Kohlrak

This just in from Fox News.

I guess that's one way of dealing with it. So how do you feel this compares to the west, right now?

I'm going to have the integrity to say that this conversation is not viable here. We don't know enough about the system in place, and points that might be addressed by one person may go unnoticed until we start going down unnecessary rabbit holes, due to certain mechanics at work here. Siegfried von Walheim's comments here have gone hidden for about 3 days. This conversation, when the system isn't hiding well written arguments, has been continuing daily. This (the temporary censorship of arguments) is disrespectful to any intelligent conversation, as well as the people discussing. I understand that this is a privilege, to be able to discuss such topics here. However, it's like giving a child half-eaten candy and calling it a reward, or giving a champion a broken trophy and calling it a prize. It's been nice, but knowing how the average human handles replies and arguments in such conversations, this could end up completely out of control and incomprehensible very quickly (especially if a fourth person enters), and i don't think it's wise. And, yes, i'm speaking cryptically to try to prevent this post from going unnoticed for a period of time as well. Not only does this system influence how i phrase my arguments (as i try to avoid bogeyman words), but complex conversation like this is already hard to follow the flow of (we're loosing track of what quotes go with what branches), and it really doesn't need this system helping it get worse. I understand the need for the system, but the system simply isn't working, much like the welfare system. Siegfried von Walheim, Elizabeth, thank you for your arguments, as they've had a major impact on how i feel about this issue, but you'll have to continue this without me. Normally I would not post something like this, but in this scenario, I really feel it is dishonest to the topic to fail to point out it has nothing to do with the topic or the people discussing the topic, as well as disrespectful to you two if I were to respond to what has been just revealed or just disappear without saying anything.

Read it yourself. I decided to google "Tommy Robinson" to see what's going on. As of posting this, the article linked is reported to have been posted "20 hours ago" according to google (the article timestamp doesn't disagree). Meanwhile, reading the article, we see them trying to paint "the right" as the people of the victim culture narrative. We all know that Tommy has been moved to a prison that would not be good for Tommy's health (what's the official reason why, anyway?). Perhaps we should call this all out before it happens.

I think you misread. The issue is lesbians do not get aroused by men, while "straight" and "bisexual" women get aroused by both. I'm more interested in the truth than "winning the argument" or whatever. Therefore, if you have a point, i'll admit it. Meanwhile, if it is non-conclusive (regardless of who it comes from), i'm going to phrase it such a way. I'm not going to say "all women like women," since we don't know the exact connection with arousal and physiology (we know there's a connection [lesbians and men, straight or not, agree with their "junk"], but we also know that the connection isn't necessary [viagra]) and sample sizes tend to be small, however my anecdotal experience (which holds merit to the experienced, but not to science) has me leaning toward believing it is so. If it were conclusive, i'd be far more committed in my statements, but i just think it'd be a bit dishonest otherwise. We don't know, that's part of the point. Precisely. Would this change under polygamy? Maybe, but we don't know. But, on the other hand, if the woman can't respect the wife, you can't trust the woman under polygamy, either. If the man's going for it, without respecting his existing wife's wishes, then he's also not likely to improve under polygamy. a) The "dating game" is supposed to iron this out. Even if it doesn't do it consistently, that's the purpose. You're looking for red flags while you're trying to avoid planting any of your own. Therefore, it is to be assumed. b)The wife in a polygamist marriage. She would be pledging herself to the pre-existing marriage and the people in it, and consequently their children, as well. Though, the original point was about "lesbian" couples, as a source of evidence. There are women who are with each other who have had children in "previous marriages." I've also heard of the evil biological mother. When my mother was messing around on my father, i was repeatedly bullied by the man's younger brother. It took me getting molested for her to stop, and even then it didn't stop right away. Go outside and watch parents, who try to use toys and cartoons to distract the children so that they may otherwise neglect them. Sure, "it's not my child" is a potential source of resentment, but it is not necessarily so, nor is it exclusively so. This "maternal instinct" seems to be missing just fine, meanwhile we have cases where women steal babies that they know is not their own so they can delude themselves that it is their own and that they can satisfy that maternal instinct. Just a quick google and, boom, there it is. There's enough cases to actually make mainstream media, like this one who kidnapped a child in 1998 and they just recently found out she stole her from the hospital. The children are "baggage," yet i do see such women able to attract men. That said, there's value beyond the hedonism. That's a possibility, too, but those "make baby" hormones are pretty strong. To the point people will kidnap children because they could not make baby. This could actually generate problems under polygamy, even though it is not necessarily so. It really depends on the individuals involved, and for a zoomed out picture, that should be settled long before marriage, and also leaving room for a "well, we know hormones suck" clause. Right, but i'm not very useful as someone with really bad gas, even if it's bred into me. The problem is, polygamy becomes viable for the problems that it solves: men are no longer the sole providers, and polygamy solves the problem of both people in the marriage having to be the providers. We can talk about the overly rich people, too, but they're a whole different breed. If men are able to regain the provider role, and reliably so, polygamy's positive aspects go away, just as the problem is reintroduced. Sure, that's a problem if it "happens overnight" and you got people suddenly getting jealous when the man starts being the sole provider, but tihat's their fault for changing how their family runs simply because they can. Unless women are banned from working (which likely wouldn't happen if polygamy "became a thing"), they can continue to provide for their own interests just as they did before. He hasn't really made this clear, but he did say that he wasn't strong on the show while his daughter was really young. He does seem to accept that this role was taken from him, without suggesting that this is a good thing. I, myself, am really not sure if it's a good thing, especially as it makes men less useful, but in theory it also makes life easier on men who have a harder time. On the flip side, with so many households with both people working, it doesn't seem to be helpful. Men do, too, yet it isn't always this way. Not all stepmothers with children of their own treat them differently. Do we have any actual numbers on this? Anecdotal experience with just about every issue tells me that even if it's the exception, not the rule, there are reasons for the exception to the rule, thus the rule is not entirely correct. The tall chinese man isn't tall by virtue of being an exception, but maybe there's a non-chinese person somewhere in his family history. Maybe he has a height gene mutation? Maybe it was something in a unique family diet? Sure, it's impractical to investigate every case, but it's worth noting there are exceptions and reasons to them, thus the rule is useful, but not necessarily accurate. But do you have any evidence or research that suggests that this might be the rule? We do have things like this, but that's mere correlation. We haven't taken in whether or not it's a matter of "this is what i've invested in" vs "this came out of me" vs "this is mine" vs other factors. What is the end all switch? We know it's not genetics, as we see cases of children ending up with the wrong mothers and not even knowing (although this is rare), but that's not particularly relevant to the topic. Relevance