Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen the debate that happened recently?

What do you think of it? 

It makes me kinda sad that Michael Dyson gets applause. 

If you havent here is a link to it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched it, thanks to you. I like how the NYT author talks about threatening and bombardment of her, yet NYT does this very thing in the name of political correctness. I'm surprised Dr.Peterson didn't call her out for it. A NYT author can't complain about being smeared in comments sections and social media, when NYT is smearing people as main product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Just watched it, thanks to you. I like how the NYT author talks about threatening and bombardment of her, yet NYT does this very thing in the name of political correctness. I'm surprised Dr.Peterson didn't call her out for it. A NYT author can't complain about being smeared in comments sections and social media, when NYT is smearing people as main product.

Imagine if this was reverse and JP said "you are a mean black man" there would be outrage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Dyson came across as a raving bigot and racist. 

Stephen Fry pointed out correctly that his opponents didn't spend much time talking about the resolution and dwelt in their comfort zone of US politics.

Peterson did his best to engage intellectually but the other side was more interested in throwing ad-homs at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

Michael Dyson came across as a raving bigot and racist. 

Stephen Fry pointed out correctly that his opponents didn't spend much time talking about the resolution and dwelt in their comfort zone of US politics.

Peterson did his best to engage intellectually but the other side was more interested in throwing ad-homs at him.

Peterson, i think, showed a weakness in that he didn't call out the ad-homs as logical fallacies to attack their intellect, and simply move on to actual points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Peterson, i think, showed a weakness in that he didn't call out the ad-homs as logical fallacies to attack their intellect, and simply move on to actual points. 

Traps are designed for people who can't get out of them. Those who step over them, can see, remember to look for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, barn said:

Traps are designed for people who can't get out of them. Those who step over them, can see, remember to look for more.

 Sometimes it is enough to let down a roper or ladder if it is a pitfall type trap. While you're saving people, many, many more traps are being laid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

 Sometimes it is enough to let down a roper or ladder if it is a pitfall type trap. While you're saving people, many, many more traps are being laid.

Well, J. B. P. stepped it clean over. Again. As more will do when realising it was an option from the start.

Be mindful of your focus. (If I may suggest)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, barn said:

Well, J. B. P. stepped it clean over. Again. As more will do when realising it was an option from the start.

Be mindful of your focus.

He didn't though. He stayed on the trap. He didn't move on, but instead let it become the focus of the rest of the conversation. Maybe that was poising, but that wasn't the purpose of the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

He didn't though. He stayed on the trap. He didn't move on, but instead let it become the focus of the rest of the conversation. Maybe that was poising, but that wasn't the purpose of the debate.

You have to remember that winning in the moment often comes at the expense of the long run. Both sides got notable applause. Do you think maybe some people who laughed at the "mean white man" comment felt bad once Jordan Peterson called Dyson out for his racism? I'm sure at least a handful did. How about the online audience? 

Statistically, more people left as anti-PC than pro-PC (while the question polled wasn't that direct, the meaning was effectively "is political correctness a good thing?") by a fair margin. They went in roughly 60 anti-PC and 40% pro-PC with 87% stating a willingness to bend and the exit polls showed 70% anti PC and 30% pro PC. That's a victory.

I think Doctor Peterson's refusal to mud wrestle and instead make his points and call out BS when especially relevant was what won the intellectual battle. Jokes may score points in the here and now, but when people think back it's not hard to picture who was being straight and honest versus the guy who's being bullying and condescending. Especially if they're curious enough to rewatch some of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder if JP is 'that' good of a debater. So good in fact that he can artfully sidestep his oponents traps, ignore their barbs but let them feel comfortable throwing them. So comfortable that he allows them to descend into their racist, sexist pits. Then he strikes!

Well played Mr. Peterson! Well played!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to thank the op for posting it here, it's good to see/listen to various viewpoints, even when the 'elephant' had to be constantly escorted outside of the visible areas, only catching its shadows here and there for a moment...maybe in the next debate the 'handlers' decide it was time the world should see it.

Maybe if the debate was held in China or Japan. Who knows.

p.s   .

Edited by barn
Doctor, doctor J. B... (sigh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

You have to remember that winning in the moment often comes at the expense of the long run. Both sides got notable applause. Do you think maybe some people who laughed at the "mean white man" comment felt bad once Jordan Peterson called Dyson out for his racism? I'm sure at least a handful did. How about the online audience? 

Statistically, more people left as anti-PC than pro-PC (while the question polled wasn't that direct, the meaning was effectively "is political correctness a good thing?") by a fair margin. They went in roughly 60 anti-PC and 40% pro-PC with 87% stating a willingness to bend and the exit polls showed 70% anti PC and 30% pro PC. That's a victory.

I think Doctor Peterson's refusal to mud wrestle and instead make his points and call out BS when especially relevant was what won the intellectual battle. Jokes may score points in the here and now, but when people think back it's not hard to picture who was being straight and honest versus the guy who's being bullying and condescending. Especially if they're curious enough to rewatch some of it.

So you're saying the crux of his argument wasn't the debate topic itself (which he abandoned, for the most part), but instead it was to show the hypocrisy of the left? If that's the case, he's more masterful than i realized. I feel though, that the alternative wasn't joining in the mudslinging, but to simply point out the ad hominem, the hypocrisy, then go back on topic, like he partner did.

7 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

I have to wonder if JP is 'that' good of a debater. So good in fact that he can artfully sidestep his oponents traps, ignore their barbs but let them feel comfortable throwing them. So comfortable that he allows them to descend into their racist, sexist pits. Then he strikes!

Well played Mr. Peterson! Well played!

Honestly, I hate the debate format because of the limitation it puts on the arguments themselves. Call in shows with Stefan, have a similar limitation, but aren't as limited in "you have 3 minutes." With a forum, like this, we can focus on the arguments without bothering to consider the arguer. We have plenty of time to do research in between arguments, while we're typing responses, etc. Thus, we can focus on finding the truth and less on the person who makes the case, since the arguments are what really matter, not the person saying it, so if an IQ 60 person manages to pull up statistics on free speech countries, while the IQ 180 person engages in ad hominem, who's really right? Sure, the 180 IQ person is more likely to be right, but if he's biased towards totalitarianism, you'll find that IQ points get lost on their way to the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

So you're saying the crux of his argument wasn't the debate topic itself (which he abandoned, for the most part), but instead it was to show the hypocrisy of the left? If that's the case, he's more masterful than i realized. I feel though, that the alternative wasn't joining in the mudslinging, but to simply point out the ad hominem, the hypocrisy, then go back on topic, like he partner did.

I think he argued as much as he could about why political correctness is cancerous (and Stephan Fry did a good job as well, I'd say) (that being said I don't remember his argument against political correctness) as well as (this I do remember) the lack of distinction between "moderate Left" and "Far Left". Like, what standard can be used to separate the moderate Leftists (whatever that means) from the far Leftists (whatever that means).

I say "whatever that means" because... I don't know what the differences are, ideologically. Is a matter of methods that separates the "far" from the "moderate" or is it philosophical? Is a far Leftist the guy who'll do whatever to establish a Communist/Fascist state or is he the guy who just takes the principles of Socialism and collectivism far more seriously than his moderate counterpart? Same can be said with the Right. Is a Far-Rightist a Monarchist or a (to use a popular misconception) Fascist? Is he an "ultra-liberal" (i.e. super free market, individualist, Objectivist) or a super-religious person? Is the moderate Rightist someone who doesn't take any of these popularly called "right wing" ideologies seriously or just wants part but not all?

I don't think there's a commonly agreed upon definition of far vs. moderate beyond the former usually involving calls to violence while the latter tends to be more diplomatic.

It's good Dr. Peterson asked that question as well as pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left because I think that does more than simply focusing on political correctness alone. I think the average person would lose interest in only talking about or arguing about one (seemingly minute) topic as compared to its broader implications or related tangents. However I'm not a public debater and perhaps people in general are more interested in the abstractions and minutia of a concept then it's practical results (like to use P.C.: abstractions=infringement on individual liberties; practical results=people afraid to speak their minds or the truth). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think he argued as much as he could about why political correctness is cancerous (and Stephan Fry did a good job as well, I'd say) (that being said I don't remember his argument against political correctness) as well as (this I do remember) the lack of distinction between "moderate Left" and "Far Left". Like, what standard can be used to separate the moderate Leftists (whatever that means) from the far Leftists (whatever that means).

I say "whatever that means" because... I don't know what the differences are, ideologically. Is a matter of methods that separates the "far" from the "moderate" or is it philosophical? Is a far Leftist the guy who'll do whatever to establish a Communist/Fascist state or is he the guy who just takes the principles of Socialism and collectivism far more seriously than his moderate counterpart? Same can be said with the Right. Is a Far-Rightist a Monarchist or a (to use a popular misconception) Fascist? Is he an "ultra-liberal" (i.e. super free market, individualist, Objectivist) or a super-religious person? Is the moderate Rightist someone who doesn't take any of these popularly called "right wing" ideologies seriously or just wants part but not all?

I don't think there's a commonly agreed upon definition of far vs. moderate beyond the former usually involving calls to violence while the latter tends to be more diplomatic.

It's good Dr. Peterson asked that question as well as pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left because I think that does more than simply focusing on political correctness alone. I think the average person would lose interest in only talking about or arguing about one (seemingly minute) topic as compared to its broader implications or related tangents. However I'm not a public debater and perhaps people in general are more interested in the abstractions and minutia of a concept then it's practical results (like to use P.C.: abstractions=infringement on individual liberties; practical results=people afraid to speak their minds or the truth). 

Well, we try to describe left and right as a number line (or a plane for the more "enlightened" individuals who see that some leftists are for small government and some conservatives want a totalitarian state), so how do you actually quantify a person's politics as a number? Then, what number is "far"? Sure, we can "feel" the difference, just as we can "feel" how reasonable someone is, but deceptions come through this method. The words are, to use Stefan's terms, "nothing burgers." Even using the terms sacrifices our souls to identity politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

Well, we try to describe left and right as a number line (or a plane for the more "enlightened" individuals who see that some leftists are for small government and some conservatives want a totalitarian state), so how do you actually quantify a person's politics as a number? Then, what number is "far"? Sure, we can "feel" the difference, just as we can "feel" how reasonable someone is, but deceptions come through this method. The words are, to use Stefan's terms, "nothing burgers." Even using the terms sacrifices our souls to identity politics.

Yeah, probably. Personally--and I say this because I am probably one of the few that does this--I divide Left/Right as totalitarian/anarchism. So "Far Right" would be anarchism (of either the capitalistic or nihilistic sort) and "Far Left" would be any totalitarian state. Obviously the spectrum was/is invented to make rather similar parties appear very oppositional when in reality they're very similar. And yet depending on the context we "understand" what's Left vs. Right. I don't think judgements of me would be too far off if I said I'm a Rightist but if I said "Far Right" then people's judgement of me would likely be far off from what I actually mean by embracing the term. I'm socially conservative, fiscally liberal (i.e. I like Free Markets though I have no idea how money works), religiously conservative, and until new information changes my mind I advocate a return to monarchism as the best tried and tested form of government. 

Where on the spectrum would I be having said all that? Rightist, I guess. I don't agree with the Leftists (as commonly understood) with much as I am very much against promiscuity or the murder of children, very much against class or race baiting, and very much against infringements on individual rights (whatever that means) and double standards (which I mean in full. I judge everyone and everything by equal standards, though having said my expectations for everyone and everything are not equal. I don't expect rocks to talk to me lol). 

...But my tangent is just further revealing how weak the Left/Right spectrum is for any ideas that don't largely conform to them. I have a lot in common with Conservatism (that actually does conserve things rather then slowly burn things) but not with Fascism which is somehow a Far Right Left Wing ideology.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 7:10 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah, probably. Personally--and I say this because I am probably one of the few that does this--I divide Left/Right as totalitarian/anarchism. So "Far Right" would be anarchism (of either the capitalistic or nihilistic sort) and "Far Left" would be any totalitarian state. Obviously the spectrum was/is invented to make rather similar parties appear very oppositional when in reality they're very similar. And yet depending on the context we "understand" what's Left vs. Right. I don't think judgements of me would be too far off if I said I'm a Rightist but if I said "Far Right" then people's judgement of me would likely be far off from what I actually mean by embracing the term. I'm socially conservative, fiscally liberal (i.e. I like Free Markets though I have no idea how money works), religiously conservative, and until new information changes my mind I advocate a return to monarchism as the best tried and tested form of government. 

