Cucking memes aside, Bertrand Russel made a pretty good case in Marriage and Morals as to why monogamy is an evil and destructive invention: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marriage_and_Morals
I'll remind you that NO ONE has actually give a decent rebuttal to Marriage and Morals. Betrand Russell himself was raised in a progressive household: his father allowed his wife, Russell's mother, to sleep with Rusell's tutors. Yet Betrand Russell turned out a genius, and grew up to the win the Nobel Prize in literature.
Who are some other thinks who held this opinion? I don't mean edgelords like Sade. I know in The Origin of the Family, Engels makes a case for monogamous marriage being necessary for development, but also the beginning of oppression and something which must ultimately whither away.
>Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.
>>7739540
If you want to swing, find a partner who also wants to swing.
If you want monogamy, find a partner who wants monogamy.
What benefit is there to telling either group of people they are wrong for wanting what they want given that everything is consensual and nobody is harmed?
>>7739540
Why are people on 4chan (mainly /r9k/ and /pol/) so obsessed with whom other people fuck?
>>7739540
His father was a cuck. He was a cuck. Anyone like him will be a cuck. Don't be like him.
The reason why nobody gives a rebuttal is because the rebuttal is self-evident.
https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory
there's your argument
>>7739606
This is basically it. First post.
>>7739628
/thread
>monogamy is bad because it is the oppression of one sex (male) over the other
If you get rid of monogamy you're just swapping that for the opposite and giving females all the sexual power. I don't see how it's necessarily a positive change.
>>7739663
I don't see how you're giving females all the sexual power, or even most of it
>>7739732
women are generally the gate keepers of sex
>>7739540
>NO ONE has actually give a decent rebuttal to Marriage and Morals
That's because it's a mere speculative artifact that caught the ire of a puritanical culture
Cucktrand Russel aside, isn't polygamy a practice of the natural, tribalistic state of man? IIRC when Papua & some other islands in the pacific were discovered by the Western man they were practicing polygamy.
Makes sense desu. I imagine it squelches violence and allows for sperm competition.
>someone pls tell me something I don't know
funny how the argument for polyamory mostly boils down to critiquing marriage through the oppression meme
polyamory can't stand on its own merits because it has none, it's for tumblrites and their bitch made boyfriends (no doubt on SSRI's)
>>7739614
If you can't work that out you're either very new or stupid.
>>7739540
I'm not particularly interested in where this thread ended up, but to answer OP, H. G. Wells wrote some interesting stuff about polyamory in his later years. Check out In the Days of the Comet in particular for a clear depiction of what he thought to be the advantages of polyamory.
>Betrand Russell himself was raised in a progressive household: his father allowed his wife, Russell's mother, to sleep with Rusell's tutors
lmao
>>7739540
>cucking memes aside
no, no you have to pay attention to whether someone is a cuck or not when he writes about sex and relationships.
If you are a cuck your opinions are invalid desu.
>argument from morality
There is no need to refute opinions.
>>7740209
I'm pretty sure continentals are the masturbatory ones, not those who follow rigorous logic and the scientific method.
>>7740249
The scientific method requires peer peer review with empirical confirmation, that has nothing to do with analytic philosophy
>>7740157
>thinking that Papa New Guinea pop represents all or any prehistorical society
What the fuck is this, 1870?
le cucks am I le right ?
>>7740253
Yes it does, have you ever done any work in an analytic department?
>>7740283
Bigots like you belong on /pol/.
>>7740311
Dubs like these deserve a check
>>7740283
woah so enlightened.
>>7739628
>that highly upvoted post of the 3 people
hey guys, it's me, a happy person, here to let you all know that i am in fact, happy
it is vitally important that people know that i ( a person who is happy ) am happy and in no way unhappy
true happiness manifests itself not in quiet contentment but in an anxious need to project my happy person identity.
it is important to me, as a happy person, that you all recognise my happiness and understa
If you read his History of Western Philosophy, you can see how Russell misunderstands, among others, Aristotle and Aquinas. His argument against the traditional family can be refuted using Aristotelian Natural Law.
1: The teleological end of mature Man-Woman relationships is to produce offspring.
2: This end is best facilitated through marriage. Children born to married parents complete the traditional family unit.
3. The teleological ends that the family unit tends towards is a support structure for its members, in particular children.
4. Children who grow up with one mother and one father are the products of more teleologically-correct families than children who grow up with two mothers or fathers, or a father and three mothers.
5. Therefore, polygamy contradicts the final cause that the family unit tends towards, and thus violates Natural Law. This makes it unnatural and immoral.
Are there books on the effect of the exposition of children to sex?
I don't mean to the direct practice, I mean to the simple exposition. Like on how certain populations' parents have sex in the same room where the children are.
>>7742744
>Children born to married parents complete the traditional family unit.
The "traditional" family unit is a multigenerational family living under one roof, the "father + mother + children" thing is a very recent invention (~100 years)
>>7743923
Genesis 2:24
>>7743931
>quotes a sex verse to support his ideology of family
>quotes the bible
>2016
>>7743935
>family has like a dozen kids back in theday
>they all get married and live under the same roof with all their kids
>multiplication process continues
How long do you think a single household could sustain this?
>>7743969
>i'm for mother/father unit because I care for the planet!!11!!11!
>>7739628
https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/47lbh4/married_for_16_years_2_children_polyamorous_for/
makes me want to kill myself
>>7740178
this
>>7740210
sounds like you're not really open to new ideas family
>>7742744
so many spooks
>>7743899
Yeah, very nice, what about the books?
