Free the Mormon Five!

And quite right too:

A reality TV star and his four wives won a key legal victory for polygamist families on Friday, as a US judge threw out parts of Utah’s bigamy laws used to crack down on the practice of plural marriage in the heavily Mormon state.

The federal judge ruled in favour of Kody Brown and the four women he lives with publicly on the television show Sister Wives, who had challenged a Utah law that prohibits adults from living with multiple partners in marriage-like relationships. He found the law violated religious rights and criminalised the intimate sexual relationships of consenting adults, giving a major boost to breakaway Mormon groups that still follow the doctrine of plural marriage.

The point being that sure, given that the State licences marriage the State can decide that only two people can be in a marriage. But Utah went one step further, insisting that people could not live “as if” they were married:

Anti-bigamy laws are stricter in the Mormon heartland of Utah than elsewhere in the US, as they not only outlaw the possession of multiple marriage licenses but cohabitation in marriage-like relationships with multiple partners, which is punishable with up to five years in prison.

Fuck off you prodnose tossers.

And before anyone starts shouting that Mormons are right wing so this is just fine think about it for a moment. This sort of law outlaws a menage a trois for example, and forms of live in polyamory.

Consenting adults get to do what adults consent to…..

43 comments on “Free the Mormon Five!

  1. Fuck off you prodnose tossers.

    And before anyone starts shouting that Mormons are right wing so this is just fine think about it for a moment. This sort of law outlaws a menage a trois for example, and forms of live in polyamory.

    Consenting adults get to do what adults consent to…..

    Except where what consenting adults do has a serious and unavoidable impact on everyone else. An externality in fact. As this does. As Laura Betzig has comprehensively shown, democracy goes with monogamy; autocracy goes with monogamy. You cannot deny young poor men the chance to marry for the foreseeable future and *not* end up with a Third World sh!thole like Egypt. Child-brides, police torture and military coups and all.

    If America wants to find out what a Third World sh!thole feels like, and it would explain their education and immigration policies, good luck to them. Our rulers clearly do too. But it is reasonable for the general public to object.

    Also, if this is the decision about which has been written:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/14/district-court-strikes-down-and-reconstructs-bigamy-law/

    “I’ve read over the opinion, and it is quite unusual. For example, I don’t recall another legal opinion that relies extensively on Edward Said’s theory of ‘orientalism’ to interpret the U.S. Constitution (see pages 10-23). More broadly, the judge’s reasoning is surprisingly hard to tease out. There are pages and pages of discussion that end with the court saying that all of the previous discussion is irrelevant because something else is relevant, followed by pages of pages on that second issue, leading to no obvious point. It’s definitely different.”

    Then sensible people will keep away from it. Said means crap and he has no place in sensible conversation among adults much less a legal decision.

  2. SMFS: So we need an equal number of women to take on more than one bloke at a time. I totted up my polyamorous friends and it comes out with an imbalance of three excess women. If prodnoses like you kept out of female sexuality, you might find the problem solves itself.

  3. Matthew L – “SMFS: So we need an equal number of women to take on more than one bloke at a time. I totted up my polyamorous friends and it comes out with an imbalance of three excess women. If prodnoses like you kept out of female sexuality, you might find the problem solves itself.”

    And how are you going to arrange that? History shows that women may be willing to share a man. Men are rarely willing to share a woman. To the extent that virtually all societies except the West are polygamous for men and you have to go to marginal societies on the edge of starvation like Tibet to find societies where women marry more than one man.

    What some fat ugly people with borderline personality disorders do in Britain is irrelevant. But they do not represent the mainstream.

    Besides, does it solve the problem? People will put up with a great deal of income inequality as long as there is marital inequality – presumably the ability to have and maintain a married life was one of the reasons why slavery in the US was as non-violent towards the owners as it was. But if all the rich old men have all the young supermodels and all the poor young men have all the fat middle aged women with cats, I don’t think they will be mollified.

  4. SMFS is basically correct on this. There is a strong causated correlation between monogamous systems and individualist liberal society. Even if SMFS isn’t actually so far as I can tell much of a fan of individualist liberalism. But this is what I’ve been saying for ages now- the “puritan” sexuality admired by conservatives is that of the miserable, polygamous Near East, via Judaeo-Christianity. Western individualism is naturally monogamous in marital terms, and bawdy in socio-sexual terms.

    (The third system of interest is African style “loose polygamy”, which we see operating with disastrous concequences in the American ghettoes).

  5. you have to go to marginal societies on the edge of starvation like Tibet to find societies where women marry more than one man.

    Western women, especially celebrities, often marry more than one man, only not at the same time. 🙂

  6. Ian B – “SMFS is basically correct on this.”

    That would be a phrase rarely heard on tw.com

    “But this is what I’ve been saying for ages now- the “puritan” sexuality admired by conservatives is that of the miserable, polygamous Near East, via Judaeo-Christianity. Western individualism is naturally monogamous in marital terms, and bawdy in socio-sexual terms.”

