3 ms·

Thanks to dating sites and hookup apps, there is plenty of data on how men and women choose partners when there is no restraint other than the willingness of th

Thanks to dating sites and hookup apps, there is plenty of data on how men and women choose partners when there is no restraint other than the willingness of the other. It’s not symmetric at all.

Freak_NL 7y ago
Implementing a legalised form of polygamous marriage won't change nor exacerbate that. The number of people who have concurrent relationships with more than one partner won't change by denying a formal form of that type of partnership, although it could mean some won't have to be as secretive about it. That is, whether or not the distribution of romantic partners is symmetric or not is completely irrelevant to this topic. Incels have always existed, and will always exist, under varying names (in all genders).
- marcoperaza 7y ago
  You’re right that if the only aspect of the prohibition left standing is the law, the issue is probably lost. But morality and law feed each other, so I disagree that it’s totally irrelevant.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 7y ago
  >Implementing a legalised form of polygamous marriage won't change nor exacerbate that. It's interesting that you're making this claim in a discussion about an article which claims that legalizing homosexual marriage was associated with reduced anti-gay bias. Do you doubt that legalizing polygamous marriage would be associated with reduced anti-polygamous bias? Do you not think that the behavior of wealthy and powerful men is constrained in any way by anti-polygamous bias in our current society? For example, do you think the number of wealthy and powerful men today who choose not to engage in polygamous behavior is identical to the number who would choose to engage in such behavior absent that bias, even though historically it has been the norm for wealthy and powerful men to have many wives and concubines? Do you think the men who engage in it today in secret would not engage it to an even greater degree absent that bias? >Incels have always existed, and will always exist, under varying names (in all genders). Do you think the proportion of incel males to non-incel males has always been the same, or that the proportion does not matter?

Thanks to dating sites and hookup apps, there is plenty of data on how men and women choose partners when there is no restraint other than the willingness of the other. It’s not symmetric at all.

Freak_NL 7y ago

Implementing a legalised form of polygamous marriage won't change nor exacerbate that. The number of people who have concurrent relationships with more than one partner won't change by denying a formal form of that type of partnership, although it could mean some won't have to be as secretive about it. That is, whether or not the distribution of romantic partners is symmetric or not is completely irrelevant to this topic. Incels have always existed, and will always exist, under varying names (in all genders).

marcoperaza 7y ago
You’re right that if the only aspect of the prohibition left standing is the law, the issue is probably lost. But morality and law feed each other, so I disagree that it’s totally irrelevant.
sDlEzAtyoNAz 7y ago
>Implementing a legalised form of polygamous marriage won't change nor exacerbate that. It's interesting that you're making this claim in a discussion about an article which claims that legalizing homosexual marriage was associated with reduced anti-gay bias. Do you doubt that legalizing polygamous marriage would be associated with reduced anti-polygamous bias? Do you not think that the behavior of wealthy and powerful men is constrained in any way by anti-polygamous bias in our current society? For example, do you think the number of wealthy and powerful men today who choose not to engage in polygamous behavior is identical to the number who would choose to engage in such behavior absent that bias, even though historically it has been the norm for wealthy and powerful men to have many wives and concubines? Do you think the men who engage in it today in secret would not engage it to an even greater degree absent that bias? >Incels have always existed, and will always exist, under varying names (in all genders). Do you think the proportion of incel males to non-incel males has always been the same, or that the proportion does not matter?