I wish monogamy was enforced (male, child support, spouse, divorce)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd say when losing arguments and feeling cornered, you're resorting to use an excuse to avoid facing yourself with accepting what other side is telling you. [/youtube]
No, I just don't like when people holler.
And ye shall know them by their fonts...
None of this is even relevant to a single thing I said. My point was that there were indeed communal societies where men did not know or care if kids were theirs. The whole notion of monogamy came about with the concept of property and lineage through men.
You're using this thread to spout the same stuff you spout on every other thread: Your ongoing suspicion that every woman out there is somehow out to cuckold a man and pawn another man's kid off on him. Really, your misogyny is grotesque in its twisted thought processes.
Thank you.
I'm using every chance to debunk the myth which is also ENFORCED BY LEGISLATION that men don't care about whether they raise their own biological child or not. Every post that hints so will get my reply on why it's not true. I've also used quite clear ways to debunk the myth that societies that you describe ever existed on any bigger scale - because men who participate in societies where they can't know paternity for sure are the same men who will make moves that are proven to lead to societal degeneration to the point where other models will simply render it part of history. Other words - such societies will have men putting themselves BEFORE society and BEFORE women and children. Unlike popular belief of mighty women of Celtic society, truth is that Celts had the "woman currency" - that is, they paid various services by women, LITERALLY. And their later currency was named in such regard very often.
You switch to "misogyny" stuff when I point out the obvious because you are repulsed with the notion that a man should definitely know if a child he has is his own, without feeling ashamed or without your approval as a woman. That's ad hominem attack. It's obvious that society will bash the victim and continue to punish the victim even after his death. I'ts obvious that the law is written to accommodate only the mother, not the child, not the society, not the male members of society either. Because DNA testing is far much better method than Medieval methods. Ask yourself if someone wanted to block DNA testing on rape and good luck in getting the rapist caught in the act. That's how it generally went prior to modern methods that we use today.
Benefit of the child for paternity is a generic excuse, while various laws will prove otherwise. It's in child's best interest to know their own biology as well. You find obligatory DNA testing as a sign of misogyny from anyone who points out that it should have been written in legislation long ago when first tests came to existence. You don't find it insulting to you that the law exists to force parents to provide for their children. I've already used the argument to prove you that you'd NOT be willing to take a child from hospital. You quietly avoided giving an answer. That's a proof that you lost an argument. Well, X% of Children are though to be result of an affair with the father on birth certificate never finding out. This comes to an end with anonymous testing and children out of wedlock, little by little - but that's for another topic.
I'll end the discussion here, you want to enforce medieval laws only for paternity establishment, which speaks of your opinion for well-being of your sons, cousins, nephews, brothers.
I'd wish if mods wouldn't cut this part of the answer answer out, since they left your "misogyny" reply for more than a day and found it acceptable as well. It's very on-topic and yes, establishing a clear link with one's progeny is one of very important reasons why monogamy existed as a role-model.
Monogamy became widespread because it was the most viable model. NOT because men wanted to enforce it to transfer money to their progeny. There were obviously other, "competing" models, and they often started from higher ground than the primitive monogamous societies, yet they failed. Other models failed and that's clear as a day. That tells you which was the most viable and stable society. It's so easy to argue it, yet someone wants to use a tribe in Amazonian forest with up to 50 members (generally a few families of grown-ups) as a counter-argument. Even such tribes generally enforce some rules that will almost ensure who is the father of which child. And for those that keep loose rules, there is a reason why they never progressed any further and it is generally connected with paternal investment, like it or not. And then again, we go back to Celts. Historians can easily trace how they degenerated even though their dramatic change of depictions of either mothers or female deities.
This society model, the one that invented everything we know, is made on selection pressure upon males. As such, structures generally centered around male members of society banding together to outsmart and defeat the other male group(s). Paternal investment is highly correlated with its success and paternal investment comes from certainty of paternity and that is why it accompanied such society. Now we have methods to render any "guessing" obsolete and the medieval methods of paternity establishment should be the thing of the past. Like it or not.
EDIT: see why I use bold text - to make more important clauses clearly visible in case you want to skip reading the whole post.
My ex and I didn't. We said we'd love each other and support each other. There was no "till death do us part" nonsense. Furthermore, when we realized that we were getting in each other's way of happiness, we divorced as an act of love and friendship. I realize that might be hard for many people to understand in this day and age of selfishness and spite, but there it is.
This is not an argument against the OP's post. He argues about affairs. Same affairs which can leave permanent consequences on marriage. I don't think that the selfishness argument goes against the sanctioning of adultery, at the contrary.