    There is little evidence I have seen that the Jewish and Muslim traditions are puritanical in the Western sense. Notice that Mormonism is, in part (of a very confused and confusing ideology) an attempt to return to that Jewish past. And hence polygamous. The Western tradition is the Roman one of monogamy. I have never been sure of the theological justification for it because if the Bible does defend one thing it defends polygamy.

    And as you can see, Western individualism is not remotely monogamous. TW is happy to defend polygamy as just another lifestyle choice. So was John Stewart Mill more or less. Certainly stopping people from “polyging” is not compatible with liberalism in the classical sense. Which reminds me of nothing so much as the Koch Brothers’ libertarian guru who said if a thief broke into your home and tied you up with his rope, you had no right to cut it in order to escape. Because it is his property. Liberalism should not be a suicide pact. But it is these days.

  7. Yes we know that. It’s an extension of IanB’s comments, that the norm is one stable partner for a very long time (traditionally till death) with both parties politely pretending not to notice the odd fling on the side provided it doesn’t last too long or become too serious or result in pregnancy. Which is a lot of “ifs”.

  8. There’s an unfortunate habit in Christendom for crediting everything worthwhile we have to a bunch of swarthy foreigners. Everything has to Judeao-Christian-Graeco-Roman. This is what you get for worshipping a foreign God. Rome was a Mediterranean society which never expanded beyond the Rhine and Danube, and although it had European origins, it increasingly and disastrously fell in the Eastern sphere until it dwindled away in Byzantium speaking a foreign language; indeed its falling to Christianity was a significant step down that road. The fact that European intellectuals got a buzz out of quoting text from this alien society in their alien language (because the proles couldn’t understand it) doesn’t make us a “Roman” society.

    Marriage is no more a “Roman” tradition than warm beer is.

    Judaism and its local descendant Islam are both intensely puritanical, though most of the Jews were fortunate enough to live among Europeans and pick up some liberalism from us eventually. Christianity has been a constant culture war between liberal European and puritanical Near Eastern values for 2000 years. WIthout writing another tl;dr essay, the puritanism is an inevitable consequence of stifling extended family systems which require rigid sexual controls imposed by a patriarch and matriarch via thuggish clan violence systems. It is utterly alien to Western European marital systems based on monogamous affectionate pair-bonding. It can be argued that this even amounts to genetic propensities, but culture is sufficient explanation regardless.

    The Romans were more “liberal” than the Jews, but even so repeatedly shocked by the loose, high status women of the tribes beyond their borders. Here’s a catty exchange preserved by Cassius Dio-

    … a very witty remark is reported to have been made by the wife of Argentocoxus, a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta. When the empress was jesting with her, after the treaty, about the free intercourse of her sex with men in Britain, she replied: “We fulfill the demands of nature in a much better way than do you Roman women; for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest.” Such was the retort of the British woman.

    Western “puritanism” (In terms of sexual prudishness) is the unhappy marriage of Levantine morals- appropriate to rigid and oppressive “family tribe” systems- and European monogamy. The marriage is not a happy one. Which also, perhaps explains why Second Wave Feminism, a predominately Jewish movement, is always banging on about “patriarchy” and trying to put lad’s magazines in burkas.

  9. Ian B – “There’s an unfortunate habit in Christendom for crediting everything worthwhile we have to a bunch of swarthy foreigners. Everything has to Judeao-Christian-Graeco-Roman.”

    If “Christendom” is to have any meaning, it must include Rome. And Greece. And Spain. And France. Perhaps. For whom the Graeco-Roman world is not foreign. It is a habit in Britain. But that is because it is true.

    “The fact that European intellectuals got a buzz out of quoting text from this alien society in their alien language (because the proles couldn’t understand it) doesn’t make us a “Roman” society.”

    It makes the vast majority of Europe a Roman society – and it means that Western Christianity is thoroughly influenced by Graeco-Roman ideas. Often to the exclusion of Jewish ones. They do not count us as part of their tradition. I do not see why we should.

    “Marriage is no more a “Roman” tradition than warm beer is.”

    No, but Christian marriage is strongly influenced by Roman marriage. Defined even.

    “Judaism and its local descendant Islam are both intensely puritanical”

    I can call one shoe Boris and another Becker, but it doesn’t make them great tennis players. Yes, Judaism is very puritanical about many things. But it is not Puritan in that sense.

    “WIthout writing another tl;dr essay, the puritanism is an inevitable consequence of stifling extended family systems which require rigid sexual controls imposed by a patriarch and matriarch via thuggish clan violence systems.”

