Based muslim child
-
Was expecting more of an Egyptian punchline.
Like Mummy, right? Same
-
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
If everyone involved consents, should that be anyone else's business?
-
If everyone involved consents, should that be anyone else's business?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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... -
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
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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. -
What is a guy with 3 wives supposed to look like?
They have 3 dicks and 4 arms usually
-
This post did not contain any content.
i think polygamy is ok if it's K₃ romantic
-
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.
-
Most cryptobros don't give a shit about the moral or ethical implications of what crypto they invest in, what they represent, etc. They just want line go up. No different than investors who invest in diverse ranges of companies. Hedge funds will invest in fossil fuel giants right alongside ecotech startups. The only thing that matters is return.
Hooray for non-tribalism?
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Two wives?
That must be unbearable.
-
Then why can’t people consent in the other direction?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Because the parties involved embrace a religion that prohibits it, and they willingly consent to that restriction by extension.
-
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.
-
Hooray for non-tribalism?
I think it’s just a slight step up above greater fool theory. The only difference is that they’re better charlatans by pretending to participate in either tribe, still enforcing the tribal culture.
-
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.
You can’t consent to a religion if leaving it causes you to be shunned by your family and community.
Then, according to that logic, not a single person who believes in a mainstream/typical religion is consenting to it, because many families and communities will shun you if you leave their religion. That is a social construct and may or may not happen depending on many factors.
Are you specifically talking about the concept of apostasy in Islam and how it’s supposedly punishable by death?