to the topic is how likely is the woman to have a maternal instinct for a child of hers whom she knows didn't exit her body. Mental illness cases (baby stealing) aren't evidence in favor of polygamy, though. No, but exceptions to the rules happen for reasons. The same can be said of polygamy, back when it was popular: women agreed. Same with women beating: women agreed. There were women fighting against the women's rights movement, and it wasn't exactly a small minority. Is that to mean that women didn't want rights or have an aversion to rights? Or, does that mean that there is a rule that gets respected because it's a rule? Just like we put trust that the grocery store clerk counts our change correctly and that if they don't the cops will help us, does not mean that it's anything more than happening simply because everyone involved trusts it to. As such, this expectation of sexual stereotypes may also be a similar self-fulfilling prophecy, especially on the part of men: we're expected to be sexually hedonistic, so why fight both ourselves and the rule, especially if i perceive myself to be "less of a man" for doing so? Even if we can't investigate all exceptions, it is irresponsible to ignore the underlying message. The number of priests, monks, nymphomaniac women, sluts, etc are enough to question the rule, and maybe even the usefulness of it, don't you agree? We're not talking about tall chinese people, at this point, but the unemployment rate of Spain. My examples aren't the rule, but just example. It is, but we branched off here to talk about whether or not homosexuality is hedonism or not. Polygamy potentially means happy home, and happy home is first and foremost for the children, and secondarily for the adults. If there's no children involved,it becomes a convoluted mess and hard to separate from hedonism, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is hedonism or that there isn't: just that we really can't tell. However, with children, there's far more value, and not just from the happy home aspect, but also the child attention aspect. If it makes the parents and non-parenting adults happy, cool, but that's only extra icing, which can be enjoyed without the cake, but we usually end up putting it on the cake (where necessary income is the cake [which can happen without polygamy, but it's the setup, basically], and the child's happiness is the cake's original icing: rich people like the figurative polygamist Trump are just taking the extra icing and running with it). Absolutely. We certainly have been brainwashed about other issues. I see no reason why we should assume that we couldn't have been. As a Christian, I believe in God, but I also know and accept that people have been brainwashed into believing. A idea that has been brainwashed into you might not necessarily be bad, even if brainwashing was done. While the ends do not justify the means, the means do not necessarily make the ends unjust, either. I don't know about polygamy's validity, but I can see it's a tough topic to discuss: there are things that we can already see that we don't know the answers to. Clearly, this means that there's enough that we need to look into, and not just for polygamy's sake. I do think we need to be careful, though. I'm not about to try to have this discussion on a forum dedicated to Huniepot Studios or Pornhub, nor am I about to talk about the dangers of infrared cameras on a site with known pedophiles in their ranks. I think atheists have just learned this lesson the hard way with the whole God thing: we really don't know the answer, but we didn't exactly have our priorities straight when talking about it, either. I morality comes from God and we view morality as important, why did we investigate God before first figuring out if we can have morality without God? Why is the atheist argument "If God's not real, you'd be devastated at the proof, while I would be fine if he was proven to be real" strong? Atheists should be lamenting at the prospect, and cursing the atheists of yesteryear, not using that as an argument. Meanwhile, this polygamy topic is response to an immediate problem, and far from an ideal solution to this problem. It's kind of like your car breaking down on in the woods with no cellphone towers in reach, and darkness is approaching. You have a swiss army knife and some wrenches, while the ideal tools are at the garage that isn't reasonably close. Polygamy is one of the tools we have available, while fixing our out of control government and society as a whole are the ideal tools. Even I see some inherent problems with polygamy on the children (we haven't even considered the effects of the siblings, confusion of who is mommy, confusion relating to prediction of genetic disorders based on geneology [which is an issue with false paternity, as well], and a host of other things, including it being hard to get society to leave the fun hedonistic aspect once the door has been opened), but it's not as bad as walking home in bear, wolf, and mountain lion invested woods. Not everyone is breaking down in the woods, either, but for some reason in these woods alot of people are, and not all at the same time so they can work together. I'm going to use the fix-a-flat, the river water for my radiator, that rusty old jack, that ancient low mileage spare, wood-dust in the steering column, that gas that's been sitting in the spare tank for about 5 years or whatever it takes to not be walking in the woods in the dark, even if it means i have to trash the car when i get home. This is why bisexuality is useful in polygamy: if i'm married to 2 women and i am a major pain in the bottom, they'll likely make themselves available to each other instead of me, forcing me to change my ways if i want something. Meanwhile, in monogamy, if my wife is taking my paycheck and spending it on a pair of shoes she doesn't need when i need new work boots, either I have to divorce (which won't work for me in this environment) or i need to make do with my worthless boots if she has the upper hand in sexual negotiation. You can reverse the sexes in these roles and it turns out the same way. If the women are straight, then, you're right. But this is why the bisexuality angle was important to bring up: it makes things more likely to be egalitarian. However, I don't think this would be a strong argument for polygamy: the point of dating and courting is to spot these kinds of problems before you get married. Sure, people are slipping through or taking advantage of desperation, but this doesn't mean polygamy is a magic band-aide for this problem, too, but instead it means that people are really bad at dating, and this needs to be improved even if we consider polygamy, because worse problems can slip in. Overall, monogamy is ideal, but ideal solutions are for ideal situations. Things are no longer ideal, and this is realized by looking at the birth rate of certain demographics going down. Responsible people are less likely to have children, because having children at all has become irresponsible in many scenarios that are becoming common. Polygamy for eugenics isn't a strong argument, either, unless you can justify eugenics, so there's no point going down that route. However, polygamy appears (and my opinion regarding this has been strengthened in favor of polygamy by this conversation [before this conversation, i was only really thinking about it from an economic and sexism {as in the many same sex ganging up on the single opposite sex} perspective, leaning in favor of "hell no"]) to be an effective backup(in case the leftist government types keep winning)/temporary solution. But, like i said, polygamy addresses this, but it's not really a strong argument for either side. We seem to be ignoring that the women (even if straight) can run to each other for support. We're not talking about polygamy in an era where men have the final say. And if the responsible and virtuous person is the odd woman out, well, she still has to compromise in monogamy, too, unless "she takes him to the cleaners," which is open for a bad woman in monogamy, too. We need to remember that polygamy isn't some fantasy where you can always turn to the other to hide from your faults: if you're reasonably ethical and responsible people, the one with faults is more likely to be the odd one out. If you're unethical and irresponsible to begin with, then the one with faults is more likely (but not guaranteed) to be the majority. If anything, polygamy provides more of an angle, but that's just making up for problems with courtship, which is the responsibility of both people in the process.

