Polyandry: Awesome or Not Awesome?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:52 am

Koumei wrote:Prak: yes, yes it is.

well and then there's the fact that certain people (who I'm actually kinda pissed off at,) have said my chest rivals the girls...

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:00 am

Prak_Anima wrote: well and then there's the fact that certain people (who I'm actually kinda pissed off at,) have said my chest rivals the girls...

Well as a man who's chest does rival my fiancee's (more do to her lack than my massive melons) you do only have one person to blame for the situation. Yah either sculpt those pecks with hours of exercise, you drastically change your diet to drop the weight (probabaly exercise as well), or you simply resign yourself to being one of those guys with man boobs. I can't fairly advise on which one is best as I haven't decided myself.

As a fun note: rather than having understandable comments made about your chest, you can move to asia and have cute asian girls giggle at them and fondle them while giving you a massage.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:51 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I don't think the claim is that heavenly booty motivates suicide bombers, but rather that it is a lack of the responsibility that comes with having a spouse and children.

Personally I think suicide bombers exhibit symptoms of serious depression. Then some predator gives them a way for their death to have the meaning their life doesn't. Rather hard to get a study going though.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:59 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:I don't think the claim is that heavenly booty motivates suicide bombers, but rather that it is a lack of the responsibility that comes with having a spouse and children.
Personally I think suicide bombers exhibit symptoms of serious depression. Then some predator gives them a way for their death to have the meaning their life doesn't. Rather hard to get a study going though.

Possibly true, most suicide bombers are living in fucking depressing places, but it's also financial. There is no economy in places like Afganistan, Palestine and Iraq, and Saudi Sheiks pay each bombers family some serious scratch for undertaking a bombing. It's immortalization within your communities, food on the plate for your family and the promise of paradise; or continuing your on going shithole life where you have no way of contributing anything.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:04 am

Prak: that reminds me of something that happened at an Apocalypse game I was at.

Guy: okay, so 3 hits against him (Callidus assassin)
Me: Her. Against her. See the boobs there?
Guy: well that doesn't prove anything, in the Imperium, with flesh grafts and-
Me: oh, good point, you have a nice set there yourself.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:58 am

Count: The best shinobi, never have to dress like shinobi. Sort of how if you want to infiltrate a corporate office, you dress like a corporate monkey in a suit, a good shinobi will simply be completely invisible, while in plain sight.

A mailman, a guy walking down the street drinking a slurpee, the lady cycling down the street. The electrical repair guy coming in to see about a light that's not working properly (and that they sabotaged from outside beforehand). They can seriously be anywhere, or anyone.

Note: while the above is very much possible for a shinobi to blend in anywhere, one should not assume that everyone they see is a shinobi. There just ain't enough shinobi.

Also, not black. Black is actually pretty visible. How do you feel about wearing dark blue? (not navy) "Black" ninja outfits are a product of Japanese stage theatre. The black body suits used to conceal kabuki puppet handlers were re-purposed for plays that involved 'ninja'.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:45 pm

Koumei wrote:Prak: that reminds me of something that happened at an Apocalypse game I was at.

Guy: okay, so 3 hits against him (Callidus assassin)
Me: Her. Against her. See the boobs there?
Guy: well that doesn't prove anything, in the Imperium, with flesh grafts and-
Me: oh, good point, you have a nice set there yourself.

wow, I can understand sticking to your guns but... I'm thinking random imperium guys aren't likely to go around getting boob jobs, even if they can afford it...

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:47 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:
Koumei wrote:Prak: that reminds me of something that happened at an Apocalypse game I was at.

Guy: okay, so 3 hits against him (Callidus assassin)
Me: Her. Against her. See the boobs there?
Guy: well that doesn't prove anything, in the Imperium, with flesh grafts and-
Me: oh, good point, you have a nice set there yourself.
wow, I can understand sticking to your guns but... I'm thinking random imperium guys aren't likely to go around getting boob jobs, even if they can afford it...

Aren't Callidus assassins the diguised/shapeshifter ones? Of course, Imperial assassins aren't anything resembling "random guys".

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:39 pm

There are many reasons to enter relationships, some of which are attraction, companionship, convenience, sex, having children, probably something else I forgot. And all of this can be achieved without getting formally paired up. Social pressure to get married is lessening. Of course, legislation still matters because of spousal right and social benefits, but legal gay marriage, polygamy and polyandry, like getting a wish from an efreet in D&D, are only a matter of time. Sure, the time scale is different and there are people who are inconvenienced right now and would like to see change implemented this very instant (and it should be), but in the long term there will be no definition of marriage, just custom contracts several parties would sign. So I would be able, for example, to raise a kid conceived in a clinic (planned gender and all) and own stuff jointly with my sister and go out with my platonic girlfriend who'd have sex with another person (woman or man) entirely.

Not everyone would be bound by these contracts, however. Even with a perfect matchmaking system designed to tie up in "marriages" the maximum number of people, some would remain single, by choice (not being interested) or by necessity (having unrealistic expectations or just being disgusting). Therefore, I don't think polyandry will be a solution to universal matchmaking, it will just be a natural way for the society to evolve.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:27 am

Crissa wrote:Western culture, which is male bought and dominated, has a fascination with having more than the next guy, or fantasies in which they don't compete with the next guy.

