First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Polygamy
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/27/12 , edited 8/27/12

longfenglim wrote:


If a woman willingly enter a marriage with the knowledge that a man has multiple wives, I am sure she is probably satisfied with that arrangement, so, no, you are quite wrong to assume that a woman would be unhappy to 'share' her husband with other women. In addition, if you believe that humans were not made for Monogamy, as you and some others would hold, then monogamy would, indeed, produce far greater unhappiness, in that it is anti-natural, and therefore, detract from our happiness. Even supposing that were not so, then Monogamy still is asinine, because there should be no reason why it would be immoral so long as all parties are satisfied with the arrangement.


But in most of the cases, the women is in a culture that promotes this type of marriage...
... In a more diplomatic / gender-equal society... this type of marriage is extremely uncommon... no?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/28/12

shuyi000 wrote:


But in most of the cases, the women is in a culture that promotes this type of marriage...
... In a more diplomatic / gender-equal society... this type of marriage is extremely uncommon... no?



Who is to say that a woman isn't happy within a culture that promotes polygamy?

And when was the common a measure of the moral?
28788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / your bedroom
Offline
Posted 8/30/12
i'm all for it. i would love to be a billionaire with 3 beautiful wives (who have jobs. i'm not a lean-to) and 9 or 10 kids.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/30/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


But in most of the cases, the women is in a culture that promotes this type of marriage...
... In a more diplomatic / gender-equal society... this type of marriage is extremely uncommon... no?



Who is to say that a woman isn't happy within a culture that promotes polygamy?

And when was the common a measure of the moral?


Then It is morally alright for polygamy in those society...
Morality is an ever evolving dynamic system of beliefs... As far as i'm concern... western society seems to deem polygamy unacceptable...
... If you live in a society with a different set of morality, then it is a whole new different ballgame...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/31/12 , edited 8/31/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


But in most of the cases, the women is in a culture that promotes this type of marriage...
... In a more diplomatic / gender-equal society... this type of marriage is extremely uncommon... no?



Who is to say that a woman isn't happy within a culture that promotes polygamy?

And when was the common a measure of the moral?


Then It is morally alright for polygamy in those society...
Morality is an ever evolving dynamic system of beliefs... As far as i'm concern... western society seems to deem polygamy unacceptable...
... If you live in a society with a different set of morality, then it is a whole new different ballgame...


Morality is not, as you would have it, a shared set of beliefs- it is universal! The principle of 'what harms the least while benefiting the most' is, in fact, a universal precept, applicable everywhere. Thus, as far as I am concerned, you seem content with western society's rejection of Polygamy simply because you accept the beliefs of the mass, regardless of whether it is, in fact, and in your own judgement, moral or not. If your society condoned the sacrifice of children, and praise such actions as moral, you should not protest than, or when the government act in such a way that you find reprehensible and disagreeable, you have no basis on which you can criticise. When you accept Moral Relativism, you must accept its consequence, that there is, in fact, no such thing as the moral, and nothing is condemnable, no matter how barbaric or savage.
Queen Moderator
30640 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / X / Rochester, NY
Offline
Posted 8/31/12
I have friends who have polygamous relationships
However for me, monogomy is the way to go.

I need the comfort of knowing I'm the only person for my partner, and that I am the only one they love.
And for me to give that same comfort back to them
<If I ever find love again lol>
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/3/12

longfenglim wrote:




Morality is universal...?
... In India it is immoral to kill a cow...
In China and Korea eating of dog meats is a morally accepted practice.

I repeat again...Morality is only defined and shaped by culture...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/4/12 , edited 9/4/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:




Morality is universal...?
... In India it is immoral to kill a cow...
In China and Korea eating of dog meats is a morally accepted practice.

I repeat again...Morality is only defined and shaped by culture...


No, Morals are, in fact, universal. You are mistaking the moral for the socially acceptable, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs in China and Korea, not morally accepted. Within Western Nations, eating Dogs and Cats is simply socially unacceptable, though we are willing to forgo these socially unacceptable practices in times of necessity, such as the siege of Paris. In India, it is immoral to kill cows- however, that is only an extension of an universal moral principle that is universally accepted, viz. it is wrong to kill unless necessary- which is, in itself, an extension of the Utilitarian principle of 'do what harms the least and benefit the most'. Morality is not a social construct, it is universal, else you must accept the following dicta: socially condoned practices and all the government works should not be questioned on moral grounds, for there is no moral but what it makes. Therefore, the murder of women and children by the government is morally acceptable, and the starvation and exploitation of others in a distant land is also acceptable. Morality, then, must exist apart of society, and its derivative, culture, for what we think of as 'right' and 'wrong' are usually independent of, and, at times, 'critical of' that society which supposedly created morality, when, supposing that your hypothesis is true, we must depend totally on society for our basis of morality, and we are, then, slave to it and unable to be critical of it.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/5/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:




Morality is universal...?
... In India it is immoral to kill a cow...
In China and Korea eating of dog meats is a morally accepted practice.