Depends on how much "above" them they are. Your average shmuck is more intelligent than a cat, but yet we have spent how many years trying to figure them out. And you can't tell me there hasn't been a fair amount of interest, especially with all the money spent on it.. That said, i think "autism spectrum" is worth looking into, here. For the past few years, i've been considering the possibility that autism spectrum disorders, such as ADHD, are merely IQ indicators. Dunning-Kreuger effect making people assume that they're "stupid," when actual studies fail to take IQ suppressive factors in medication into account when studying them. I've also noticed a autism-depression correlation, and i keep hearing about an IQ-depression correlation. And, a psychiatry student i met online told me that usually the people who get into that field are people who try to help others since they couldn't help themselves. She was definitely such a case. But, i'm also giving myself away: i tried to help her. Take those points how you will, even if they are anecdotal.

Could it be Dunning-Kreuger effect? In other words, dumb people act smart, smart people appear dumb because the dumb people don't get it? Or could it be that smart people expect more of dumb people and have just as much of a hard time wrapping their heads around lack of intelligence as dumb people have at accepting there are people smarter than them?

Except that Lesbians show a different pattern. The theory seems to be that all women get aroused by women, but most (but not all) women also get aroused by men. If there is a disconnect with the mind and body, it's possibly that you're "close enough" with your idea, though: even men are "easy to turn on" if their experience is low. So if there's a disconnect, then the body responds "easily" to stimuli that could work, even if she's "not really interested," which would explain why the reactions persist when monkeys are presented to them, as well (otherwise, we're assuming women are also into monkeys). The sample sizes also seem to be a concern. Moreover, blood flow to the "nether regions" isn't the only attribute we're seeing. Brainscans (as spotty as they are) as well as pupil dilation studies also seem to agree with the plethysmograph studies. There was one study i found before, that i recall only from memory, that had some way of testing hormones or something. I could be remembering wrong, though, but i'd love to find that article again. You might be onto something with the "prep for sex" thing, though, since a lesbian might find a horny male as a threat, which is how straight men view the material regarding men (which i learned from the study that i'm having a heck of a time finding again). Meanwhile, we have some interesting responses (might be NSFW) to a clue of a question. The next question is similar: does this happen consistently with rape, or does it only happen sometimes? And that's one answer I doubt i'll find, and i'm not about to suggest MKUltra-style experiments to find the answer. Possibly, but does it attach to seeing a man working on a woman, or would it come from her seeing a woman alone? I don't know. One part of me says there's no reason to think it would turn out that way, but another part of me also says that, at the same time, it's not impossible, either. I do have to point out that just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it is not so. Meanwhile, simply because I can see it, does not mean that it is so, either. Meanwhile, we do see women who go after married men. Often we see they try to take the man away from the woman, but this isn't necessarily always the case (usually in the latter, they're not invested). You also have to see it this way, too: the other woman is ultimately invested in not just her own children, but the other woman's children (or supposed to be, anyway). We do see this where "lesbian couples" get together when they both have children: there just doesn't happen to be a man in the current picture (to be fair, usually these women are divorced). Part of this would suggest that it's not 1 man working and 2 stay-at-home mothers fighting for control while he's away. Presumably, it's 1 working man, and 1 or 2 working women, with maybe one of them being a stay-at-home parent. Remember, too, that men have lost this role of provider, and protector role is also becoming questionable. Our philosopher in chief happens to be a stay-at-home father, which means his wife is most likely the one in the provider role. I really don't know who the protector is, but we assume it's him. Honestly, for this to be more than the sex, it would be motivated for the benefit of the children. We just aren't seeing as many "full-time parents" anymore. Sending the children to grandma's house was the solution the boomers came up with, but now we're finding that maybe grandma's selfish and/or doesn't agree with the parents on how to raise the kid. For monogamy to work with children, ideally you need a parent home at all times. We're not seeing this, and we're getting daycares to fill the role, and those aren't 24-hour services. With many jobs now including "mandatory overtime," "swing shifts" (which were always a thing before, too), "scheduling as you go," and "odd hours," it's becoming impractical to try to "align shifts" in a way that there's always one of the two parents at home. Top this off with the costs of child bearing, it's becoming an impractical mess. (And this is totally ignoring parental bonding time, which seems to be a major [but not exclusive] motivator for "getting rid of the kids for a weekend.") Now, if "things" were to "turn around" in the world and employment conditions, opportunities, and pay (or, rather, lowering taxes and regulations, which would easily have the most influence on this) were to improve, this all would get thrown out of the window fairly quickly: stay-at-home parents, or at least shift alignment, would become normal again. At the end of the day, this is about providing for the children, even at the cost of potential jealousy. Taking the chance that it will work is far safer than the guaranteed chance of abuse at the hands of the spank happy grandparents and/or baby sitter, where the children still yearn for an actual motherly figure. I'm not sure that this is necessarily so: there are women who just want the sexual experience and men who use sex primarily for bonding. Frankly, i think everyone has their own reasons, which is why no one's ever been able to pin down one "reason people are gay." It's not like we haven't been searching for a long time. This is alright, until you realize that "repressed bisexuality" is indeed a thing. I won't deny that there is likely some elements to that, but i'm more interested in why they can get their boxes tickled in yet another way, especially when there seems to be a one-sided correlation. There's plenty of hedonism in pain-killers, yet we give them to people, anyway, because there's more to it than the hedonistic benefit. The same can be said of artificial sweetner: it might be bad for you, it allows you hedonistically and animalistically indulge in certain types of food with almost no punishment, but it's also really helpful for diabetics. If two women, for example, are past menopause and already had their kids and lost their husband (death, divorce, whatver) or never had any kids (for whatever reason), maybe it's helpful (are women less violent towards children? Would it help one of the women get over not being able to have cihldren if the other woman had children?). Same for MGTOW men who are willing to take the plunge into homosexuality (disregarding how we feel about them refusing to make babies). Sure, marriage and sex is primarily about children, but if children aren't involved it sure beats being bitter. Obviously we should prioritize making a happy home for babies, but if that isn't possible for one reason or another, could there be value in it outside of hedonism? Perhaps, but i'm not referring to all people, but rather the "big message" and "usual propaganda." Do a quick google and see what's said. My google of "polygamy issues" resulted in a box right under the search bar that is focused on male-led polygamy. I'm not saying that there aren't real arguments against polygamy (we've seen some in the thread), but the obvious propaganda does beg the question how much we've actually had an honest conversation about it throughout history, and how much we might have been "brainwashed" regarding it. How much is jealousy a result of "thinking from a monogamist perspective" and making certain assumptions (i'm certainly noticing some in this thread)? EDIT: Somehow i managed to jumble all this up.

