[Brillopad]

https://www.rt.com/uk/407595-muslim-...ives-polygamy/

This creep is the same guy that I posted about who was in the audience on the Politics Show several months ago who wants Muslim men only, not women, to have the right to several spouses.

He is using his so-called religious ‘beliefs’ to try to interfere with and challenge our own laws on female equality in this country as well as his own creepy desires to control and abuse as many women as he can. Despicable creature.

[Niamh.]

Religion has absolutely no place in law or state affairs. To suggest bringing back inequality for women again is absurd

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Religion has absolutely no place in law or state affairs. To suggest bringing back inequality for women again is absurd

Lets be fair, it never really left.

The fact women in this country get less money than a man for doing the same job is disgusting.

Women are being abused all over the world and its justified by religion.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The fact women in this country get less money than a man for doing the same job is disgusting.

That doesn't actually happen though.

The "wage gap" is simply the average earnings of men and women working full time. It does not account for hours worked or different jobs. It's been debunked so often and so thoroughly I wonder why anyone still envokes it.

[Withano]

I personally think all humans are polygamous, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is because of some firm deep-rooted social construct.

This guy seems a tit for other reasons.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Lets be fair, it never really left.

The fact women in this country get less money than a man for doing the same job is disgusting.

Women are being abused all over the world and its justified by religion.

Well that's true enough but this is like a million steps backwards!

Originally Posted by Withano

I personally think all humans are polygamous, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is because of some firm deep-rooted social construct.

This guy seems a tit for other reasons.

Speak for yourself

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well that's true enough but this is like a million steps backwards!



Speak for yourself

Only 3% of mammals are monogamous, the rest have multiple partners because its evolutionarily and socially beneficially to do so. It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom. Only real reason, imo, is that its no longer socially advantageous to have multiple partners, actually its very looked down upon, because humans developed (probably originally through religion) a monogamous culture.

The people who cheat are just expressing their animalistic natural urges imo (and I do too look down on that if theyve agreed to have a monogamous relationship), its unnatural for one person to stay with one person for life, but socially beneficial.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Only 3% of mammals are monogamous, the rest have multiple partners because its evolutionarily and socially beneficially to do so. It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom. Only real reason, imo, is that its no longer socially advantageous to have multiple partners, actually its very looked down upon, because humans developed (probably originally through religion) a monogamous culture.

The people who cheat are just expressing their animalistic natural urges imo (and I do too look down on that if theyve agreed to have a monogamous relationship), its unnatural for one person to stay with one person for life, but socially beneficial.

Form an orderly queue, ladies....

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

Form an orderly queue, ladies....

I have no time for even one relationship! Sorry, Livia. Im off the market.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Only 3% of mammals are monogamous, the rest have multiple partners because its evolutionarily and socially beneficially to do so. It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom. Only real reason, imo, is that its no longer socially advantageous to have multiple partners, actually its very looked down upon, because humans developed (probably originally through religion) a monogamous culture.

The people who cheat are just expressing their animalistic natural urges imo (and I do too look down on that if theyve agreed to have a monogamous relationship), its unnatural for one person to stay with one person for life, but socially beneficial.

It's silly to compare animal "relationships" to humans, we have evolved, you said it yourself. How on Earth do you think you can speak for every person in the world and tell them their relationships are unnatural? lol Some people can't do monogamy others can't do anything else

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's silly to compare animal "relationships" to humans, we have evolved, you said it yourself. How on Earth do you think you can speak for every person in the world and tell them their relationships are unnatural? lol Some people can't do monogamy others can't do anything else

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

[Livia]

"[Yasmin] Rehman, who is a Muslim, added: “I think he’s flouting the law – anyone else would be subject to polygamy laws. It sits alongside websites like brides from abroad.

“I meet women who have been trafficked and prostituted. I’m fed up with this being accepted. There are Muslim women across the world fighting this, some at great risk to themselves.”"

Quote of the article, I have nothing to add.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

I personally think all humans are polygamous, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is because of some firm deep-rooted social construct.

This guy seems a tit for other reasons.

