4 ms·

Rationality is not the only factor we should look at. Think of having sex with 12 years old girls - there is nothing irrational in it (it was normal and legal

by piokoch 13y ago

Rationality is not the only factor we should look at. Think of having sex with 12 years old girls - there is nothing irrational in it (it was normal and legal a few hundred years ago), why we keep it forbidden now? Similarly it is not legal to merry 4 woman (or man). Why? Where is rationality in forbidding this. In fact rational is the opposite - it would be good to have spare wife or husband, just in case of death or ilness.

munificent 13y ago
> Think of having sex with 12 years old girls - there is nothing irrational in it (it was normal and legal a few hundred years ago), why we keep it forbidden now? Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, we've lengthened human childhood. Because people have more to learn today before they can be productive adults in society, the period of your life that is "youth" is longer, and the age where we consider a person mature enough to be fully responsible for their own body is older now. 12 year olds used to be adults, now they're children. > Similarly it is not legal to merry 4 woman (or man). Why? Where is rationality in forbidding this. In fact rational is the opposite - it would be good to have spare wife or husband, just in case of death or ilness. If there was complete gender equality and polygamy was as common as polyandry, it would be probably be fine. In reality, polygamy is historically dramatically more common than wives with multiple husbands. If you take as a given a roughly 50/50 distribution between men and women (and relatively even proportions of homosexuals), that means widespread polygamy causes a large number of men for whom there are no wives available. If one person has five wives, it means there are four men out there with none. That has a destabilizing effect on society. It's best for everyone if the possibility of finding a mate is not hampered in that way.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Regarding polygamy, we would have to rewrite all sorts of laws (inheritance laws, laws detailing benefits to spouses, etc.) with multi-partner marriages in mind.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    I think this is the real answer. I don't know that it's an insoluble problem, but it's a very hard one, compounded by the absence of a pre-existing societal consensus on what would be reasonable and fair.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Well, if you're arguing about the length of childhood (which IMHO shouldn't be the basis for age of consent, decision-making maturity should be), then we have not lengthened human childhood. Socially, we've delayed the age when youngsters achieve self-sufficiency, start working, etc; but instead of prolonging "youth" currently our habits (most likely due to food industry) have achieved earlier age of puberty than before; biologically those kids are maturing sooner for having kids of their own.
- hmsimha 13y ago
  To be pedantic, it should be noted that the contrast to polyandry I believe you're looking for is 'polygyny'. PolyGAmy refers to any practice of having more than one spouse, regardless of gender.

by piokoch 13y ago

munificent 13y ago

> Think of having sex with 12 years old girls - there is nothing irrational in it (it was normal and legal a few hundred years ago), why we keep it forbidden now? Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, we've lengthened human childhood. Because people have more to learn today before they can be productive adults in society, the period of your life that is "youth" is longer, and the age where we consider a person mature enough to be fully responsible for their own body is older now. 12 year olds used to be adults, now they're children. > Similarly it is not legal to merry 4 woman (or man). Why? Where is rationality in forbidding this. In fact rational is the opposite - it would be good to have spare wife or husband, just in case of death or ilness. If there was complete gender equality and polygamy was as common as polyandry, it would be probably be fine. In reality, polygamy is historically dramatically more common than wives with multiple husbands. If you take as a given a roughly 50/50 distribution between men and women (and relatively even proportions of homosexuals), that means widespread polygamy causes a large number of men for whom there are no wives available. If one person has five wives, it means there are four men out there with none. That has a destabilizing effect on society. It's best for everyone if the possibility of finding a mate is not hampered in that way.

humanrebar 13y ago
Regarding polygamy, we would have to rewrite all sorts of laws (inheritance laws, laws detailing benefits to spouses, etc.) with multi-partner marriages in mind.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  I think this is the real answer. I don't know that it's an insoluble problem, but it's a very hard one, compounded by the absence of a pre-existing societal consensus on what would be reasonable and fair.
PeterisP 13y ago
Well, if you're arguing about the length of childhood (which IMHO shouldn't be the basis for age of consent, decision-making maturity should be), then we have not lengthened human childhood. Socially, we've delayed the age when youngsters achieve self-sufficiency, start working, etc; but instead of prolonging "youth" currently our habits (most likely due to food industry) have achieved earlier age of puberty than before; biologically those kids are maturing sooner for having kids of their own.
hmsimha 13y ago
To be pedantic, it should be noted that the contrast to polyandry I believe you're looking for is 'polygyny'. PolyGAmy refers to any practice of having more than one spouse, regardless of gender.