In fact, nobody argues that it needs to be jail penalty or death by hanging. But it's ridiculous to have many spouses catching other spouse cheating them, go to court and have their property divided the same way as if affair never existed, possibly even paying alimony to the other party, plus having the judge informing them that adultery plays no role in child custody, while it claims that the adulterer may keep the children and it's for the benefit of the child. You can only guess what the children will learn from such legislation - and it's NOT what you claim it is. They willthink of themselves and focus to ensure their own interests, even if they aren't free to say so to their spouse. That doesn't look like the non-sanctioning is teaching new generations of selflessness, it's teaching them to be selfish by every common sense.
INDIA: Forcing women to wear a chastity belt is a common practice in Rajasthan August 3, 2007 A female passenger in a public bus was found bleeding from her thighs and the fellow passengers took her to hospital. At the hospital, the doctors who examined the lady found that she was wearing a chastity belt. The lady was bleeding from the injuries caused by wearing the belt. In case anyone is wondering where this happened, the incident is reported from the north-western Indian state of Rajasthan.
Or, you could practise what you preach and invest in one of these -
This is not an argument against the OP's post. He argues about affairs. Same affairs which can leave permanent consequences on marriage. I don't think that the selfishness argument goes against the sanctioning of adultery, at the contrary.
In fact, nobody argues that it needs to be jail penalty or death by hanging. But it's ridiculous to have many spouses catching other spouse cheating them, go to court and have their property divided the same way as if affair never existed, possibly even paying alimony to the other party, plus having the judge informing them that adultery plays no role in child custody, while it claims that the adulterer may keep the children and it's for the benefit of the child. You can only guess what the children will learn from such legislation - and it's NOT what you claim it is. They willthink of themselves and focus to ensure their own interests, even if they aren't free to say so to their spouse. That doesn't look like the non-sanctioning is teaching new generations of selflessness, it's teaching them to be selfish by every common sense.
Our society no longer cares about men and in return men are no longer caring about things like honor, doing the right thing, etc etc. I know for certian I care only about myself becuase at the end of the day there will be no one to catch me and the courts will deal with you harshly (if a relationship falls apart). They dont care if you get hurt, they dont care if your unemployed or if you wanted to make a career change that resulted in less money for your own mental health, they DONT CARE .... so why should I?
why should I "buck up" for "the children" when people treat men like an atm machine and the courts beat them down if ANYTHING effects the cash flow to the custodial parent. No one in their right mind would tolerate that, its abusive and openly hostile.
INDIA: Forcing women to wear a chastity belt is a common practice in Rajasthan August 3, 2007 A female passenger in a public bus was found bleeding from her thighs and the fellow passengers took her to hospital. At the hospital, the doctors who examined the lady found that she was wearing a chastity belt. The lady was bleeding from the injuries caused by wearing the belt. In case anyone is wondering where this happened, the incident is reported from the north-western Indian state of Rajasthan.
Or, you could practise what you preach and invest in one of these -
What I would like to know is, who gets to keep all the keys?
This posts definitely subtracts from the arguments for introducing legal sanctions for a breach of legal contract that both parties sign and it's obviously used as a counter-argument to make other people zip their mouth.
What you posted is called a "strawman argument". India has 1,3 billion people. There was a news in India last year, about the husband locking his wife's genitals and it aired on Indian news. Guess why it airs on Indian news if it's a common practice anywhere.
Other than that, people locked their genitals (or got their genitals locked by others) because of various reasons, with no civilization ever using it for fidelity as a mainstream method. Most common reasons were religious reasons, anti masturbation reasons, or to avoid rape. In fact, some of those reasons (most prominently anti-masturbation and anti-rape measures) existed and still exist world-wide, but are less prominent and non-mainstream. And before you think highly of Europe or America, I will tell you that people used those same methods all the way until ww2 even there. In fact, female and male circumcision are practices done to decrease or stop masturbation or to simply lower the enjoyment/arousal during the intercourse. This practice was rooted in religion but since people became irreligious, various groups (Arabs, Jews, even Americans) will claim that it's done due to medical reasons. They will also cite something like 10 out of 1,000,000 people getting cancer or infection of their genitals due to no circumcision. They'll disregard thousands of maimed children even in the most developed states where it's practiced, or many children dying due to circumcision gone wrong. Or the fact that it significantly diminishes the enjoyment during the sex (primary reason for doing it). They'll just go with the custom they believe is superior to others who don't do it, and they'll consider themselves superior for doing it.
This article if a common way of elevating "yourself" as superior culture towards the inferior ones. In this logic, Arabs (a group of people counting hundreds of millions worldwide) also became zoophiles and have sex with their goats regularly because article claimed that it's a common practice in the Middle East. As a way to prove it, they cited news from Syria at the time - where a man had sex with his neighbour's goats and was caught in doing so. You can only guess once why such news would be "news" in Syria if it's mainstream practice.
