Oceans Yet to Burn

@thathopeyetlives

“cheating on marriage with a prostitute is OK” is Bad News. You’re looking at hyperpatriarchy there - the mortal consequences of it might be more… “contained” than either the anarchy we have today or the polygamy you attack, but it’s still very much not *good* even if you think mankind can permit adultery ever which it can’t.

Well, that’s Futurist Shitposting instincts - i.e., I proposed that combination because I find it hilarious, and also culture-shocking and weird relative to today, but feasible for a regime which is socially conservative in pragmatic synthesis ways, yet having retained a touch of the social liberalism of our time.

On the other hand, there are arguments to be made for it.

…which you’re already aware of, judging by what you just wrote there.

gendpol mitigated future

industrialangel

mitigatedchaos

@industrialangel

What is your reasoning for the dislike of serial monogamy and extramarital sex? If your concerns are primarily focused on the continuation of nations/states through good childraising, I would expect an exception for extramarital sex that occurs without damaging the ability of a family to raise healthy productive kids. Privacy of one’s own bedroom and all that?

Something like that, which is why I haven’t heavily pushed policy along these lines, as I haven’t as heavily considered it and I’m hesitant to bring the iron hand of the state down and accidentally break something.

Some sort of new policy paradigm would be more appropriate, but I haven’t developed one in this case.

Source: feotakahari gendpol

industrialangel

feotakahari

As long as I’m picking fights:

“Actually, attacking LGBTs is one of the single dumbest things SoCons have done, because LGBTs do not actually undermine the nation just by being LGBT. In fact, gay marriage is good because stable family units are good, and we can incentivize the creation of stable queer families with similar methods to straight families.

“(Polygamy, as practiced by people that aren’t autistic-spectrum rationalists, is still bad though.) …

“It isn’t enough that I not marry my cousins and engage in polygamy. For my home to not be terrible, I must stop others from doing so as well. And if they want to make a place where those are the norms, then let them, and not me, suffer the consequences of that. I don’t need dumb social policies banned everywhere, only in the places I live in/am responsible for.”

I can’t bring myself to care about “stable family units.” I just can’t. The only reason I give a crap one way or another about gay marriage is that I know some gay people who want to be married, and I like those gay people and want them to be happy.

I’m not sure if there’s meant to be a distinction between “polygamy” and polyamory in this post, but I know some polyamorous people. I like those people, and I want them to be happy, and that apparently means making polyamory into a thing that is considered acceptable.

Maybe “polygamists” as a class will make your home terrible. But I’ve never met “polygamists” as a class, just as I’ve never met “gay people” as a class. I’ve met individual people, and some of the individual people I have met don’t seem like they make society worse just by being present. Sure, I’ve also met polyamorous people who were assholes, but I think they’d be better covered by a rule against being assholes than a rule against being polyamorous.

To be clear, this is not to say that I don’t like you or don’t want you to be happy. I just feel like if you met some of the polyamorous people I’ve met, you’d have more in common with them than you seem to think.

mitigatedchaos

I can’t bring myself to care about “stable family units.” I just can’t. The only reason I give a crap one way or another about gay marriage is that I know some gay people who want to be married, and I like those gay people and want them to be happy.

Are we immortal yet? No? Then it matters. A lot. Because each generation needs to create and raise the next generation.

The last time I checked, broken families are not good for people, statistically.

You can choose to be single or unattached until you die. It just doesn’t work as a way to structure mortal human societies, unless you are willing to do things that are, hmn… drastic.

I’m not sure if there’s meant to be a distinction between “polygamy” and polyamory in this post, but I know some polyamorous people. I like those people, and I want them to be happy, and that apparently means making polyamory into a thing that is considered acceptable.

Polygamy is bad along multiple axes.

Polyamory, it hasn’t been proven.

Maybe “polygamists” as a class will make your home terrible. But I’ve never met “polygamists” as a class, just as I’ve never met “gay people” as a class. I’ve met individual people, and some of the individual people I have met don’t seem like they make society worse just by being present. Sure, I’ve also met polyamorous people who were assholes, but I think they’d be better covered by a rule against being assholes than a rule against being polyamorous.

1. Polygamy is, generally, really polygyny, and married polygyny is bad for women, it’s bad for children, and it’s bad for men.

