OP's point more serves as a scalable approach to reproduction and child rearing rather than sexuality. With widespread birth control available, sexuality doesn't have to overlap as much.
- rwcarlsen 8y ago
  That is an interesting way to think considering that you receive huge benefits from society (in addition to some disbenefits). If everybody lived in a local optimum, the world would probably be a pretty crappy place to live. There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world.
  - ashleyn 8y ago
    >There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world. Perhaps not but the best we can do is uphold individual liberty and empower individuals to make their own choices (and deal with the consequences). This entails not arrogantly projecting fallacious assumptions codified into law, such as how women "need" men or that homosexuality is a choice.
    - rwcarlsen 8y ago
      Not discussing any of the particular subjects you bring up, but in general most individual/personal things that people think don't affect others have an unfortunate way of actually affecting others.
CuriouslyC 8y ago
I'm pretty sure monogamy is ubiquitous because it reduces social instability, not because it makes people who engage in it happier. I think the argument against monogamy on the grounds that it reduces individual happiness are pretty strong. If we can solve the problem of social instability in other ways, why not abandon monogamy if it is provably inferior? You can argue that non-monogamy is problematic in nuclear families, but nuclear families aren't a given. In fact, the phenomenon of nuclear families might be the result of monogamy itself. Through the vast majority of human history we have formed tribes, with non-monogamy being significantly more common. Perhaps if non-monogamy became the norm, we would see a shift away from the focus on family and back towards a tribal perspective. Considering that increased rates of depression correlate pretty strongly with reductions in "family" size in the developed world, that might have added benefits. I think people in advanced western civilizations have domesticated themselves sufficiently in general that we'd be okay with more mate competition. I think the improvement in number and quality of relationships likely to result is worth it. I also think we'd be happier if "infidelity" wasn't a thing.

_dczq 8y ago

==I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Would you say the same about prostitution?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Would you say the same about prostitution? We haven't exactly messed with it too much over the millennia. It's acceptableness to society and the way prostitutes are treated by society has remained roughly constant after you adjust for the baseline trend of increasing personal freedom and decreasing violence.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  not really. Prostitution has been regarded in VASTLY different manners depending on the time period and/or place you were in. Life was much different for a Greek Heteara than it was for a woman working in an Aztec Cihuacalli. (But both lives were pretty good truth be told. One was elite and rich, the other would be considered a soccer mom by today's standards. Not rich, but definitely upper middle.) And then life is different still for the average american streetwalker or escort. (Some can be rich, but majority are very poor. And they are all scorned by society. At least the holier than thou types in society.) In today's America, or even in ancient and contemporary China, prostitutes have nowhere near the status of the Hetaera, or even the women working in the Cihuacalli's. Life for contemporary American prostitutes is probably pretty hard at the mean. So societal acceptance and society's treatment of prostitutes very much depended, not surprisingly, on which society or culture you were talking about.
  - padobson 8y ago
    For those interested, there seems to be some discussion of Cihuacalli in Law and the Transformation of Aztec Culture: https://books.google.com/books?id=NdB-XuZ4VPEC&lpg=PA139&ots=ygk3mos8UK&dq=Aztec%20Cihuacalli&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=Aztec%20Cihuacalli&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=NdB-XuZ4VPEC&lpg=PA139&ots...
- watwut 8y ago
  Detailed article about prostitution during Victorian era: https://revisitingdickens.wordpress.com/prostitution-victorian/ https://revisitingdickens.wordpress.com/prostitution-victori... It does not seem to be the same as now.
- fapjacks 8y ago
  Not even close. Prostitution has a hugely varied place in the world today, and it's basically impossible to say anything about prostitution that holds true across history.

alpineidyll3 8y ago

The most conserved marriage agreement in recorded history is a property agreement, usually with women regarded as second class humans. The largest and most durable civilizations for example ancient China, endorsed plural marriage until the immediate past. It is totally inaccurate to call modern marriage with equality a conserved social structure.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ashleyn 8y ago

>I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society. Or perhaps "society" shouldn't be so arrogantly entitled to intrude on the consensual relationships I may choose to enter. With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.

padobson 8y ago
You make a good point. OP's point more serves as a scalable approach to reproduction and child rearing rather than sexuality. With widespread birth control available, sexuality doesn't have to overlap as much.
rwcarlsen 8y ago
That is an interesting way to think considering that you receive huge benefits from society (in addition to some disbenefits). If everybody lived in a local optimum, the world would probably be a pretty crappy place to live. There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world.
- ashleyn 8y ago
  >There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world. Perhaps not but the best we can do is uphold individual liberty and empower individuals to make their own choices (and deal with the consequences). This entails not arrogantly projecting fallacious assumptions codified into law, such as how women "need" men or that homosexuality is a choice.
  - rwcarlsen 8y ago
    Not discussing any of the particular subjects you bring up, but in general most individual/personal things that people think don't affect others have an unfortunate way of actually affecting others.

CuriouslyC 8y ago

I'm pretty sure monogamy is ubiquitous because it reduces social instability, not because it makes people who engage in it happier. I think the argument against monogamy on the grounds that it reduces individual happiness are pretty strong. If we can solve the problem of social instability in other ways, why not abandon monogamy if it is provably inferior? You can argue that non-monogamy is problematic in nuclear families, but nuclear families aren't a given. In fact, the phenomenon of nuclear families might be the result of monogamy itself. Through the vast majority of human history we have formed tribes, with non-monogamy being significantly more common. Perhaps if non-monogamy became the norm, we would see a shift away from the focus on family and back towards a tribal perspective. Considering that increased rates of depression correlate pretty strongly with reductions in "family" size in the developed world, that might have added benefits. I think people in advanced western civilizations have domesticated themselves sufficiently in general that we'd be okay with more mate competition. I think the improvement in number and quality of relationships likely to result is worth it. I also think we'd be happier if "infidelity" wasn't a thing.