this really happened SOURCE: me, Albert Einstein who is also clapping
Nothing ever happens
Ehrm, some right winger said it on twitter, it’s here black and white.
It would be pretty weird for a teacher to get excited that a child doesn’t hate their moms
Actually just has dead, wrapped up Egyptians in his basement.
I know a decent amount of weird historical facts to know that the looted corpses are usually stored in the attic in Europe. There is also a non zero chance that if you live in an old enough house in Europe there could still be a corpse in the attic.
Welcome to the Aitre St Maclou in Rouen! The cemetery was full in the XVIth century, so they built a nice building to keep the old corpses on the upper floors, all windows opened to everything can be nicely ventilated. 200 years later, they turned it into a school.
That’s actually kinda interesting, sorta the opposite of the Paris catacombs. Also shout-out to the bone churches.
For when he gets snacky
Was expecting more of an Egyptian punchline.
Like Mummy, right? Same
Would the plural even be mummies? I don’t know but I had to re-read because my dumb brain already went there when I got to the end.
Yes, it would be mummies.
I’m learning so much today. Thanks!
If this wasn’t posted by a right winger farming anti lgbt sentiment I’d probably cringe at the school being excited to parade the kid around for being accepting of lgbt people.
I hope Islam gets slept by JDM so I can laugh at people like this guy.
The Japanese domestic market?
Good to know I wasn’t the only one to think the same.
Jeffrey Dahmer Meats, (Inc.)?
Gotta mod dad
Nah mate, Jack Della Maddalena obviously. He’s gonna stuff the takedowns and piece islam up on the feet.
Oof man of culture I see… this is the only one I got
People don’t want to talk about this, but lesbianism is common in polygamy.
Hm, got a source for that? It’s not hard to believe, but I’d need a source before i do
Brazzers?
i need extensive video footage as proof 😄
Not in a Muslim household it ain’t.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more common than you expect, which is basically none. I sure the women talk about stuff they don’t want their husband to know, and they could be pretty close. Throw in some stress and people start fucking. It’d stay a secret, so I don’t know that we’d know how common it is, but (as a straight man) if I was in a polygamous marriage with one woman but a bunch of men, is seek companionship with the other men in some form at least.
Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it’s multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
Muslim men can have multiple wives (maximum 5 I believe) as long as they can provide for them. Muslim women are only allowed to have a single husband.
The joke is that the school thought that the kid’s family was super progressive meanwhile in reality it was super patriarchal
Thanks, I got the humor, what I’m wondering about is what’s the predominant reason people in general object to polygamy, regardless of whether it’s Islam or Mormons or whatever.
Just off top of my head.
Inheritance - no explanation needed.
personal time - hard to get quality time and Love is can be selfish.
Issues with accidental incest - my dad side loves cheating. I have lots of half siblings and cousins id never meet all over globe. One uncle had 15ish kids that he knew of. So I dont date my dad’s race. Nope train.
The dating market - One less wife available for men leads to anger for those without one. This is why I was told gay men are more accepted in certain cultures than lesbians.
One less wife available for men leads to anger for those without one.
Incels already exist and at the same time the most attractive men have a wife, a mistress, and occasional hookups. So it Wildente necessarily change much. Except the side pieces could have actual rights and more societal respect by becoming wives.
If you want more incels, that’s how you get more.
data also shows uneven male to female ratio leads to males being more violent. Specifically against women. Just look at countries with low female to male ratios. Disgusting behavior.
If the male pop was reduced then this argument goes out the window. But that would require a major war or some disease that effects only males.
Men are far more susceptible to be victims of violence, addiction, suicide, incarceration, mental illness, loneliness etc. already.
High male population nowadays is usually caused by elective abortions.
Totally agree. Which is why removing more females from the dating pool will make it worse for male populations.
People confuse polygamy with polygyny.
Polygamy is when one person can marry multiple people.
Polygyny is when one person can marry multiple women.
Polyandry is when one person can marry multiple men.
There’s no specific word for when one person can marry multiple nonbinary people.
Polyamory sounds close; if you presume that the other people would be allowed multiple marriages as well.
Polyphony?
When your synthesizer can play more then one note at a time
I remember school when the first kid played polyphonic ring signals… Was revolutionary! So much noise
Didn’t they make donkey kong?
Sounds good 🎶
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don’t have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it’s unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of “traditional” marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
These days there is also a tax reason why you can’t marry multiple people. It would have a fair amount of tax negatives as well.
“one to cook and one to clean” is one of the “joke-y” sayings I heard
Having been on some readings I had not picked up in a second recently, two to poison and be each other’s alibi is what went thru my head first lol.
Nothing else to do with the thread. Just the first thought that went thru my head- any rat bastard that lives that shit deserves to be poisoned by both.
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
That wasn’t the ask though? They were asking about polygamy in general…
It’s an easy one-sentence way to point out the inherent subjugation of women.
And that’s why some people object to polygamy. Others object because of the multiple sex partners. I could imagine people even thinking of it as some kind of tax dodge, or socialism, or reasons I couldn’t fathom.