    So you are saying that the Puritans who went off to America were not puritan? Great. Ian, please meet my shoe, Boris.

    “The Romans were more “liberal” than the Jews, but even so repeatedly shocked by the loose, high status women of the tribes beyond their borders.”

    Not sure they were that much more liberal in practice. The Western Europeans always looked out to the southern Mediterranean and saw sexual libertines. As with Cleopatra. And with the Muslim world up to the 20th century. Not quite sure that is what they saw in the Jewish world but Herod could not have inspired them. Does Jewish or Islamic law actually stop any heterosexual men doing anything they want providing they can afford it?

    Yes, the Romans had a problem with women who exercised power. The Romans certainly shared the Mediterranean world’s machismo. That comment is more about Rome than Britain.

    “Western “puritanism” (In terms of sexual prudishness) is the unhappy marriage of Levantine morals- appropriate to rigid and oppressive “family tribe” systems- and European monogamy. The marriage is not a happy one.”

    I don’t know. Western Europeans used to follow the polygamous rule book – young men formed bands outside normal society, unable to marry. In Ireland they wanted that benighted isle slaughtering each other with great abandon. In Germany they made up the war bands that eventually broke through to the Roman world. Even in Scandinavia they gave us the Vikings. In every case, conversion led to pacification as marriage came within the reach of even the youngest and even the poorest. It looks fairly happy to me.

    And we want to throw that away?

  10. SMFS is probably right regarding the importance of monogamous marriage for democracy.

    However a law prohibiting people living together ‘as if’ they were in a polygamous marriage would only be justified if the number of people wishing to do just that is significant.

    In Utah, that might be the case. In the UK the number of polygamists is so few that it currently has minimal impact on the pool of potential mates for other people.

  11. SMFS-

    Believe it or not, Germans, Celts and Vikings and Britons were getting married long before Christianity arrived on the scene and, after centuries of struggle, finally managed to wrestle the marriage ceremony and contract out of the civil sphere and into the church… and then set about telling everyone they’d invented it.

    Also, please bear in mind that in this context we’re using the word “puritanical” to mean rigidly controlled, anti-promiscuous sexual rule systems. Might not be the best word. We can use another one if you like. I don’t want to get into a fruitless semantic argument about Puritans versus puritans. But in sexual terms, the Puritans were and are puritans, which is why we use the small “p” word at all in this more general sense.

    So anyway, we should be clear; what you call “Christian” marriage is the adoption by the church of an already existent marriage system, not an invention by that church, and as such it makes no sense to even call it “christian”. European marriage was originally a (monogamous) civil contract, sod all to do with God.

    Every tribe had some form of the warrior-band system, because any who didn’t got hammered by those who did. We still shove young men into the army to this day. That isn’t the same as having the Levantine pastoralist system of extended tribal family and its stifling oppressive responsibilities system, which is the key difference.

    And I might as well add, that I’m just using terms like Levantine and Near Eastern because I don’t want to sit here writing Jews Arabs Jews Arabs until it turns into a sort of Stormfront posting. But that’s really what it’s about; the spread of the Jewish system over an area that was actually quite socially and sexually diverse, via Christianity and Islam as well as the mother religion. Ancient Persia and Egypt were vastly different places prior to being overrun by Judaised Arabs; though Persian culture survived better than most of the victims of Islam.

    I was havign one of my occasional wanders around the Whitesupremosphere yesterday (while it’s still possible) and was struck again by the incongruity of people in a hysterical bate about the demographic destruction of “European Civilisation” being the most determined to credit everything of value in it to… the same region they fear is swamping us. Apparently, the only way to avoid being ruled by “The Jews” is to, er, follow a Jewish religion. It’s mind bogglingly perverse. My own view is that it really is time to stop desperately crediting everybody but ourselves with our culture, and recognise that we gave them far more (individualism, liberalism, rule by consent, science, etc) than they gave us (a religion). Judea, Rome and Greece never could have created modern society in a million years. We did. The reason we did so is native cultural propensities. And that includes the marriage and sexual system.

    /rant

  12. “Judaism is very puritanical about many things. But it is not Puritan in that sense.”
    Hell, SMfS, it’d be hard to think of a sense Judaism isn’t puritanical. To an Orthadox Jew the Law & the interpretation of it is what makes a Jew & what makes non-orthodox Jews not Jewish. And that Law & Orthodox interpretation of it, any two Jews having at least three opinions between them, ends up with whether it’s OK to button clothes on Shabbat & defining the entire shtettle as an erun by hanging string round it. You want translations, yet?

  13. And on marriage:
    Done this before but, anyway…
    Marriage, in any society, is never ever about the two people who are marrying. It’s about defining their relationship with the rest of their society. Even in pre-Christian., pre-Roman times a marriage was the uniting of two families as well as two people. Mostly then, the joining of the families was of more moment than the joining of the couple. Why most societies practice some form of arranged marriage. Even our’s does, although it’s reduced to not always minor social pressure.
    Marriage is not required for rumpy-pumpy. It’s an advantage for bring up the resultant sprogs.