But don't worry, I can tell you that other people view an average American as stupid, illiterate, homosexual, racist and Bush supporter. That's because other people's media tend to prove U.S. inferiority. Check out how even North Koreans proved U.S. civilization is inferior to their own, they went to the worst neighborhoods to pick drug addicts and alcoholics, then they used a few cannibal articles to show how Americans eat other men.
I can't comprehend what NCP is and google doesn't help.
The point is that - although men do get more disadvantages with the mere divorce or that the affairs which result with children definitely affect faithful man more than faithful woman (in terms of emotional or monetary involvement), fact is that it goes both ways and mere occurrence that it got de-regulated while keeping everything else regulated is obvious proof that it's done deliberately.
There's really no other explanation why sex in public places would be sanctioned or why certain TV regulations are enforced for the purpose of social order or human dignity, while this doesn't apply for something that just about everyone agrees, including persons who sign the contract. After all, cohabitation is completely legal and it should theoretically mean that government should have no involvement in it, if someone wants to keep the state out - they should not sign the marriage contract and that's it.
Yet, as you can see, more and more countries enforce common-law marriage via legislation while the people who lobby for such laws are the same people who lobby for "government should have no involvement" in various marital issues. That's an obvious hypocrisy.
In fact, I haven't seen such hypocrisy about marriage ever since Newt Gingrich started defending the sanctity of marriage and giving lessons to other people.
I really wonder who else believes that cheating on your spouse and having a child to see that it paid off to you while it devastates the other parent will make your future child grow up to reason in any selfless way. In fact, one can easily argue that while society progressed on so many levels, this "private life degeneration" and alienation of everyone towards other people in their private lives is a crucial proof that some things are obviously wrong in their very core on private level. And it's not like we're talking about neanderthals and that their ignorance of any better will make them selfish, since today's generations are getting the most societal investment into their education and upbringing, EVER.
I'm using every chance to debunk the myth which is also ENFORCED BY LEGISLATION that men don't care about whether they raise their own biological child or not.
And as Taoist said, you're trying to rebut history, and history is that there were entire tribes and communities where men did not know, or care, whose kid it was, because it was a situation of communal living. Ever hear the saying "it takes a village to raise a child?" That's how they approached it.
And as Taoist said, you're trying to rebut history, and history is that there were entire tribes and communities where men did not know, or care, whose kid it was, because it was a situation of communal living. Ever hear the saying "it takes a village to raise a child?" That's how they approached it.
Ever heard that it's made up just recently?
I've already argued against you. Monogamous society WON, it wasn't like one day men decided to enforce monogamy. It was a concept of a few that spread along because it was the most viable way to ensure paternal investment and to make it to the highest, plus to guarantee emotional bonding.
The whole concept of monogamy spread along because, guess what, the whole today's system is created on selection of male species. Those "other" cultures, ones that you wish to "promote" as relevant, never evolved into anything of this scale. In fact, I've already argued that Celts "devolved" when it comes to social cohesion and got obliterated throughout almost the whole European continent even though they were better in economical, political, technological, military and any other way than Germanics and Slavic tribes. No paternity guarantee = male members putting their interests first and making their own "guarantees" for their well-being.
I'm really astonished how stories of random tribes tend to prove how "some men" don't care about their paternity in some tropical forest or in Chinese highlands, so it's some "proof" - wrong. Even the reporters who report those occasions often find get "sociologists" re-visiting those areas and the find that the tribes are still often using "seasonal bonding" at best. And only because whole tribe consists of small number of people and the fact that all the male members go hunt together - they seem not to differ from each other's children... yet they STILL give preference to their perceived offspring when it comes to teaching them how to hunt or when it comes to promotions among shamans/chiefs.
This is nothing new - even Celts tended to do the same. Their leaders would generally promote the oldest son who could defend his leading position the easiest among other children, but only the eldest son whom they were quite sure that they fathered. And they did so without so-called primogeniture laws or practices being encouraged.
My opinion still stands. Societies where men cannot know or care who their biological children are - are same societies that men tend to put their own interests first. That's not how Indo-European concept (monogamy concept) works and that concept became worldwide concept because it simply won - militarily, economically, morally, etc. If you want to argue that it won simply militarily, I need to correct you once again - check out that, when Arabs defeated Persia and de-facto brought new laws with polygamy included, Persians stayed almost strictly monogamous. Same happened with expansion into Europe.
Only in recent times do we see the abandonment of this concept - and I already argued that it's a carefully planned process which enforced by people who want to obliterate importance of the basic unit, to have greater control over children and their upbringing by the state/media/etc.
Mere clause that you used - "it takes a village to raise a child" - is what someone wants to be the truth. A child cannot have greater friends by default than members of their nuclear family. Parents with their unreserved desire for their children to prosper the best that they can (that's default opinion of any parent, please don't use rotten parents as excuse, exception doesn't make a general rule), and siblings to a great extent, if raised in a cohesive way.
Last edited by nald; 08-21-2013 at 06:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