2. No one actually has to be trying to be an asshole, so long as most people are straight and men marry multiple wives more than women marry multiple husbands.

3. Not everyone is bisexual.

Alright? So what are we supposed to do with all the “extra” men?

To be clear, this is not to say that I don’t like you or don’t want you to be happy. I just feel like if you met some of the polyamorous people I’ve met, you’d have more in common with them than you seem to think.

This isn’t about whether individual polyamorous people are mean. It’s about the overall effect on society when polygamy is widely practiced, and “the overall effects on society when polygamy is widely practiced” are backwards anti-feminist-as-in-gender-equality societies when it’s a subset (even in developed countries), or the Middle East when it’s most of society.

When weird autistic (lovable!) internet nerds do it, it stays below the threshold necessary to fuck everything up, unless they’re foolish enough to start normalizing it and spreading it among normal people.

feotakahari

And that doesn’t seem at all cold-blooded to you?

When you get right down to it, I kind of suck at this “Utilitarianism” thing that I’ve built my life around. I stumbled ass-backwards into it because I don’t believe in human sacrifice, and “all human happiness has equal value” was the only way I could think of to avoid “some human happiness is worthless and can be freely discarded for the benefit of others.” I could try to build a rational argument for why some people being polyamorous doesn’t automatically lead to a massive spread of male-dominated polygamy that breaks society. But the reality is that after it turned out we don’t actually need to take children away from gay couples so they’ll be raised properly, and it turned out we don’t actually need to take children away from Native Americans so they’ll be raised properly, I’m inherently skeptical that children raised by folks who’re polyamorous will all turn out broken.

Also, someone tell @pervocracy he’s a “weird autistic lovable internet nerd.” You’re speaking about people like they’re overgrown children who aren’t capable of making their own decisions.

mitigatedchaos

And that doesn’t seem at all cold-blooded to you?

I recently made a post about how the tyranny of resource scarcity significantly limits our ability to provide medical care, so in fact, I can be cold-blooded.

I can even be cold-blooded and petty - I agree with Singapore’s decision to ban chewing gum because vandals were using it to disrupt the transit system.

When you get right down to it, I kind of suck at this “Utilitarianism” thing that I’ve built my life around.

You don’t need Utilitarianism to object to this: what have the “extra” “surplus” men done to deserve their situation?

But the reality is that after it turned out we don’t actually need to take children away from gay couples so they’ll be raised properly, and it turned out we don’t actually need to take children away from Native Americans so they’ll be raised properly, I’m inherently skeptical that children raised by folks who’re polyamorous will all turn out broken.

Ah, yes, we had all of those gay countries to compare to as an example. So many of them. And someone like me, who routinely suggests forming city-states to run political experiments, would never have suggested actually testing it on a smaller scale, which would have established just how (relatively) harmless it really was…

Look, we know what polygamy looks like in our countries (cruddy polygynous cults/backwards communities with “extra” “surplus” men). We know what polygamy looks like when it’s the norm in a country (the Middle East). We know single parenthood isn’t great, either.

Hypergamy isn’t perfectly established, but it’s probably true enough to matter. And once a social change has taken place, it’s difficult to put it back without great cruelty.

Also, polygamy is more dangerous than polyamory, but I don’t recommend polyamory to anyone. You’ve got increased risk for STIs (much broader network of sexual contact), you’ve got the risk that they’ll fall in love with someone else and leave you, but without the increased transaction cost/friction of monoamory, you’re not their number one priority and if it comes down to a choice between you and someone else, they may pick someone else, you might just not even be poly, you could end up a single parent begging for money in online groups (okay okay, I wasn’t close to that particular drama, but it happens), etc.

(”But those are all risks in monogamy, too!” Sure, but not ones that are part of the very structure of it.)

It’s not some kind of virtuous, enlightened thing we should all aspire to. It’s just a preference that some people have. It’s not even an orientation.

Also, someone tell @pervocracy he’s a “weird autistic lovable internet nerd.” You’re speaking about people like they’re overgrown children who aren’t capable of making their own decisions.

Oh, you think that’s what I meant by it?

And not the more obvious “actually, because neurodivergents are different from neurotypicals, the outcome of neurodivergents doing something may be different than neurotypicals doing the same thing, particularly if there are fewer of them”?

industrialangel

Is serial monogamy a substantial improvement over polygamy?