  14. BIS-

    This is the whole point. The “family uniting” principle is far weaker in European than other models. It’s more of a fission model, in which people leave their families to start a new one. Familial bonds are affectionate rather than obligatory. Parents recognise that children have “flown the nest”, and so on. This is IMV crucial in understanding how it fosters liberal individualism, compared to the despotic collectivism of “family tribe” societies.

  15. Sorry, Ian, but I just don’t buy that. I’d imagine there’s as much pressure to unite families by marriage in a base European culture as in any of the imported cultures have overlaid it. No children ‘flew the nest’. One partner went to live on the land belonged to the other partner. To “fly the nest” would imply an inexhaustible supply of unoccupied land to fly to, for a start. S’pose they could go take it from someone else, but then the muscle required to do that gets back to needing family involvement.

    Not too sure about your view Romans couldn’t have given a modern type society. They were well on the way to it. The Roman gods were a capricious bunch, less to be obeyed than placated. They were much closer to the gods being a convenient explanation for natural phenomena. It’s the arrival of monotheism from the east puts the skids under Rome. Once you have an all powerful god then you explain everything as ordained by your all powerful god. Stop thinking you can effect events yourself except in relation to said god.
    It’s no accident the decline of Rome begins same time as monotheism is spreading. Christanity being the particular version that made the big time. Supposed divinity of emperors kicks in the same period. Once you have a philosophy, never mind this life, do what god tells you & your reward’s in the next life you are truly f**ked.

  16. BIS, the Romans lasted until well in the 15th century and achieved nothing beyond some nice architecture. Whether they had once had some potential or not, they lost it all when they shifted into an Oriental despotist society (with an Oriental god, natch).

    I’d imagine there’s as much pressure to unite families by marriage in a base European culture as in any of the imported cultures have overlaid it.

    I think your imagination is deceving you. A lot of it comes down to (in this context) pastoralism. The Jews were pastoralists; the Bible’s constantly got people arguing about sheep. The natural model for this is a clan consisting of males who cooperate to protect herds, living communally, and endogamous marriage. We see this closer to home; the relatively pastoralist Scots and Irish who SMFS mentions; the Scots are noted for their primitive character, tribal clan warfare, feuds and lack of economic development, though they made a big effort later to adopt Germanic attitudes.

    And that tells us much about America, as it goes. The southern regions are characterised by Scots-Irish herdsmen; the hero character is a herdsman and even non-herdsmen wear herdsman hats. It is also characterised by extended family attitudes, rough justice, feuding and endogamous marriage (lampooned by the East Anglian puritans with their (our) exogamous nuclear families in the Yankee North as incestuousness).

    Which is why I’m loathe to see any genetic propensities. I think it’s mostly cultures derived from agricultural production methods.

  17. Mormons practising polygamy is a threat to civilisation?

    A statistically insignificant threat compared to the menace of sex selective abortion, I would have thought.

  18. Oh, I so concur on the sheep thing. And goats. Particularly goats. Just being around go…sorry I digress.

    It is of course tribal. Tribes follow goats. (Keep goats & you’ll know it’s not the other way round) So life is ensuring other tribes don’t nick your goats. You think tribally. Me agin me brother. Me ‘n me brother agin the family. Me ‘n the family agin the tribe. Me & the tribe agin the world.
    Farmers got his field. Fields don’t wander off when you’re not looking. Farmer next door’s got his field. Be stupid, the both of them sitting up all night watching each doesn’t nick the other’s crop. Better to be friends & keep an eye out for them f**king goats.

  19. ” the Romans lasted until well in the 15th century and achieved nothing beyond some nice architecture.”
    If I look out the window I can just about spot what’s left of a Roman building. Beginning 1st millenium. Except for the underfloor heating it’s no different from looking at the foundations of a C19th London Edwardian Building. The plunge pool’s made in exactly the same as I’ve made jacuzzis.
    It’s not in the history books to look for cultures. It’s in their products. The craft I learned was goldsmithing. I’ve worked on Roman jewelry. There’s little I know they didn’t. That gives them metallurgy, geometry (try working out what length wire makes a ring). They used strong acids & if you have strong acids & dissimilar metals you’ve a battery. They may well have done electroplating.
    Most basic science is contained in crafts. Forget Archimedes. Greek shiester. You discover Archimedes’ Principal 5000 years ago when you need to know how much copper is wanted to pour an ax-head. Ditto geometry. Not just in architecture but cutting cloth,carpentry, boat building. Long before Euclid.
    Romans had piston pumps. That’s 3/4 the way to steam & the ic engine. Their engineering was good enough to take them the rest of the way. They were good innovators. Good learners.