Yet it muddies the water with Islamophobia.
Call me whatever you want, I believe women should have equal rights.
You do think that women should be able to marry more than one person? So above story wouldn’t be a problem for you if one of the women had a husband and a wife?
From my personal experience a lot of muslim women do not consent to their husband havinv more than one wife (in Islam the woman has to consent), so it’s something that happens only when the women agree to it.
It’s a complicated question to answer. Consent can’t be given under duress, and the rate of abuse in polygamous marriages is astoundingly high. If there was some magical way that the state could verify that everyone is consenting with a true option to say no without their life being ruined, that would be great. However having the state decide who can marry would go really poorly at some point. As a result, I think we’re left with the western status quo where we throw the baby out with the bath water and ban the whole thing. It’s kinda like how some people can be responsible handgun owners but others are murderers and the potential downsides are great enough that nobody gets the privilege. Same for selling cocaine.
Sure, but that’s universal. Most of the Islamic theocratic have this problem, and it’s a point of general focus… but Islam is their excuse, not a functional cause. It’s not like Mormons did it any better.
Agreed. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Somehow I doubt your sincerity. Most people who bring up women’s rights when it comes to Muslims only bring up women’s rights when Muslims are involved. Like conservatives who would happily defund every women’s sports programs but use women’s sports as a cudgel to hurt trans people.
It’s really transparent and disingenuous, and you give off those same vibes.
Based on one comment? You’re pulling that out of your ass because confronting your own inconsistencies makes you uncomfortable. Feel free to stalk my comment history of you want.
Also way to tell on yourself that you don’t respect women’s rights.
If everyone involved consents, should that be anyone else’s business?
Consent under duress or desperation is not consent. That’s why I’m pointing out that if the polygamy only ever goes one way, there is an obvious power imbalance that prevents consent from being possible.
You’re making a sweeping general statement. Polygamy is just Polyamory taken to vows. There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way, but not polygamy itself.
There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way
That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it’s done in an unethical way.
but not polygamy itself.
That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there’s no issue.
And that can be judged from the outside?
The same can apply to polyandry, or what is said to be polyandry but based on one or multiple people involved ultimately being coerced. Come to think of it, all the people i knew who prided themselves in polyandry had relationships that seemed rather toxic to me.
There is no moral superiority of relationship forms. Whether the relationships are consensual, respectful and just always is individual to the people involved.
Are you arguing that all polygamous Muslim marriages are happening under duress?
If so, that’s a sweeping generalisation and a false statement. The polygamy being one-way doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not consensual.
Then why can’t people consent in the other direction?
Because the parties involved embrace a religion that prohibits it, and they willingly consent to that restriction by extension.
Again, consent under duress is not consent. You can’t consent to a religion if leaving it causes you to be shunned by your family and community.
Excuse me? If you want one find her yourself.
I answered your question of if my objection was about the subjugation of women, and I pointed out how subjugating women is the problem.
deleted by creator
That’s not the point.
Probably depends on who you ask. I’m polyamorous and I think in almost all cases where someone says polygamy and not polyamory they’re engaging in an immoral power dynamic. My experience being poly though I’d say most people take offense to the multiple partners thing and polygamy is just what they’re familiar with as a concept
It’s not the multiple partners that are a problem in my opinion (You do you. Polyamory is not for me, but no hate), it’s the many-to-one relationships. Even in cases where an immoral power dynamic doesn’t exist, you’re still setting up for societal shenanigans if it’s consistently many women to men, or vice versa, which seems prudent to avoid.
That being said, monogamy in a legal sense has probably only persisted so long because involving more than 2 people would be a massive headache for the courts lol
Probably only works in countries where one “partner” has more rights than others.
This. When I was poly my friends and fam were cool with it, but they’re not religious. Every religious person I knew who found out was not too pleased with me.
If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don’t also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.
You can oppose both polygamist or incestuous marriage if it’s in a context of religious and sexist oppression, which tend to be the case in most instances of those two types of marriages.
I wouldn’t have complains about polyamory incestuous marriage of free people. But sadly most of practical cases are not like that.
Your view is an intellectually honest one from a modernist perspective. I would go further though and say that marriage should have no secular existence at all.
I generally agree with you, but I’ve heard reasonable arguments like
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn’t
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don’t think they’re equivalent discussions.
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn’t
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren’t equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. “Patriarchy is bad” says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is “bad” isn’t it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren’t compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it’s lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us “comfortable” undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why “modern marriages” should exist at all. “Taxes” is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
Ok let’s just focus on the sciencier one for a second. Say someone doesn’t like incest because it’s bad for the gene pool. Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
That isn’t a slippery slope to eugenics. Inbreeding depression is real, but eugenics is discredited as unscientific. We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing. And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
You’re going to have to prove that one because religion has existed alongside humanity for all of known history and marriage of first cousins is still common in the Arab world.
We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
Says who? We’ve only just started our journey down the path of total secularity. We have no idea how this is going to play out. China’s CRISPR program has already demonstrated that gene editing is possible and Canada is letting people kill themselves. Brave New World already imagined how these ideas will run wild once free of the baggage of the past. Secularity has no moral construct. All options are on the table including the sterilization of people with hereditary defects.