"Suffer all the little children to come unto me." I don't think Jesus was advocating violent pedophilia, nor the translator who put it that way in english. It wasn't even an analogy that went like that. I respect the tiger, and the tiger slayer both. I trust the tigerslayer to slay the tiger, but he could kill me just the same. Meanwhile, the tiger doesn't necessarily need to come after and kill me, either. If this were the case, tigers would've went extinct before the first zoos. Respect is about acknowledging that something can endanger you, while also acknowledging that you're not engaged. Just as the tigerslayer is more interested in killing the tiger than me, the tiger is more interested in the weaker and easier prey over there. And then why is the left beating the right? Well, it's because the right isn't all that ethical, either. It kills me to see how many parents try to use the bible as an excuse to beat their children or to argue with the children about going to hell over not brushing their teeth. The problem isn't Christianity, that's for sure, but as Stefan says, "Christianity isn't enough." Islam has more enforcement measures, given it has no reservations of violence. Violence does make people obey, even if it doesn't make people ethical. At the end of the day, Islam makes people follow ethical rules, while everyone else is simply trying to convince people to willingly follow the rules. None of these welfare programs, shootings, etc would happen if people were ethical. Government is basically trying to make it's own system of ethics (that favors government) and enforces it on us to tackle the problem we're seeing. In other words, government is slowly trying to become like islam. They even use excuses like "people are so dumb, we can't trust them with X." Government justifies bad policies with excuses that it's doing things for the public good. I think the politicians actually believe it so they can believe that what they do for their own good is more of a "win-win" than selfish lust for power. I really don't think the people from the Frankfurt School wanted the power simply to have it, but instead they actually believe their own propaganda. Did the Nazis not believe their own agenda? Even women care. Beta is not Omega: beta males are people who are trying to compete, but through a non-conventional avenue, since they can't win conventionally. The beta-male is basically the one who looses to the alpha, presumably. On the other hand, you have "omega male" which is what i think you're imagining. Googling finds other lettered personalities, but by comparison. A good look at it would be this, which is not scientific, but the groupings of character types into the categories will make sense: Alphas are usually leaders (political, factional, or crime), while betas are enforcers (cops), and omegas are the people who always do what they're told. Beta is close to alpha to imply that they still play a game, but they play a different one since they can't compete on the main one. Therefore, the beta still cares, they just fight for their own goals or victories, rather than complete dominance. Is this really the case? Given it's illegal, it's hard to really measure. That said, it would make sense. I think the propagation of both genders instead of having 1 dominant one would lead to the R-selection. As for finding good work, that's a whole other topic. Credentialism is the issue, and with that high IQ people tend to "fall through the cracks" a bit more, since they're using credentials as an IQ test instead of an actual IQ test: a college degree a genius does not make. Honestly, i can't imagine myself particularly enjoying it, either. I think maintaining one relationship, in the current culture, anyway, is enough of a handful. That said, i could see myself OK with the idea if certain factors got extreme enough. Naturally, it would be male-led, but i don't see those factors even approaching in my life any time soon. That said, Judaism (the forefather of Christianity) had God accepting of polygamy (signs show he wasn't 100% kosher with it, but he was OK with it), so I don't see the connection with Christianity. Hedonism, yes, i can understand: this perfect idea of having a bunch of women (or men) at your male disposal for sex while they also treat you better than prostitutes can be tempting for some men (and some women), so there might be something to that. As for "tolerance/acceptance culture," i don't think so. That tends to favor "looking out for the underdog," which polygamy doesn't get represented as: nothing says "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy" like a harem. Hedonism aside, what's the justification? We still see straight men moving in with other men (and same for women [ignoring the bisexuality branch]) moving in together to pay bills. This has got to be complicating matters to the degree that some people are thinking about things. Makes things worse when one roommate might have trouble making rent without the other roommate, so shacking up with their significant other leaves the other hanging out to dry. While that isn't an argument for polygamy, i wouldn't surprised if the conversation doesn't come up, especially with all the "open relationships" and how some people give in easily to 3somes (especially if the relationship starts out with "casual sex," which might not imply obligation until they agree to later). Then there's also the "biological clock" that women face. The more i think about it, the more I think that this, tied with female altruism, will ultimately lead to the discussion going mainstream at some point. And there's the real kicker: it may come back for all the wrong reasons, which means it'll probably get toxic faster. I wanted to say "much" but something didn't go right in my head. But the point remains: if it works once, it can work. Even the tall asian has an explanation, as flukes happen for a reason, even if we never figure out what it is. But a more important question is whether or not it would work outside of a "patriarchal society." Overall, i don't think it's best for society (unless one makes a really, really good eugenics argument), but it may stave off some other issues we have as a society. Mainly, it really does need to get back to the point where even low IQ people can have a stay-at-home parent. Just because something sounds too-good-to-be-true doesn't mean it actually is, if that's your angle. That said, i can't see where that would go wrong outside of jealousy. Although some women feel threatened, i've also talked to women who aren't threatened by such prospects. I've seen lots of bisexual women make the "i need a male and a female" argument to go around behind their partners' back (without them knowing of each other). I've seen men say it, too, but men usually don't set themselves up for exposing themselves like that. Anecdotal? Sure, but if there's enough then it's an argument at least for a small crowd. Do they actually feel that way, or are they making a cop-out 'cause they got busted? I don't know, but it's worth looking into. Also, I'd like to avoid looking at this necessarily as a threesome, though I can understand the temptation, especially because it does open that door. However, it really isn't necessary. I think it may be a cultural fantasy (going on this idea that men are always horny, no matter what) that we assume that any guy in the scenario would have to be involved in any way when the women would be spending time with each other. If the man can spend time alone with one of the women, presumably the women should be able to spend time alone with each other without the man as well. Right. Bachelor(ette) parties, as well (which i think the way they are popularized is absolutely toxic to the degree that I want nothing to do with them). Then look at Hooters, where waitresses are trained to make the wife feel more special than the husband, to make her more comfortable with returning. I think it's reasonable to separate polygamy from "openness" from cheating. Everyone has their own rules for what is and is not cheating. I've seen a number of relationships fail because no one actually has that open discussion with each other, but assumes the other agrees. It gets more curious when the standards aren't consistently applied: woman goes to watch Fifty Shades, but turns around and throws a fit if he looks at the rear of a woman walking by. There doesn't seem to be a standard line, and i, personally, think it'd be healthy for couples to discuss this line regularly, especially as some peoples' lines change throughout the relationship. I'm not saying it'd be an easy conversation, especially if brought up out of the blue, but I've found it to be very useful and helpful in solving paranoia (in cases where there is tension but not even evidence), as long as the conversation goes well (people respect the lines drawn without trying to force the lines to be more "liberal"). This also helps with the double standards. Remember, it's a discussion of values, not a contract negotiation. Sure, we could say that a mistress is clearly cheating, but then we have cultures where marriage and sex are very much separate, and they're not necessarily dysfunctional. Look at history, where people had hedonistic orgies at religious festivals. Obviously, there are risks of dysfunction, there, but those are more extreme cases. My girlfriend would have heart attack if i kissed her best friend on the cheek, but go to the middle-east and you can see straight men doing that regularly to each other. "Lazy boss" trope. Sure, there are people out there who make alot of money doing very little, but go look at doctors. There's another trope that big hourly rates come from jobs with lots of hours, like physicians and surgeons. These are definitely high IQ individuals that do alot, but they're also away from home alot, and often "on call." Alot of important high IQ service jobs (usually medical) are going to 12-hour shifting, and does that mean that they have more days off? Not necessarily, though you would hope it did. CEOs, even, like Trump are often obligated to be "on call" and work unpaid overtime if necessary. It seems the more you're paid, the more expectations you get, too. Donald Trump didn't get all this magical energy that he was described as having (from his people on the campaign trail) from being a lazy boss in a company. If you want a rich man with alot of time on his hands, you're not talking about people like Donald Trump. Sure, they exist, but you find alot of these wealthy men are still busy, even if you think they sit around all day. You get rich by being aggressive with what you have in turning it into something larger, so they're studying the stock market, they're studying their competitors, they're going to meetings to discuss their findings and plans, making calls, inspecting prospects, etc. Meanwhile, if you're looking for a woman that's getting rich like that, too, you can expect she's running her show in a similar way. Ideally, you're going to want that connection in those precious few moments when you're not busy. If I were rich, i'd want to find a woman whom I could trust to keep that loyalty to me, irregardless of my wealth, but also be willing to forgive the long work hours. I'd want a woman who can spend those moments alone with me wisely. I wouldn't want some business partner or a rival. I'd want someone who I could trust alone with all that I have, without worrying if she's undermining me to get some other dude rich to leave off with, or going around my back, or whatever. I'd basically need a secretary/partner to worry about all the things that I can't worry about. Right, but this ability to get resources is also precisely how women can be shallow. Do they love the man for those qualities he shows, or do they love the manifestation of the qualities? A hot, sexy, 10/10 babe also shows admirable qualities of self-discipline, intelligence, self-control (to a degree), etc, but let's be honest, the majority are after the smoking hot body, not the qualities that it displays, nor does the smoking hot body guarantee those qualities, but is, instead, mere evidence. But if they have the qualities, but not the manifestation of those qualities, it's easier to know. Well, remember, we really can't know. The nobility could also control the literature about them, so that means some horrible people could have the horrible things stricken out. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that it happened, either. At the end of the day, we know it was, and still is, a powerful trope. To be fair, there's alot of resentment for the top, so it's not unbelievable that bad stories can be made up of people. Take Hitler, for example. He was a horrible person, but how much did he have to do with the holocaust? How much of that really rests on his shoulders alone? When Hitler was busy looking for the perfect race and trying to rebuild an ancient german empire, did he really have any idea what was going on in the camps? Did he know about the content of the experiments? We know he gave special permissions and powers to Eduard Bloch, a jew. I don't know, but I get the impression that the guy who killed himself is also taking credit for the sins of alot of other people, as well, and let no one deny that won the elections, showing there is no complete innocence of the people of the country. And we can't say Hitler wasn't poor, either. The opposite can be said, as well. There's also the risk that the paranoia leads to progressive search for more and more evidence/proof. It's dangerous, indeed. The best evidence I can find is if your significant other has a reliable shot at a potential rival of you. For example, if you have a woman, but Donald Trump (to use him as an example again) is suddenly single and looking yet she sticks to you after he makes her a long-term offer, then you know, but such tests will never manifest themselves. It's a very dangerous area, and that's why betrayal and lying are considered among the most horrid of sins. To be fair, i understand where they're coming from. They're basically MGTOWs who haven't received enlightenment. To be fair, i more understand the teenagers than the adults. If i think back to my early teenage years, i could easily see myself in their ranks if they were a thing in that time, but this is due to a lack of understanding I had of the world. It's like joining a new debate forum, and 9 out of 10 posts are from crazy feminists, but if you stick on the site long enough, you realized most of the site got sick of the only 9 feminists on the site, so they kept their thoughts to themselves. The incels are seeing the hot sluts who are "partying it up" but don't understand that they're not sleeping around indiscriminately, but are having casual sex to try to "rank up." They don't see the sluts who don't care, nor do they see the people not participating in the game. Their eyes are on the ones who stand out, which happen to have the smoking bodies to be playing the game of ranking up via bedpost notches. To them, "the lowest women" (the hot sluts, who aren't really the lowest) are rejecting them, and they're sore. If it's r-selected, why do k-selected animals mate this way? But i think the challenge here is not only that we not only don't agree with what "great women" are, but we are also not looking at this from the egalitarian stance. This concept of "I am worth X" and "she is worth Y" and "she is worth Z" and therefore mathematically it's only viable if X=Y+Z doesn't seem to reflect the real world. You get people who are very much unequally yolked and/or unequal of worth, yet monogamous. Moreover, we are making the assumption that there "must be a leader," and that the leader must be of equal or higher value than the others, and that alone doesn't make sense. The argument for monogamy would more likely look like "well, we can't really figure out who's worth what, therefore it's a bad business transaction," which i would say could be a strong argument, given that there is a sort of market to this, but sexual market value seems to deal more with attraction: do you suddenly divorce a man because he looses a leg and can no longer provide thus significantly looses his value? There's certainly much more going on there if the relationship is stable. With polygamy, "value" can easily loose it's meaning, which can be good or bad. And, it is for this reason, that men often had concubines or surrogate wives/mothers throughout history (as opposed to modern history): the wife was of more value than simply having children. You didn't throw her out into the street over menopause, simply because having an heir is important. There's a long history regarding this, but I don't see much written about it (probably because polygamy was considered acceptable and more responsible). Are these only the plights for the low IQ? There's people in higher ranges (120+) that have these problems. Remember, success in a high IQ job is indicative of high IQ, but a high IQ person is almost indistinguishable from a low IQ person in a low IQ job. Thanks to credentialism (using degrees as an IQ test), more and more higher IQ people are slipping through the cracks. Certain government policies are not helping this, either. Sure, we can focus on 110 and above, but rather than the poor being upgraded to middle-class, the middle-class is being downgraded to poor. We're hoping things turn around, but trends are forming. The market is not entirely a free market, and more and more regulation is just destroying things. I'm not talking about arranged marriages. I'm talking about polygamy past (anywhere from 100 years ago to earlier than that, as opposed to must be pre-roman) vs polygamy future, which wasn't necessarily arranged in all cases. Not every culture was die-hard arranged marriage, and even the ones that were surely had courtship, even for polygamists. In those older cultures, where polygamy was normalized, courtship wasn't unknown to those people, and under the normalization women would likely have done the song and dance knowing that he already had wives. While you could argue that polygamy in ancient times was far less willing, polygamy today still occurs even in countries where women have rights (it's just illegal). But on arranged marriages, it's natural for people to assume that. Sort of like how people view the treatment of black slaves to be like Uncle Tom on average. It wouldn't be hard to make those setups as you describe, but those fanciful imaginations of stories of Romeo and Juliette and similar captured our minds. Even today people just seem to be like "ok, who's available? Alright, let's give this guy a shot." Arranged marriages also likely had more than just "well, you're going to take this guy," but more like "well, we'll keep him and her near each other, but this guy over here should be kept around, too." And, sure, there were the spawn of the moment marriages where women were just property, but even then there was usually a bit more courtship than simply "yo, there was this feisty handmaiden at the party last night, i thought she had a nice chest, so i think i'll buy her from her family later today." I'm thinking it more than likely resembled "that handmaiden i saw last night, she seemed nice. I think i'm going to go to talk to her father later and get in good with him. Maybe then i can show my worth to him and see what she's really worth," which could easily take months or years. I agree to a point: I don't want my market restricted to a bunch of people whom i can't trust, or to one person. I'd rather take this much longer drawn out process that increases my chances in finding a partner whom has loyalty to me. Sometimes the elders don't exactly have my best interests in mind, even if they think that they do. I respect the elders for their decisions, but the final choice should be mine. Trying to control who dates who and what is the focus on the dating would have little to no impact on the problems we're facing in the current dating culture: It worked before without it. We had a separate culture shift where the things that kept us inline without the elders disappeared, too. That said, we're talking about promiscuity, which is an "advanced version" of the cultural problems we're seeing in the dating culture. It's a clear indicator that the things are breaking. This is the danger of a system that uses parties. Sure, the parties can "keep candidates in line," but the reality is that it doesn't necessarily keep the policies in line, so much as it keeps the mouths in line. We have a republic, not a democracy, so we have to vote for bearers rather than the standards themselves. For this topic altogether, or for that small sub-topic? At this point, i think we're pretty much nearing an end. XD The problem with making do with less money is that it's only a temporary solution, as the problem seems to be getting worse and worse. Meanwhile, the problem with trying to make more money in less time is that, unless you're the business owner, it's not even feasible, but if you are, it's also irresponsible (to your company/assets/whatever). As for the tangent to the tangent, yeah, but it is indeed the purpose of bringing it up. If i wanted to talk about women doing sexually evocative things, i think i could find a much more appropriate crowd. Moreover, if i wanted to talk about that, I really don't need to put it into a polygamy context. I'm too interested in the truth of the matter to want to discuss it with people who will want to turn it into a fantasy. It's a realistic topic, and it is a factor to the discussion of polygamy. And i understand the skepticism: i'm showing evidence that female sexuality is not well understood, regardless of whether or not you are female. This idea that all women can "get a hard on" for other women is likely shocking, especially for a group of people that, as far as i can tell, aren't as attuned to the blood-flow of their sexual organ, thus believe differently. I'm not even sure if the experiment(s) should use a larger sample size or not (because of how people would handle it if the results were the same: would people try to exploit this?). That said, we don't really know for certain if physical arousal equates with mental arousal in females (and that you've "trained it out" of yourselves) or if males are just different (that we train our member, or our brains, to agree, or some other explanation that men and women just work differently or whatever). You could make that case, but i'm not sure it would be wise to assume it is necessary. If a woman did enjoy the company of another woman and were in a polygamist marriage, it opens up the opportunity, but maybe they don't please each other as well as the man could? Or maybe, the other way around, they can please each other better than the man ever could. We really don't know. It's just another angle. "Would" isn't the word i would use here, but "could," implying that it is uncertain. It's hard to make a case without going deeper into the discussion and trying to go into the topic of "who do bisexuals think is better in bed?" kind of topic, and i really don't think that is necessary (what matters is that the door is open, not that people are actually walking through it), nor do i think that would be appropriate. I think it's "edgy enough" suggesting that it may very well be far more common than we like to think. In this case, they're not necessarily "sharing a husband" so much as "sharing each other with each other." I'm really not sure the discussion should be that deep on this topic. There are obvious problems with discussing the topic, but if certain people are right about what the results imply, as opposed to others being right, we're seeing that bisexuality may very well be "repressed" in females, which means that if it becomes "unrepressed?" (they come to terms with it) as opposed to "normalized" (meaning that we convince them to be gay just so it works), it easily becomes a major piece of the topic: polygamy may work better (or worse) with that knowledge. In fact, it was actually this particular thing that made me think more about polygamy: was polygamy in the past more egalitarian than we like to admit, because we're a bit focused on "muh patriarchy"? Is the plethysmograph results something bred into the X chromosome (thus we presumably should look for "the gay gene" on the Y chromosome to prove whether or not it exists) due to positive natural selection for being positive of polygamy? Or is what we're seeing the result of paranoid helicopter mom culture, and thus something we need to take a look at and deal with before it bites us in the rear? Most importantly, was there an unspoken practice (like alot of practices) that women would "be permitted" to "bond" with each other when married to the same man? Overall, I don't foresee the answers ever really impacting my life, but it is interesting to take note of, especially when women around me and my girlfriend are all "coming out" as swinging both ways. I would really like to know if it's something in the water, the culture, or what. At most, though, the answer would have an impact on how i would treat a future daughter: if it's something that our helicopter mom culture produced, then it is my responsibility to prevent it, as it, overall, doesn't seem to be overly advantageous to anyone outside of women being able to judge who would have an easier time getting a man, which I would expect a daughter of mine to be more than a pair of "funbags" and a sexy skirt.