I think what people define as left and right are very, very different. Take abortion, for example. You can be allowed by society to do it or not, and allownce/punishment mechanisms can be enforced either by ostracism or state. This is where you see the "political plain" (2 axes) come into play. A "true communist" (anarcho-communist: bottom-left) says that everyone should have the right to have one, and it should be free (no charge-no tax-no government funding), as it's a medical procedure. The "stalanist communist" (totaliterian-communist: top-left) says that everyone has a right to an abortion, enforceable by the government for eugenics purposes. A tyrant? (totalitarian-capitalist?: top-right) would say that no one is to have abortions, that every sperm is sacred and to be defended by the state, and would include forced marriages and sex for the benefit of eugenics. While the annarchist (annarcho-capitalist: bottom-right) says that abortion is wrong, and enforcement will include either ostracism or a lynch-mob. All 4 corners stated here assume abortion was proven. Currently, we're on the left, perhaps a little above middle, on abortion. Left and right is about individual rights, while up and down is enforcement/support.

But the real trap is that a person need not fall on a single location based on the issue. For example, for abortion, i'm almost all the way to the right (if the baby's toast either way, but the mother would be dead on delivery, save the mother), and somewhere close to the bottom, but not the bottom: murder charges need some degree of enforcement. For economy, i'm right of center, but not all the way on the right, but definitely on the bottom: i believe that people should (willingly, hence the bottom) engage in charity, including where we can't verify it to be of the benefit of the donator. If you were to break the whole thing into quadrants, i'm in the bottom right, but you may find me in another quadrant on a given issue. Should you let your stance in abortion judge whether or not i should speak for you on, say, gay marriage (hint: i'm in the bottom left quadrant, somewhere)? What about my stance on polygamy; do you think you can even guess what mine is based on what you see me saying here? This is the polarization trap, and easily explains Voxday's attacks on Dr.Peterson.

On 5/25/2018 at 7:10 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Where on the spectrum would I be having said all that? Rightist, I guess. I don't agree with the Leftists (as commonly understood) with much as I am very much against promiscuity or the murder of children, very much against class or race baiting, and very much against infringements on individual rights (whatever that means) and double standards (which I mean in full. I judge everyone and everything by equal standards, though having said my expectations for everyone and everything are not equal. I don't expect rocks to talk to me lol). 

I used to be against promiscuity, but I also realize that opposing it usually means government control. So i'm on the bottom, perhaps a little left of center: it's not my business what someone else does with their life if it has no impact upon mine. Now, if a prostitute was advertising herself by rubbing herself all over the outside of my kitchen window (or, if i owned the land and had a gate, right outside my front gate) then i'm not really concerned about her rights, as she's already messing with that which is mine (whether it be my property, my personal space, perhaps my children, or my wife, or whatever).

Double standards are clearly separate: that's consistency. Arguably, everyone should be against double standards, but double standards are exploitable by people with agendas and goals.

On 5/25/2018 at 7:10 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

...But my tangent is just further revealing how weak the Left/Right spectrum is for any ideas that don't largely conform to them. I have a lot in common with Conservatism (that actually does conserve things rather then slowly burn things) but not with Fascism which is somehow a Far Right Left Wing ideology.

Well, it's easy to see where that came from, and then it becomes easy to see why we are where we are, especially with universities which was one of the major entrypoints. I'm not sure what happened to the CIA and when (i think it might've been around the time of the "red scare"), but what we do know is that when all this was going on in Europe, this Socialist/Communist vs Nationalist Socialism debate was going on, when Hitler (the nationalist socialism: the more right of the two major contenders) won, the other guys (the more left) came here (to the united states), and become university teachers. It wasn't their philosophy or ideology that inherently made this become totalitarian, but it was the fact that the ones that came here were people who were trying to take political control of a nation (germany). They lost germany, so they decided to try it here instead. So, naturally, when we saw the most evil left as communists, their direct opposition became the definition of the far right, even if it is actually still to the left of center (which is why everyone's far right, but no one can define far left). I'm not 100% sure, but i believe this is who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far left = Orc. (More "Evolved.", like rats)
Far Right = Merchant of Venice. Scarface (Less evolved, more selectively chosen).

Normies somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I think what people define as left and right are very, very different. Take abortion, for example. You can be allowed by society to do it or not, and allownce/punishment mechanisms can be enforced either by ostracism or state. This is where you see the "political plain" (2 axes) come into play. A "true communist" (anarcho-communist: bottom-left) says that everyone should have the right to have one, and it should be free (no charge-no tax-no government funding), as it's a medical procedure. The "stalanist communist" (totaliterian-communist: top-left) says that everyone has a right to an abortion, enforceable by the government for eugenics purposes. A tyrant? (totalitarian-capitalist?: top-right) would say that no one is to have abortions, that every sperm is sacred and to be defended by the state, and would include forced marriages and sex for the benefit of eugenics. While the annarchist (annarcho-capitalist: bottom-right) says that abortion is wrong, and enforcement will include either ostracism or a lynch-mob. All 4 corners stated here assume abortion was proven. Currently, we're on the left, perhaps a little above middle, on abortion. Left and right is about individual rights, while up and down is enforcement/support.

Ehhh I get what you're trying to say but the "upper left/right corners" are extremely similar, as are the bottom left/right corners except in values. In terms of governance, the top is statist while the bottom is communal. I know that's the point but I think it'd make more sense to have a separate spectrum for each diametrically opposed values. Like you can't be moderately for or against abortion; you can't half-murder people. Although you could argue cases where it isn't immoral (like in the case of an already-dead baby). 

From what I know though. Stalin criminalized abortion sometime after it was easy-access due to how r-selected it was making his country. So the far upper left isn't actually Stalinist... Maybe.

4 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

But the real trap is that a person need not fall on a single location based on the issue. For example, for abortion, i'm almost all the way to the right (if the baby's toast either way, but the mother would be dead on delivery, save the mother), and somewhere close to the bottom, but not the bottom: murder charges need some degree of enforcement. For economy, i'm right of center, but not all the way on the right, but definitely on the bottom: i believe that people should (willingly, hence the bottom) engage in charity, including where we can't verify it to be of the benefit of the donator. If you were to break the whole thing into quadrants, i'm in the bottom right, but you may find me in another quadrant on a given issue. Should you let your stance in abortion judge whether or not i should speak for you on, say, gay marriage (hint: i'm in the bottom left quadrant, somewhere)? What about my stance on polygamy; do you think you can even guess what mine is based on what you see me saying here? This is the polarization trap, and easily explains Voxday's attacks on Dr.Peterson.

Yep. Although indifference isn't the same as promotion or denial (so what, "centrist" on certain issues?). I'm perfectly fine with state-enforced bans on abortion (so long as we have a state) however I want as little state as possible. Ideally, so long as there's a state, only murder and theft and that which can be derived from this are truly punishable. However in spite of having said that I think there ought to be some moral policing; like no nudes or tranny propaganda where children can see them. Yet at the same time, I'd be against the state punishing sexual immorality via its own police and jail system. My disagreement being that a person cannot be moral if they do not choose to be and people have the "right" to destroy themselves (so long as they aren't destroying others). 

I'm indifferent to all matters of sexuality so long as it doesn't involve "minority benefits" or some other kind of statist strong-arming of other groups for the "minority" group. I am indifferent to marriage laws so long as it doesn't involve legal disputes (like I'm against gay marriage if gay marriages can be used to exploit some kind of legal system that was intended for a nuclear family rather than a two-working or two-unworking family. Which is to say: I ideally want the state to have nothing to do with marriage. No legal benefits or drawbacks for being married. Let that be a community/church thing). 

I was baffled by Voxday's recent attacks on Dr. Peterson but forget much of the substance. Perhaps he's actually a much slimier person than I realized and is attention-seeking. I don't know, I'll have to re-listen to him as the only thing I concretely remember is stating that Peterson got the Jew IQ average wrong due to a very poor but oft cited source and that he had done so deliberately to promote some agenda. Maybe. 

4 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I used to be against promiscuity, but I also realize that opposing it usually means government control. So i'm on the bottom, perhaps a little left of center: it's not my business what someone else does with their life if it has no impact upon mine. Now, if a prostitute was advertising herself by rubbing herself all over the outside of my kitchen window (or, if i owned the land and had a gate, right outside my front gate) then i'm not really concerned about her rights, as she's already messing with that which is mine (whether it be my property, my personal space, perhaps my children, or my wife, or whatever).

Are you not against promiscuity, just against the government handling the punishing of it? Personally I'm against it and also against the government punishing it as that would rob individuals of moral choice. Like: you can't be good if you're threatened to be good. 

4 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Well, it's easy to see where that came from, and then it becomes easy to see why we are where we are, especially with universities which was one of the major entrypoints. I'm not sure what happened to the CIA and when (i think it might've been around the time of the "red scare"), but what we do know is that when all this was going on in Europe, this Socialist/Communist vs Nationalist Socialism debate was going on, when Hitler (the nationalist socialism: the more right of the two major contenders) won, the other guys (the more left) came here (to the united states), and become university teachers. It wasn't their philosophy or ideology that inherently made this become totalitarian, but it was the fact that the ones that came here were people who were trying to take political control of a nation (germany). They lost germany, so they decided to try it here instead. So, naturally, when we saw the most evil left as communists, their direct opposition became the definition of the far right, even if it is actually still to the left of center (which is why everyone's far right, but no one can define far left). I'm not 100% sure, but i believe this is who they are.

Yeah, the Far Left lives on in spirit... for the many millennia it has existed. Whatever Far Left means...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Ehhh I get what you're trying to say but the "upper left/right corners" are extremely similar, as are the bottom left/right corners except in values. In terms of governance, the top is statist while the bottom is communal. I know that's the point but I think it'd make more sense to have a separate spectrum for each diametrically opposed values. Like you can't be moderately for or against abortion; you can't half-murder people. Although you could argue cases where it isn't immoral (like in the case of an already-dead baby). 

Which are sub-issues of the overall issue. It's important to note, as these cases are often used as arguments. The big one seems to be that it's used for when the mother's life is in danger, but actual government statistics on reasons show "convenience" to be the primary reason.

On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

From what I know though. Stalin criminalized abortion sometime after it was easy-access due to how r-selected it was making his country. So the far upper left isn't actually Stalinist... Maybe.

Just titles, just like somehow Hitler is top right according to some people.

On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yep. Although indifference isn't the same as promotion or denial (so what, "centrist" on certain issues?). I'm perfectly fine with state-enforced bans on abortion (so long as we have a state) however I want as little state as possible. Ideally, so long as there's a state, only murder and theft and that which can be derived from this are truly punishable. However in spite of having said that I think there ought to be some moral policing; like no nudes or tranny propaganda where children can see them. Yet at the same time, I'd be against the state punishing sexual immorality via its own police and jail system. My disagreement being that a person cannot be moral if they do not choose to be and people have the "right" to destroy themselves (so long as they aren't destroying others). 

That's always been the argument for things like prostitution. Prostitutes don't hurt me, nor do they take my girlfriend from me, nor do they take me from her. Yet some women will argue that it hurts their value as sexual prospects if men have access to sex via money. It was not unlike Trump's immigration suspension: some people tried to nail Trump on grounds that it restricted their access to muslims.

On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'm indifferent to all matters of sexuality so long as it doesn't involve "minority benefits" or some other kind of statist strong-arming of other groups for the "minority" group. I am indifferent to marriage laws so long as it doesn't involve legal disputes (like I'm against gay marriage if gay marriages can be used to exploit some kind of legal system that was intended for a nuclear family rather than a two-working or two-unworking family. Which is to say: I ideally want the state to have nothing to do with marriage. No legal benefits or drawbacks for being married. Let that be a community/church thing). 

I agree. i remember people proposing a separate-but-equal solution to gay marriage, but that doesn't solve the problem. The real solution is to separate church ordained marriage from legal marriage, which is precisely what the Mormons did. Gay people want equal rights, and i say they should have them, but so should Christians have a right to not be governed or held hostage by the state (which is precisely what the issue was about). Government created the problem regarding hospital visits, power of attorney, thinks like that, and we expected them not to pick the solution that would have them involved in church affairs? I think we all knew how it was going to turn out, so they did it through the supreme court so that we could not only give that power to government, but so it could be eternally legislated.

I'm very curious how it would be handled at a mosque, though. I think this would be a real test to the left, but i would never suggest a homosexual couple to try this out.. This is potentially way too dangerous, as muslims are known to fight back. On the flip side, it's likely that the case wouldn't get very far and would end up siding with demographic change to secure more power. Then again, a Christian homosexual couple could easily protect churches this way (set the legal precedent for mosques before churches end up in the crosshairs), should they believe it a worthy cause. That said, i still believe it is too dangerous to worth risking: we christians will find our own way, after we're done having the debate ourselves.

