Heterosexism, my ass. I’m saying that men are pigs. That’s what I’m saying.
Well, I, for one, do not have a spiral penis.
But if you did, would you be more or less popular in a group marriage?
Depends on if he was threaded compatibly with their cervices, I figure.
I’m quoting research papers, man. Do you know what “pair bonding” means? It has a specific neurological component. While I wouldn’t be surprised if you and your wife have sustained such for a long period of time, constantly renewing it, it’s not necessarily biologically required that be the case. Note also that many of the most important physical actions for renewing pair bonding (eating together, shared grooming, etc) are practically de rigeur in marriages.
No one said it had to be difficult–just that it had to be done for the specific neurochemical processes of “pair bonding” to remain active.
You’re reading WAAAY too much into my statements, if you think I’m sneering at the relationship choices my parents and many of my loved ones have made. There’s no sneering in the discussion of the biological realities behind long-term relationship stability, unless you put it there yourself.
You’re debating me here, not “all the time from self-proclaimed polys”. I’m not holding you responsible for, Britney Spears’ or Levi Johnston’s “pair bonding” choices.
Now I’m waiting for you to pony up ANY academic cites that humans pair bond on any unreinforced duration longer than the 12-28 months I’m familiar with, and/or ANY academic cites that humans are limited to a single ongoing pair bond. You made the claims, you back 'em. Appeal to popularity is also not acceptable, thanks in advance.
Speak for yourself, buddy.
And we’ve re-entered The Dio Zone, where every behavior that can be even tangentially related to his daughter’s future or present sexual activity automatically turns off his ability to think clearly–and for the record THAT is what sneering looks like coming from me, since you seem to have trouble with it upthread.
Just for good measure, let’s see a cite on this, too. My wife, for one, would disagree–and I’m pretty sure she could beat the living hell out of both of us put together if either of us suggested that she was doing something that far out of character merely to please me.
Pigs with the strong minds to control weak willed women?
If all men are pigs and women are easily victimized, how do monogamous relationships work out? Why wouldn’t any relationship between a man and a woman fall apart or end with the woman getting screwed over?
Maybe in Diogenes’ world, it’s only exploitation if she’s out-numbered.
Dio, if a single woman is in a polyandrous relationship, why can it not be that she is exploiting the men?
Because men are pigs, and women are unable to resist their male wiles and think for themselves, making their own independent decisions about who they’d like to sleep with. In a completely non-sexist way.
Hahahahaaaa! Silly Skald. Women don’t have same big strong brains that men have to control others. Women have docile, easily exploited brains, to be used by pig men. So see, you question is really quite ridiculous.
Yes, obviously a woman in a polyandrous relationship is actually being ganged up on by the men. They’re too lazy to have multiple women, so decided to just get one and share.
Dio, do you at least realize that your opinions on this subject (and quite a few related ones) are practically neo-Victorian-meets-Second-Wave-Feminism? It’s like you subscribe to the Katherine MacKinnon idea that all (heterosexual) sex is rape.
Actually, I don’t think Katherine MacKinnon ever said that.
jayjay is thinking of Andrea Dworkin, who worked with MacKinnon and who wrote in her book Intercourse that “violation is synonymous with intercourse.” But she said that interpreting that as meaning “heterosexual sex = rape” was an error.
You are correct, sir. It was an interesting point she was trying to make, but it was unfortunately widely misread and misquoted. In some cases, the mangled version came to be embraced.
You’ve quoted nothing pertaining to this fantasy notion of “group marriage.” Just about polygamy.
Yes, I know what it means. Of course it has a neurogical component. My whole point is that I don’t buy that this neurological process extends to mutually reciprical groups. I’m calling bullshit in that. While I wouldn’t be surprised if you and your wife have sustained such for a long period of time, constantly renewing it, it’s not necessarily biologically required that be the case.
[/quote]
No one said it had to be difficult–just that it had to be done for the specific neurochemical processes of “pair bonding” to remain active.
I never made eitrher one of these claims (cute the way slip that little word a"unreinforced" in there), so I have no reason to cite them. What I would like to see is the slightest bit of evdience that humans can bond in mutually reciprocal groups. The fact that humans bond in pairs is too obvious and well known to take cite requests seriously.
The kids in your neighbourhood had the fruitiest names.
What methodology, and who are they ? IOW : dude, where’s my cite ?
Are your daddy issues empirical data, then ? 
That’s why I dissected them!
Well, that and to make sure no one came after me to get my continua device, which I stole fair and square.