"Is it better to be loved or feared?" Modernly translated as "Is it better to be loved or respected?" This is the respect that i use. I respect the tiger: failure to do so and he will kill me. Given that Islam's movement through the west comes from the hedonism, we really have to ask ourselves if we're just dealing with the devil. If we go for the hedonism, we might just take them out as well. Tolerance is separate, because you're ignoring them, rather than acknowledging and moving aside. Do you tolerate the bear walking by you who watches but does not attack, or do you respect it? It's a threat, but it's not enough of a threat to engage (commit to action of both offense and defense). The biggest threat right now is the welfare state, if you want to go after hedonism. Don't focus on the friendly bear when there's a lion around the corner who's waiting to kill the weaker victor. That boils down to the patience (IQ) of the one needing to speak and how much they can speak and get listened to before the patience runs out. Remember, it is when words fail that violence comes out. Biological paternity would be an issue. As much as we'd like to pretend otherwise, most people would rather have biological children before adopting. To this end, all the men would want their own genes spreading. Right, and men and women seek different things. While women do want stability, we assume that comes with the title, hence our respect for the institution. While not all women like the power struggle, have you ever seen "a group of women"? To be fair, though, i think after a while you would "burn out." Which is most likely when: And this is likely when it falls apart. Unless the man is equally intelligent with their collective intelligence, this will not end well for him. Right, which, realistically, is an issue if there's a disagreement, which is inevitable. Our current society with it's constant "oppression" culture is going to find ways, especially since it's already happening without the polygamy. Would it work if this social justice crape ended? I don't know. If everyone works, it might help things along. Odds are, as things stand, there aren't many men who could, by himself, provide enough for a bunch of wives and all their children. If everyone's a breadwinner to pay rent and make ends meet ('cause right now it's hard to have stay at home parents), while having a constant person there for the children (thus solving this problem), instead of being about them against the bread-winner, it's "for the children." Instead of seeing an inequality of power, it's 4 separate factions, who don't necessarily have to be at war. And on this note, i'm starting to see signs of polygamy on a small incline, with 1 man and 2 women. It was enough of an issue that the "weight loss page" that my girlfriend joined had the admins temp banned or something, because one of the admins in one of his other groups posted a picture that included "his wife and girlfriend" naked in bed as he got out of it. I don't know the context, so i can't say if it's about the kids. And, not wanting to use one anecdotal case, it might be nice to take a look at the first poll i googled up. It's not a major rise, but i'm expecting it to continue rising in response to so many people shacking up due to rising cost of living. I'd bet right now this is in response to bisexuality, though. As millennials start hitting menopause without children and/or start correlating the issues with children and neglect, then this will become a forefront issue. I could be wrong, though, as i'm just speculating. Well, realistically, not every monogamous person is "in the mood" every day. If wife 1 has a higher libido than wife 2 and 3, maybe she'll get prioritized attention (specifically in bed). If wife 2 and 3 have a problem with that, they'll up their game (or, seek other methods, because, presumably, they're also married to each other). In reality, trying to schedule equality to force it won't work. I'd imagine that's just for show. Naturally, a TV show about polygamy is going to paint it in a might brighter light than it really is. That said, though, it's important to note that if it is happening, and if it's happening for long periods of time, it does seem to be at least stable enough to continue (which really isn't saying much). Now if we add bisexuality into the mix, presumably it would be advantageous to for the wives (or dudes) to have some degree of bonding with each other as well. If you're going to get into this relationship, everyone needs to be able to bond in some way or another, and sex is one way, and most certainly not the exclusive way, either. Presumably, a second or third person needs to bond with both/all the people who are already married to each other, unless everyone gets married at the same time. Most definitely. Kind of like knowing which parent to go to when you have trouble, but with much better bonding. But speaking of politicians we seem to hear all the time about leader X who had the wife we looked at, while in reality he was sleeping with others. From rumors of Obama "being gay," to John F. Kennedy, and even Slick Willy Clinton. Depends, really. An "advanced woman" just might be too busy, herself. If you have 2 people working around the clock, and the only time they manage to find for each other in a day is the 8 hours of sleep, situations are going to deteriorate quickly. But, there's the question, is the "advanced woman" the working woman who is similar in importance to the working man, or is she some woman who makes a really good stay-at-home mother, who isn't really known outside of her husband, since she's always available for him when he ends his 12-hour shift and thus is able to connect with him? I would imagine the latter, but she would then be highly disposable, otherwise. I think this is where that challenge comes in: it's hard to know that you're loved if you're rich and powerful, unless they're also rich and powerful, but then you're not really likely to have time for each other and/or are really, really stressed. Well, and i already see that i'll be saying it to the other person as well, i think this is one of those lost things, especially when talking about people with lots of power. I always had this argument that the men of old could never know if their wives really loved them or not, since they did not have the opportunity to leave. And the women of today with their divorce court privileges are put into that same position. What do you do? On the flip side, if a man chooses to divorce his wife, either he's an idiot or she's really bad. And it's a thing: how do people prove love? People who love, but are afraid they are not loved in return, would presumably feel un-satisfied, no? If everyone's willing to work, and if bisexuality (more on this towards the end) is a thing, then your top quality men (in regards to things other than working capabilities, especially in the face of this rampant credentialism) will get the women and the "incel count" will rise. The man is thus just another member of the group, but he's also "the impregnator." Perhaps, but we're also seeing longer work days in some places. When i worked at "the chicken plant," 11.20 an hour and it wasn't unusual to see people working 10 hour shifts 6 days a week, because it was expected of the job. Nursing homes and hospitals are starting to do the 12 hour shift thing, too (not just for RNs, but also CNAs). Businesses are trying to avoid hiring people, but instead focus on what employees they do have and make them work long hours (to try to survive the credential nightmare). People do it to put bread on the table. We're starting to see the "lower class" starting to face problems similar to the "upper class." You hope it gets better, but now that necessity has created the practice, it's hard to get rid of it. As such, you're going to see this kind of both-people-working scenario, but they might not be able to afford that maid or nanny (and nannies tend to be a whole other kettle of fish, with "day cares" and such having neglect issues, making them unwise). Well, those discussions need to be on the table immediately. As i've said above, a 3rd person needs to negotiate and bond with the two people already married. Same with a 4th (needs to negotiate with the 3 people married). Realistically, i'm not expecting this to get too far out of control, because it would likely start happening before we developed a "proper procedure" for how one would enter into such a relationship. What would you do? Walk up to 3 people holding hands and be like "can i join, too!?" Historically, there was much less negotiation than there would be now. Well, if Fifty Shades has taught us anything, it's that alot of women don't feel like asking for it, and alot of men like to just do it. I'm not the promiscuous sort, but i hear "it just happens." I assume they don't start kissing and rubbing and being like "wait, hang on, just a sec, do you mind signing these papers saying that on this date we agreed to have sex?" There's been plenty of comedy skits like that, but, let's be real, that isn't going to happen. And i think that comes into play, alot of promiscuous people like to change their minds while the kissing is going on. Do we define it "not rape" because there was kissing? Do you have to allow neck kisses? Usually a couple has their spoken or unspoken rules, but those who aren't even in a relationship, most likely don't, nor are they about to lay down the ground rules just after shaking hands for the first time. This is why i think promiscuity does indeed have a rape issue: you're playing a game where rules haven't been defined at least on a cultural level on how to go about these things. Frankly, it's dangerous. (To be clear, incase we loose track due to how much time is between our replies, we're on