On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I was baffled by Voxday's recent attacks on Dr. Peterson but forget much of the substance. Perhaps he's actually a much slimier person than I realized and is attention-seeking. I don't know, I'll have to re-listen to him as the only thing I concretely remember is stating that Peterson got the Jew IQ average wrong due to a very poor but oft cited source and that he had done so deliberately to promote some agenda. Maybe. 

I saw 2 videos on youtube, citing Peterson. When i tried googling one of the quotes (an alleged tweet), I was only linked back to Voxday's content. So either (not really "either," since the first clause is true) Voxday did a really bad job at making sure we could see that Peterson actually said these things (screenshots, please), or Voxday fabricated the quotes. The comments section on the youtube videos are aflame with basically a debate about context and/or fabricated quotes. Best part is, Voxday isn't even giving us the benefit of the doubt, and coming after those of us who support Jordan Peterson, as well. Even if he's right about Jordan Peterson, that doesn't change the value Jordan Peterson has given us (arguments are valid or invalid completely independent of the speaker: AKA Argument from authority fallacy), nor is it right to come after us if we're not convinced of his arguments. Voxday is clearly showing some bad judgement.

On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Are you not against promiscuity, just against the government handling the punishing of it? Personally I'm against it and also against the government punishing it as that would rob individuals of moral choice. Like: you can't be good if you're threatened to be good.

Depends how you define it. If you define it as:

Quote

characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order. indiscriminate; without discrimination.

then, it's not for me, and i respect that people have the right to do it, even if it has consequences. If it leads to pregnancy, there comes obligation, but this definition does not pre-include or disclude pre-conceptive birth control. It's unhealthy for the people involved, but so is smoking (and, supposing pre-contraceptives are used appropriately [more than one, i would highly suggest], smoking is actually worse because a smoking habit invades other peoples' airspace and almost always includes the children through second hand smoke, far more often than creating a child). Since no one took the bait, there's an argument to be made about polygamy as well, and the effects of sexual contact between those married to the (presumably only) "core" if there is a bisexual element. But that demands a whole other topic, and a bit of research that has yet to be done. But, promiscuity alone, well, let's just say it's towards the bottom of my priority list. STDs and unintended bonding are side-effects, but it's the people committing that suffer from these, thus they earn their own punishment.

Also note how i'm not defining it: breech of trust (lying [and/or hiding information] to a partner about other partners), rape, adultery, knowingly spreading STDs, etc. These are similar issues with much grander consequences.

On 5/28/2018 at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah, the Far Left lives on in spirit... for the many millennia it has existed. Whatever Far Left means...

Well, i hope all that was said so far is enough to conclude that we really shouldn't apply the label to people and expect it to be reliably meaningful. I'm seeing "far right" way more than "far left," and no one on the left really seems to care about the label, while those of us on the right do. Seems we might benefit from the study of lingomancy that the frankfurt school did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

From what I know though. Stalin criminalized abortion sometime after it was easy-access due to how r-selected it was making his country. So the far upper left isn't actually Stalinist... Maybe.

Stalin simply rescinded the most damaging social policies implemened by previous Bolsheviks who were of a particular faith. That and removing them from the access to power was what caused the Jewish intellegencia (for a large part) to become Trotzkyist / Neocon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

Which are sub-issues of the overall issue. It's important to note, as these cases are often used as arguments. The big one seems to be that it's used for when the mother's life is in danger, but actual government statistics on reasons show "convenience" to be the primary reason.

A case can be made if the child is already dead and the dead baby's corpse is endangering the mother's life, that an "abortion" could be not immoral. However besides these extremely rare cases, the argument is essentially whether or not a woman can, without being immoral, kill a baby in the whom. The "pro-choice" case is that either the baby is not in fact a baby (and thus not a sentient human being) and/or the mother, who chose to become pregnant, has greater moral authority than the baby who did not choose to exist. I can't morally justify aborition in any case that doesn't involve an already-dead baby or rape/incest (and even then a case could be made that the baby didn't choose to exist, however in one of these cases there's a chance the mother didn't choose for the baby to exist either. However that alone does not justify infanticide). 

I can't say I'm surprised "convenience" is the primary stated motive. It takes a very evil soul to murder a child in the womb.

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

Just titles, just like somehow Hitler is top right according to some people.

Yeah; in reality they're not that different. Ideologically, at least in rhetoric, they may differ because one's race-based while the other is class-based, but in practice they both apply Socialism as their method of making their ideals happen. And the result... Well, the bodies speak for themselves.

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

That's always been the argument for things like prostitution. Prostitutes don't hurt me, nor do they take my girlfriend from me, nor do they take me from her. Yet some women will argue that it hurts their value as sexual prospects if men have access to sex via money. It was not unlike Trump's immigration suspension: some people tried to nail Trump on grounds that it restricted their access to muslims.

???

I don't understand what you're replying to. I said banning prostitution makes it impossible for not-prostituting to be a virtue because a gun is being employed to ensure the non-prostituting. Which stems from the over-all argument that a man cannot be moral if he is being compelled to be good through force. Like if someone at gun point demanded I donate to charities and fight for the liberation of slaves in Libya, I cannot be moral as a donor or liberator because I'm being made to do these things.

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

I agree. i remember people proposing a separate-but-equal solution to gay marriage, but that doesn't solve the problem. The real solution is to separate church ordained marriage from legal marriage, which is precisely what the Mormons did. Gay people want equal rights, and i say they should have them, but so should Christians have a right to not be governed or held hostage by the state (which is precisely what the issue was about). Government created the problem regarding hospital visits, power of attorney, thinks like that, and we expected them not to pick the solution that would have them involved in church affairs? I think we all knew how it was going to turn out, so they did it through the supreme court so that we could not only give that power to government, but so it could be eternally legislated.

I think you've got a point. I think legal marriage and moral marriage ought to be seperated because it solves two problems: #1 the homosexuals want to marry but the Clergy doesn't want to sanction it; #2 the political parties wants to appease the Leftist voting bloc but doesn't necessarily want to alienate their Christian voting bloc. It boils marriage down to a piece of paper (when done in a court at least) but it does preserve "moral marriage" and therefore not conflict with the Christians or Muslims who understandably want to maintain the sanctity of marriage (or what's left of it).

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

I'm very curious how it would be handled at a mosque, though. I think this would be a real test to the left, but i would never suggest a homosexual couple to try this out.. This is potentially way too dangerous, as muslims are known to fight back. On the flip side, it's likely that the case wouldn't get very far and would end up siding with demographic change to secure more power. Then again, a Christian homosexual couple could easily protect churches this way (set the legal precedent for mosques before churches end up in the crosshairs), should they believe it a worthy cause. That said, i still believe it is too dangerous to worth risking: we christians will find our own way, after we're done having the debate ourselves.

I think any homosexual activist worth a damn ought to protest at the mosques as the nice boy Christians are clearly willing to tolerate homosexual marriage rather than violently reject it. I'm not saying people ought to deliberately harass the Muslims, but I am saying if someone thinks harassment is the way to advocate for homosexual marriage then surely the biggest enemy of homosexuality is Islam since they literally kill gays ("to save them"). 

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

I saw 2 videos on youtube, citing Peterson. When i tried googling one of the quotes (an alleged tweet), I was only linked back to Voxday's content. So either (not really "either," since the first clause is true) Voxday did a really bad job at making sure we could see that Peterson actually said these things (screenshots, please), or Voxday fabricated the quotes. The comments section on the youtube videos are aflame with basically a debate about context and/or fabricated quotes. Best part is, Voxday isn't even giving us the benefit of the doubt, and coming after those of us who support Jordan Peterson, as well. Even if he's right about Jordan Peterson, that doesn't change the value Jordan Peterson has given us (arguments are valid or invalid completely independent of the speaker: AKA Argument from authority fallacy), nor is it right to come after us if we're not convinced of his arguments. Voxday is clearly showing some bad judgement.

Same for Christina Hoff Summers and Nick Fuentes. During a speech made at American Renaissance, Nick Fuentes said Summers tweeted (something like--don't remember the exact wording) "young people should just let loose" (with sexual implications--again, I don't remember the exact wording as the only part I remember is "let loose") but I couldn't find the tweet scrolling down. Either Summers deleted the tweet because it alienated her young conservative fans or she never made the tweet and either Fuentes is being a sophist or he misidentified the source of the tweet. 

I'd like to assume the guy younger yet more successful than me is being genuine, however he might be a politically motivated liar. I'm inclined to check again as I personally don't like the idea of someone so young with such great potential wasting it on sophistry.

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

Depends how you define it. If you define it as:

then, it's not for me, and i respect that people have the right to do it, even if it has consequences. If it leads to pregnancy, there comes obligation, but this definition does not pre-include or disclude pre-conceptive birth control. It's unhealthy for the people involved, but so is smoking (and, supposing pre-contraceptives are used appropriately [more than one, i would highly suggest], smoking is actually worse because a smoking habit invades other peoples' airspace and almost always includes the children through second hand smoke, far more often than creating a child). Since no one took the bait, there's an argument to be made about polygamy as well, and the effects of sexual contact between those married to the (presumably only) "core" if there is a bisexual element. But that demands a whole other topic, and a bit of research that has yet to be done. But, promiscuity alone, well, let's just say it's towards the bottom of my priority list. STDs and unintended bonding are side-effects, but it's the people committing that suffer from these, thus they earn their own punishment.

I do not respect promiscuity; I tolerate promiscuity as I cannot compel the goodness of others, but I definitely do not respect anyone choosing to be a slut (male or female--I do not believe in double-standards). 

Polygamy (didn't I broach this?) is a bit different because one man could theoretically love more than one woman and marry more than one woman while being moral. However the big issue is that... Well, either the women are worth only a fraction of the man or they think they're worth a fraction of the man. Therefore the man has to either be a really great man like Donald Trump or Alexander or the man is just some guy and the women are either trash or highly insecure. It might be healthy if the man is a big man but otherwise it's clearly dysfunctional. However that's just how I perceive polygamy; perhaps it really is a "marriage of equals", therefore it's basically just like traditional Christian marriage but with more women.

I didn't mention one-woman-multiple-men polygamy as I don't think that can ever work. Women, I think, are naturally attracted to alpha males. A man who chooses to share his wife is pretty much by definition not an alpha male, therefore a woman can only ever have polygamy with beta males. Therefore, similar to the problems I perceived with male-led polygamy, the men have to either be really low quality compared to the woman OR they have to be highly insecure. The first could be "okay" if the woman is basically Margaret Thatcher or Lauren Southern because they'd easily be worth several common men, but I doubt it could ever really work because, unlike men, women do not like marrying down (significantly at least) and can't respect someone who'd be so very inferior to them. Therefore a woman can only ever be happy with (in general at least) a man who is roughly equal to her if not superior. Since there are few women like Donald Trump (Margaret Thatcher might be his only contemporary equal a a woman) he has to marry down or find a truly special woman who has more to offer than Maid + Cook + Toilet (which is usually enough for a man who is Worker + Defender + Depositor). Now here's an area where I'm still trying to figure out: what kind of woman is enough for a really great man? 

I'd argue men of Donald Trump's quality cannot be satisfied by the traditional Maid + Cook + Toilet as they can easily pay for someone else to do these things (if not get them for free for being so alpha). I'd argue these three things are "Standard" so "Advanced" would be Mother, Advisor, Entertainer, Friend, and probably some more. I know this is quite a tangent from polygamy but I think it's important because a man that is high quality in the Basic 3 (Worker/Provider + Warrior + Depositor) but isn't much of a Father, Leader, Entertainer, or Friend could probably be justified in scooping up "Standard Woman" to compensate for being a "Super Standard Man". 

...However, I have barely touched how it would effect the children (which is most important). I'd argue if the polygamy is "healthy" (assuming it can ever be), then it could be fine. Like if Donald Trump was married to several "Standard Women" then he'd basically have a very standard family structure but with a weak future (as "Standard" does not imply being a good mother/father rather just being a human utility--it's just the basics, the very least one ought to expect in a marriage partner). Since Donald Trump (is probably) an "Advanced Man", it makes a lot more sense for him to be monogamous and thus marry an "Advanced Woman" who is more than just the basics; she's also a great mother (potential), great source of wisdom/advice, great company, and/or etc.  The tough part, I argue, is determining what equates to what across the sexes. Like to keep using Donald Trump: what kind of woman is the feminine-equivalent to him? I said "Margaret Thatcher" but that's only because she excelled in much the same things he did (as a country leader) and therefore is easily comparable to one another. However men usually do not marry women (and vice versa) that excel in their own gender role. Men typically don't marry women who are great at doing manly things and women typically don't marry men great at womanly things. 