I repeat again...Morality is only defined and shaped by culture...


No, Morals are, in fact, universal. You are mistaking the moral for the socially acceptable, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs in China and Korea, not morally accepted. Within Western Nations, eating Dogs and Cats is simply socially unacceptable, though we are willing to forgo these socially unacceptable practices in times of necessity, such as the siege of Paris. In India, it is immoral to kill cows- however, that is only an extension of an universal moral principle that is universally accepted, viz. it is wrong to kill unless necessary- which is, in itself, an extension of the Utilitarian principle of 'do what harms the least and benefit the most'. Morality is not a social construct, it is universal, else you must accept the following dicta: socially condoned practices and all the government works should not be questioned on moral grounds, for there is no moral but what it makes. Therefore, the murder of women and children by the government is morally acceptable, and the starvation and exploitation of others in a distant land is also acceptable. Morality, then, must exist apart of society, and its derivative, culture, for what we think of as 'right' and 'wrong' are usually independent of, and, at times, 'critical of' that society which supposedly created morality, when, supposing that your hypothesis is true, we must depend totally on society for our basis of morality, and we are, then, slave to it and unable to be critical of it.


I believe in your country you think that it is morally incorrect to eat dogs, right?
... My Chinese friend sees dogs' meat as he sees beef...To them, it is socially and morally okay to eat dogs like you eat beefs in your country
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/5/12 , edited 9/6/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:




Morality is universal...?
... In India it is immoral to kill a cow...
In China and Korea eating of dog meats is a morally accepted practice.

I repeat again...Morality is only defined and shaped by culture...


No, Morals are, in fact, universal. You are mistaking the moral for the socially acceptable, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs in China and Korea, not morally accepted. Within Western Nations, eating Dogs and Cats is simply socially unacceptable, though we are willing to forgo these socially unacceptable practices in times of necessity, such as the siege of Paris. In India, it is immoral to kill cows- however, that is only an extension of an universal moral principle that is universally accepted, viz. it is wrong to kill unless necessary- which is, in itself, an extension of the Utilitarian principle of 'do what harms the least and benefit the most'. Morality is not a social construct, it is universal, else you must accept the following dicta: socially condoned practices and all the government works should not be questioned on moral grounds, for there is no moral but what it makes. Therefore, the murder of women and children by the government is morally acceptable, and the starvation and exploitation of others in a distant land is also acceptable. Morality, then, must exist apart of society, and its derivative, culture, for what we think of as 'right' and 'wrong' are usually independent of, and, at times, 'critical of' that society which supposedly created morality, when, supposing that your hypothesis is true, we must depend totally on society for our basis of morality, and we are, then, slave to it and unable to be critical of it.


I believe in your country you think that it is morally incorrect to eat dogs, right?
... My Chinese friend sees dogs' meat as he sees beef...To them, it is socially and morally okay to eat dogs like you eat beefs in your country


No, I am from America, so it is 'socially unacceptable' within America to eat dogs, it is not, however, immoral. What is socially accepted and what is socially unacceptable and what is moral and immoral are two similar, but separate, concepts, hence your confusion. To give you an example that even you may understand, to walk the street naked is not morally reprehensible in any society, there is nothing either good or evil attached to walking about in public naked- there is, however, a social stigma attached to it, it is not acceptable socially, it is not, however, immoral. Within my culture, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs and cats, simply because we consider it 'meat', and there is nothing moral or immoral about eating meat. Your Chinese friend does not think it moral or immoral to eat dog meat, he just thinks it is socially accepted within his culture, thus it is not 'gross' and it is not 'evil', we do not consider it aright to eat dog meat, because within our culture, we do not do so, and so it is a deviation from our social norm, and 'gross', but not 'evil'.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:




Morality is universal...?
... In India it is immoral to kill a cow...
In China and Korea eating of dog meats is a morally accepted practice.

I repeat again...Morality is only defined and shaped by culture...