  20. The Romans, like many other cultures, did a lot of ingenious tinkering. But they’d never developed a scientific epistemology and it seems clear they never could have. You need somebody prepared to spend years rolling weights down inclined planes and discovering the general math behind that; and they don’t appear to have had anyone like that, despite close to two millennia of opportunity.

    The Geek Fire is a very good example of that. A one off, lucky chance discovery that gave them a military edge. But they never developed it further, never developed a chemical weapons industry and, when the one who knew the recipe died, that was that.

  21. You discover Archimedes’ Principal 5000 years ago when you need to know how much copper is wanted to pour an ax-head.

    Archimedes Principle is about buoyancy, not volume. His thing about volume doesn’t have a name, afaik.

  22. somuchforsubtlety –
    “You cannot deny young poor men the chance to marry for the foreseeable future and *not* end up with a Third World sh!thole like Egypt. Child-brides, police torture and military coups and all.”

    I’d be really interested to know how this works. It strikes me as if you’ve just pulled this out of your ass.

  23. IanB

    – That was an interesting series of posts, particularly the “liberal European” vs puritanical orient culture (which is how I interpreted some of your comments). Can you recommend some reading on that matter which I can add to the Xmas list?

  24. UK Lib
    Or boats. Once you start playing around with displacement certain things become obvious. Like anchor stones weigh less in water than out & how to load a boat. I picked the casting example because it’s the not immediately obvious discovery those bits of metal displace exactly their own volume in water & let you know how many to melt to fill the mold. Casting trick’s as old as casting. From that you can go to “Is that crown really solid gold?”
    The Greek was the first to write it down.
    It’s like the other Greek. The 3:4:5 ratio’s as old as building.& carpentry.
    The Greek innovation was having the slave with the stylus do the writing.

    There’s a whole lot of what’s taken to be science just gets generated by people doing things, assimilated into that’s the way it’s done & taken for granted.

    It’s like the world being round. The only people ever thought the world was flat were scholars. Anyone sailed a boat knew it wasn’t & acted accordingly.

  25. @Ian
    “they’d never developed a scientific epistemology”
    How very anti-libertarian of you!
    I’d imagine if you wanted to bootstrap yourself into an industrial revolution, the last thing you’d want is a bunch of self opinionated scientists cluttering up the place & telling you it isn’t possible because it disagrees with this here theory he dreamed up in his bath. Industrial revolutions are made by tinkerers & a market telling them what’s needed & what works.

  26. I’m not sure about this hypothesis that democracy falls when enough young men can’t get pussy. Can we extend the hypothesis to other things large number of young men don’t get much of, relative to older, richer men?

  27. There’s a whole lot of what’s taken to be science just gets generated by people doing things, assimilated into that’s the way it’s done & taken for granted.

    A bit like saying people do maths to cross a road without dying or accurately throw a ball.

  28. LED125-

    So far as I know, I’m the only person promoting this view in this form, so I can’t recommend any particular reading material other than the book I haven’t written yet for Xmas 2014 (or, 2024 at this rate). I’m cribbing bits and pieces from all kinds of sources, but nobody in particular.

  29. Sandman – “However a law prohibiting people living together ‘as if’ they were in a polygamous marriage would only be justified if the number of people wishing to do just that is significant.”

    I would think it is significant. The entire male population for one. One of the reasons we have such asinine and punitive divorce laws is that the Conservative Right has joined with the Feminist Left. The latter want to punish all men. The former want to punish men who step out of line when it comes to “family values”.

    “In Utah, that might be the case. In the UK the number of polygamists is so few that it currently has minimal impact on the pool of potential mates for other people.”

    You have to define polygamy. We clearly have a large number of people who are polygamous in all but name – that is, they monopolise the prime fertile years of a series of the most desirable women. Creating a very unequal playing field for the rest of the male population. I expect this sector will only grow.

  30. bloke in spain – “it’d be hard to think of a sense Judaism isn’t puritanical. To an Orthadox Jew the Law & the interpretation of it is what makes a Jew & what makes non-orthodox Jews not Jewish.”

    Sure but what does that Law stop them doing. More than one wife? Sure. Child brides? Sure. Prostitution? Well, it certainly seems so going on the Old Testament. What might a man want to do that is forbidden? Oral sex? Not forbidden. Anal sex? Is in Islam, which is amusing, but is it in Jewish law? I am inclined to think not. It is a little tough on men who want to have sex with other men, but, like the Muslim world, it probably looked the other way. It may forbid alcohol, but does it forbid hash? Islamic law does not. Or did not before the Christians got to them.

    These systems are tough on women. They are far less so on men.

  31. Led125 – “I’d be really interested to know how this works. It strikes me as if you’ve just pulled this out of your ass.”

