[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

No, I think deep down they want to be because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

Hmmm not necessarily; genetic diversity is evolutionarily good for us and genetic diversity is directly impacted by "alpha male social construct" given the way our society is set up. If we're talking basic animal instincts... the strongest and smartest male around would be doing all of the mating. However, the result is that the majority of offspring are then coming from one genetic source (one alpha) reducing diversity and increasing abnormalities. Also, given that evolution is not deliberately selective (common myth is that evolution = improvement) but is ONLY about being best adapted to environment... there are plenty of ways to argue that life monogamy - or at the very least, serial monogamy (which is actually what most people practice) - is actually an evolutionary advantage for humans.

But anyway... that doesn'tt really even matter. To go back to the point before; the human mind has evolved to the point of abstract / philosophical thought, appreciation of personality and "the individual", which makes us entirely unique (again, on earth, there are probably plenty of emo aliens out there)... and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans".


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans".


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

Well yeah, I'd have to talk about a parallel universe really, because I can't explain it with who we currently are after that millenia of abstract thinking, and wedding ceremonies, and disney.

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

[smudgie]

Their marriages wouldn't be recognised in this country, apart from the original one.
No different to western men and women sharing their jollies around other than they call it polygamy to cover their arses re adultery laws in a given religion.
Either partner can walk away at any time and basically say we are now divorced, as they were never legally married

[Livia]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Their marriages wouldn't be recognised in this country, apart from the original one.
No different to western men and women sharing their jollies around other than they call it polygamy to cover their arses re adultery laws in a given religion.
Either partner can walk away at any time and basically say we are now divorced, as they were never legally married

Polygamous marriages are recognised for welfare benefits, and there are tens of thousands of recognised polygamous marriages in the Muslim community in the UK already.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

Polygamous marriages are recognised for welfare benefits, and there are tens of thousands of recognised polygamous marriages in the Muslim community in the UK already.

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

Except that polygamy is actually against the law. It's a strange thing...


Totally agree with everything else there.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

ON the Politics show the creep quite happily stayed his wife was not happy about it but quite frankly didn’t care. He wanted his fun but under no circumstances was she ‘allowed’ to do the same. She had no say in anything which is abuse.

[thesheriff443]

I have had a lot of women, its not big or clever, meaning less sex is meaning less

[Livia]

Humans aren't the only animals that "mate for life", although I'm pretty sure we're the only ones who fall in love. It seems to me giving labels like polyamarous etc. is a nice little "get-out" for people who cheat - male and female.

[Niamh.]

Withano I'm just going to let TS answer you I think, he's far more articulate than me but he's saying all the stuff I think

Come back to me when you actually meet someone who changes your mind though

[Kizzy]

'However, the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...t=clnk&gl=uk#9

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'However, the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...t=clnk&gl=uk#9

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

What I'm mainly wondering about (to join this more boring political side of the discussion ) is how it applies to the tax allowance transfer scheme? You know the thing where a spouse can transfer a chunk of their tax-free allowance if they are under the minimum tax threshold (think it's Ł1500 or something...). So... could you have like 20 spouses and get Ł30k added to your tax free allowance?

Funny side story: I told a coworker of mine about this scheme as her husband is retired, but she filled in the form the wrong way round, and transferred part of HER tax allowance to HIM, meaning she got taxed more rather than less . And didn't notice for months, then got really mad at me. Ahh good times good times...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What I'm mainly wondering about (to join this more boring political side of the discussion ) is how it applies to the tax allowance transfer scheme? You know the thing where a spouse can transfer a chunk of their tax-free allowance if they are under the minimum tax threshold (think it's Ł1500 or something...). So... could you have like 20 spouses and get Ł30k added to your tax free allowance?

Funny side story: I told a coworker of mine about this scheme as her husband is retired, but she filled in the form the wrong way round, and transferred part of HER tax allowance to HIM, meaning she got taxed more rather than less . And didn't notice for months, then got really mad at me. Ahh good times good times...

I don't think it's likely to you can benefit from the tax system like that. I'm afraid you'll have to stick to just the one wife.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't think it's likely to you can benefit from the tax system like that. I'm afraid you'll have to stick to just the one wife.

I was only going to have one real wife, but I had the printer ready to go with a bunch of forged birth and marriage certificates. Bye bye, fake tax wives... I hardly knew ye...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

The information you have provided was in my link you know, that said due to the benefit cap how could this benefit polygamous families? Even if they were to claim independently they all have to be residing in the same home and therefore be subject to the cap again, not to mention the loss of pension entitlement for any let alone one spouse.

[Withano]

Well I guess if your argument is love causes monogamy, it is difficult for me to argue against. I personally think our social construct caused it, and long after the feeling of 'love' (by any definition) was first experienced.

[Crimson Dynamo]

having lived with a few woman

one is really all men should be expected to put up with

any more is just cruel

[thesheriff443]

Love can be a one sided affair, or love out of convenience.

Years ago a bride to be on a hen night wanted to sleep with me wich is a weird situation.

I wish I only ever had one ever after love, falling in love a watching I fail leaves you with regret.

[thesheriff443]

And that's a joke by the way

[jaxie]

Just another excuse for the male of the species to have his cake and eat it too. Anyone who thinks the woman in any of these relationships has many choices is deluded. It's pretty outrageous if the state recognises it and so does the benefits system. It's tantamount to slavery.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Just another excuse for the male of the species to have his cake and eat it too.

Someone's never been married!