As practiced in the US especially, the majority of people who get married/start a family do not remain together. Many of these relationships end after just a few years if I recall correctly. Divorce and new step parents can cause a lot of harm to children. I have had friends who have been neglected or abused by step parents or parents due to new monogamous relationships.

I would also love to hear thoughts on the impact of extramonogamous relationships. My understanding is that a large percentage of people in monogamous relationships in the US have had an affair. Do you think that monogamy or stable families are more important?

mitigatedchaos

As practiced in the US especially,

I don’t like serial monogamy, but I’m concerned that making it too hard to divorce might cause abuse levels (among adults) to increase, or just make things miserable for people.

(And yes, from what I understand, non-blood relatives are a major source of child abuse.)

My understanding is that a large percentage of people in monogamous relationships in the US have had an affair.

That’s a tough one. My emotional instinct is to ban having sexual affairs, but that probably isn’t the right call. Some people manage to work it out, and the ability to turn in your marriage partner for violation could lead to leverage for abuse.

My futurist shitposting instinct is to ban sex outside of their marriage for married people, except with a prostitute, then legalize some form of prostitution. But I haven’t actually thought that one through.

Probably, resolving these issues will look weirder than what I have in mind right now. I haven’t put tons of thought into this particular area of policy, other than that I don’t want to replicate the policies of known troubled communities.

Source: feotakahari gendpol

mitigatedchaos

I will admit, when I realized that each generation must raise the next, and I mean really realized it, not just in passing, I became more right-wing.

mitigatedchaos

@silver-and-ivory why did you

If some subset of society just does whatever they want, as long as it’s not too big, then it doesn’t risk imploding society.

However, for society to continue and be good to live in,

Each generation must have and raise children
These children must be raised to be of at least average virtue

Thus, the family is, in fact, one of the primary core units of society, and of great importance. How people live, in the aggregate, matters a lot. The education and raising of children matter a lot. There is a maximum number ratio of wine-drenched spinsters and perpetual bachelors, beyond which, long-term, any nation will crumble.

How people live determines the wealth of society, the general pleasantness of society, and so on.

gendpol politics

feotakahari

As long as I’m picking fights:

“(Polygamy, as practiced by people that aren’t autistic-spectrum rationalists, is still bad though.) …

mitigatedchaos

I can’t bring myself to care about “stable family units.” I just can’t. The only reason I give a crap one way or another about gay marriage is that I know some gay people who want to be married, and I like those gay people and want them to be happy.

Are we immortal yet? No? Then it matters. A lot. Because each generation needs to create and raise the next generation.

The last time I checked, broken families are not good for people, statistically.

You can choose to be single or unattached until you die. It just doesn’t work as a way to structure mortal human societies, unless you are willing to do things that are, hmn… drastic.

I’m not sure if there’s meant to be a distinction between “polygamy” and polyamory in this post, but I know some polyamorous people. I like those people, and I want them to be happy, and that apparently means making polyamory into a thing that is considered acceptable.

Polygamy is bad along multiple axes.

Polyamory, it hasn’t been proven.

Maybe “polygamists” as a class will make your home terrible. But I’ve never met “polygamists” as a class, just as I’ve never met “gay people” as a class. I’ve met individual people, and some of the individual people I have met don’t seem like they make society worse just by being present. Sure, I’ve also met polyamorous people who were assholes, but I think they’d be better covered by a rule against being assholes than a rule against being polyamorous.

1. Polygamy is, generally, really polygyny, and married polygyny is bad for women, it’s bad for children, and it’s bad for men.

2. No one actually has to be trying to be an asshole, so long as most people are straight and men marry multiple wives more than women marry multiple husbands.

3. Not everyone is bisexual.

Alright? So what are we supposed to do with all the “extra” men?

To be clear, this is not to say that I don’t like you or don’t want you to be happy. I just feel like if you met some of the polyamorous people I’ve met, you’d have more in common with them than you seem to think.

feotakahari

And that doesn’t seem at all cold-blooded to you?

mitigatedchaos

And that doesn’t seem at all cold-blooded to you?

I recently made a post about how the tyranny of resource scarcity significantly limits our ability to provide medical care, so in fact, I can be cold-blooded.