"Western"?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:29 am

Crissa wrote:Humans have no tendency to polygamy.

Western culture, which is male bought and dominated, has a fascination with having more than the next guy, or fantasies in which they don't compete with the next guy.

Which is why there's little similar polyandry media, except among fan-fiction, which just women playing with dolls who represent freedom to move about in the overarching society.

-Crissa

Attila the Hun?

China? Islam? The pre-Islamic semetic people (both Jews and non-Jews plus other middle eastern ethnic/culture groups like Turks, Arabs, Kurds, etc. all allow for polygamy).

Various African tribes practice it. Even some native north american tribes had edge cases where polygamy was practised (if say, a woman's sisters all became widows, but her husband was still alive, she might ask him to help her sisters have children). Some south american native also practised it to some degree.

The rich and powerful of many countries. Like say, oh.. ancient Egypt. The Pharoh only had one partner, right?

Of course, the western world perpetuated this well before television, or radio, or newspapers existed. As a result many royal leaders had multiple wives and consorts. I mean, look how much the western media affected king Solomon.

I'm not saying that it's everywhere, and yes it is a fantasy for many males. However it's not like it's never happend in recorded histories, and when it does it is males that end up losing in the end. Which is hilariously ironic.

Ideally, flattened resource access and consenting, monogamous relationships, would ensure the greatest amount of happiness for people. I guess we're slowly getting there. Although, the male-female double standard exists in many parts of the world to this day, sometimes in an exceedingly violent and horrific fashion. Case in point, the middle east, and the Indo-Pakistani treatment of women who somehow deviate from their narrow views on expected female social norms.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:17 am

Judging__Eagle wrote:China? Islam? The pre-Islamic semetic people (both Jews and non-Jews like Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Turks, etc. all allow for polygamy).

Turks aren't Semitic (and you wrote it twice).

Neither Kurds.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:05 am

ckafrica wrote:Possibly true, most suicide bombers are living in fucking depressing places, but it's also financial.

Having that little cash is a cause of depression. Money will buy happiness, to a point at least once you're financially secure more money adds little..

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:47 pm

Bigode wrote:
Judging__Eagle wrote:China? Islam? The pre-Islamic semetic people (both Jews and non-Jews like Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Turks, etc. all allow for polygamy).
Turks aren't Semitic (and you wrote it twice). Neither Kurds.

I went back and started changing what I wrote. Then forgot to remove things that didn't fit. I do that a lot.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:39 pm

Might does not make right. And you're ignoring three whole continents.

-Crissa

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:53 pm

Koumei wrote:It's really a good thing I'll never be having children, as I'd not only be wanting attention that the spawn would be sucking up, but I wouldn't want to split my own attention and emotional investment. And the one with neither breasts nor capacity for conversation about exploding robots is clearly going to lose that battle.

Bingo.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:18 pm

Crissa wrote:Might does not make right. And you're ignoring three whole continents.

-Crissa

I never said that it did. Primates have been part of inequal relationships ever since we lived in groups. Everyone nearly always makes comprimises in order to get something else that they want. Be it spend extra resources on companions/followers/minions or doing things that most people wouldn't because you feel that there's some other benefit in it for you; and those are inequal relationships that are harmonious. Unharmonious relationships will be a lot worse, with stuff like repressed resentment, sabotage of different kinds, inefficient work, etc.

The only continents that I didn't mention are: Antartica (doesn't count, except for penguins, they're monogamous, but are also not humans), Australia (as far as I know, most polygamous relationships are only possible if individual males are able to control resources that are far above and beyond what is needed to survive) and Europe (luls, the western world that you assumed that I was reffering to in the first place).

I already mentioned Africa, North/South America, Asia, and those places all have multiple instances of polygamy. With some places practising it to this day.

Also, I found the article. I'm not arguing for polygyny, which is something that I think you seemed to assume. I was saying that it is something that humans do when certain situations allow.

I'm just saying that it's ironic that men want it, but would not benefit from it at all. In fact, most men would just become serfs or expendable in such a society. With more women marrying less men resulting in more men being unable to get married at all.

Which led to me saying that polygyny accepting nations also tend to be suicide bomber producing nations, because the suicide bombers have not even a chance to meet members of the opposite sex. I'll bet that lowered or removed taboos on homosexual relationships would probably keep the unmarryable males from wanting to get some ridiculous number of wives in 'heaven', and grabbing a suicide belt, or turning into jihadis.

On the other hand, the Spartans were pretty unabashed about homosexual (and even pederastic) relationships. So... that might turn out even worse.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:22 pm

You said 'various African' however Africa pre-colonization had a wide spread of various marriage types; and did not mention north and south america which had humans as well.

-Crissa

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:34 pm

I never said it was universal, and I did mention the americas.

Anyway, most people are actually practising polygyny in one form or an other, even today. I found the first half of the article.