the promiscuity branch at this point, not polygamy.) Well, there's your thing. Most STDs can spread without actual sex, it's just we identify them based on the fact that they usually come from sex. Most commonly, any STDs that can spread to the mouth. If it can be spread TO the mouth (not just through the mouth), then it can also be spread from mouth to mouth. This includes many of the things commonly referred to as STDs, which i think is why herpes is such a problem. And if it can spread from mouth to mouth, can it spread from mouth to drink and back to mouth? Sharing drinks is still a huge problem in the US. Fortunately, STDs don't spread as often as we think, but it's most definitely something to keep in mind, especially with the popularity of oral sex. Nope: genital herpes can spread from oral sex. I'm thinking our separation is due to there being 2 "types," and the one is much more rare than the other, so we call it different to help ourselves feel good when it's so highly prevalent. They're both viral. A quick google: As for her loosing it, i doubt it. IIRC, it's a neurological virus, just like shingles, so it can disappear for a while, then come back, disappear for a longer period of time, come back, and disappear again, and eventually lead to some sort of mental disorder. There's been question of connection to alzheimer's disease, as well as with other STDs, but i don't think anyone has anything conclusive, to be honest. I was just speaking to an "80s leftist" has he described himself, and something we've learned (especially from the original video of the topic) is that there are lefties who aren't marxists. He said he voted Trump, because Trump doesn't seem like he wants to start another fight in the middle-east. We need to see and recognize that it isn't even the "hard left," but a sort of "third group using the left." We've even got some of these guys "on the right" (we like to call them RINOs, like John McCain). I wouldn't exactly call these people "hard left," yet they are the people we're describing. Stefan's most recent talk about the US government and communism seems to be an intro into the discussion, rather than the entirety. Thanks to that discussion, i'm able to see that, even though the Frankfurt School is a major player (possibly the most influential in creating social justice culture), it's not even the only one. Meanwhile, our philsopher in chief is starting to buddy up with people like Sargon of Akkad, we have people like Voxday that want to pick a fight with allies. Sure, we've been "infiltrated," but that's old news, and i don't think Dr. Jordan Peterson is anywhere near being "one of them." If anything, i'd say that of Voxday, for trying to start a conflict with someone's who's trying to "keep the peace." The objective we need to have while fighting the marxists, is to show how bad and hypocritical marxism is, then show that we can disagree and talk to each other without resorting to identity politics. If we play the identity politics game, we're playing right into the hands of the marxists: one side will win, and the marxists will be at the top of that side, victor take all into a totalitarian state: that's why a lefty like Trump won the republican primary: the other republicans are worried about big government "for the conservative side." So the democrats are "top left" and the republicans are "top right," when the people are on the bottom left, right, in the middle, and we're too busy fighting for our team captains who are not our friends. I'm not really sure you can "quantify love" in such a way, as if it were some sort of "finite resource." When people have a hard time to even define what love is, let alone how to even prove it, let alone show that everyone has a finite amount of it (regardless of whether or not everyone has equal amounts to give). And, there's also the fact that not all marriages are based on love, alone. I've heard arguments that "love" is not finite, but it's representation and ability to manifest are. Take that as you will. But I wouldn't mind to hear from some mormon women on how they handle it. I would also suggest any googling you do you consider the source. Polygamy is viewed as "part of the patriarchy," especially due to it's history. Moreover, mormon sources are likely to be a bit biased, too. My suggestion on this would be for us to somehow get our hands on a mormon woman, preferably more than one, and ask her about this. Seeing as this does happen today, and seeing that Utah isn't some third-world country, it stands to reason that we might benefit from someone from there on this particular topic. I understand, however, that they might have some reservations about the same-sex-relations angle. I imagine a woman who willingly chose to be in a polygamist marriage would be far more experienced in this matter. The competition factor is indeed important, and i would love to see what data you have on children in polygamy vs monogamy, especially anything that addresses modern society where we usually now see both parents working, as this is more and more becoming the norm, and it's showing no signs of changing direction. Despite the importance of having a stay-at-home parent, it's not getting better. Moreover, how much does this include polygamist (most are monogamous, iirc) mormons? Historically there was alot of competition, but could this be solved with the "leader" being the stay at home parent? I don't know. I hear mormons aren't completely dysfunctional. I'm inclined to believe this is not the case, since it is happening today, and in first world countries (even though it's illegal). I noticed we've seen this alot in other cases as well. I can only say that to a degree, we're seeing the usual dysfunction that comes with "success." The people at the top of the pareto distribution generally also seem to be equally as successful of "dysfunction." In other words, your top 20% seem to have 80% of your remarriages. That might just be due to "man, she's hot, and now that i'm rich i can have her instead," but i don't know. Maybe they're too busy for family. Would polygamy solve this or make it worse? I don't know. I'm not really concerned about these people, as it makes more sense to talk about the 80% of the population. Is that really the case, or is it good acting? How did he look with his previous wives? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And i'm putting a break here to talk about something, now that i managed to find more evidence for it. Before continuing to read, i recommend looking up "women bisexuality plethysmograph" in google. The "New York Times" article is surprisingly one of the better ones i've read that seems to cover the topic a bit more fairly. However, I won't link it, because I want people to see other viewpoints before they just settle for one source. OK? Good. I have three major ideas (that aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) for what we are seeing (assuming that the data wasn't horribly skewered): Evolution: Due to the history of polygamy, an unspoken practice may have been the wives sleeping with each other. As these would have allowed for the wives to bond better, the conflicts over "who's child is better" and "which wife is better" would've been lower, favoring women who were more likely to bond with each other (bisexual) in addition to the husband. Society: Due to modern separation of "young girls" who are "hitting puberty" with boys, despite women "playing games" has led to the practice of certain forms of play (as Dr. Jordan Peterson points out, this has an effect on what we see as ideal parents as children try to mimic their parents or heroes), such as the game "house," where women, in the absence of boys, will be encouraged to take on "the role of father" where the mimicry would then encourage "experimentation." While I understand that we seem to allow women to "experiment" without second thought, this same grace is not extended to males, who aren't as likely to "experiment." Biology: Perhaps women, whose success throughout history is largely centered around beauty, gain an advantage by being able to "feel" who their competition is. Thus, women branch off with empathy. This seems to be the explanation of the results of the "pupil dilation study." Now, 3, i'm less inclined to follow, because i've heard bisexual women whom i know (anecdotal, i understand, but we do have to deal with a lack of data, here) say that they "prefer butchy women," which one would imagine to be less appealing to men. I've heard cases of 2, but I don't really have any reason to deny 1, either. My own conclusion is 1 and 2, and I would like to invite this discussion to open up a bit if we see the merit, but it would be a whole other fork into a different topic that merit's it's own post. On the other hand, it's kind of important for the polygamy branch. Separate issues, but they're very much related. Siegfried von Walheim, since you two (I really don't think it's wise to put Elizabeth on the spot on this one, given the obviously feminine name, but i don't want this in a PM, as this is still an open discussion) are the only two continuing this branch with me, i'd like to hear your thoughts on whether we should proceed, and, if so, should we start it as a separate topic? For clarity, I do have to add, just incase it was missed, that physical arousal does not necessarily make one have that preference. It is reasonable to take notice of this and see it as "possibility" rather than "guaranteed outcome." In other words, just because a woman might find herself aroused at females, that doesn't mean she wants to females, or even if she "can" does this mean that she should, or should want to, or anything to that effect. At the same time, it does beg to ask the question of a potential role in the discussion of polygamy.

