5 ms·

Logically I don't see how a n>2 person marriage would be more likely to be abusive than a two person marriage.

Sir_Burpalot 4y ago
Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  Poverty and systemic issues contribute way more than that. Can we abolish poverty before we abolish civil rights?
  - theonlybutlet 4y ago
    That's a strawman and nobody is abolishing your civil rights. Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      > That's a strawman The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children. > and nobody is abolishing your civil rights Hello Texas? What are we even talking about? > Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want. I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
      - Sir_Burpalot 4y ago
        While I don't necessarily agree with your stance about systemic issues, I would like to point out that solving them would take a lot more work than simply not legalising polygamy, and I don't see why we should neglect taking measures we are actually capable of implementing in favour of a pipe dream that might never be implemented.
        pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        I agree. You do both. If revolution is not immediately possibile, you fight for reform instead, hoping that it will sow the seeds of the revolution in those who fought with you. Any small victory for social movements generates a strong taste for solidarity and the expectation that the victory can be repeated.
theonlybutlet 4y ago
The majority of people are heterosexual, every other orientation is in the minority. The natural state is 50% male, 50% female. Roughly meaning most people will find a match. We are not at some enlightened stage where genders are truly equal, this scenario at this stage would just lead to a situation where we just regress to multiple wives to one husband. 25% of the male population have two wives that's 25% of the population with no prospect of funding a partner, stretch that to three wives and that means half of men have no prospect of finding a partner. This stuff is well studied in countries that allow polygamy, men become angry sex offenders and jealous spouses take it out on other partners children. It's not good stuff, were not there as a society, we'd need to be at a stage where we all just date other humans and I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon.
- timbit42 4y ago
  Why are you assuming there would not also be women with 2 or more husbands?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare? [0] While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200806/why-are-there-virtually-no-polyandrous-societies https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda...

Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
Poverty and systemic issues contribute way more than that. Can we abolish poverty before we abolish civil rights?
- theonlybutlet 4y ago
  That's a strawman and nobody is abolishing your civil rights. Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    > That's a strawman The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children. > and nobody is abolishing your civil rights Hello Texas? What are we even talking about? > Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want. I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
    - Sir_Burpalot 4y ago
      While I don't necessarily agree with your stance about systemic issues, I would like to point out that solving them would take a lot more work than simply not legalising polygamy, and I don't see why we should neglect taking measures we are actually capable of implementing in favour of a pipe dream that might never be implemented.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        I agree. You do both. If revolution is not immediately possibile, you fight for reform instead, hoping that it will sow the seeds of the revolution in those who fought with you. Any small victory for social movements generates a strong taste for solidarity and the expectation that the victory can be repeated.

theonlybutlet 4y ago

The majority of people are heterosexual, every other orientation is in the minority. The natural state is 50% male, 50% female. Roughly meaning most people will find a match. We are not at some enlightened stage where genders are truly equal, this scenario at this stage would just lead to a situation where we just regress to multiple wives to one husband. 25% of the male population have two wives that's 25% of the population with no prospect of funding a partner, stretch that to three wives and that means half of men have no prospect of finding a partner. This stuff is well studied in countries that allow polygamy, men become angry sex offenders and jealous spouses take it out on other partners children. It's not good stuff, were not there as a society, we'd need to be at a stage where we all just date other humans and I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon.

timbit42 4y ago
Why are you assuming there would not also be women with 2 or more husbands?
- notch656a 4y ago
  >A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare? [0] While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200806/why-are-there-virtually-no-polyandrous-societies https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda...