Irrelevant to the discussion or my usage of the terms purpose/function.
Then your usage is meaningless. With no design, there is no intent. With no intent, there can be no “primary function,” or “purpose,” or “subversion.”
Except that if you read an anatomy textbook they will use both words in it.
I’m done with this roller-coaster to Banalistan.
I’ll give you ‘subversion’ as that is neither here nor there, but there is a primary function. That’s why it’s called ‘The Reproductive System’. Any other arguments regarding it are invalid.
They use the words figuratively, not literally. They obviously have no moral or ethical application.
I am using the words the way they are used in a textbook. The rest is all shit you made up in your own head.
You misunderstood how they were used in a textbook.
no u
And so he spins it round and round and round until they all give up and go away…
Certainly, IMO, but there must be intent to deceive, break trust, or coerce for it to be immature. If I had vowed monogamy with my wife, it’d be immature of me to want to fuck someone else. Hell, if I told my girlfriend of two days that yes, we were exclusive and steady, it’d be immature of me to fuck someone else without first dealing with the specific promises I’d made. However, it’s not immature for someone whose marriage vows expressly allow non-monogamy to have sex outside the marriage.
Is this 40-yr-old cruising the bars for hookups or is there an indication that their relationship grew organically from a basis of mutual interest and trust? My wife’s first serious relationship was approximately similar to the age range you propose, they met because she was browsing in the niche store he owned, and they hit it off after discussing the specifics of some of it. They started dating after a few more visits cemented the idea that they enjoyed each other’s company. They were engaged after a year and she’d still be with him if he hadn’t died untimely. Was that an immature relationship?
I would say that if they were your friend or even acquaintance, you could judge their case individually. On the other hand, given merely the bare facts of “19-yr-old dating 40-yr-old” or any other relationship circumstances without any other data, one has no basis on which to judge, IMO.
Keep in mind I’m coming at this from the perspective of me and mine having been judged harshly for no basis other than extant prejudices–everything from my wife’s experiences above, to the polyamory thing now, to dating a Jew when I was a Catholic and having her mom excoriate her in earshot of me about it, etc etc. I think maybe you don’t realize how much your statements on polyamorous relationships, especially in your harshness of statement, sound like “oh, blacks and whites obviously shouldn’t marry, there are obvious problems with that”. I’m not saying the statements ARE analogous, but that is how your phrasing comes across–contrast with, say, eleanorrigby, who disapproves vehemently for herself and politely for people not in a relationship with her.
Basically, there’s a difference between disagreeing with something and being a douchebag about it. There’s also a difference between “this is generally bad/risky/immoral/immature” and “this is ALWAYS bad/risky/immoral/immature”.
Did you notice that I put that term in quotes? You did, too. The point is that human sexuality spans a lot of relationship types-- including polygamous ones.
You’re the one implying that polygamous relationships are somehow inherently pathological.
Probably. But it isn’t always immature to want a polygamous relationship.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. I wouldn’t presume to judge someones sexual relationships unless I had clear evidence of abuse or deception.
Why do you keep bringing up polygamy when the subject is polyamory?
No one in the scenario proffered had a polygamous relationship.
This is a cop out of an answer. There doesn’t have to be visible abuse or deception to be able to tell whether or not a relationship is likely to be sustainable, or serious or mature.
OK, change all my postings of polygamy to polyamory.
Can we have a cite for that?
As of yet no one has made any clear indication of why ‘stability’ of a relationship is important.
It’s pretty funny to watch Dio ignore any points he can’t refute, too.
What points haven’t I refuted?
Why is stability an important part of a relationship?
I never said it was.
I’m going to have to go with Diogenes here. Biology is complicated. The only way we can judge what something is ‘for’ is to observe it. Are telomeres ‘intended’ to hard-stop our lifespans? Are diseases ‘intended’ to cull the weak? Or conversely, are we ‘intended’ to use our big brains to create and distribute vaccines, so that the weak remain unculled?
Perhaps the purpose of unhealthy penis-bearers is simply to provide sexual gratification to unhealthy vagina-bearers, so they don’t pollute the gene pool with their unhealthy genes. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
Diseases are not proper functionality. We have a well understood proper functionality. Diseases are often other species that eat us or malfunctioning parts, or bits of code that enter into our cells and actively subvert their functionality to an usage that is not beneficial to the host.
The ‘intelligent intent’ argument is a straw man.
I can’t find anything meaningful in this.
I guess it’s controversial to say that the stomach is for digesting food. I use mine for resting my beer on. 
The stomach is not “for” anything. It just incidentally digests food.