No, Morals are, in fact, universal. You are mistaking the moral for the socially acceptable, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs in China and Korea, not morally accepted. Within Western Nations, eating Dogs and Cats is simply socially unacceptable, though we are willing to forgo these socially unacceptable practices in times of necessity, such as the siege of Paris. In India, it is immoral to kill cows- however, that is only an extension of an universal moral principle that is universally accepted, viz. it is wrong to kill unless necessary- which is, in itself, an extension of the Utilitarian principle of 'do what harms the least and benefit the most'. Morality is not a social construct, it is universal, else you must accept the following dicta: socially condoned practices and all the government works should not be questioned on moral grounds, for there is no moral but what it makes. Therefore, the murder of women and children by the government is morally acceptable, and the starvation and exploitation of others in a distant land is also acceptable. Morality, then, must exist apart of society, and its derivative, culture, for what we think of as 'right' and 'wrong' are usually independent of, and, at times, 'critical of' that society which supposedly created morality, when, supposing that your hypothesis is true, we must depend totally on society for our basis of morality, and we are, then, slave to it and unable to be critical of it.


I believe in your country you think that it is morally incorrect to eat dogs, right?
... My Chinese friend sees dogs' meat as he sees beef...To them, it is socially and morally okay to eat dogs like you eat beefs in your country


No, I am from America, so it is 'socially unacceptable' within America to eat dogs, it is not, however, immoral. What is socially accepted and what is socially unacceptable and what is moral and immoral are two similar, but separate, concepts, hence your confusion. To give you an example that even you may understand, to walk the street naked is not morally reprehensible in any society, there is nothing either good or evil attached to walking about in public naked- there is, however, a social stigma attached to it, it is not acceptable socially, it is not, however, immoral. Within my culture, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs and cats, simply because we consider it 'meat', and there is nothing moral or immoral about eating meat. Your Chinese friend does not think it moral or immoral to eat dog meat, he just thinks it is socially accepted within his culture, thus it is not 'gross' and it is not 'evil', we do not consider it aright to eat dog meat, because within our culture, we do not do so, and so it is a deviation from our social norm, and 'gross', but not 'evil'.


Okay, let me try this...
Do you think it is immoral to eat human...? Please answer truthfully ...!


Posted 9/7/12 , edited 9/7/12

shuyi000 wrote:



I believe in your country you think that it is morally incorrect to eat dogs, right?
... My Chinese friend sees dogs' meat as he sees beef...To them, it is socially and morally okay to eat dogs like you eat beefs in your country

longfenglim wrote:



No, I am from America, so it is 'socially unacceptable' within America to eat dogs, it is not, however, immoral. What is socially accepted and what is socially unacceptable and what is moral and immoral are two similar, but separate, concepts, hence your confusion. To give you an example that even you may understand, to walk the street naked is not morally reprehensible in any society, there is nothing either good or evil attached to walking about in public naked- there is, however, a social stigma attached to it, it is not acceptable socially, it is not, however, immoral. Within my culture, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs and cats, simply because we consider it 'meat', and there is nothing moral or immoral about eating meat. Your Chinese friend does not think it moral or immoral to eat dog meat, he just thinks it is socially accepted within his culture, thus it is not 'gross' and it is not 'evil', we do not consider it aright to eat dog meat, because within our culture, we do not do so, and so it is a deviation from our social norm, and 'gross', but not 'evil'.
People, what's this analogy of dog meat eating got anything to do with polygamy? Or are we witnessing a red herrings fallacy in the making.

Even if that's not the case to be, I've already demonstrated the physical, psychosocial, and emotional harms onto women in polygamy, wherein societies that normalize these forms of abuse are morally acceptable. And not sexual coercion.

Researchers have observed various male animals--including insects, birds, and mammals--chasing, threatening, and attacking females. Unfortunately, because scientists have rarely studied such aggression in detail, we do not know exactly how common it is. But the males of many of these species are most aggressive toward potential mates, which suggests that they sometimes use violence to gain sexual access.

Jane Goodall provides us with a compelling example of how males use violence to get sex. In her 1986 book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Goodall describes the chimpanzee dating game. In one of several scenarios, males gather around attractive estrous females and try to lure them away from other males for a one-on-one sexual expedition that may last for days or weeks. But females find some suitors more appealing than others and often resist the advances of less desirable males. Males often rely on aggression to counter female resistance. For example, Goodall describes how Evered, in persuading a reluctant Winkle to accompany him into the forest, attacked her six times over the course of five hours, twice severely.

Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe, a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized--the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh--but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behavior hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.

These chimpanzee and hamadryas males are practicing sexual coercion: male use of force to increase the chances that a female victim will mate with him, or to decrease the chances that she will mate with someone else
. But sexual coercion is much more common in some primate species than in others. Orangutans and chimpanzees are the only nonhuman primates whose males in the wild force females to copulate, while males of several other species, such as vervet monkeys and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), rarely if ever try to coerce females sexually. Between the two extremes lie many species, like hamadryas baboons, in which males do not force copulation but nonetheless use threats and intimidation to get sex.

These dramatic differences between species provide an opportunity to investigate which factors promote or inhibit sexual coercion. For example, we might expect to find more of it in species in which males are much larger than females--and we do. However, size differences between the sexes are far from the whole story. Chimpanzee and bonobo males both have only a slight size advantage, yet while male chimps frequently resort to force, male bonobos treat the fair sex with more respect. Clearly, then, although size matters, so do other factors. In particular, the social relationships females form with other females and with males appear to be as important.

In some species, females remain in their birth communities their whole lives, joining forces with related females to defend vital food resources against other females. In such female bonded species, females also form alliances against aggressive males. Vervet monkeys are one such species, and among these small and exceptionally feisty African monkeys, related females gang up against males. High-ranking females use their dense network of female alliances to rule the troop; although smaller than males, they slap persistent suitors away like annoying flies. Researchers have observed similar alliances in many other female-bonded species, including other Old World monkeys such as macaques, olive baboons, patas and rhesus monkeys, and gray langurs; New World monkeys such as the capuchin; and prosimians such as the ring-tailed lemur.

Females in other species leave their birth communities at adolescence and spend the rest of their lives cut off from their female kin. In most such species, females do not form strong bonds with other females and rarely support one another against males. Both chimpanzees and hamadryas baboons exhibit this pattern, and, as we saw earlier, in both species females submit to sexual control by males.

This contrast between female-bonded species, in which related females gang together to thwart males, and non-female-bonded species, in which they don’t, breaks down when we come to the bonobo. Female bonobos, like their close relatives the chimpanzees, leave their kin and live as adults with unrelated females. Recent field studies show that these unrelated females hang out together and engage in frequent homoerotic behavior, in which they embrace face-to-face and rapidly rub their genitals together; sex seems to cement their bonds. Examining these studies in the context of my own research has convinced me that one way females use these bonds is to form alliances against males, and that, as a consequence, male bonobos do not dominate females or attempt to coerce them sexually. How and why female bonobos, but not chimpanzees, came up with this solution to male violence remains a mystery.

Female primates also use relationships with males to help protect themselves against sexual coercion. Among olive baboons, each adult female typically forms long-lasting friendships with a few of the many males in her troop. When a male baboon assaults a female, another male often comes to her rescue; in my troop, nine times out of ten the protector was a friend of the female’s. In return for his protection, the defender may enjoy her sexual favors the next time she comes into estrus. There is a dark side to this picture, however. Male baboons frequently threaten or attack their female friends--when, for example, one tries to form a friendship with a new male. Other males apparently recognize friendships and rarely intervene. The female, then, becomes less vulnerable to aggression from males in general, but more vulnerable to aggression from her male friends.

As a final example, consider orangutans. Because their food grows so sparsely, adult females rarely travel with anyone but their dependent offspring. But orangutan females routinely fall victim to forced copulation. Female orangutans, it seems, pay a high price for their solitude.

Some of the factors that influence female vulnerability to male sexual coercion in different species may also help explain such variation among different groups in the same species. For example, in a group of chimpanzees in the Taï Forest in the Ivory Coast, females form closer bonds with one another than do females at Gombe. Taï females may consequently have more egalitarian relationships with males than their Gombe counterparts do.

Such differences between groups especially characterize humans. Among the South American Yanomamö, for instance, men frequently abduct and rape women from neighboring villages and severely beat their wives for suspected adultery. However, among the Aka people of the Central African Republic, male aggression against women has never been observed. Most human societies, of course, fall between these two extremes.
- Apes of Wrath

by Barbara Smuts

Up to half of Tajik women subjected to violence

The authorities in Tajikistan are failing to curb rampant domestic violence against women in the country, said Amnesty International today (24 November), as it published a new report on the topic.

Amnesty's 53-page report - Violence Is Not Just A Family Affair: Women Face Abuse In Tajikistan - shows that girls being married off under-age, unofficial 'unregistered' marriages (with husbands often having multiple wives), and uneducated and poor women being treated as servants in their husbands' homes - are all contributing to very high levels of violence against women within Tajik families.

Amnesty's report accuses the Tajik police and other authorities of often sharing the values of husbands and in-law families in condoning violence and discrimination against women. One Tajik government official told Amnesty: 'Violence against women is not a problem in Tajikistan, it is a family matter; and it depends on individual people how they resolve their problems.'

Amnesty International Tajikistan expert Andrea Strasser-Camagni said:

'Women in Tajikistan are beaten, abused, and raped in the family but the authorities tend to reflect the societal attitude of blaming the woman for domestic violence. They see their primary role as mediator, to preserve the family rather than protect the woman and to safeguard their rights.