So, to conclude my hypothesis, I think male-led polygamy could work due to how men are generally willing to marry down but female-led cannot because women generally don't respect inferior men, and in order for polygamy to work the "subordinate spouses" have to be inferior to the "head spouse" like how a Sergeant has to be superior to his Footmen in order for their relationship to be harmonious. And from what I am inclined to believe at this moment: I think monogamy is far better than polygamy simply because it is usually a marriage of equals rather than un-equals.

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

Also note how i'm not defining it: breech of trust (lying [and/or hiding information] to a partner about other partners), rape, adultery, knowingly spreading STDs, etc. These are similar issues with much grander consequences.

Well, that's not the definition of promiscuity. Like, using myself, I could be an honest slut ("Hey babes; I'm totally just gonna surf around the waves and not really stick around. Wanna shag?") and thus not be a liar or manipulator. I don't think rape and promiscuity can be equivalent as promiscuity necessitates consent. Serial rapists aren't called "sluts" or "promiscuous". They're called "serial rapists"! As for knowingly spreading STDs: sluts could be honest about that too. Or it could just be implicit that if a guy or girl is openly a slut or is easy-access then chances are decent that they have herpes or something. 

On 5/29/2018 at 3:47 AM, Kohlrak said:

Well, i hope all that was said so far is enough to conclude that we really shouldn't apply the label to people and expect it to be reliably meaningful. I'm seeing "far right" way more than "far left," and no one on the left really seems to care about the label, while those of us on the right do. Seems we might benefit from the study of lingomancy that the frankfurt school did.

Yeah, I think you're right about the weakness of the left/right spectrum. I prefer better defined labels like "Nationalist" or "Socialist" because while there are still plenty of variation among them, they are far more "in the ballpark" than Left/Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

A case can be made if the child is already dead and the dead baby's corpse is endangering the mother's life, that an "abortion" could be not immoral. However besides these extremely rare cases, the argument is essentially whether or not a woman can, without being immoral, kill a baby in the whom. The "pro-choice" case is that either the baby is not in fact a baby (and thus not a sentient human being) and/or the mother, who chose to become pregnant, has greater moral authority than the baby who did not choose to exist. I can't morally justify aborition in any case that doesn't involve an already-dead baby or rape/incest (and even then a case could be made that the baby didn't choose to exist, however in one of these cases there's a chance the mother didn't choose for the baby to exist either. However that alone does not justify infanticide). 

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't understand what you're replying to. I said banning prostitution makes it impossible for not-prostituting to be a virtue because a gun is being employed to ensure the non-prostituting. Which stems from the over-all argument that a man cannot be moral if he is being compelled to be good through force. Like if someone at gun point demanded I donate to charities and fight for the liberation of slaves in Libya, I cannot be moral as a donor or liberator because I'm being made to do these things.

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?

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think you've got a point. I think legal marriage and moral marriage ought to be seperated because it solves two problems: #1 the homosexuals want to marry but the Clergy doesn't want to sanction it; #2 the political parties wants to appease the Leftist voting bloc but doesn't necessarily want to alienate their Christian voting bloc. It boils marriage down to a piece of paper (when done in a court at least) but it does preserve "moral marriage" and therefore not conflict with the Christians or Muslims who understandably want to maintain the sanctity of marriage (or what's left of it).

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think any homosexual activist worth a damn ought to protest at the mosques as the nice boy Christians are clearly willing to tolerate homosexual marriage rather than violently reject it. I'm not saying people ought to deliberately harass the Muslims, but I am saying if someone thinks harassment is the way to advocate for homosexual marriage then surely the biggest enemy of homosexuality is Islam since they literally kill gays ("to save them"). 

Well, everyone has their own argument for what is "tolerant," which is why the debates are always shifting.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Same for Christina Hoff Summers and Nick Fuentes. During a speech made at American Renaissance, Nick Fuentes said Summers tweeted (something like--don't remember the exact wording) "young people should just let loose" (with sexual implications--again, I don't remember the exact wording as the only part I remember is "let loose") but I couldn't find the tweet scrolling down. Either Summers deleted the tweet because it alienated her young conservative fans or she never made the tweet and either Fuentes is being a sophist or he misidentified the source of the tweet. 

I'd like to assume the guy younger yet more successful than me is being genuine, however he might be a politically motivated liar. I'm inclined to check again as I personally don't like the idea of someone so young with such great potential wasting it on sophistry.

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I do not respect promiscuity; I tolerate promiscuity as I cannot compel the goodness of others, but I definitely do not respect anyone choosing to be a slut (male or female--I do not believe in double-standards). 

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?

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Polygamy (didn't I broach this?) is a bit different because one man could theoretically love more than one woman and marry more than one woman while being moral. However the big issue is that... Well, either the women are worth only a fraction of the man or they think they're worth a fraction of the man. Therefore the man has to either be a really great man like Donald Trump or Alexander or the man is just some guy and the women are either trash or highly insecure. It might be healthy if the man is a big man but otherwise it's clearly dysfunctional. However that's just how I perceive polygamy; perhaps it really is a "marriage of equals", therefore it's basically just like traditional Christian marriage but with more women. 

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I didn't mention one-woman-multiple-men polygamy as I don't think that can ever work. Women, I think, are naturally attracted to alpha males. A man who chooses to share his wife is pretty much by definition not an alpha male, therefore a woman can only ever have polygamy with beta males. Therefore, similar to the problems I perceived with male-led polygamy, the men have to either be really low quality compared to the woman OR they have to be highly insecure. The first could be "okay" if the woman is basically Margaret Thatcher or Lauren Southern because they'd easily be worth several common men, but I doubt it could ever really work because, unlike men, women do not like marrying down (significantly at least) and can't respect someone who'd be so very inferior to them. Therefore a woman can only ever be happy with (in general at least) a man who is roughly equal to her if not superior. Since there are few women like Donald Trump (Margaret Thatcher might be his only contemporary equal a a woman) he has to marry down or find a truly special woman who has more to offer than Maid + Cook + Toilet (which is usually enough for a man who is Worker + Defender + Depositor).

 

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Now here's an area where I'm still trying to figure out: what kind of woman is enough for a really great man? 

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd argue men of Donald Trump's quality cannot be satisfied by the traditional Maid + Cook + Toilet as they can easily pay for someone else to do these things (if not get them for free for being so alpha). I'd argue these three things are "Standard" so "Advanced" would be Mother, Advisor, Entertainer, Friend, and probably some more. I know this is quite a tangent from polygamy but I think it's important because a man that is high quality in the Basic 3 (Worker/Provider + Warrior + Depositor) but isn't much of a Father, Leader, Entertainer, or Friend could probably be justified in scooping up "Standard Woman" to compensate for being a "Super Standard Man". 

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

...However, I have barely touched how it would effect the children (which is most important). I'd argue if the polygamy is "healthy" (assuming it can ever be), then it could be fine. Like if Donald Trump was married to several "Standard Women" then he'd basically have a very standard family structure but with a weak future (as "Standard" does not imply being a good mother/father rather just being a human utility--it's just the basics, the very least one ought to expect in a marriage partner). Since Donald Trump (is probably) an "Advanced Man", it makes a lot more sense for him to be monogamous and thus marry an "Advanced Woman" who is more than just the basics; she's also a great mother (potential), great source of wisdom/advice, great company, and/or etc.  The tough part, I argue, is determining what equates to what across the sexes. Like to keep using Donald Trump: what kind of woman is the feminine-equivalent to him? I said "Margaret Thatcher" but that's only because she excelled in much the same things he did (as a country leader) and therefore is easily comparable to one another. However men usually do not marry women (and vice versa) that excel in their own gender role. Men typically don't marry women who are great at doing manly things and women typically don't marry men great at womanly things. 

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

So, to conclude my hypothesis, I think male-led polygamy could work due to how men are generally willing to marry down but female-led cannot because women generally don't respect inferior men, and in order for polygamy to work the "subordinate spouses" have to be inferior to the "head spouse" like how a Sergeant has to be superior to his Footmen in order for their relationship to be harmonious. And from what I am inclined to believe at this moment: I think monogamy is far better than polygamy simply because it is usually a marriage of equals rather than un-equals.

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?

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well, that's not the definition of promiscuity. Like, using myself, I could be an honest slut ("Hey babes; I'm totally just gonna surf around the waves and not really stick around. Wanna shag?") and thus not be a liar or manipulator. I don't think rape and promiscuity can be equivalent as promiscuity necessitates consent. Serial rapists aren't called "sluts" or "promiscuous". They're called "serial rapists"! As for knowingly spreading STDs: sluts could be honest about that too. Or it could just be implicit that if a guy or girl is openly a slut or is easy-access then chances are decent that they have herpes or something. 

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:

Quote

Herpes infections have declined in the United States in recent years, according to a new report. However, about half of teens and adults under age 50 are still infected with the oral herpes virus, and about 1 in 8 have an infection with the genital herpes virus.

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.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah, I think you're right about the weakness of the left/right spectrum. I prefer better defined labels like "Nationalist" or "Socialist" because while there are still plenty of variation among them, they are far more "in the ballpark" than Left/Right. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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, I meant if were a homosexual or homosexual advocate. I know they're atheist af and thus I don't really care about them (at all) as a group, but individually for those with qualms about treading on religion, I'd do it differently.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

Well, everyone has their own argument for what is "tolerant," which is why the debates are always shifting.

Well, I mean tolerant literally. Like if I tolerate something, I won't attempt to destroy it or convert it. Basically tolerance=ignoring something I don't like or care for.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Maybe, Nick Fuentes is just a year younger than me yet so very successful as a public intellectual. Maybe I would be wiser, maybe I would be as quick to condemn others without a firm foundation. I have yet to have that trial.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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?

Well... language issues. "Respect", to me, is earned because "respect"=like/admiration. I don't like to use "rights" because unless it means "allowance" (like being allowed) it's just emotional politi-talk. 

I don't respect them; I tolerate them. Because a person cannot be moral if compelled. I am inclined to take Dinesh D'Souza's stance that we ought to ally with Islam ideologically against Western hedonism but not get so comfortable as to be willing to strip people of agency and choice. After all; promiscuity isn't murder or theft. It's a victimless kind of evil (in the sense that no one is being forced). 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

As in polygamists are committed? I'd assume by definition. 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

"Working"=as harmonious as your average 19th century marriage. So occasional yelling and walk-outs but not hitting or breaking things. Assuming marriages were even that decent back then.

I'd assume paternity wouldn't be an issue because... if they're in it as a female-led marriage, then all children are shared custody and thus all men are fathers of their children.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I think this applies if there's an on-going mental power struggle. Personally, I refuse to marry a woman I must combat with regularly in order "to keep". One huge thing I'm looking for from a wife is emotional support and tranquility (sorta one thing), therefore if I have to pretend to be a dominant alpha and be paranoid of every conversation then I'd rather join the Democrats and actually get something out of that horrible Game of Thrones-style agony. 

But taking myself out of it; I'd assume a polygamist marriage would be, if working, like a monogamous one in that the wives would probably form a cohort and negotiate against the husband in advance for what is acceptable for both sides to provide. And perhaps amend over time (especially if the wives and husband don't marry all at ones).

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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).

This only applies when the marriage is not based on love and mutual respect... after all, pulling out guns as a demonstration of who has greater leverage is always (unless under a gynocentric welfare state) favorable for the man because he can refuse resources for the women and claim custody of his children. However in modern America polygamy would most likely require a HUGE amount of trust between all (let's assume a Big Love style dynamic of 3 women, 1 man) 4 of them to refrain from pulling their big guns and only negotiate with what's left after disarming resources and the legal system. Which would be favorable for women because men's resources are everything in terms of tangible benefits. Assuming morality (and thus they won't hold their children hostage) and the man is wealthy enough to ourtsource, the power balances out because what can a woman not give a man that he can't get elsewhere? And for women largely the same from men. So modern marriage MUST stem from love and respect as both sides can outsource each other.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

You're assuming the man's doing his wives all at once every night. I'd assume they'd either have a schedule of alternating between each other (like the show Big Love which attempts to portray Mormon polygamy. Basically the husband cycles through the wives one per day) or, especially early on, just act based on desires in the moment (so wife 1 in the morning, wife 2 in the afternoon, and wife 3 before bed). However "need" doesn't belong here because men don't need women to ejaculate. The purpose of sex is, in part, enjoyment but also for pair-bonding and making babies. A man (or woman) cannot make babies by themselves and can't really bond with their mental sex phantoms...