I think JP's religion is important in regards to his awesome bible lecture series. I can't see his religious views really being important beyond that, really. He doesn't say whether or not he's a believer (he very much seems not to be), but he is proposing a belief in biblical values without necessitating the belief in God Himself, but instead proposing that God may be the wisdom of the ancients. As a Christian, i'm honored by this attempt. He's standing up for western values, Christian values, without putting the rationality of God on the table like a certain philosopher who keeps telling christians to move on from the question, despite making his own comments all the time.

Could you find more info about it? Ask paypal why it happened? This could use some answers.

Well, what you're seeing then is a matter of definitions. Infanticide vs abortion. If the baby is dead, it's effectively a tumor, and gross as it is to compare a human being to one. I'm replying in agreement, replying against the argument going unstated, that the people who disagree with us try to instead, illogically, angle it so that someone having the right to choose between good behavior and bad behavior infringes upon their rights. They argue that the prostitute somehow violates someone else's rights by being a prostitute. That's where they get the justification to step in. They argue that the prostitute, for example, is the reason the husband sleeps with her, not that the husband was the aggressor. Not unlike what we're seeing from the muslim wives of the child rapists in the UK: "Those 10 year olds are sluts!" That 10 year old just forced himself on the man and he couldn't push her away? Hath he no agency? I really don't think they mind alienating the church. I've been saying it everywhere and i had strawman after strawman thrown at me, and it's not like anyone didn't understand. The whole thing about homosexuality was a power play using the gays against the christians as 4d chess pieces. The gays, many of whom are atheists, want the legal rights of marriage (they're far from being inconsequential), but aren't too concerned with the spiritual origins. Since marriage certificates are provided by churches as one of the grounds of being a non-profit agency, the churches would be forced between allowing the federal government to choose their policy on homosexuals, sacrificing their tax exemption, and/or getting sued like the bakeries. Well, everyone has their own argument for what is "tolerant," which is why the debates are always shifting. Success seems have a rebound effect immediately if pride gets in the way. I don't know the answer, either, but i'm more inclined to think power went to the head. I'm not saying to respect them, but their right, as was said earlier: you can't have the virtue if the option isn't available. So, to respect people who choose not to, we have to respect and acknowledge the ability to, else why are we respecting those who choose not to exercise the right if they don't really have the choice? I haven't actually met polygamists, to be honest, so i can't tell you what they say. The guy who introduced me to Stefan's show had a woman problem, though, but he made it clear that the women he slept with chose to sleep with him, despite him clearly informing them that he had other girlfriends at the time. I knew this to be at least partially true, because i met one of them. It didn't last long, though, 'cause they agreed to become exclusive when she came to move in with him, and he was caught chatting online. She ended up milking the distrust into a totally toxic situation. I know it's branching off a bit, but it's totally worth saying that if you know someone has a problem with exclusivity, we really shouldn't expect change on the basis of how awesome he or she tells you you are. If the situation is working without exclusivity (meaning, they're getting what they want), it most likely won't end up exclusive. So, in that regard, back on topic, polygamists do have that much working for them. Depends on your definition of "working." I've heard of it actually happening in the USA, even though it's illegal. Some women do go beyond their base attractions, despite enjoying multiple partners. I don't really understand how they solve the paternity problem (since, surely, that's a thing), but these situations do actually happen. You do bring up a good point, though: women are attracted to alpha males. See, polygamy, and satisfying more than one woman, artificially upgrades the man. I've heard the argument that polygamy increases rivalry and thus attraction, much like how it does pre-marriage. But i'm sure he looses alpha status the moment they get together to tell him off about something. That's a really good question, too, just like what i said above. A bunch of women would present a problem for one man if the women agree on something (we see how the man is basically mentally castrated when he looses his wife to her female best friend). So it might just be, the man knows he's powerful, but accepts that he's not too powerful for exclusivity. In these kinds of situations, we still have a degree of being able to choose our worth. If i'm a king, it doesn't matter how awesome I am, i'm still going to have the same refractory periods with 10 women than i will with 1 woman. If one woman is more thirsty than I am, I really don't need 10 or 20 wives. But, that's just the sexual side of things. But, really, what kind of companionship are you looking for that you can't replace with your vast amounts of money and being able to find decent friends (which i do understand to be harder)? If you need separate people to clean your house, you can hire maids/butlers: you don't have to obligate yourself sexually to get your house cleaned. I think it takes special people to make polygamy work. Sure, in theory it should be easy to convince women to be OK or even supportive of it, but you really, really have to trust them not to band together and basically make their own rules. The alpha-male one moment could become the butler for a lesbian orgy the next, or maybe they just get together and decide the next alpha-male is more alpha. It takes special women to make it work. Right, it depends alot on how you manage your life. If all you ever are is business, no time to friends and family, you're going to have this trouble. Trump prides himself on having this time for his family, though. I think this speak's of Trump's IQ more than it does just general successfulness. What we're really discussing here is whether or not the person has enough peer and/or subordinate validation and social support for the things that he does. First question is whether or not this is quantifiable in terms of "how many people" instead of "how much time." In that regard, you're more likely to see people feeling the need to have more partners when their partners are too busy for them, 'cause they're successful, too. Meanwhile, someone who's successful with unsuccessful partners would likely feel the "right to have" more partners, despite the lack of need. I think the thing to be said here is that polygamy can benefit children so long as the wives are those special people that aren't toxic. Especially today, we see that with both parents usually working just to make ends meet, and you don't see children getting alot of attention that they need and deserve. I think this would help, especially if the women work different shifts. At present, i would argue the strongest argument for polygamy is the level of attention that is provide-able, not really to the man (which is higher there, too) but to the children. But i think your question is valid: what is enough for equality? The more i think, the more it seems that success in women only increases the need for more women, since the more she's doing other things, the less she's fulfilling her roles. It gets far more complicated (and interesting) if you add bisexuality into the mix. Female-led polygamy would turn into "a mostly gay orgy," which, depending on mentality, brings their alpha status back up, supposing they can all enjoy each other's company as well. Male-led, the chance of toxicity rises, but otherwise likely "relaxes the tension." And both of these are supposing that the "leader" is straight. If the leader isn't, i'm really not sure the potential conflicts are unlikely to spill over. Instead, i'm thinking they're likely to go off very, very quickly. 2 males in a multi-female environment is just asking for issues of paternity from "going behind the back." And what happens if a totally homosexual or heterosexual person joins the group but isn't the leader, like if a lesbian wants to join the orgy (i know it's more than just an orgy, but lesbianist, in this scenario it's the primary motivator) but doesn't want the male leader? The rape thing comes in in terms of, maybe you've banged 3 or 4 times before, but this one time they just don't feel like it, or they're more interested in someone else that night. Expectations introduce the higher likelihood of rape, as consequence. As for "herpes or something" i think it was stated that 90% of americans have herpes when i looked about 5 years ago. Just a quick google: I know that since the Frankfurt School got ahold of people in the 1960s, things got out of hand, but how out of hand have they really gotten, given that STDs supposedly have low transmission rates (due to only spreading at certain stages, low viral count, etc)? I think there's alot wrong with the definition of STDs themselves. Mono and hepatitis are definitely STD in nature, but spread without sex. It's obvious when there's something on the genitals, but could you get a genital condition from someone who inherited a disease while you're taking their virginity (using the most conservative definition)? I hate to agree with the progressive left on something, but there's definitely a stigma issue here, even though they don't exactly propose any solutions other than "don't judge them." It's worth having a discussion on this topic as well. Change the words, and those who benefit from the old ones will just translate their arguments. I think "facism is far right" comes from the polarization of the elections of germany in the 1930s. I recall a specific branch of marxism fleeing from germany shortly after the Nazis "took over." Since the socialists we see with the most influence in the USA (and entering british schools in the 90s) came from this group of marxists, whenever i'm called a nazi, i take it as a compliment: everyone knows i'm not a nazi, thus i'm realizing that it kind of takes on this connotation: Predator 2 Ending And if you're familiar with the movie, "racist" seems to be equivalent to "humans outside of our tribe who carry weapons," rather than the literal meaning of the word, which is why they never respond to "islam is not a race." When i treated some outspoken progressives like this, everything continued to fit. What's worse was, i even called it out, and they ignored it (when they're desperately trying to pick apart everything else you're saying to find a weakness in your logic). What creeps me out is, these people don't consciously seem to be aware of it, either. It's like this unspoken collective conscience that "gets triggered" into existence. I don't believe we're looking at Project MKUltra stuff, but at the same time, i don't know what it is we're looking at.

Which is a great angle. If lefties think it's OK to go after whitey for not being inclusive enough, and wanting to kick whitey out of the west, then the rules should apply to muslims (actually, arabs, since we're talking about race) as well.

Because it's the only way to provide evidence. You see Tommy's not on their team, that's why it's different. They went to Journalism school and got Journalism degrees, and he didn't. (I'm not even kidding you; at another message board someone made this case.)