I can even be cold-blooded and petty - I agree with Singapore’s decision to ban chewing gum because vandals were using it to disrupt the transit system.

When you get right down to it, I kind of suck at this “Utilitarianism” thing that I’ve built my life around.

You don’t need Utilitarianism to object to this: what have the “extra” “surplus” men done to deserve their situation?

But the reality is that after it turned out we don’t actually need to take children away from gay couples so they’ll be raised properly, and it turned out we don’t actually need to take children away from Native Americans so they’ll be raised properly, I’m inherently skeptical that children raised by folks who’re polyamorous will all turn out broken.

Hypergamy isn’t perfectly established, but it’s probably true enough to matter. And once a social change has taken place, it’s difficult to put it back without great cruelty.

(”But those are all risks in monogamy, too!” Sure, but not ones that are part of the very structure of it.)

It’s not some kind of virtuous, enlightened thing we should all aspire to. It’s just a preference that some people have. It’s not even an orientation.

Also, someone tell @pervocracy he’s a “weird autistic lovable internet nerd.” You’re speaking about people like they’re overgrown children who aren’t capable of making their own decisions.

Oh, you think that’s what I meant by it?

gendpol social centrism

Anonymous asked:

Is cousin marriage for one generation bad beyond the genetic and possible tight family control aspect?

Well, see, here’s the thing. White people (broadly) have been largely not-marrying-their-cousins for a while now, and they live in societies in which cousin marriage is fairly taboo. So when white people marry their cousin, it typically is a one generation thing, preventing a whole bunch of snowballing consequences.

I’m sure it seems otherwise on this blog, but I actually don’t have a strong disgust reaction towards cousin marriage. And if we continued to see rates around 1%, I wouldn’t really care.

But some populations have cousin-married at much higher rates, for much longer times. So one generation of cousin marriage for them isn’t the same as one generation of cousin marriage for other people.

It isn’t “too late.” Humans are resilient. We just have to have them stop doing it now.

Since we don’t have the full lineages of everyone, and I don’t want to go by other categories, I’d rather just throw the (very tiny) baby out with the bathwater and ban it for everyone.

Also, a big chunk of the tight family control aspect is cultural transmission. So now I’ll have to actually make that post about cultural transmission (generally) at some point, seeing as some things like FGM are cultural so cultural transmission isn’t all nice things like ethnic foods.

gendpol politics social centrism ban cousin marriage anons asks

feotakahari

As long as I’m picking fights:

“(Polygamy, as practiced by people that aren’t autistic-spectrum rationalists, is still bad though.) …

mitigatedchaos

I can’t bring myself to care about “stable family units.” I just can’t. The only reason I give a crap one way or another about gay marriage is that I know some gay people who want to be married, and I like those gay people and want them to be happy.

Are we immortal yet? No? Then it matters. A lot. Because each generation needs to create and raise the next generation.

The last time I checked, broken families are not good for people, statistically.

You can choose to be single or unattached until you die. It just doesn’t work as a way to structure mortal human societies, unless you are willing to do things that are, hmn… drastic.

I’m not sure if there’s meant to be a distinction between “polygamy” and polyamory in this post, but I know some polyamorous people. I like those people, and I want them to be happy, and that apparently means making polyamory into a thing that is considered acceptable.

Polygamy is bad along multiple axes.

Polyamory, it hasn’t been proven.

Maybe “polygamists” as a class will make your home terrible. But I’ve never met “polygamists” as a class, just as I’ve never met “gay people” as a class. I’ve met individual people, and some of the individual people I have met don’t seem like they make society worse just by being present. Sure, I’ve also met polyamorous people who were assholes, but I think they’d be better covered by a rule against being assholes than a rule against being polyamorous.

1. Polygamy is, generally, really polygyny, and married polygyny is bad for women, it’s bad for children, and it’s bad for men.

2. No one actually has to be trying to be an asshole, so long as most people are straight and men marry multiple wives more than women marry multiple husbands.

3. Not everyone is bisexual.

Alright? So what are we supposed to do with all the “extra” men?