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Let's see... well, Genghis Khan's top wives were all smart and advised him closely both on political and family matters. So if I were a "patriarch" of the warlording sense, I'd value multiple wives because they could advise me and perhaps serve different emotional purposes depending on the situation. After all, some women are better at giving comfort while others are better at cracking the whip. In modern times, this could be translated to a businessman or politician. I mean, surely all that's stressful and it'd help a lot to have a trustworthy companion to help either emotionally or practically. Of course you don't need to bang them... although for the former, it'd almost certainly have to be a woman. 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Agreed. Without morality and commitment, what's to stop the Sultanate of the Woman from returning (see that as an example of where as you described really happened in Osmania) or for the new stud to boot you and take your women (who willingly join)? But I think we have to set as our standard a true love and respect for each other, otherwise it generally boils down to mere advantage seeking. And women did have their numbers to check the men of older times, who had the swords and money. I mean, anyone who believes that in Europe men were unchallenged or unchallengeable by women are simply ignorant of real history. If anything it was as equal then as now because on one hand men didn't want to displease the women they might not see a lot of if they had to wage war, and on the other the women didn't want to drive away their men into another woman's arms or lose their source of income. And of course it's not like there was no love or respect. Factor these things and you know part of why guys like Kaiser Barbarossa were so successful (hint: his wife was considered so great, she became the reference that men of later generations thought of when they thought "ideal woman").

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Well, "feeling the need"=/= "need" and I think a good argument is all that it takes to resolve a more common situation of an unsatisfied spouse. However there are true imbalances at times; and a really high-functioning man, without love, probably wouldn't value a Standard Woman because... she's highly disposable. Now if she were Advanced Woman--that's to say she's a person to love--then it's much easier for him to appreciate her. Because she's lovable. Likewise the woman with the man. 

I suspect un-satisfaction might come from not actually loving the other person. Seeing him as a mere resource provider. Seeing her as a mere toilet or nag. With love, that is to say respect and admiration for each other (I think), I think these things can be smoothed out. Of course to love someone, that someone has to be virtuous in some way.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

True. The problem is if they're poor enough to have to work so much, then there will surely be too few women as only some men will marry. Thus civil war or wars of conquest become inevitable in order to seek a wife. Polygamy can only really be practiced by rich people (or rich men) and, if taken as a serious marriage/child-custody arrangement, ought to only be legal for the top 1%.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Well... Any woman who is a housewife can be Standard. It's not that hard to budget time for cleaning, cooking, and "doing it". Advanced is more a matter of character than action to some degree. Like a wise woman and I could talk for an hour before I go to work and thus really help me, and not have to fear not having time to do the Standard Woman stuff and raise the children. However if she and I were talking half the day and working very closely with me, I'd need to hire a maid and cook. And maybe even a nanny.

I'd say an Advanced Woman doesn't really need to be able to cook or clean if she's with a rich man as she's giving him something money can't buy; a great personality, character, and perhaps wisdom or more. 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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?

I think you're assuming they'd all have sex at once. I'd assume they'd take turns (and I don't know if lesbianism among the wives can be called cheating as they are married to each other as well as the head man after all) and if gender-bent... Well, same deal. They're all married to each other. However the idea of how the system works could cause problems. Like if the man went in expecting the wives to only do him and not each other; or the women went in seeing each other as rivals rather than partners. 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Well, I don't know if that's rape. Like consent=say yes or plausible yes. Like if I'm naked and inside a woman and suddenly she's not sure but she keeps going... obviously it's gray, but if it's gray it's not rape. Rape has to be a simple forced sex, not a "come on, I'm hard so just take it already", "All right Chad..." sort of thing. And if they're both being promiscuous it muddies the waters further as it could be said they're "married to each other" sexually. 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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:

Well herpes isn't just an STD. As far as I know you can get it without sex and thus it isn't indicative of promiscuity. More telling stats is the amount of identified senior-aged high school virgins. It's still around 75% for both genders in America though obviously widely disparate between races.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

My mother had mouth herpes as a girl and only lost completely them after giving birth to me at 27. So I know herpes isn't always an STD... But having warts around the genitals is very different and can only (I assume) be sexually gotten. Although it's more unfortunate than a bad sign to get an STD from a virgin. And that situation warrants sympathy (assuming they weren't "incels" and were proper virgins losing it in marriage).

On 6/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Well, I think we both know the Left is just a hostile tribe (at least the "hard left"). I am not sure as to where I fit in (totally, that is) but "Nationalist, Christian, Conservative" apply fairly well although naturally within these groups I know I have my disagreements but would definitely take the side of the Conservatives over the Left if I had to have the full-package (like in cases of elections) and couldn't just pick and choose what I liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 9:07 PM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I can’t imagine any woman thriving in a polygamist marriage. I can totally see how it would have occurred in our evolutionary history: getting a slice of one good man and sharing him is way preferable to watching her children and herself die, but if desperation is removed and a woman’s not afraid of her or her children dying, polygamy is a recipe for a woman to just bury her heart and live a life of ignoring all emotions and needs. Think about it. If a man has two or three wives, he will have to tend to each of their needs and care for them, and instead of investing heavily in one woman and creating more value, he divides his energy and resources between three people. No one woman is receiving his full heart of trust, and if he says he loves them all, then they all know they doesn’t actually love them because one woman is the same as another. The children compete in different ways when they have different mothers. From everything I’ve ever read, children from polygamist marriages do worse than children from monogamous marriages. Plus, it’s almost a wild fantasy to imagine that one wife would smilingly watch her husband give his time, energy, and resources to another woman’s children. Either she doesn’t believe her children are worth all his energies, or she is desperate and believes she has no other options. 

 

I would say that, historically, polygamy was better for women in as much that is was better to have living children rather than starving children, but polygamy can not be a place where any woman of any authenticity of emotion of love can flourish. No woman could ever open her heart up in that sort of situation. Polygamy works if people are willing to reduce themselves to just being a material means to an end.  

 

Side note: in a way, Donald Trump (and other men who have married, had children, divorced, pay alimony, remarried and had more children) is a polygamist. He has had three wives, and (I’m assuming) is still supporting them financially. He moved on to other women, but still is bound to provide for his first wife and her family. 

 

On 6/1/2018 at 2:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Like to keep using Donald Trump: what kind of woman is the feminine-equivalent to him? I said "Margaret Thatcher" but that's only because she excelled in much the same things he did (as a country leader) and therefore is easily comparable to one another. However men usually do not marry women (and vice versa) that excel in their own gender role. Men typically don't marry women who are great at doing manly things and women typically don't marry men great at womanly things. 

Well, Donald Trump is married to a woman who he seems to highly esteem and love. I would think that she is his proper match. A masculine guy like him has no need for another copy of himself. He needs a complimentary personality of equal caliber. I would think that he and Margaret Thatcher would not do well in a domestic partnership, but he and Melanie seem to have a very good harmony and empathy for each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well... language issues. "Respect", to me, is earned because "respect"=like/admiration. I don't like to use "rights" because unless it means "allowance" (like being allowed) it's just emotional politi-talk. 

"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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't respect them; I tolerate them. Because a person cannot be moral if compelled. I am inclined to take Dinesh D'Souza's stance that we ought to ally with Islam ideologically against Western hedonism but not get so comfortable as to be willing to strip people of agency and choice. After all; promiscuity isn't murder or theft. It's a victimless kind of evil (in the sense that no one is being forced). 

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

"Working"=as harmonious as your average 19th century marriage. So occasional yelling and walk-outs but not hitting or breaking things. Assuming marriages were even that decent back then. 

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd assume paternity wouldn't be an issue because... if they're in it as a female-led marriage, then all children are shared custody and thus all men are fathers of their children.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think this applies if there's an on-going mental power struggle. Personally, I refuse to marry a woman I must combat with regularly in order "to keep". One huge thing I'm looking for from a wife is emotional support and tranquility (sorta one thing), therefore if I have to pretend to be a dominant alpha and be paranoid of every conversation then I'd rather join the Democrats and actually get something out of that horrible Game of Thrones-style agony. 

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:

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

But taking myself out of it; I'd assume a polygamist marriage would be, if working, like a monogamous one in that the wives would probably form a cohort and negotiate against the husband in advance for what is acceptable for both sides to provide. And perhaps amend over time (especially if the wives and husband don't marry all at ones).

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

This only applies when the marriage is not based on love and mutual respect... after all, pulling out guns as a demonstration of who has greater leverage is always (unless under a gynocentric welfare state) favorable for the man because he can refuse resources for the women and claim custody of his children. However in modern America polygamy would most likely require a HUGE amount of trust between all (let's assume a Big Love style dynamic of 3 women, 1 man) 4 of them to refrain from pulling their big guns and only negotiate with what's left after disarming resources and the legal system. Which would be favorable for women because men's resources are everything in terms of tangible benefits. Assuming morality (and thus they won't hold their children hostage) and the man is wealthy enough to ourtsource, the power balances out because what can a woman not give a man that he can't get elsewhere? And for women largely the same from men. So modern marriage MUST stem from love and respect as both sides can outsource each other.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

You're assuming the man's doing his wives all at once every night. I'd assume they'd either have a schedule of alternating between each other (like the show Big Love which attempts to portray Mormon polygamy. Basically the husband cycles through the wives one per day) or, especially early on, just act based on desires in the moment (so wife 1 in the morning, wife 2 in the afternoon, and wife 3 before bed). However "need" doesn't belong here because men don't need women to ejaculate. The purpose of sex is, in part, enjoyment but also for pair-bonding and making babies. A man (or woman) cannot make babies by themselves and can't really bond with their mental sex phantoms...

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Let's see... well, Genghis Khan's top wives were all smart and advised him closely both on political and family matters. So if I were a "patriarch" of the warlording sense, I'd value multiple wives because they could advise me and perhaps serve different emotional purposes depending on the situation. After all, some women are better at giving comfort while others are better at cracking the whip. In modern times, this could be translated to a businessman or politician. I mean, surely all that's stressful and it'd help a lot to have a trustworthy companion to help either emotionally or practically. Of course you don't need to bang them... although for the former, it'd almost certainly have to be a woman

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well, "feeling the need"=/= "need" and I think a good argument is all that it takes to resolve a more common situation of an unsatisfied spouse. However there are true imbalances at times; and a really high-functioning man, without love, probably wouldn't value a Standard Woman because... she's highly disposable. Now if she were Advanced Woman--that's to say she's a person to love--then it's much easier for him to appreciate her. Because she's lovable. Likewise the woman with the man. 

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I suspect un-satisfaction might come from not actually loving the other person. Seeing him as a mere resource provider. Seeing her as a mere toilet or nag. With love, that is to say respect and admiration for each other (I think), I think these things can be smoothed out. Of course to love someone, that someone has to be virtuous in some way.

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?

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

True. The problem is if they're poor enough to have to work so much, then there will surely be too few women as only some men will marry. Thus civil war or wars of conquest become inevitable in order to seek a wife. Polygamy can only really be practiced by rich people (or rich men) and, if taken as a serious marriage/child-custody arrangement, ought to only be legal for the top 1%.

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."

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well... Any woman who is a housewife can be Standard. It's not that hard to budget time for cleaning, cooking, and "doing it". Advanced is more a matter of character than action to some degree. Like a wise woman and I could talk for an hour before I go to work and thus really help me, and not have to fear not having time to do the Standard Woman stuff and raise the children. However if she and I were talking half the day and working very closely with me, I'd need to hire a maid and cook. And maybe even a nanny.

I'd say an Advanced Woman doesn't really need to be able to cook or clean if she's with a rich man as she's giving him something money can't buy; a great personality, character, and perhaps wisdom or more. 

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).

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think you're assuming they'd all have sex at once. I'd assume they'd take turns (and I don't know if lesbianism among the wives can be called cheating as they are married to each other as well as the head man after all) and if gender-bent... Well, same deal. They're all married to each other. However the idea of how the system works could cause problems. Like if the man went in expecting the wives to only do him and not each other; or the women went in seeing each other as rivals rather than partners.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well, I don't know if that's rape. Like consent=say yes or plausible yes. Like if I'm naked and inside a woman and suddenly she's not sure but she keeps going... obviously it's gray, but if it's gray it's not rape. Rape has to be a simple forced sex, not a "come on, I'm hard so just take it already", "All right Chad..." sort of thing. And if they're both being promiscuous it muddies the waters further as it could be said they're "married to each other" sexually. 

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.)

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well herpes isn't just an STD. As far as I know you can get it without sex and thus it isn't indicative of promiscuity. More telling stats is the amount of identified senior-aged high school virgins. It's still around 75% for both genders in America though obviously widely disparate between races.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

My mother had mouth herpes as a girl and only lost completely them after giving birth to me at 27. So I know herpes isn't always an STD... But having warts around the genitals is very different and can only (I assume) be sexually gotten. Although it's more unfortunate than a bad sign to get an STD from a virgin. And that situation warrants sympathy (assuming they weren't "incels" and were proper virgins losing it in marriage).

