4 ms·

Why on earth would you think laws would be necessary? This mechanism is older than laws or human civilization itself.

prabhu-yu 2y ago
Some people want laws for everything.
sofixa 2y ago
Because in practically every country there are laws on marriage, and it's usually (Muslim world being the exception) 1:1 in partners. It adds legal and financial protections for both parts of the couple. Unless there's a law change, how do you see this working? A married man going around spreading seed and women getting pregnant and going at it alone?
- mkl 2y ago
  Infidelity exists. Serial monogamy exists. No-strings liaisons exist. Polyamory exists. Etc. Single mothers exist even with an equal number of men and women. The exact legal nature of marriage is not going to stop any of these. Enormous numbers of people have lived and reproduced without any legal or financial protections at all, including the majority of your ancestors.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    And the core premise I'm disagreeing is that countries on purpose draft only men, because women are kept to be bred to repopulate the country in case of military disaster. IF that were the case, governments would do something, anything, to encourage such behaviour (one man getting multiple women pregnant) after the war is over. Nobody is able to come up with any examples of anything like that happening, which again leads me to believe that the premise is bullshit and the real reasons why only men are drafted are somewhere between biology and misogyny.
    - sobriquet9 2y ago
      Fertility rates do not decrease after a war, which means fewer remaining men get the same number of women pregnant.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        From a sibling comment, in Russia fertility rates did indeed decrease: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/99/2/229/58403/The-Lasting-Effect-of-Sex-Ratio-Imbalance-on?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/99/2/229/58403/...
        sobriquet9 2y ago
        Because so many civilians died, including women, and harsh living conditions due to wide spread destruction.
        lye 2y ago
        I am not even in Russia, but that war pulled so much out of every region, including mine (which did not see fighting directly, but provided many conscripts and resources), that after the war there simply wasn't much to eat or too many people to work the fields. My grandparents first ate caramel candy in 1952, IIRC. Good luck increasing your fertility rates in these conditions.
        Maken 2y ago
        The URSS did draft women. Also, massive civilian casualties.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >And the core premise I'm disagreeing is that countries on purpose draft only men, because women are kept to be bred to repopulate the country in case of military disaster. It's one of the concerns, not necessarily the primary. Somebody had to keep the household going, raise and feed the existing children, and so on (which, at the day, and even today in most parts, was the role of women). >IF that were the case, governments would do something, anything, to encourage such behaviour (one man getting multiple women pregnant) after the war is over. That doesn't follow. Governments would only need to "do something, anything" if the thing didn't just happen by itself - which generally, it did. And of course the morals of the day wouldn't have them explicitly promote anything of the sort.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  > It adds legal and financial protections for both parts of the couple. Unless there's a law change, how do you see this working? I see it working without the luxury of extra legal and financial protection. > A married man going around spreading seed and women getting pregnant and going at it alone? Well that and more. It's a combination of all available options: * Men having kids outside of marriage * Men having kids from 2-3 marriages * Women marrying older men who normally are out of the reproduction race None of that is unheard of even in peace times, and just becomes more frequent. > women getting pregnant and going at it alone Women going at it alone is a very modern phenomenon. It takes a village to raise a child, not just your partner. And conversely if you do have a village to support you then you don't need your partner that much. So all of it certainly can work and did work in the past. How it will pan out in the 21st century no one knows yet. I hope we'll never have to learn.
- coldtea 2y ago
  Back in the day we're talking about (up to WWI, WII) there was not much in "legal and financial protections" for either part, and the little that were were not really enforced that widely. Men having and abandoning children with multiple women was common, especially in lower and working classes.

Some people want laws for everything.

Because in practically every country there are laws on marriage, and it's usually (Muslim world being the exception) 1:1 in partners. It adds legal and financial protections for both parts of the couple. Unless there's a law change, how do you see this working? A married man going around spreading seed and women getting pregnant and going at it alone?

mkl 2y ago
Infidelity exists. Serial monogamy exists. No-strings liaisons exist. Polyamory exists. Etc. Single mothers exist even with an equal number of men and women. The exact legal nature of marriage is not going to stop any of these. Enormous numbers of people have lived and reproduced without any legal or financial protections at all, including the majority of your ancestors.
- sofixa 2y ago
  And the core premise I'm disagreeing is that countries on purpose draft only men, because women are kept to be bred to repopulate the country in case of military disaster. IF that were the case, governments would do something, anything, to encourage such behaviour (one man getting multiple women pregnant) after the war is over. Nobody is able to come up with any examples of anything like that happening, which again leads me to believe that the premise is bullshit and the real reasons why only men are drafted are somewhere between biology and misogyny.
  - sobriquet9 2y ago
    Fertility rates do not decrease after a war, which means fewer remaining men get the same number of women pregnant.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      From a sibling comment, in Russia fertility rates did indeed decrease: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/99/2/229/58403/The-Lasting-Effect-of-Sex-Ratio-Imbalance-on?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/99/2/229/58403/...
      - sobriquet9 2y ago
        Because so many civilians died, including women, and harsh living conditions due to wide spread destruction.
      - lye 2y ago
        I am not even in Russia, but that war pulled so much out of every region, including mine (which did not see fighting directly, but provided many conscripts and resources), that after the war there simply wasn't much to eat or too many people to work the fields. My grandparents first ate caramel candy in 1952, IIRC. Good luck increasing your fertility rates in these conditions.
      - Maken 2y ago
        The URSS did draft women. Also, massive civilian casualties.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >And the core premise I'm disagreeing is that countries on purpose draft only men, because women are kept to be bred to repopulate the country in case of military disaster. It's one of the concerns, not necessarily the primary. Somebody had to keep the household going, raise and feed the existing children, and so on (which, at the day, and even today in most parts, was the role of women). >IF that were the case, governments would do something, anything, to encourage such behaviour (one man getting multiple women pregnant) after the war is over. That doesn't follow. Governments would only need to "do something, anything" if the thing didn't just happen by itself - which generally, it did. And of course the morals of the day wouldn't have them explicitly promote anything of the sort.
alexey-salmin 2y ago
> It adds legal and financial protections for both parts of the couple. Unless there's a law change, how do you see this working? I see it working without the luxury of extra legal and financial protection. > A married man going around spreading seed and women getting pregnant and going at it alone? Well that and more. It's a combination of all available options: * Men having kids outside of marriage * Men having kids from 2-3 marriages * Women marrying older men who normally are out of the reproduction race None of that is unheard of even in peace times, and just becomes more frequent. > women getting pregnant and going at it alone Women going at it alone is a very modern phenomenon. It takes a village to raise a child, not just your partner. And conversely if you do have a village to support you then you don't need your partner that much. So all of it certainly can work and did work in the past. How it will pan out in the 21st century no one knows yet. I hope we'll never have to learn.
coldtea 2y ago
Back in the day we're talking about (up to WWI, WII) there was not much in "legal and financial protections" for either part, and the little that were were not really enforced that widely. Men having and abandoning children with multiple women was common, especially in lower and working classes.