'By writing off violence against women as a family affair the authorities in Tajikistan are shirking their responsibility to a large part of the population. They are allowing perpetrators of such crimes to act with impunity and, ultimately, denying women their human rights.'


Surveys have shown that between a third and a half of Tajik women have suffered violence from a family member. One survey showed 58% of wives reporting physical and/or sexual violence from their husbands, and young - often uneducated - women married in 'unregistered' ceremonies are particularly at risk. In many Tajik households women are demeaned and attacked by husbands and in-laws alike.

Sexual violence in marriage is common. In one case a husband forced his wife to have anal sex 'in order to have a boy' (they already had six girls). In another case a husband brought a second wife home and beat his first wife after she complained when he began having sex with the newcomer in the same room as her.

Unregistered wives can also be divorced by husbands who simply repeat a phrase in front of two witnesses. This often leaves divorced women with nowhere to live and no source of income. In some cases wives have been divorced over the telephone by husbands working abroad who have already started new families abroad (widespread poverty in Tajikistan has led to millions of Tajik men working in other countries in recent years, especially in Russia).

Despite the fact that research reveals very high levels of domestic violence in the country the Tajik authorities do not compile comprehensive data on the issue and there is only one shelter for at-risk women in the entire country.

Amnesty is calling on the Tajik authorities to begin full monitoring of domestic violence, to provide women's shelters across the country, and to establish specialised police units to deal with the problem. The prosecutorial authorities are also being urged to end impunity for the perpetrators of domestic violence by pursuing prosecutions themselves rather than placing the onus on victims to initiate cases - something that victims of domestic violence in Tajikistan rarely feel able to do.

Cases
Zamira got married at 18 in a traditional Islamic marriage. The marriage lasted for five years and in this time Zamira was never allowed to leave her husband's house. 'It was like in prison,' says Zamira. She told Amnesty that when she asked his permission to go out or when they had a quarrel, her husband would beat her. One day her husband divorced her according to Islamic tradition and she was thrown out of the house by his parents. Now Zamira and her nine-year-old son live with her parents in an over-crowded house. She dreams of a home for her and her son.

Tahmina, a mother of three children, has been married for 13 years. She says that she had three stillbirths and after that her husband began to beat her. As a result of a beating another baby died; then she miscarried while five months pregnant and her first child was born deformed. She once went to the police when she was black and blue and had a knife cut on her arm. They said she could write a complaint, but otherwise did nothing. She felt they blamed her for having provoked the violence.

Risolat, a 17-year-old from a small town was raped by her boyfriend, who threatened to kill her if she told anyone about it. He forced her to have sex during a four-month period. He also beat her. A year later she went to the police wanting to file a complaint, but she was mocked by the officers and sent away.
-Tajikistan: Child brides, polygamy and poverty contributing to rampant domestic violence- new report
Use these factual reporting to build your arguments on the objective morality of polygamy. And consider this well known scientific made legal fact, about how sexual coercion in the form of psychosocial abuse, can cause physiological and neurological harms, without the onset of physical assault or rape.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/8/12 , edited 9/8/12

DomFortress wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:



I believe in your country you think that it is morally incorrect to eat dogs, right?
... My Chinese friend sees dogs' meat as he sees beef...To them, it is socially and morally okay to eat dogs like you eat beefs in your country

longfenglim wrote:



No, I am from America, so it is 'socially unacceptable' within America to eat dogs, it is not, however, immoral. What is socially accepted and what is socially unacceptable and what is moral and immoral are two similar, but separate, concepts, hence your confusion. To give you an example that even you may understand, to walk the street naked is not morally reprehensible in any society, there is nothing either good or evil attached to walking about in public naked- there is, however, a social stigma attached to it, it is not acceptable socially, it is not, however, immoral. Within my culture, it is socially acceptable to eat dogs and cats, simply because we consider it 'meat', and there is nothing moral or immoral about eating meat. Your Chinese friend does not think it moral or immoral to eat dog meat, he just thinks it is socially accepted within his culture, thus it is not 'gross' and it is not 'evil', we do not consider it aright to eat dog meat, because within our culture, we do not do so, and so it is a deviation from our social norm, and 'gross', but not 'evil'.
People, what's this analogy of dog meat eating got anything to do with polygamy? Or are we witnessing a red herrings fallacy in the making.

Even if that's not the case to be, I've already demonstrated the physical, psychosocial, and emotional harms onto women in polygamy, wherein societies that normalize these forms of abuse are morally acceptable. And not sexual coercion.