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:
 

Quote

However, using a barrier (such as a dental dam) or condom when performing oral sex (even though there are no symptoms present around the mouth) can reduce the risk of contracting genital herpes. By performing oral sex on someone who has genital herpes, it would be possible to contract oral herpes – but this is rare.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 9:22 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well, I think we both know the Left is just a hostile tribe (at least the "hard left"). I am not sure as to where I fit in (totally, that is) but "Nationalist, Christian, Conservative" apply fairly well although naturally within these groups I know I have my disagreements but would definitely take the side of the Conservatives over the Left if I had to have the full-package (like in cases of elections) and couldn't just pick and choose what I liked.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 10:35 PM, Elizbaeth said:

I can’t imagine any woman thriving in a polygamist marriage. I can totally see how it would have occurred in our evolutionary history: getting a slice of one good man and sharing him is way preferable to watching her children and herself die, but if desperation is removed and a woman’s not afraid of her or her children dying, polygamy is a recipe for a woman to just bury her heart and live a life of ignoring all emotions and needs. Think about it. If a man has two or three wives, he will have to tend to each of their needs and care for them, and instead of investing heavily in one woman and creating more value, he divides his energy and resources between three people. No one woman is receiving his full heart of trust, and if he says he loves them all, then they all know they doesn’t actually love them because one woman is the same as another.

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 10:35 PM, Elizbaeth said:

The children compete in different ways when they have different mothers. From everything I’ve ever read, children from polygamist marriages do worse than children from monogamous marriages. Plus, it’s almost a wild fantasy to imagine that one wife would smilingly watch her husband give his time, energy, and resources to another woman’s children. Either she doesn’t believe her children are worth all his energies, or she is desperate and believes she has no other options. 

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?

On 6/4/2018 at 10:35 PM, Elizbaeth said:

I would say that, historically, polygamy was better for women in as much that is was better to have living children rather than starving children, but polygamy can not be a place where any woman of any authenticity of emotion of love can flourish. No woman could ever open her heart up in that sort of situation. Polygamy works if people are willing to reduce themselves to just being a material means to an end.  

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).

On 6/4/2018 at 10:35 PM, Elizbaeth said:

Side note: in a way, Donald Trump (and other men who have married, had children, divorced, pay alimony, remarried and had more children) is a polygamist. He has had three wives, and (I’m assuming) is still supporting them financially. He moved on to other women, but still is bound to provide for his first wife and her family. 

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.

On 6/4/2018 at 10:35 PM, Elizbaeth said:

Well, Donald Trump is married to a woman who he seems to highly esteem and love. I would think that she is his proper match. A masculine guy like him has no need for another copy of himself. He needs a complimentary personality of equal caliber. I would think that he and Margaret Thatcher would not do well in a domestic partnership, but he and Melanie seem to have a very good harmony and empathy for each other.

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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."
  3. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 12:05 AM, Elizbaeth said:

I can’t imagine any woman thriving in a polygamist marriage. I can totally see how it would have occurred in our evolutionary history: getting a slice of one good man and sharing him is way preferable to watching her children and herself die, but if desperation is removed and a woman’s not afraid of her or her children dying, polygamy is a recipe for a woman to just bury her heart and live a life of ignoring all emotions and needs. Think about it. If a man has two or three wives, he will have to tend to each of their needs and care for them, and instead of investing heavily in one woman and creating more value, he divides his energy and resources between three people. No one woman is receiving his full heart of trust, and if he says he loves them all, then they all know they doesn’t actually love them because one woman is the same as another. The children compete in different ways when they have different mothers. From everything I’ve ever read, children from polygamist marriages do worse than children from monogamous marriages.

Agreed. I don't see the value for her in a polygamy marriage any more than I do for men in the current situation of monogamous marriage esp in western society. The fact is pretty alarming. Seeking self knowledge has led me here. I am still very interested in the process but, none of my research, experience or knowledge suggests that it is the best route to take as a man. I agree with Peterson that it is ideal for the children. I've said many times, you're an amazing exception to the norm now a days. I just saw a YouTuber that depicted the joke that is the Royal Wedding. I saw another one about Colin Firths wife cucking him. Gives her a wedding, children, a luxurious lifestyle and BRB, cucking my hubby. 

 

I don't want to live to Iive on this planet anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

"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.

Was "fear" another word for "respect" back then? If so that changes a lot about how we ought to perceive the olden times. However I differentiate them. I fear the tiger, respect the tigerslayer, and tolerate the hippy mourning the tiger. 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Good point. Honestly I think Islam is the Lion as if the Soviet Union has taught us anything, Leftism is unsustainable and will collapse on its own. Islam does not collapse. It dominates and remains for seemingly ever. Therefore I'd rather the Far Left win because eventually they'll crumble and the Right can re-assert itself. Meanwhile Islam will just crush us and maintain itself for a near-eternity. I think the "why" is because Islam is far more ethical and serious than the Far Left which is far more cynical and pragmatic (and thus is harder to retain as it lacks true belief). That's my hypothesis, at least.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Maybe, I'm not sure.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

But aren't they all beta males? Would they even be manly enough to care? Perhaps even a beta cares enough to win but I imagine they'd all be competitively beta while secretly trying to "win". Whatever that means (in reality)...

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I'd assume that's the standard since most polygamists (that aren't Muslim at least) are taking in low quality women (thus quantity over quality). If they're all high quality... I don't know. More that below given you elaborate further and stuff.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I don't think this would work unless it's multiple men/women (like not one man, several women or the reverse) and even then it's so r-selected it's doomed to fail eventually. It might be plausible for the low IQ, but the high IQ can always find good work--especially in the age of Internet.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I suspect it has more to do with the lapse of Christendom and the rise in tolerance/acceptance culture. Personally that was how I was first "warmed into" the idea of polygamy. I'm not morally against it but I am practically against it in large scale. I am also very repulsed by it if there's multiple men involved. I have no intention of being a polygamist but I am not against the fantastical and unreal idea of marrying multiple goddesses. Of course, it's so unlikely that I am not planning for it. I might get one great woman, but I am definitely not worth several great women. And I doubt I will ever be unless I am the Kaiser of the Holy American Empire or something.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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).

*mite, not "might" ( :-P ). And maybe; it's not all that stable in the show but it could be dramatized to be less stable for drama's sake. I don't know. I have neither experience nor anecdotes. I just know a few historical Asian heroes who were polygamists and how they worked it (which is hardly consistent between them).

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Basically they all have to love each other? Agreed. And "sexual bonding" might help but... I feel very dirty indulging the idea of it. It may be more of a male fantasy than reality. 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Makes me wonder. A lot of powerful men have/had a "side woman" who was in many ways his "real wife" that he loved and cared for. Sometimes he loved both his wife and his mistress. It's complicated, to say the least. I'm against cheating (of course) but if the wife condones the idea of it... is it cheating? But I'm presuming there was consent for the adultery. If there's consent, it's not cheating. But if there isn't, it is. 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I don't know. "Advanced" means they're more than Maid + Cook + Toilet, which means they're either loving, wise, kind, skilled, entertaining, talented, and/or etc. I assume such a woman would marry an Advanced man, thus easily able to be a stay-at-home mother. And I'd presume high quality men work for less hours and make more money doing it. From what I can tell, the wealthiest men don't work that much. And that's an important lesson for rising men to recognize the need to maximize the value of one's time and figure out "how much money is enough". 

It may be hard for an alpha male (in the money and IQ sense) to know if he's really loved or not, but I have come to the idea that he actually is loved because his woman loves that he's so great and getting resources and wisely handling them. After all it's all indicative that he has self-discipline, a good work ethic, intelligence, wisdom, and skill. Likewise a man loves an alpha woman (i.e. a woman who is beautiful, wise, composed, etc.) because these things imply more than what they show on the surface.

However that's not to say there aren't shallow gold diggers or men with only a visual "appreciation" of women. I just think most rich and powerful are more stable than we assume because we're projecting the lives of the poor and mean onto them because that's what we're far more exposed to. From what I can tell, nobility actually wasn't a double-meaning in olden times because nobles were generally noble in character as well as status. It's the exceptions that became infamous and are the boogeymen we concoct when we think "aristocracy". However I might be wrong. I'm still learning, and it's from what I'm learning of European and East Asian history that implies to me that rich people are actually quite nice and dandy and it's the poor people projecting their own dysfunctions onto the nobility that creates the hollywood image we have of rich people in general.

Or, in short, it's the ugly and mean trying to bring down the beautiful and kind.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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?

Yeah, I get what you mean. As a man I'm naturally afraid of being unappreciated and unloved but so are some women. I think to really know if we are loved, we just have to be attentive to each other and see how the other person responds. Like if I'm tired and exhausted, I know I'm loved because my wife is sitting me down, feeding me, and trying to nurse me back to health. She may only in fact be mending her work horse, but I think this fear that we are unappreciated can lead to an endless stream of paranoia (a slippery slope) rather than reveal truth about our situations. Perhaps empathy can help enlighten us and give us more faith in the other person (and people around us).

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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."

lol "incels". An aside: as a Roman Catholic who is "voluntarily celibate", I am grossed out by the idea of horny beta males who can't get laid trying to screech like a fat feminist rather than become good husbands. I can't say I mind their gene pools going with the Dodo...

As for this example above though: it's so r-selected that there cannot be "top quality". Top quality men seek top quality women and that's usually monogamous as few men are worth several great women and great women usually don't share great men. Therefore this dynamic is really only conceivable for low-class peasant types, not the noble types we ought to emulate. And among "nobles", women do not work like men; they work like women. That's to say they focus on child-rearing and household management rather than try to do the men's jobs. 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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).

What you're describing is the plight of the low IQ, I think. High IQ people always have an opportunity to do more in less time. And while low IQ people need help to figure out what to do, I'm mainly focused on people with an iQ over 110 or 115. And for them, it's important they learn how to be fiscally wise so they can make just enough for a decent house in a good neighborhood and provide for their family and not work much beyond that. This way they can raise a family as well as be "wealthy" (which I argue every First-Worlder is by reasonable standards but here I mean wealthy enough to keep a home in a good neighborhood and have 3+ kids). 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

I don't know. Are you sure there was "less negotiation" than now? I'm not sure "Arranged Marriages" were as without-love and political as modernists would have us believe. I suspect they're no different than family elders talking amongst each other who is most compatible with each other and letting them get to know each other before making a decision. And it may actually be more efficient and a sign of progress that they could make these decisions relatively quickly compared to the inane years modern youth spend looking for a man/woman.

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.)

You're right, that's why I'm a good boy Catholic. I think rules need to be laid down and a strong culture needs to be in place so we "know" what's permitted and what's not. I'd rather we move forward by learning from what worked in the past. I think letting elders settle on who should date and letting the dates be focused on what matters (long term planning and kids) is the best way to do it. 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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.

Yeah, you got a lot of points that I can't disagree with (either because I don't or I can't come up with a good counter-argument). That's why I'm trying to make my ideals my aspirations rather than the standard-bearers of them. This way it doesn't matter who the leader is (in a sense) but rather what standard they're carrying into battle. It's the standard I fight for, not the standard-bearer. And I think many people focus too much on the standard-bearer(s) and not the standard, thus losing sight fo the ideals and giving power to the standard-bearer(s).

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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."
  3. 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 suggest you start a new topic as this is basically an unrelated tangent from the OP. I'm willing to discuss further and I think if the idea were highlighted in a new topic (what's the main idea, exactly? How feasible polygamy is? Whether we're losing sight of our goals? Whether the Left is the real enemy or the ideals they represent?) more people could come in and talk without having to play catch up with our essays worth of print (:-P ).

At present, I think I have already stated my ideas on the workability of polygamy and how it really depends on whether or not certain conditions have been met. I've also stated I think the better solution for the over-worked is learning how to make do with less and make more money in less time, thus to become happier and more fulfilled rather than try to become an army of rabbits. I've also expressed criticism of how we view centuries-past marriage customs and how modern people view the rich of both present and past. I think some of these things are a tangent (to the tangent of polygamy) and thus could be (or ought to be) dropped from the premise of the new topic, but if you find them worthwhile I don't mind joining a topic you make of it. I tried to broach the subject on other topics but I either wasn't clear or there just isn't much interest for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 9:06 PM, meetjoeblack said:

I don't see the value for her in a polygamy marriage any more than I do for men in the current situation of monogamous marriage esp in western society. The fact is pretty alarming. Seeking self knowledge has led me here.