    Read Dr Betzig. What do you mean “how it works”? Isn’t it obvious. Marriage is a zero-sum game. If I have two, that means someone has none. That man will be young and poor. Societies that have polygamy produce young male groups on the fringes of society – who usually have to raid others to produce the wealth and respect they need to be able to get married. If they do not have a convenient war to send them off to, they hang around. How do you think a whole bunch of 21 year old men who will not marry for another 10 years and have no sexual outlet at all feel about the rich bastards who have all the women? If a preacher comes along and tells them it is God’s will that they kill said rich old bastards and take their land and their women, do you think they are going to think much about it?

    JamesV – “I’m not sure about this hypothesis that democracy falls when enough young men can’t get pussy. Can we extend the hypothesis to other things large number of young men don’t get much of, relative to older, richer men?”

    Sure. Why not? People do every day. It would be a no-brainer, as arguments go, if we were talking about wealth. Brazil is a very unequal society. And hence it is violent and you would think prone to revolution. White South Africans have all the good land. And hence Black South Africans will be angry. Social stability requires a more equal society.

    It is just that I think marriage is more important for young men than land. Unless lacking the latter means they cannot afford the former. Societies will be relatively calm if young men can afford to get married – that is the Christian experience anyway. If they cannot, they will not be. Notice that there are no democratic countries that continue to practice polygamy. All those countries that recently did so, with the possible exception of Japan, are struggling with democracy. It only works in societies were monogamy has been the norm for some time.

  32. @ UK Lib, I’m saying you can learn a lot of chemistry in the dying & tanning industry. But you don’t call it chemistry. You call it dying & tanning. You don’t have to know about the crystalline structure of metals to make a good blade. Just how to work metal to produce the right crystalline structure. The end product doesn’t care.

  33. Thanks for the response smfs. I know now that you really are pulling this out of your ass.

    “Read Dr Betzig”

    Perhaps you can provide exact references rather than just telling me to read the entire work of one academic?

    “Marriage is a zero-sum game. If I have two, that means someone has none”

    Well no, not really. For one thing, women tend to outnumber men in most populations. There are sound evolutionary reasons why this should be so – a man can continue to father children all year round, whereas a woman is limited to producing a single child (or set of twins or triplets) every nine months. That you have two brides doesn’t mean some other person can get other brides.

    You mentioned earlier that:

    “History shows that women may be willing to share a man. Men are rarely willing to share a woman.”

    But polyandry is common in several cultures, and is more common that you seem to think:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

    But I digress;

    “Societies that have polygamy produce young male groups on the fringes of society – who usually have to raid others to produce the wealth and respect they need to be able to get married. If they do not have a convenient war to send them off to, they hang around. How do you think a whole bunch of 21 year old men who will not marry for another 10 years and have no sexual outlet at all feel about the rich bastards who have all the women? If a preacher comes along and tells them it is God’s will that they kill said rich old bastards and take their land and their women, do you think they are going to think much about it?”

    Uh, right. Do you see this happening in modern, western civilizations where women are putting marriage off until later, are having more sexual partners than before, both sexes have access to prophylactics and other contraception, both can access internet porn….?

    Do you think the conditions when the seeds of liberty and democracy were being planted are the same as today?

  34. “It is just that I think marriage is more important for young men than land.”

    I think coitus is what matters to most young men, not marriage or monogamy.

  35. Led125 – “Thanks for the response smfs. I know now that you really are pulling this out of your ass.”

    No you don’t. All you are is determined to show what an ar$e you are. And I would suggest that is not a good idea.

    “Perhaps you can provide exact references rather than just telling me to read the entire work of one academic?”

    Perhaps you could ask. Her publications are not that long and it is more or less self explanatory which are important. But if you need your hand held, by all means, ask.

    “Well no, not really.”

    Well yes. Actually. Species tend to settle down to exactly the right number of births to ensure that there are equal numbers of breeding adults. Even Stephen Jay Gould had an article explaining exactly why it was so.

    “For one thing, women tend to outnumber men in most populations.”

    Because men tend to die young. There is a mild surplus of women at birth because boys tend to die young too. But the surplus you are thinking of is made up of women over 60.

    “There are sound evolutionary reasons why this should be so – a man can continue to father children all year round, whereas a woman is limited to producing a single child (or set of twins or triplets) every nine months. That you have two brides doesn’t mean some other person can get other brides.”

    No there are not sound reasons. I would explain but so far you have not shown you are worth it. You do not understand this. Read something before making a tit of yourself.

    “But polyandry is common in several cultures, and is more common that you seem to think:”

    Wow. 53 cultures where it is *allowed*. Not common. Not mainstream. But allowed. Well that convinces me. As I said, it is a trivial issue in human populations. And the Inuit are every bit as marginal as the Tibetans.