I think this gets very complicated. I believe that all humans are naturally polyamorous to a large extent but in the most platonic sense. We are all fully capable of loving multiple individuals on a very deep level WITHOUT it ever having to be more than platonic (in the purest sense of that term) and without it ever having to be in the sense of "multiple partners". Also completely gender / orientation neutral, and still maintaining monogamous sexual relationships with a long term partner.

BUT, this is where social constructs come into it; we are socially hyper-sexualised. Most people simply can't separate having a deep, honest love for another individual - being able to appreciate them both intellectually and physically - without confusing that with "wanting to smoosh genitals". We are socially conditioned to strongly believe that non-familial deep affection = sexual attraction. That aesthetic appreciation of physical form = sexual attraction. That a combination of both must = "being in love and wanting to smoosh loads".

Not least, we're conditioned to see it in other people and that alters people's behaviour and how they express themselves. People are afraid to express connections, deep appreciation, or love of people who they have NO intention of being in a relationship with or being sexual with, simply because other people (or the person it's directed at) might assume that they DO want that. Particularly true of people in relationships.


So yeah in basic terms, I think people are much more capable of deep un-selfish love than we allow ourselves to be, because society (and definitely mainstream society) going back pretty much forever is far too focused on the sexual aspect of human closeness.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think this gets very complicated. I believe that all humans are naturally polyamorous to a large extent but in the most platonic sense. We are all fully capable of loving multiple individuals on a very deep level WITHOUT it ever having to be more than platonic (in the purest sense of that term) and without it ever having to be in the sense of "multiple partners". Also completely gender / orientation neutral, and still maintaining monogamous sexual relationships with a long term partner.

BUT, this is where social constructs come into it; we are socially hyper-sexualised. Most people simply can't separate having a deep, honest love for another individual - being able to appreciate them both intellectually and physically - without confusing that with "wanting to smoosh genitals". We are socially conditioned to strongly believe that non-familial deep affection = sexual attraction. That aesthetic appreciation of physical form = sexual attraction. That a combination of both must = "being in love and wanting to smoosh loads".

Not least, we're conditioned to see it in other people and that alters people's behaviour and how they express themselves. People are afraid to express connections, deep appreciation, or love of people who they have NO intention of being in a relationship with or being sexual with, simply because other people (or the person it's directed at) might assume that they DO want that. Particularly true of people in relationships.


So yeah in basic terms, I think people are much more capable of deep un-selfish love than we allow ourselves to be, because society (and definitely mainstream society) going back pretty much forever is far too focused on the sexual aspect of human closeness.

Well said TS.
Putting it simply, life is a whole lot easier once we realise that lust, infatuation and love are not all the same thing.


Very nice when all three come together in a relationship though.

[thesheriff443]

A large majority men from all back grounds cant treat one wife right, let alone two.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

A large majority men from all back grounds cant treat one wife right, let alone two.

I don't think treating them right would be high on this guys agenda tbh

[user104658]

In general I say each to their own (when it comes to relationship stuff), like I don't really see what the justification for having any arbitrary rules about marriage or anything else in anyone's personal life... but obviously not if it's with the intention of men having a tonne of wives rather than an actual mutual and equal lifestyle choice.

Whether or not it actually ever work is another debate... I tend to come to the conclusion that relationships are complicated enough in the standard format . But yeah I can only see it "working" in any practical sense if it's people who are marrying for "practical reasons" - wealth, security, etc. - which I doubt really ever works out well anyway.

[Withano]

Oh yeh, polyamorous, thats the word I meant

[thesheriff443]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, is this any different to men and women signing up to web sites to have affairs.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Just to throw a spanner in the works, is this any different to men and women signing up to web sites to have affairs.

A whole plethora of people can get hurt when people sign up to dating sites for affairs. Seems to me the only people who could get hurt here are women. Women went through a lot to have a vote and a voice, we're not even there yet... so I'm against anything imported that is not as much in the interests of the woman as the man.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

A whole plethora of people can get hurt when people sign up to dating sites for affairs. Seems to me the only people who could get hurt here are women. Women went through a lot to have a vote and a voice, we're not even there yet... so I'm against anything imported that is not as much in the interests of the woman as the man.

Yep exactly.

[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.

[Niamh.]

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.

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

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