So if polygamy is bad for women, and monogamy is bad for men, how do we proceed? 

If you could wave a magic wand and your could have the ideal situation, how would you arrange male and female reproductive relations? 

 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:53 AM, Kohlrak said:

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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."
  3. 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.

What's your goal in talking about this? To a skeptical female, it really just seems like you're wanting to find a reason to talk about women doing sexually evocative things.

Are you wanting to make a case that women would be sexually fulfilled in a polygamist marriage because they are bisexual and would enjoy the lesbian side of things? 

I try to listen to people's idea about sexual mating strategies because it influences so much in how we live our lives, but I don't really see a compelling reason to talk about this. I'm not as uptight and curt as my typing comes off as, but I really am lost as to why this is an important thing to talk about. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Was "fear" another word for "respect" back then? If so that changes a lot about how we ought to perceive the olden times. However I differentiate them. I fear the tiger, respect the tigerslayer, and tolerate the hippy mourning the tiger. 

"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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Good point. Honestly I think Islam is the Lion as if the Soviet Union has taught us anything, Leftism is unsustainable and will collapse on its own. Islam does not collapse. It dominates and remains for seemingly ever. Therefore I'd rather the Far Left win because eventually they'll crumble and the Right can re-assert itself. Meanwhile Islam will just crush us and maintain itself for a near-eternity. I think the "why" is because Islam is far more ethical and serious than the Far Left which is far more cynical and pragmatic (and thus is harder to retain as it lacks true belief). That's my hypothesis, at least.

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?

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

But aren't they all beta males? Would they even be manly enough to care? Perhaps even a beta cares enough to win but I imagine they'd all be competitively beta while secretly trying to "win". Whatever that means (in reality)...

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd assume that's the standard since most polygamists (that aren't Muslim at least) are taking in low quality women (thus quantity over quality). If they're all high quality... I don't know. More that below given you elaborate further and stuff.

Is this really the case? Given it's illegal, it's hard to really measure. That said, it would make sense.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't think this would work unless it's multiple men/women (like not one man, several women or the reverse) and even then it's so r-selected it's doomed to fail eventually. It might be plausible for the low IQ, but the high IQ can always find good work--especially in the age of Internet.

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I suspect it has more to do with the lapse of Christendom and the rise in tolerance/acceptance culture. Personally that was how I was first "warmed into" the idea of polygamy. I'm not morally against it but I am practically against it in large scale. I am also very repulsed by it if there's multiple men involved. I have no intention of being a polygamist but I am not against the fantastical and unreal idea of marrying multiple goddesses. Of course, it's so unlikely that I am not planning for it. I might get one great woman, but I am definitely not worth several great women. And I doubt I will ever be unless I am the Kaiser of the Holy American Empire or something.

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

*mite, not "might" ( :-P ). And maybe; it's not all that stable in the show but it could be dramatized to be less stable for drama's sake. I don't know. I have neither experience nor anecdotes. I just know a few historical Asian heroes who were polygamists and how they worked it (which is hardly consistent between them).

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Basically they all have to love each other? Agreed. And "sexual bonding" might help but... I feel very dirty indulging the idea of it. It may be more of a male fantasy than reality. 

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Makes me wonder. A lot of powerful men have/had a "side woman" who was in many ways his "real wife" that he loved and cared for. Sometimes he loved both his wife and his mistress. It's complicated, to say the least. I'm against cheating (of course) but if the wife condones the idea of it... is it cheating? But I'm presuming there was consent for the adultery. If there's consent, it's not cheating. But if there isn't, it is. 

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't know. "Advanced" means they're more than Maid + Cook + Toilet, which means they're either loving, wise, kind, skilled, entertaining, talented, and/or etc. I assume such a woman would marry an Advanced man, thus easily able to be a stay-at-home mother. And I'd presume high quality men work for less hours and make more money doing it. From what I can tell, the wealthiest men don't work that much. And that's an important lesson for rising men to recognize the need to maximize the value of one's time and figure out "how much money is enough". 

"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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

It may be hard for an alpha male (in the money and IQ sense) to know if he's really loved or not, but I have come to the idea that he actually is loved because his woman loves that he's so great and getting resources and wisely handling them. After all it's all indicative that he has self-discipline, a good work ethic, intelligence, wisdom, and skill. Likewise a man loves an alpha woman (i.e. a woman who is beautiful, wise, composed, etc.) because these things imply more than what they show on the surface.

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

However that's not to say there aren't shallow gold diggers or men with only a visual "appreciation" of women. I just think most rich and powerful are more stable than we assume because we're projecting the lives of the poor and mean onto them because that's what we're far more exposed to. From what I can tell, nobility actually wasn't a double-meaning in olden times because nobles were generally noble in character as well as status. It's the exceptions that became infamous and are the boogeymen we concoct when we think "aristocracy". However I might be wrong. I'm still learning, and it's from what I'm learning of European and East Asian history that implies to me that rich people are actually quite nice and dandy and it's the poor people projecting their own dysfunctions onto the nobility that creates the hollywood image we have of rich people in general.

Or, in short, it's the ugly and mean trying to bring down the beautiful and kind.

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah, I get what you mean. As a man I'm naturally afraid of being unappreciated and unloved but so are some women. I think to really know if we are loved, we just have to be attentive to each other and see how the other person responds. Like if I'm tired and exhausted, I know I'm loved because my wife is sitting me down, feeding me, and trying to nurse me back to health. She may only in fact be mending her work horse, but I think this fear that we are unappreciated can lead to an endless stream of paranoia (a slippery slope) rather than reveal truth about our situations. Perhaps empathy can help enlighten us and give us more faith in the other person (and people around us).

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

lol "incels". An aside: as a Roman Catholic who is "voluntarily celibate", I am grossed out by the idea of horny beta males who can't get laid trying to screech like a fat feminist rather than become good husbands. I can't say I mind their gene pools going with the Dodo... 

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

As for this example above though: it's so r-selected that there cannot be "top quality". Top quality men seek top quality women and that's usually monogamous as few men are worth several great women and great women usually don't share great men. Therefore this dynamic is really only conceivable for low-class peasant types, not the noble types we ought to emulate. And among "nobles", women do not work like men; they work like women. That's to say they focus on child-rearing and household management rather than try to do the men's jobs. 

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).

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

What you're describing is the plight of the low IQ, I think. High IQ people always have an opportunity to do more in less time. And while low IQ people need help to figure out what to do, I'm mainly focused on people with an iQ over 110 or 115. And for them, it's important they learn how to be fiscally wise so they can make just enough for a decent house in a good neighborhood and provide for their family and not work much beyond that. This way they can raise a family as well as be "wealthy" (which I argue every First-Worlder is by reasonable standards but here I mean wealthy enough to keep a home in a good neighborhood and have 3+ kids).

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't know. Are you sure there was "less negotiation" than now? I'm not sure "Arranged Marriages" were as without-love and political as modernists would have us believe. I suspect they're no different than family elders talking amongst each other who is most compatible with each other and letting them get to know each other before making a decision. And it may actually be more efficient and a sign of progress that they could make these decisions relatively quickly compared to the inane years modern youth spend looking for a man/woman.

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

You're right, that's why I'm a good boy Catholic. I think rules need to be laid down and a strong culture needs to be in place so we "know" what's permitted and what's not. I'd rather we move forward by learning from what worked in the past. I think letting elders settle on who should date and letting the dates be focused on what matters (long term planning and kids) is the best way to do it. 

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah, you got a lot of points that I can't disagree with (either because I don't or I can't come up with a good counter-argument). That's why I'm trying to make my ideals my aspirations rather than the standard-bearers of them. This way it doesn't matter who the leader is (in a sense) but rather what standard they're carrying into battle. It's the standard I fight for, not the standard-bearer. And I think many people focus too much on the standard-bearer(s) and not the standard, thus losing sight fo the ideals and giving power to the standard-bearer(s).

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.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I suggest you start a new topic as this is basically an unrelated tangent from the OP. I'm willing to discuss further and I think if the idea were highlighted in a new topic (what's the main idea, exactly? How feasible polygamy is? Whether we're losing sight of our goals? Whether the Left is the real enemy or the ideals they represent?) more people could come in and talk without having to play catch up with our essays worth of print (:-P ).

For this topic altogether, or for that small sub-topic? At this point, i think we're pretty much nearing an end. XD

On 6/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

At present, I think I have already stated my ideas on the workability of polygamy and how it really depends on whether or not certain conditions have been met. I've also stated I think the better solution for the over-worked is learning how to make do with less and make more money in less time, thus to become happier and more fulfilled rather than try to become an army of rabbits. I've also expressed criticism of how we view centuries-past marriage customs and how modern people view the rich of both present and past. I think some of these things are a tangent (to the tangent of polygamy) and thus could be (or ought to be) dropped from the premise of the new topic, but if you find them worthwhile I don't mind joining a topic you make of it. I tried to broach the subject on other topics but I either wasn't clear or there just isn't much interest for it.

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.

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

What's your goal in talking about this? To a skeptical female, it really just seems like you're wanting to find a reason to talk about women doing sexually evocative things.

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).

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Are you wanting to make a case that women would be sexually fulfilled in a polygamist marriage because they are bisexual and would enjoy the lesbian side of things?

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."

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I try to listen to people's idea about sexual mating strategies because it influences so much in how we live our lives, but I don't really see a compelling reason to talk about this. I'm not as uptight and curt as my typing comes off as, but I really am lost as to why this is an important thing to talk about. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

If i wanted to talk about women doing sexually evocative things, i think i could find a much more appropriate crowd.

Haha. Touché. 

 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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).

My personal theory on it is that women are the penetrable sex, which means that they are automatically set up for a more vulnerable position, and because of that, it actually is a self-protective response for the body to "prep" for sex is a woman perceives that sex is even a slight possibility. Without a physical arousal, a woman could get very badly hurt from sex, and I theorize that it was a protective evolutionary process which protected women during rape and violence. I honestly don't even believe that there are "real" lesbians. Or, at least, it doesn't really matter if a woman only consciously becomes aroused by other women and she finds men repulsive. She is still able to receive sex with men, and is still liable to the laws of female reproduction. Men, on the other hand, really aren't as always ready for sex. If man doesn't get aroused, you really ain't got nothing to work with. If a man is gay through and through, he just won't be able to get aroused for a woman. End of the line. Buck stops there. 

 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

I would think that the appeal for a homosexual union would be in being with someone who relates and values the same sort of general sexual communication. Men and women seek different things from sex, and I think often times women get frustrated with  men because a man (typically, not always) wants sex just for the physical release, while a woman is looking for a bonding process (again, not always, but typically). I think gay men like to just bang gay men who are generally more in agreement that "sex is just sex", and lesbians like to get the emotional bonding from other lesbians. There's less work to do when the other person automatically understands what you want out of something because it's their default mode of operation. 

 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

I think it's just another form of hedonism and overdosing on animalistic sensuality. I think it's just women who have realized that they can get their boxes ticked in yet another way, so, why not?

 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

was polygamy in the past more egalitarian than we like to admit, because we're a bit focused on "muh patriarchy"

I don't think the issues with polygamy are really all that tied to patriarchy. Maybe people blame it on the patriarchy, but I think that's a red herring and just another misleading idea about why it's not a good idea in the long run. 

 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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? 

I would think that it may be possibly that women could be biologically more open to sexual fluidity, but again, my thoughts on it are that it is a protective response built into women to protect them from the physical damage that could occur through rape. If there was a tribal war, and all the men were killed and the women were all taken, then if woman x saw another woman, a childhood friend or her neighbor, stripped naked and raped, she would probably know that she was next and her body would respond by becoming aroused - which would mean a higher chance of her surviving. I guess you could make a case that this instinct could be husbanded for the better bonding of women in polygamist marriages, but I still think that, in the end, a woman would either be divided or untied based on what she saw as a threat to her children. If a polygamist man had three wives, and all of them had some sort of happy hippy tantric sex love, and then bam! one of the wives had a baby, what would happen then? Would she still be ok with her husband - her provider, her protector, her child's sole protector from all evils and worldly harm - spending time and investing himself in something other than her and her child? I do not believe that any sane women would really be ok with that. She may pretend to be ok with it, or justify/rationalize it to herself, or even wish that things could go back to the way they were before and she could still enjoy the weird egalitarian orgy love that she enjoyed, but the reality is that people severely underestimate what kids take from you and what all they need, and children are what makes it impossible for polygamy, single motherhood, or whatever else you wanna throw in there, children are what makes it a bad idea. Children, what they demand by their very nature to be raised effectively into maturity, and the fact that when women make the sacrifice for humanity and have children, it puts them out of the "game of life" in a lot of ways, especially in the first few years. If a child-carrying woman honestly believes her male protector should give his physical intimacy, his resources, and his energy to other women, she then genuinely believes that the survival of her and her offspring are not that important. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Did the Nazis not believe their own agenda?

