Kohlrak Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 3 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: It seems like you just restated what I had said about self-identifying lesbians becoming physically aroused by both genders. I think you misread. The issue is lesbians do not get aroused by men, while "straight" and "bisexual" women get aroused by both. 3 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: I’m sorry, man. It really just seems to me like you’re being the master of non-committal statements. 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. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: Dude... which is it? We don't know, that's part of the point. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: So if a husband-stealing whore is serious about her future and the relationship with the man, she’s not going to be into sharing him with his wife, right? Is that what you’re saying? And if she’s not interested in stealing him, then she’s not fully invested? So, in both cases, if the woman is invested she will want him all to herself? 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. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: and, a) why do I have to see anything a certain way? And b) which woman is ultimately invested in the other woman’s children? The husband-stealing whore? Or do you mean the second or third wife in a polygamist marriage? 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." 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: Have you ever heard of an evil stepmother? Just because a woman tolerates another woman’s offspring does not mean she is looking out for their best interests or feels anything remotely similar to a maternal instinct for the other woman’s child. 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. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: They’re both utterly unable to attract men and both are weighed down with “baggage,” ie children. They’re a perfect match. The children are "baggage," yet i do see such women able to attract men. That said, there's value beyond the hedonism. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: That might not be so bad if only one of the women was having children, and the others were more or less like worker bees. 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. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: We’ve definitely done our best to strip them of this role, but I think it’s bred into men, on a genetic level. Just because we’re trying to force people to be unable - and to hate, even - to act in a way which aligns with their own gender does not mean it does not exist. 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. 4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: I’ve often wondered about that, and I wish he would give more details about how he manages this. I can’t answer for him. I know that he had a career before he did FDR, and it seems to have been lucrative. I don’t know how much profit he makes off of FDR and donations, but he has been able to keep the show up for, what, 10 years? I speculate that he came into fatherhood already set up to be the main provider and pulls his fair share a f the financial weight. Of course, he is the only one who could say. 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. 5 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: But it’s like you’re completely forgetting about the innate, terribly strong preference women have for their own children. Women don’t love a baby automatically just because it’s a baby. On the contrary. A friend of mine offered to keep her newborn nephew so he wouldn’t have to be put in daycare, and she found that she had such little empathy for his demands (and even felt anger towards him for pulling her away from her own toddler) that she told her brother that she would no longer watch him. She was shocked at her own reaction and felt extreme guilt over it, but every time he needed her, she felt angry and resentful. Babies are SO needy and demanding. No one enjoys that if they’re of bonded physically and chemically to the child. Women very much prefer their own genetic offspring. 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. 5 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: Right. I didn’t say that my statements were law for every man and every woman. I said they were generalizations of typical men or women. I don’t think that just because there are exceptions to stereotypes nullifies the truth and usefulness of a stereotype. 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. 6 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: For another, this is an issue that I’m still undecided on. If children aren’t involved, then no, I don’t see as many reasons why one shouldn’t indulge in sensual pleasures and other kinky tendencies. Loneliness is very bitter and hard, and I can understand why it would be attractive to turn lesbian or gay for some company. I’m still undecided on that, but I think there’s a lot less pressure on those types of relationships since here are no children. (Fro what you say, though, these instances of people choosing lesbian/gay relationships over loneliness isn’t because they are honoring their true intentions and selves. It seems more like they are scared and afraid of the opposite gender and are use same-sex relationships as a way to meet their needs for intimacy without risking themselves, at cost to their real identities. It really seems like they’re selling themselves for safety ) My examples aren't the rule, but just example. 6 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: Which is another thing - I thought you said polygamy was about caring for the children? 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). 6 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: Do you think we’ve been brainwashed? 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. 6 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: And yeah. I’m very pro-monogamy. I think it’s the only sane way forward. I believe it is the foundation of civilization and the great things that have come out of it, and that without monogamy we’re all basically reducing ourselves to rutting monkeys. I believe that women have an obvious benefit in monogamy, but men do, too. Only in monogamy are you forced to face the worst aspects of yourself and become the very best possibly version of yourself. In a successful monogamous relationship, men are forced to be ever changing and overcoming their own flaws and breaking new ground in the world around them. And women, to keep the love of their man in their older years, must learn to be a wellspring of beautiful truths and love. Monogamy is the perfect place for two people to grow their best souls, and if those two people have children and pass this wisdom onto that generation, then each generation is enriched with a map of how to be a better person, with a better soul. 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. 7 hours ago, Elizbaeth said: If a man can go from woman to woman to get his different needs met, then he never really confronts the tension between him and his relationships and he just takes the easy way out. Women do this with orbiters, too, but those tend to disappear when her looks go. If a woman hasn’t learned to take herself and become lovely regardless of physical appearance, than she usually turns into a shrew, or a bitter and mean nag. Nags are women who are terribly disappointed in life. I believe marriage is an all or nothing game, and either you’re in or you’re not. No middle ground. No back up plans, no back doors, no escapism or fantasizing. Marriage can be terribly romantic, but only if people grapple with the bare reality and uncomfortable truths, and I don’t think people will do that if they can always turn to another should when times get rough. 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.
Kohlrak Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 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.
Recommended Posts