Researchers have observed various male animals--including insects, birds, and mammals--chasing, threatening, and attacking females. Unfortunately, because scientists have rarely studied such aggression in detail, we do not know exactly how common it is. But the males of many of these species are most aggressive toward potential mates, which suggests that they sometimes use violence to gain sexual access.

Jane Goodall provides us with a compelling example of how males use violence to get sex. In her 1986 book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Goodall describes the chimpanzee dating game. In one of several scenarios, males gather around attractive estrous females and try to lure them away from other males for a one-on-one sexual expedition that may last for days or weeks. But females find some suitors more appealing than others and often resist the advances of less desirable males. Males often rely on aggression to counter female resistance. For example, Goodall describes how Evered, in persuading a reluctant Winkle to accompany him into the forest, attacked her six times over the course of five hours, twice severely.

Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe, a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized--the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh--but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behavior hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.

These chimpanzee and hamadryas males are practicing sexual coercion: male use of force to increase the chances that a female victim will mate with him, or to decrease the chances that she will mate with someone else
. But sexual coercion is much more common in some primate species than in others. Orangutans and chimpanzees are the only nonhuman primates whose males in the wild force females to copulate, while males of several other species, such as vervet monkeys and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), rarely if ever try to coerce females sexually. Between the two extremes lie many species, like hamadryas baboons, in which males do not force copulation but nonetheless use threats and intimidation to get sex.

These dramatic differences between species provide an opportunity to investigate which factors promote or inhibit sexual coercion. For example, we might expect to find more of it in species in which males are much larger than females--and we do. However, size differences between the sexes are far from the whole story. Chimpanzee and bonobo males both have only a slight size advantage, yet while male chimps frequently resort to force, male bonobos treat the fair sex with more respect. Clearly, then, although size matters, so do other factors. In particular, the social relationships females form with other females and with males appear to be as important.

In some species, females remain in their birth communities their whole lives, joining forces with related females to defend vital food resources against other females. In such female bonded species, females also form alliances against aggressive males. Vervet monkeys are one such species, and among these small and exceptionally feisty African monkeys, related females gang up against males. High-ranking females use their dense network of female alliances to rule the troop; although smaller than males, they slap persistent suitors away like annoying flies. Researchers have observed similar alliances in many other female-bonded species, including other Old World monkeys such as macaques, olive baboons, patas and rhesus monkeys, and gray langurs; New World monkeys such as the capuchin; and prosimians such as the ring-tailed lemur.

Females in other species leave their birth communities at adolescence and spend the rest of their lives cut off from their female kin. In most such species, females do not form strong bonds with other females and rarely support one another against males. Both chimpanzees and hamadryas baboons exhibit this pattern, and, as we saw earlier, in both species females submit to sexual control by males.

This contrast between female-bonded species, in which related females gang together to thwart males, and non-female-bonded species, in which they don’t, breaks down when we come to the bonobo. Female bonobos, like their close relatives the chimpanzees, leave their kin and live as adults with unrelated females. Recent field studies show that these unrelated females hang out together and engage in frequent homoerotic behavior, in which they embrace face-to-face and rapidly rub their genitals together; sex seems to cement their bonds. Examining these studies in the context of my own research has convinced me that one way females use these bonds is to form alliances against males, and that, as a consequence, male bonobos do not dominate females or attempt to coerce them sexually. How and why female bonobos, but not chimpanzees, came up with this solution to male violence remains a mystery.

Female primates also use relationships with males to help protect themselves against sexual coercion. Among olive baboons, each adult female typically forms long-lasting friendships with a few of the many males in her troop. When a male baboon assaults a female, another male often comes to her rescue; in my troop, nine times out of ten the protector was a friend of the female’s. In return for his protection, the defender may enjoy her sexual favors the next time she comes into estrus. There is a dark side to this picture, however. Male baboons frequently threaten or attack their female friends--when, for example, one tries to form a friendship with a new male. Other males apparently recognize friendships and rarely intervene. The female, then, becomes less vulnerable to aggression from males in general, but more vulnerable to aggression from her male friends.

As a final example, consider orangutans. Because their food grows so sparsely, adult females rarely travel with anyone but their dependent offspring. But orangutan females routinely fall victim to forced copulation. Female orangutans, it seems, pay a high price for their solitude.

Some of the factors that influence female vulnerability to male sexual coercion in different species may also help explain such variation among different groups in the same species. For example, in a group of chimpanzees in the Taï Forest in the Ivory Coast, females form closer bonds with one another than do females at Gombe. Taï females may consequently have more egalitarian relationships with males than their Gombe counterparts do.

