Jump to content

Plural marriage


Lexxi Loon
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3314 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

You mean polygamy or polyamory (a.k.a. promiscuity)? As of yet, I haven't met anybody inworld who doesn't RP being a total s*** in one way or another. Many people use alts to keep up multiple relationships behind the backs of their various partners, while others just bleep around a lot without making a secret of it.

I have no idea if there are any Mormons in Second Life though (Google told me that this is what the abovementioned TV show deals with). A search for "temple garments" (magic Mormon undies) on the Marketplace didn't turn up any results, so I guess they have yet to discover SL as a platform for virtual polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes polygamy is what I meant and not polyamory.  I have done searches and looked for groups in world but it seems like most people want polyamory or subs and slaves and that's not what I was looking for.    Thanks for the reply Ishtara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unrelated to the OPs question, there is a mormon sim cluster. Except that "The Mormons" (the ones in SLC and many places around the globe) don't practice or condone polygamy since around 1904ish (officially anyway). That's a splinter group, the "FLDS" church (Fundamentalist church of Latter Day Saints) around the Warren Jeffs.

Common misconception, just pisses off a lot of Mormons :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:

Mormons take a lot of heat because they're non-violent and it's not politically-incorrect to ridicule them. You'll never see a TV series like Big Love produced about Muslims. When it comes to hypocrisy and cowardice, there's no place worse than Hollywood.

You can only ridicule the ridiculous :) Which certainly includes the other kind of ridiculous True Believers™ that you mentioned. I mean the misogynists with poor impulse control, who wrap their women in beekeeper suits and commit even more infant genital mutilation than the American people.

There is no group of people that can't be ridiculed, and there are many who don't care one bit about how politically incorrect they are (including myself). Some even preach outright hatred. Being poked fun at for talking crazy and believing in fairy tales is a pretty harmless calibration tool compared to being told that you're a morally inferior sinner who deserves to be sentenced to burn in some underworld place for all eternity by some vengeful deity. And yet I fully support everyone's right to freely speak their mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

You can only ridicule the ridiculous 

 

Actually, you can redicule anything, the sacred, the profane, the innocent, the powerful, the kind, the dead, the living, the heroic and the pathetic. It's all subject to ridicule. Wisom is in knowing what to ridicule and what not to, and the beginning of wisdom is kindness. I would never ridicule you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Willow Danube wrote:

 

Randall Ahren wrote:

Wisom is in knowing what to ridicule and what not to, and the beginning of wisdom is kindness.


I shall remember this quote.

 

You might want to remember it with an added D ;)

Not that it has any real meaning either way. It's a pseudo-intellectual platitude of the sort that people who have no facts or arguments at their disposal make up as they go along. "Moments of happiness are like an oasis in the desert, and the wise camel knows that the next oasis is a long, dry walk away". You can word any kind of nonsense in a way that makes it sound like profound wisdom to the superficial mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who peed in your Cheerios?


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Not that it has any real meaning either way. It's a pseudo-intellectual platitude of the sort that people who have no facts or arguments at their disposal make up as they go along. "Moments of happiness are like an oasis in the desert, and the wise camel knows that the next oasis is a long, dry walk away". You can word any kind of nonsense in a way that makes it sound like profound wisdom to the superficial mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:


Not that it has any real meaning either way. It's a pseudo-intellectual platitude of the sort that people who have no facts or arguments at their disposal make up as they go along. "Moments of happiness are like an oasis in the desert, and the wise camel knows that the next oasis is a long, dry walk away". You can word any kind of nonsense in a way that makes it sound like profound wisdom to the superficial mind.


You're just proving my point about being able to ridicule anything. You're coupling a gratuitous insult with an attempt to ridicule ancient wisdom. The suggestion that one be kind is a greater truth dating at least as far back as Plato who is reported to have said "e kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." The reason it seems profound is because kindness is not the default emotion that initially arises, its opposite is the initial impulse.