    “Uh, right. Do you see this happening in modern, western civilizations where women are putting marriage off until later, are having more sexual partners than before, both sexes have access to prophylactics and other contraception, both can access internet porn….?”

    You do see it in African American societies but it is irrelevant because we are not yet a polygamous society. We used to see it in Western populations. We probably will again.

    “Do you think the conditions when the seeds of liberty and democracy were being planted are the same as today?”

    In some ways. In others no. You have a point? Perhaps today’s young men will accept on line porn as a substitute for a real woman. Who knows? I doubt it myself and that has more serious consequences.

    Led125 – “I think coitus is what matters to most young men, not marriage or monogamy.”

    Now you’re wasting my time.

  36. @smfs – I don’t think any definition of polygamy would include the concept of serial, broadly monogamous, relationships. Each female is still occupied by only one male at a time.

  37. “In some ways. In others no. You have a point? ”

    If you’re going to state that democracy demands that illiberal policies based on what worked so many hundred of years then its a good idea to show that the circumstances are the same, otherwise you look like the prodnose tosser referred to by TW.

    “You do see it in African American societies but it is irrelevant because we are not yet a polygamous society. We used to see it in Western populations. We probably will again.”

    That is actually evidence or an argument. Its a series of assertions based on a premise that you haven’t proven.

    “Perhaps you could ask”

    I did, remember?

    “Her publications are not that long and it is more or less self explanatory which are important. But if you need your hand held, by all means, ask.”

    I did make some effort to locate what you were writing. I have googled the name of this person, and didn’t see anything she wrote that said that polygamy in Utah will inevitably lead to “Child-brides, police torture and military coups and all”. All I found was some stuff about what occurred historically (and I’m not just referring to back to when Jimmy Saville had a positive reputation, but even further back), which, while interesting, tells nowt about how we should act in any one particular instance today.

    If you have a specific reference in mind for such a controversial statement, it is usually polite to provide an exact reference. Its how that old burden of proof thing works.

    “Wow. 53 cultures where it is *allowed*. Not common. Not mainstream. But allowed. Well that convinces me.”

    I’m glad we’re making process.

    “As I said, it is a trivial issue in human populations. And the Inuit are every bit as marginal as the Tibetans.”

    Is it trivial or is the path to destruction?

    “Perhaps today’s young men will accept on line porn as a substitute for a real woman. Who knows? I doubt it myself and that has more serious consequences.”

    Here is the rub. If you want to limit the liberty of others please have some damn impressive arguments. Otherwise, fuck off.

  38. bloke in spain,

    @ UK Lib, I’m saying you can learn a lot of chemistry in the dying & tanning industry. But you don’t call it chemistry. You call it dying & tanning. You don’t have to know about the crystalline structure of metals to make a good blade. Just how to work metal to produce the right crystalline structure. The end product doesn’t care.

    ISTM a semantics if not somewhat anti-intellectual argument about what it means to ‘do science’ (or to ‘do chemistry’).

    imv someone observing, hypothesising, making testable predictions, recording all that, is doing science, even if he doesn’t call it ‘science’. istm a smith satisfied to stick with the metal and techniques du jour would not be a doer of science, no matter the quality of his blades. A smith would be doing science if he explored how blades were made better or worse. Even if he didn’t understand, for example, that heat treating rearranges the crystalline structure, he can understand that heat treating makes a difference.

  39. @UK Lib
    It is most definitely, most enthusiastically an anti-intellectual argument. Probably the greatest hindrance to progress it’s possible to have, bar major natural disasters, is a visitation of intellectuals.

    Yes of course they experimented. That’s where progress comes from. It was the medieval universities with their insistence everything worth knowing had already been written down by dead Greeks hampered progress.

    Years ago I came across something changed my whole appreciation of ancient capabilities. There was a piece of early Byzantine jewelry to repair. The guy taught me goldsmithing specialised in stuff like this. Initially, it looked as if something like micro-laser welding would be needed to rebuild parts of it. If you could find someone to do that. But, obviously that wasn’t around in the C4th. So we had along think about what they did have & reversed engineered it from there. I’m not going to go into the technical details but it was obvious, the guy made the original piece had a profound understanding of what’s going on when metals fuse.
    Convinced me, craftsmen back then had capabilities much greater than they’re given credit for. There’s not the documentary evidence because there wouldn’t be. They didn’t write stuff down because there’s no point. You can’t teach someone to be a smith or a carpenter or a mason by telling them. Or by showing them. You can only learn to do it by experience & acquiring judgement.

  40. Sandman – “I don’t think any definition of polygamy would include the concept of serial, broadly monogamous, relationships. Each female is still occupied by only one male at a time.”

    I think it does. Because the richer male is occupying the best and the most fertile years of any one woman. He just gets out of putting up with her when she goes through the menopause by dumping her on some desperate schlub.

