[rollcat]

> Do you really want half your testosterone-fueled 18-28 year old males unable to attract a mate? There'll be continuous fighting to kill of the excess males.

This is nonsense. Non-monogamy is relinquishing exclusivity. If a man can have multiple women, but a woman can't have multiple men, it's just a different form of oppression.

Monogamy is possessiveness, and possessiveness is what drives violence.

[fluoridation]

>If a man can have multiple women, but a woman can't have multiple men, it's just a different form of oppression.

There are reasons to allow only one of the sexes to have multiple sexual partners/spouses.

* In a community with such liberal sexual practices, STDs spread more easily, especially in earlier centuries.

* It makes marriage intrinsically more complicated simply because of the more complex interactions. For example, if Alice is married to Bob, who is married to both Alice and Carol, who is married to both Bob and David, what are Alice and David to each other? Anything? Nothing? Is the entire married community a distinct entity?

* Relatedly, how is inheritance handled if such complex spousal organizations are going to be legally allowed?

[rollcat]

> In a community with such liberal sexual practices, STDs spread more easily, especially in earlier centuries.

You can use a condom. TIL, rubber condoms are a mid-19th century invention; a significant upgrade over sheep gut.

The alternative is called polyfidelity.

> [...] what are Alice and David to each other?

They're called Metamours.

> Anything? Nothing? Is the entire married community a distinct entity?

It's called a polycule.

> Relatedly, how is inheritance handled if such complex spousal organizations are going to be legally allowed?

You write a will.

By the way, inheritance laws are messy already as they are. Try figuring out how to reject inheritance (e.g. of debt) in your jurisdiction.

> There are reasons to allow only one of the sexes to have multiple sexual partners/spouses.

Yes, the reason is to reinforce division and oppression. One "side" is underprivileged, the other has to fight each other for supremacy. The stronger few win, everyone else loses. History is littered with examples.

Don't get me wrong, these are all very good questions. But we've figured all of these things out quite a while ago. People do live like that, and form lasting, loving communities. I'd wager that an entire society built on top of that would have no lesser chance at thriving than the one we've been born into.

[fluoridation]

>You can use a condom.

Sure. Now. But monogamy and polygyny are a little older than condoms.

>Metamours [...] polycule

You're answering rhetorical questions which, incidentally, are not about terminology, but about legal and social mechanics. Knowing what a "metamour" is, says nothing about what the formal and informal responsibilities of the parties involved are or should be with respect to each other. My whole point is that not having to define such relationships and their expectations is a reason to forbid them culturally.

>You write a will.

How did that work before most people knew how to write?

>By the way, inheritance laws are messy already as they are.

That's not an argument in favor of legally legitimizing polycules.

>the reason is to reinforce division and oppression

I mean, I gave several reasons why historically either monogamy or asymmetric polygamy would have been preferred over symmetric polygamy, that have nothing to do with oppression.

>I'd wager that an entire society built on top of that would have no lesser chance at thriving than the one we've been born into.

Sure, maybe. Personally, I'm more of the opinion that cultural features are memetic, and that memes are not uniformly successfully propagated. If monogamous and polygynous societies are more common than polyandrous and polycular societies, it's probably for a reason.

[rollcat]

> You're answering rhetorical questions which, incidentally, are not about terminology, but about legal and social mechanics.

Yes, that's what I've tried to imply. You name things, so you can discuss them in more abstract terms, so you can form a social & legal framework around those concepts.

> My whole point is that not having to define such relationships and their expectations is a reason to forbid them culturally.

>> [...] not having to define [...] is a reason to forbid [...].

Suppress the concept. "We don't talk about that."

> How did that work before most people knew how to write?

How did people enter agreements?

> Personally, I'm more of the opinion that cultural features are memetic, and that memes are not uniformly successfully propagated.

Agree. It's also how dictatorships rise. Another form of oppression that concentrates power and fires back at the group who have initially supported it. Another lose-lose.

Societies often overoptimize for a local maximum.

[fluoridation]

>Suppress the concept. "We don't talk about that."

You're not disagreeing that it's a valid reason, you're just saying you don't like it.

>How did people enter agreements?

A will is not an agreement, it's a declaration of posthumous intent. It necessarily cannot work in oral form.

>Agree.

Good. I'm glad you agree. I'm just going to ignore the appeal to emotion.

[lelanthran]

> This is nonsense. Non-monogamy is relinquishing exclusivity. If a man can have multiple women, but a woman can't have multiple men, it's just a different form of oppression.

Only if your argument is that this behaviour is nurture, not nature. IOW, if your argument is "this behaviour is completely disconnected from instinct and has nothing to do with evolutionary pressure", then sure, your argument makes sense.

Many of the great apes, and indeed, other animals, don't think in terms of political soundbites, though, so we can readily observe that the behaviour "violence over mating rights" is a thing that developed in those creatures that eventually evolved into other creatures which evolved into pre-hominids which evolved into hominids which evolved into us.

Some things are instinct. It's a very large stretch to claim that violence over mating isn't instinct, but political.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that...