You’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing.
No I’m saying that gay marriage crosses the rubicon. It is a complete departure from what marriage means in any historical or religious context. Which begs the question of what it is and why it even exists. If gays can marry despite prohibition across all cultures for all of human history then where are the limits? Who sets those limits and why to they get to be in charge of who gets to be married? It all falls apart you see.
And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
Don’t dismiss the argument because you are uncomfortable with the possible implications. Contend with the premise. You drew that conclusion not me.
Depends on whose objecting. This arrangement pretty much only works at scale with a combination of religious brainwashing, inequality between and amongst the genders, and a healthy dose of male mortality especially from war.
Inequality among a gender: For instance if bob and Sam both make 70k 5 women aren’t all marrying one or the other in most instances.
Inequality between the genders: Given a complex life path beyond follow in husband’s shadow no matter what or become a parish the chance of instability with more people increases with each member added.
So the first obvious person to object to broad enactment of this idea ought to be women raised to buy into this when it’s not their best option.
Next is society for such groups brainwashing kids.
Then there is the downside of the enabling inequality. Anyone not on the top end of the financial spectrum ought to object to that.
Women ought to object to the idea that they ought to share.
Men not in the top 5-20% ought to object to competing for the remaining women not attached to high status males. Note this is what incels say they are mad about now but there is so much to unpack re their broken brains and it’s just not at this juncture real.
Society should be mad at the very large number of unattached men who normally cause trouble.
Some such societies deal with this by trading women like Pokemon cards and driving off excess men. This doesn’t work without wars to kill them off or somewhere to drive them to.
Basically everyone but a smallish minority of men would be worse off which is why this is non existent in modern functioning society.
There little net effect on society with a small incidence of polygomy just like with lead in the water.
I think in western culture it might be a bit of both, and also a bit of xenophobia - it’s different, so it must be bad. I’d be interested in knowing more too. Very good question.
Mormons used to (some still do) practice polygamy and we had just as much, if not more of a problem with their practices as we do with “foreigners”.
From my perspective as another polyamorous person, I think polygamy is kinda fucked up, at least in the ways it manifests today. It’s an inequitable power dynamic that relies on the exploitation of women. I’m all about subversion and defiance of hierarchies. Polygamy reinforces those hierarchies
Just to be clear, I see polygamy as bad only because of the women oppression aspect. But the world is a big place and history is long, so I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point there was some system that allowed for polygamy without oppressing women. Mentioning mormons - don’t you think they can be seen as another weird different group - and therefore be also object of xenophobia? Notice I intentionally didn’t use the word racism, what I mean is just the sentiment that people doing things differently than my group must be deadly wrong.
Yeah, there’s some aspect of “they’re different so they’re bad” in LDS history (not without reason, the church did and justified many fucked up things), but the modern polygamous Mormon splinter groups are kinda overlooked for the most part. They’re pretty embedded in a lot of smaller towns and cities across southern Utah and northern Arizona (there may be more, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at the topic), and they get very little national attention.
Contrast that with stuff like this tweet that just so happens to play to a lot conservative notions about how “backwards” Islam is.
based and hallalpilled
Old and fake
Ok?
No need to thanks me
i think polygamy is ok if it’s K₃ romantic
Once in Malaysia I met a guy who was in his early twenties. He looked perfectly ordinary from a western perspective, but it turned out he had three wives. Different cultures!
What is a guy with 3 wives supposed to look like?
I knew a guy who - about 20 years ago, slept with both women in a lesbian relationship. As in - they cheated on each other with him. And somehow they formed a workable triad out of that that was pretty darn stable for like 10 years. Until he got caught cheating on them (after months, apparently) with someone in their social group - a younger, monogamous, ‘party girl’-type woman.
He didn’t want to break up with anyone, and all of them refused to ‘give up’ so now (10 years after cheating) he has two relationships - the triad, the “new” one, two houses, and now a kid with each woman.He looks and acts sort of like a grown up version of Max from A Goofy Movie (Goofy’s son), is still ‘fixing’ the muscle car he bought in his college years, and has a 99% complete collection of every edition of Playboy magazine.
But to answer your question of what a guy with 3 (or more) wives should look like? Bill Paxton, circa 2011.
My sister-in-law has two moms and a dad, all living together in a stable relationship for more than 40 years. The kids are a Brady Bunch-style grouping as well.
They have 3 dicks and 4 arms usually
If he’s getting sex; very tired with a smile on his face.
What exactly are you saying here? Getting
“bUt yOu LoOk nORmaL hOW CaN yOU be gAy”
vibes from this.
I’m saying my first impression wasn’t “I bet this guy has three wives”. I suggest you take a nap.
“You keep your wives in cupboard.”
lmao, is this a series
A movie
Two wives?
That must be unbearable.
Wife bad
That must be unbearable.
Obviously. That’s clearly two women who didn’t choose the bear.
Marriage is punishment for shoplifting in some countries. This guy must have been really badly-behaved.