To be clear, this is not to say that I don’t like you or don’t want you to be happy. I just feel like if you met some of the polyamorous people I’ve met, you’d have more in common with them than you seem to think.

gendpol politics social centrism

2017: People identifying their gender as NB

2027: People identifying their gender as NIMBY

shtpost gendpol concrete and steel

the-grey-tribe

moldytony

was cruisin my tl & this is so fucking important

jumpingjacktrash

i think the moment i was disillusioned about life was when i was maybe 7 years old and realized the reason all my friends had become assholes was because boys aren’t allowed to have any physcial contact that isn’t fighting

my parents were hippie feminists so my brother and i could play clapping games and sleep in puppy piles and give each other weird hairdos, but all the ‘normal’ boys just up and stopped knowing how to touch anyone without hitting sometime between kindergarten and first grade

and my little kid mind briefly saw the vastness of life stretching out in front of all of us, and all the hugs everyone would need and not get, and for a moment i was just like

maybe life is not such a good idea after all

ferenofnopewood

I grew up around a Russian ballet school. Let me tell you something about Russian men: They touch each other. Especially dancers, who are in my experience almost always super tactile people. They rough house like Americans, but they also hug each other, and sit on each other’s laps, and share blankets when it’s cold backstage.

So I grew up knowing full well that the whole Men Don’t Touch thing was puritanical bullshit.

What I was absolutely not prepared for, however, is the super intense effect it has on straight men’s romantic relationships.

Because when you are literally the only person it is okay for your boyfriend to touch, Jesus fucking Christ, that changes the game.

I strongly suspect that a lot of Str8 Dude feelings of entitlement to women’s bodies, particularly the bodies of their wives and girlfriends, is a direct result of those women being the only non-violent physical contact they’re allowed to have.

I know for certain that the framing of any and all platonic physical contact as un-manly has been directly responsible for a lot of sexual dysfunction (and then the attendant misery of trying to get that treated at the ripe old age of 22) with at least one of my exes. It’s a mess when you can’t get it up because you’re depressed and want to be held but you’ve been brainwashed into thinking what you actually want is sex because being held is for girls.

Amazing how the erectile dysfunction went completely away when he learned the difference between feeling horny and feeling cuddly. /sarcasm

warpedellipsis

This stuff also ties into the “anyone who smiles at me wants to bang”, via the same can’t touch/can’t be affectionate, so

–>all touch is sexual, no touch is platonic

–>thus anyone I do touch/am affectionate with is SUPER SPECIAL and sexual

–>thus every woman who’s nice to me wants to bang

–>being nice means you want to bang

–>being nice to a woman means I want to bang her

–>I can’t be nice to a woman unless I want to bang her, if she’s nice to me then she wants to bang

–>I fall in love with any and all nice women

That explains a whole lot of the complaints women have about men. I don’t think it’s this simple, but it sure feeds into those problems.

thathopeyetlives

(operatic drama play voice) *must* it be to “bang”?

Nobody can know exactly what they have been taught by society and what is essential to their nature. But I’m not sure I would want to touch people more.

I do not feel that all touch is sexual, ballroom dancing has cured me of that. But I have been more annoyed by people touching me when I don’t expect it. (this is Terribad).

And yet very desperately I wish to marry a wife and live life in her embrace.

Blessed art thou, oh Lord, who has made me according to thy will.

the-grey-tribe

This!

And that assumption goes a long way to explain why people are the way they are. This is such a horrible double bind. If a man is nice or affectionate, clearly he is doing it for some kind of sinister sexual ulterior motive!

If people give you this kind of crap for physical contact, you would think twice before initiating it, and would regard every instance as meaningful, or at least indicative of something.

the-grey-tribe

I mean the sex-positive woke feminist response to “anyone who smiles at me wants to bang” by @warpedellipsis is “Everybody wants to bang, but nobody wants to bang you. True banging will only come to those who do not seek it!“

The consent that can be given is not the Eternal Tao.

mitigatedchaos

Men used to touch more in America, too, I think, but now they’re all terrified of being read as gay.

The thing is that even men who are entirely okay with gays, if they’re straight, are often frightened of being read as gay.

Seeing as “hangs out with gay dudes regularly but deeply averse to being read as one of them” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense by itself, I’m left to wonder if the effect comes from straight women, based on reports from bisexual men that straight women do not want men that fuck other men.

Source: moldytony gendpol

wirehead-wannabe

gendpol the culture war politics

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.