I don't mean to take you out of context, rather I want to shorten what I'm quoting for space reasons. Also stuff I'm not directly responding to I'm either conceding or agreeing with or leaving (as in I have nothing more to say or I can't deny it yet I'm not moved, or simply bored). 

Given how Heinrich Himmler went a full 180 and was ready to release the Jews and ally with the Western countries against the Soviet Union, given how Field Marshal Rommel was personally against the anti-semitism but pro-Hitler, I think many Nazis either didn't really believe in what they were doing (on high, I mean. I assume the soldiers believed in it.) or they had very different ideas of what they "ought to do". While there were death camps, there were also preparations for mass deportations to Israel. I think many Nazis wanted deportation over genocide while the ones that wanted genocide either had greater pull in government or far less restraint than the more public facing deporters.

I have tended to view politics as an endless battle of ideals and visions and I think I wouldn't be far wrong if I said even the most cynical of politicians have their own standard, their cynicism, at the very least. Perhaps modern politicians believe very much in what they preach. I am sure some do. However I don't know, and perhaps can't know, how many are true or not (to themselves and others). 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

Thus they can become entrepreneurs in their fields and compete against the "credentialists". Easier said than done, I know, but definitely possible. Not for everyone, but for the demographic I care most about (the smart, moral, and virtuous).

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

I'm tempted to call you a liar because a harem is every sane man's dream. Sure, realistically, he's more likely to be ruled by the harem than ruling it, however it is still a male fantasy because it is the epitome of biological success. However it's also like candy; it's tasty but very unhealthy in large doses. Hence why harems have been historically held by very few people even in societies that condone them.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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 don't know. As a straight man, I do get off on MFM sex scenes but not because I'm bisexual but I can empathize with the woman in the middle pretending to have the most amazing sex ever. I don't want to get any more graphic than this, but I think I can use myself as evidence that it's not that men are naturally bisexual but rather we're naturally hungry for whatever meat is around and sometimes the forbidden meat is the tastiest because it dares us to conquer it. It challenges us, and therefore makes us wanting. But again, like candy...

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

Maybe. But all I can say is "maybe" because I have no idea.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

I know what you're describing, I get the idea. It's that idea that I'm thinking may be more male fantasy or misinterpretation than reality as... Well, yuri is popular for a reason. 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

True, true. My personal standard, and one that'd be up front with, is that it's okay to be interested, to look, to fap, whatever, but not to actually do anything with someone besides the two of us or to give emotional attention at the expense of either of us. Basically hands-off and spouse-first but the mind can go where it wants (though like candy that doesn't necessarily mean it should. It's just unrealistic for a man to expect his woman not to have the occasional spike in interest or vice versa. Just shouldn't try to indulge it and recognize it for the fantasy it is. Or, and perhaps, try to make the fantasy realizable with the spouse).

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

Problem is every orgiastic society in history (that I know of at least, in Eurasia) was dominated and destroyed by the more moral and monogamous societies. Greece lost to Rome, Rome lost to the barbarians, and the barbarians reformed into the progenitors of modern times. While Rome had its great parts, it is important to identify what caused the greatness from what was a cancer they simply overlooked. I think free lust is cancer to any society, and that includes orgies. I don't care what goes on between a husband and a wife, but I do care what goes on if it hurts the children or the culture of society.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

"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.

See Robert Kiyosaki. It's not the "lazy boss", it's the "smart boss". Not saying the President is dumb; but rather he really loved his work and thus he put a lot into it. However I don't live to work; I work to live. That being said I enjoy my work and am confident about my prospects, however I know most aren't.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

You want loyalty, as we all do, I think.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

I don't know... if a woman loves me for the manifestation of my qualities, it's not that far from loving me for my qualities as they're proof of concept. I'd want her to grow attached to me and desire to keep me so that when times are tough she can help me rather than betray me, and I don't know how easy or hard this is to tell even as a wiser young man, but I do think there's less risk than we think because most women are up front about who they are and oftentimes men just close their eyes or hold their ears.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

Given how horribly nobles are portrayed by modern media, and how pedo the modern media is, I suspect the nobility was in general quite noble and thus by their own naivety or over-trust lost their power to whom they thought was an enlightened populace. If a serious movement to restore the feudal system were to appear, I would be the first man to sign up and give material resources to sustain it. If in war, I'd fight for the monarchists. 

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

If it's r-selected, why do k-selected animals mate this way?

Because they're more r than the K's that came after? To be sure, I'm not sure what we're talking about with this line. Why do K-selected men have a harem? Because they're less K and wise than the K that has a really great wife. Like a Sultan versus Kaiser Barbarossa. Do you mean animals (as in literally)? Most if not all animals are r compared to most humans (at least Eurasians). And why would man want to emulate a boar? We're humans, after all.

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

??? I am very egalitarian in my judgements. I have only a single standard for all things, though I do have expectations raised or lowered depending on context. 

As for what's a great woman... I think that's partially subjective. However I think I already said the big parts that are common as "Advanced".

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

As I said above, attachment usually prevents this. And it's not like we don't love people for what they bring to us and how they make us feel when we bring things to them. And it's not like love ceases when the flow temporarily ends, it's just a bump to overcome (assuming a good pairing was made).

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

True, but a smart man can always find a way to get bread. See Robert Kiyosaki for more...

7 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

For this topic altogether, or for that small sub-topic? At this point, i think we're pretty much nearing an end. XD

I'd rather talk about nobility than potential female bisexuality or the feasibility of polygamy. I think we're pretty much done with those subjects (and if you aren't, I am. It's not that interesting after a week of talking about it and I think I got the bulk of what you have to offer from the discussion. Hopefully you got the bulk of what I have to offer on it and don't misunderstand or mis-read). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

I would think that the appeal for a homosexual union would be in being with someone who relates and values the same sort of general sexual communication. Men and women seek different things from sex, and I think often times women get frustrated with  men because a man (typically, not always) wants sex just for the physical release, while a woman is looking for a bonding process (again, not always, but typically). I think gay men like to just bang gay men who are generally more in agreement that "sex is just sex", and lesbians like to get the emotional bonding from other lesbians. There's less work to do when the other person automatically understands what you want out of something because it's their default mode of operation. 

I may be wrong since I'm only speaking for myself a virgin, but I can't "do it" unless I am emotionally attached to who I am doing it with (at least with the imaginary woman I'm doing it with). I suspect men aren't as brutish as you think, or maybe I'm just rare in that I can't "do it" unless I at least project a lovable woman into whomever I'm doing it with. Again, I have no sexual experience and have only solitary experience, but I suspect I won't be losing my virginity to a woman I don't love even if I tried. I'd have to at least love the woman by pretending she was someone else if I did try. 

7 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

She may pretend to be ok with it, or justify/rationalize it to herself, or even wish that things could go back to the way they were before and she could still enjoy the weird egalitarian orgy love that she enjoyed, but the reality is that people severely underestimate what kids take from you and what all they need, and children are what makes it impossible for polygamy, single motherhood, or whatever else you wanna throw in there, children are what makes it a bad idea. Children, what they demand by their very nature to be raised effectively into maturity, and the fact that when women make the sacrifice for humanity and have children, it puts them out of the "game of life" in a lot of ways, especially in the first few years. If a child-carrying woman honestly believes her male protector should give his physical intimacy, his resources, and his energy to other women, she then genuinely believes that the survival of her and her offspring are not that important. 

Very interesting, and strong. I think what you've italicized has convinced me plenty that harmonious polygamy is impossible (or at least difficult) with K-selection. I think the only compromise that could work is if the woman believed she was sharing her man, not totally losing him. And that he had enough of himself and his resources to go around. So only a warlord could realistically fit and only in dire times could it be emotionally validated. Relatively peaceful first-worlders aren't going to have any justification for temporary polygamy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

My personal theory on it is that women are the penetrable sex, which means that they are automatically set up for a more vulnerable position, and because of that, it actually is a self-protective response for the body to "prep" for sex is a woman perceives that sex is even a slight possibility. Without a physical arousal, a woman could get very badly hurt from sex, and I theorize that it was a protective evolutionary process which protected women during rape and violence. I honestly don't even believe that there are "real" lesbians. Or, at least, it doesn't really matter if a woman only consciously becomes aroused by other women and she finds men repulsive. She is still able to receive sex with men, and is still liable to the laws of female reproduction. Men, on the other hand, really aren't as always ready for sex. If man doesn't get aroused, you really ain't got nothing to work with. If a man is gay through and through, he just won't be able to get aroused for a woman. End of the line. Buck stops there. 

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.

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I would think that it may be possibly that women could be biologically more open to sexual fluidity, but again, my thoughts on it are that it is a protective response built into women to protect them from the physical damage that could occur through rape. If there was a tribal war, and all the men were killed and the women were all taken, then if woman x saw another woman, a childhood friend or her neighbor, stripped naked and raped, she would probably know that she was next and her body would respond by becoming aroused - which would mean a higher chance of her surviving.

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.

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I guess you could make a case that this instinct could be husbanded for the better bonding of women in polygamist marriages, but I still think that, in the end, a woman would either be divided or untied based on what she saw as a threat to her children. If a polygamist man had three wives, and all of them had some sort of happy hippy tantric sex love, and then bam! one of the wives had a baby, what would happen then? Would she still be ok with her husband - her provider, her protector, her child's sole protector from all evils and worldly harm - spending time and investing himself in something other than her and her child? I do not believe that any sane women would really be ok with that. She may pretend to be ok with it, or justify/rationalize it to herself, or even wish that things could go back to the way they were before and she could still enjoy the weird egalitarian orgy love that she enjoyed,

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.

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

but the reality is that people severely underestimate what kids take from you and what all they need, and children are what makes it impossible for polygamy, single motherhood, or whatever else you wanna throw in there, children are what makes it a bad idea. Children, what they demand by their very nature to be raised effectively into maturity, and the fact that when women make the sacrifice for humanity and have children, it puts them out of the "game of life" in a lot of ways, especially in the first few years. If a child-carrying woman honestly believes her male protector should give his physical intimacy, his resources, and his energy to other women, she then genuinely believes that the survival of her and her offspring are not that important. 

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.

 

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I would think that the appeal for a homosexual union would be in being with someone who relates and values the same sort of general sexual communication. Men and women seek different things from sex, and I think often times women get frustrated with  men because a man (typically, not always) wants sex just for the physical release, while a woman is looking for a bonding process (again, not always, but typically). I think gay men like to just bang gay men who are generally more in agreement that "sex is just sex", and lesbians like to get the emotional bonding from other lesbians. There's less work to do when the other person automatically understands what you want out of something because it's their default mode of operation. 

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.

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I think it's just another form of hedonism and overdosing on animalistic sensuality. I think it's just women who have realized that they can get their boxes ticked in yet another way, so, why not?

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?

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I don't think the issues with polygamy are really all that tied to patriarchy. Maybe people blame it on the patriarchy, but I think that's a red herring and just another misleading idea about why it's not a good idea in the long run. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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. 

It seems like you just restated what I had said about self-identifying lesbians becoming physically aroused by both genders. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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’m sorry, man. It really just seems to me like you’re being the master of non-committal statements.

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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. 

Dude... which is it?

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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). 

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?

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? 

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.

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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). 

They’re both utterly unable to attract men and both are weighed down with “baggage,” ie children. They’re a perfect match. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

 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. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Remember, too, that men have lost this role of provider, and protector role is also becoming questionable.

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. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

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. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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. 

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. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.")

I don’t see why this is an argument for polygamy. It really just seems like a result of debt, inflation, poor choices and bad finances and swallowing propaganda. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

ow, 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.

Again, you’re assuming that a woman will love and cherish another woman’s child as if it were her own and that the second or third wife wouldn’t take out her rage at her own offspring being displaced on the offspring of animals ther wife. For this to work, women would have to have no preference for her own children over another woman’s children, and if that’s the case, why wouldn’t a female-run daycare be just as good of an option? You’re avoiding the major reality of women strongly preferring their own children over other people’s children. 

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

'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.

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.

 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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.

For one, no. Women are not less violent towards children. Women have just as many violent tendencies as men and violent  women enjoy taking it out on powerless children just like any other abuser. A bully is a bully, no matter what gender. 

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 )

Which is another thing - I thought you said polygamy was about caring for the children? 

10 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

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)?

Do you think we’ve been brainwashed? 

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.