    From the point of the younger poorer male who is being dispossessed her, women over 35 are most invisible anyway, and certainly telling him that the powerful can f**k all his pretty High School classmates while he can have some bitter twice-divorced cougar is not going to reconcile him to his fate one little bit.

    Serial monogamy is polygamy. Because richer older males are getting to f**k all the sexually desirable women to the exclusion of the young and poor.

    Led125 – “If you’re going to state that democracy demands that illiberal policies based on what worked so many hundred of years then its a good idea to show that the circumstances are the same, otherwise you look like the prodnose tosser referred to by TW.”

    I am fine with the idea that I am precisely the sort of prodnose tosser he was referring to. Nor do I see how this comment follows from your previous one. There is no reason whatsoever to think that poor males are going to be reconciled with on line porn although it is possible. What is definitely true is that it stops men “manning up” by going out and working in horrible jobs to pay the mortgage for some largely unfeeling and ungrateful woman. As can be seen most notably in the African American community, but more and more in all ethnic groups in the West. Which is also, in its own way, incompatible with a functioning society.

    “Its a series of assertions based on a premise that you haven’t proven.”

    I feel no particularly need to rise to an argument given your general ignorance, rudeness and lack of an endearing traits whatsoever. Why should I bother?

    “I did, remember?”

    I must have missed it among your massive ar$eishness.

    “All I found was some stuff about what occurred historically (and I’m not just referring to back to when Jimmy Saville had a positive reputation, but even further back), which, while interesting, tells nowt about how we should act in any one particular instance today.”

    Actually if you think the experience of history tells you nowt you are really wasting my time. Like so many in the West you are plummeting past the 36th floor of the Empire State proclaiming So far, so good. You only have to look around at the wasteland that is the modern West to see that not all is good and you probably should think why.

    But hey, it has only been true in every single social group we can find. It might not be true this time.

    “Is it trivial or is the path to destruction?”

    Women with more than one husband is a trivial social phenomenon.

    “Here is the rub. If you want to limit the liberty of others please have some damn impressive arguments. Otherwise, fuck off.”

    Your inability to see beyond the tip of your nose is not evidence my arguments are poor.

  41. “What is definitely true is that it stops men “manning up” by going out and working in horrible jobs to pay the mortgage for some largely unfeeling and ungrateful woman.”

    Cheers Ms Bindel. That gave me a right laugh.

  42. Let me see if I follow this argument – because in primitive cultures that denied women a sexuality and where there there was no recourse to a rational legal system men fucking more than one women was consistent with a lack of development, this means that minority groups today must be persecuted today?

    You said that: “Men are rarely willing to share a woman”. Actually the significance of the article I listed was that cultures adopt a sexual and matrimonial system that works for them. Polyandry for the Tibets is not trivial, it makes sense. And it would be ration for men today not to start revolutions by limiting the number of men women can fuck to one. If it is a zero sum game, then the most rational response for men would be to allow their women to marry more than one men. Arguing from history, and that’s great. But yes, unless you are willing to consider the way in which things are different then you do look like an arsehole.

    “There is no reason whatsoever to think that poor males are going to be reconciled with on line porn although it is possible”

    Online porn is certainly having an impact, and can certainly be chalked up as one of (along with the liberation of women) biggest change in the sexual culture today compared to, well, anytime before today (notwithstanding the efforts of the Marquis de Sade). Its impact can be seen in the effects it has on sexual crime:
    http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html#conclusions

    Its difficult for me to prove that civilization wont collapse but thankfully I don’t have to. There is and must be a presumption in favour of liberty and if you want to show that allow individuals in a minority group to marry more than one person is going to usher a Mad Max style dystopia then I would expect you to come up with better response to the above queries than your childish cries that you arent going to play because your feelings were hurt.

    My own view is that poor young men will be more than willing to wait a view years until they become older and richer and then manage to find themselves some younger wives. That outcome certainly seems more in their interest than leading gangs to butcher the older men and take their women.

    “I feel no particularly need to rise to an argument given your general ignorance, rudeness and lack of an endearing traits whatsoever.”

    Yep, I freely admit you got me on the Fisher principle. Egg is definitely on my face there and feel free to grant yourself a point if it makes you feel better. It still doesn’t change the facts that there are more women than men, for whatever reason it seems there are in this country.

    “I must have missed it among your massive ar$eishness.”

    Clearly you did, it was pretty unequivocal. “Perhaps you can provide exact references rather than just telling me to read the entire work of one academic?”. Your retort to my request was to, um, chide me for not requesting a reference.

    I’m still not convinced that you’ve met the burden of proof here that allow polygamy now will lead to the downfall of civilization. Either come up with something stronger, perhaps some research in poly-amorous communes in the west, or fuck off.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.