Such differences between groups especially characterize humans. Among the South American Yanomamö, for instance, men frequently abduct and rape women from neighboring villages and severely beat their wives for suspected adultery. However, among the Aka people of the Central African Republic, male aggression against women has never been observed. Most human societies, of course, fall between these two extremes.
- Apes of Wrath

by Barbara Smuts

Up to half of Tajik women subjected to violence

The authorities in Tajikistan are failing to curb rampant domestic violence against women in the country, said Amnesty International today (24 November), as it published a new report on the topic.

Amnesty's 53-page report - Violence Is Not Just A Family Affair: Women Face Abuse In Tajikistan - shows that girls being married off under-age, unofficial 'unregistered' marriages (with husbands often having multiple wives), and uneducated and poor women being treated as servants in their husbands' homes - are all contributing to very high levels of violence against women within Tajik families.

Amnesty's report accuses the Tajik police and other authorities of often sharing the values of husbands and in-law families in condoning violence and discrimination against women. One Tajik government official told Amnesty: 'Violence against women is not a problem in Tajikistan, it is a family matter; and it depends on individual people how they resolve their problems.'

Amnesty International Tajikistan expert Andrea Strasser-Camagni said:

'Women in Tajikistan are beaten, abused, and raped in the family but the authorities tend to reflect the societal attitude of blaming the woman for domestic violence. They see their primary role as mediator, to preserve the family rather than protect the woman and to safeguard their rights.

'By writing off violence against women as a family affair the authorities in Tajikistan are shirking their responsibility to a large part of the population. They are allowing perpetrators of such crimes to act with impunity and, ultimately, denying women their human rights.'


Surveys have shown that between a third and a half of Tajik women have suffered violence from a family member. One survey showed 58% of wives reporting physical and/or sexual violence from their husbands, and young - often uneducated - women married in 'unregistered' ceremonies are particularly at risk. In many Tajik households women are demeaned and attacked by husbands and in-laws alike.

Sexual violence in marriage is common. In one case a husband forced his wife to have anal sex 'in order to have a boy' (they already had six girls). In another case a husband brought a second wife home and beat his first wife after she complained when he began having sex with the newcomer in the same room as her.

Unregistered wives can also be divorced by husbands who simply repeat a phrase in front of two witnesses. This often leaves divorced women with nowhere to live and no source of income. In some cases wives have been divorced over the telephone by husbands working abroad who have already started new families abroad (widespread poverty in Tajikistan has led to millions of Tajik men working in other countries in recent years, especially in Russia).

Despite the fact that research reveals very high levels of domestic violence in the country the Tajik authorities do not compile comprehensive data on the issue and there is only one shelter for at-risk women in the entire country.

Amnesty is calling on the Tajik authorities to begin full monitoring of domestic violence, to provide women's shelters across the country, and to establish specialised police units to deal with the problem. The prosecutorial authorities are also being urged to end impunity for the perpetrators of domestic violence by pursuing prosecutions themselves rather than placing the onus on victims to initiate cases - something that victims of domestic violence in Tajikistan rarely feel able to do.

Cases
Zamira got married at 18 in a traditional Islamic marriage. The marriage lasted for five years and in this time Zamira was never allowed to leave her husband's house. 'It was like in prison,' says Zamira. She told Amnesty that when she asked his permission to go out or when they had a quarrel, her husband would beat her. One day her husband divorced her according to Islamic tradition and she was thrown out of the house by his parents. Now Zamira and her nine-year-old son live with her parents in an over-crowded house. She dreams of a home for her and her son.

Tahmina, a mother of three children, has been married for 13 years. She says that she had three stillbirths and after that her husband began to beat her. As a result of a beating another baby died; then she miscarried while five months pregnant and her first child was born deformed. She once went to the police when she was black and blue and had a knife cut on her arm. They said she could write a complaint, but otherwise did nothing. She felt they blamed her for having provoked the violence.

Risolat, a 17-year-old from a small town was raped by her boyfriend, who threatened to kill her if she told anyone about it. He forced her to have sex during a four-month period. He also beat her. A year later she went to the police wanting to file a complaint, but she was mocked by the officers and sent away.
-Tajikistan: Child brides, polygamy and poverty contributing to rampant domestic violence- new report
Use these factual reporting to build your arguments on the objective morality of polygamy. And consider this well known scientific made legal fact, about how sexual coercion in the form of psychosocial abuse, can cause physiological and neurological harms, without the onset of physical assault or rape.


These facts, however, does not relate at all to the Practice of Polygamy, and inapplicable to the debate. Polygamy is not the violent subjugation of woman-folks, nor is the liberty to have more than one wives, or more than one husband, in any way related to 'psychosocial abuse and neurological harms'. Indeed, an eminent psychologist has gone so far as to say that we are naturally polygamous:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0
And to support this absurd ban on Polygamy, even under the guise of 'woman's right'- shows of a man too wedded with senseless tradition and social customs- in short, the psyche of a reactionary. When considered, outside of false societal customs, that is relative to culture, we can see clearly that man, in natural, is in liberty, and all rule and custom must justify itself should it wish to restrict man's natural rights- observing this, and observing Polygamy, as rightly understood as the practice of having more than one spouse, we can see there is no justification of it, and therefore, no reason to have banned it in the first place, and no reason not to legalise it now.


shuyi000 wrote:


Okay, let me try this...
Do you think it is immoral to eat human...? Please answer truthfully ...!





No, I do not find eating human flesh immoral- there is nothing wrong, inherently, with the consumption of human flesh. In China, for example, during era of famine and drought, during era of mass starvation, cannibalism was not only practised, but authorised. Following the Consequentialist definition of Morality outlined above, I do not think that cannibalism is, inherently, immoral, and it be even be a necessity. But I am repulsed by it. Let's go back to the nudist- we find the public nudist repulsive and engaging in non-socially acceptable behaviour, we do not find him, however, immoral, just so with the cannibal- we find him in a condition where a group of men must eat human flesh to survive, we do not find his action immoral, because they must choose between either eating the flesh of their fellow man, and allowing the some to survive, or letting themselves starve to death, wherein there is no survivor.

---

Edit: Please do not double post. I have added your previous post to this one and deleted the former. -Bedlam
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/9/12

DomFortress wrote:

People, what's this analogy of dog meat eating got anything to do with polygamy? Or are we witnessing a red herrings fallacy in the making.



We're going off topic here...
Didn't realized that we're thread hijacking..
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/9/12 , edited 9/9/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


Okay, let me try this...
Do you think it is immoral to eat human...? Please answer truthfully ...!





No, I do not find eating human flesh immoral- there is nothing wrong, inherently, with the consumption of human flesh. In China, for example, during era of famine and drought, during era of mass starvation, cannibalism was not only practised, but authorised. Following the Consequentialist definition of Morality outlined above, I do not think that cannibalism is, inherently, immoral, and it be even be a necessity. But I am repulsed by it. Let's go back to the nudist- we find the public nudist repulsive and engaging in non-socially acceptable behaviour, we do not find him, however, immoral, just so with the cannibal- we find him in a condition where a group of men must eat human flesh to survive, we do not find his action immoral, because they must choose between either eating the flesh of their fellow man, and allowing the some to survive, or letting themselves starve to death, wherein there is no survivor.

---



That's I said that morality evolved over time and is different from place to place...

I'll ask you again.. Do you think that eating humans in your country in this time morally correctly...?
Please answer truthfully, in your context.


Wrong! Morality is not, as you say, relative to time and place- we accept Cannibalism under the circumstance where it is not possible to survive without it, it is moral because it causes the least harm for the benefit of the greater. It is morally justifiable to cannibalise the dead when all other options are exhausted, during Mao, during the Soviet famine, even within America, the infamous Donner Party, because it benefits those who are still living, and this condition applicable to all cultures of all times. If my companions and I were to starve, with no recourse to other forms of food, and we were to spy another dead body, I think we are morally justified in eating it, because it serves the greater good, that is, our survival, with the least pain, that is the consumption of a dead person. So, yes, if, in America, we do, indeed, suffer from want of food, and survival depends upon our cannibalisation, as is the case with famine stricken China, Russian, or any other place where cannibalism is rendered a necessity, it would be morally justifiable to cannibalise. However, under my conditions, when food can be found in plenty, I am not justified in cannibalism. If there was someone who was in such a condition where the greater happiness (i.e. his survival), depends on his cannibalisation of the dead, then cannibalism is morally justified. There is no 'within my context', because my context is irrelevant and varying, and should my 'context' change such that it becomes a necessity, then I am morally justified in doing so, thus, whether or not the forces external to me, act in such a way that, in its relation to myself, it makes the condition for cannibalism applicable and morally justifiable, then my context is such that this universal principle is applicable. Take the laws of nature, some of them are not applicable to you at the moment, but, when those circumstances change, then they become applicable to you- you would not say that, because they do not apply at the moment, they must, therefore be relative, instead, the external and internal circumstances is such that it does not apply at the moment, but is still universally applicable. This then It is not a difficult concept to grasp, an action is universally moral when it produce the greatest happiness with the least pain.
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.