When a crocodile bites its victim, the crocodile doesn't wonder if its victim feels pain because the primitive reptilian brain of a crocodile does not have the capacity for any emotions other than attack, fear, or mate. Most humans, however, have the capacity for kindness and empathy and those that don't are sociopaths. It takes a little impulse control to overcome the initial emotional response to lash out that arises from the primitive reptilian parts of our brain.

Whether "[m]oments of happiness are like an oasis in the desert" depends a bit on your outlook. If you're a dour, pessimistic person that sees the clouds behind every rainbow, moments of happiness will be few and far between. I see now what you and your friend Daria have in common. 

It's not just "the wise camel knows that the next oasis is a long, dry walk away", it's all camels. A scarcity of water is what defines a desert. If there was an oasis at every step, it wouldn't be a desert. It would be a marsh or a swamp.

Maybe the admonition to be kind is too subtle and should be stated stronger. Perhaps if someone had said early on to Hitler "dude, don't be a dick", he wouldn't have killed all those Jews. While kindness may be the beginning of wisdom, it isn't the end. Maybe the problem with Hitler was that his enemies were too kind. Gandhi's life story would have likely been much shorter had he faced Nazis instead of the British.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that it's possible to successfully ridicule anything that is not inherently ridiculous.

The notion of "ancient wisdom" is a great example. It's utterly ridiculous to assume that ancient cultures were wiser and more knowledgeable than modern human beings. Many people subscribe to that fallacy, for example when it comes to modern medicine versus ancient witch-doctory.

Our distant ancestors had a natural life expectancy of roughly 30 years, a much lower standard of living, social systems that were all but just, and a much higher chance to become victims of wars and violence. How wise could they possibly have been? To me, it looks as if every generation does a slightly better job at gathering knowledge, shaping the environment to their advantage, and creating a better, more humane world that allows for more self-awareness and individual happiness. If that is not wisdom, what is?

ETA: One important tool in this process of creating a better world is ridicule. By ridiculing those who live in the past -- for example the folks who oppress their women and keep them wrapped in beekeeper suits, as I did earlier in this thread -- we might make them realize the inherent ridiculousness of their behaviour and their overcome values. It's a better way than forcing conversion and social change with the sword, and it is certainly much better than accepting and even respecting crimes against humanity and human knowledge, and looking the other way when rape victims are stoned to death. Tolerance only goes so far.

 

As for Hitler, he was a psychopath. I very much doubt that telling him "be excellent to one another" would have really made a difference. What would have made a difference though is less acceptance of a ridiculous belief system that fully supported discrimination against Jews (after all, it was the churches that came up with "they killed our lord and saviour!" and created this them versus us notion), and allowed this madman to rise to power by working a religious angle ("vote for the faithful Catholic Adolf Hitler") and even securing the backing of the Vatican (who also supported Franco, Mussolini, Degnelle, Tiso, Pétain, Szalasy, Salazar, Pavelic and Codreanu, all of them catholics like Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels).

In short, it was the fact that an entire country subscribed to an inherently ridiculous belief system that made all of this possible. It might have played out differently if enough people had lacked the political correctness that kept them from publically ridiculing this kind of "I'm on a mission from god" propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ancient wisdom is ancient because the fundamental nature of humans has not changed in thousands of years. We are still driven primarily by impulses arising from the primitive parts of our brain. Sex and violence is stimulating, which is why it is present in virtually every film and why your avatar exposes significant skin and cleavage. The Romans had their gladiator arenas and today we have the UFC, K1 and bullfighting. You're mistaking knowledge for wisdom. You may know how to build a nuclear bombs or produce Zyklon B. Wisdom is knowing what to use it on and when, not how to make it. 

There is currently a goup of people that practice plural marriage and keep their women wrapped in tents called burquas. Why don't you attempt to force them to realize the inherent ridiculousness of their behaviour by publicly burning a Koran? To make it fair and show a lack of bias, you can simultaneously burn a copy of the Book of Morman too. 

I doubt if you have the courage to do it. You've already been converted by the sword and political correctness. Seems like some ancient wisdom from long ago about the fulitility of appeasement and the danger of double-speak has been forgotten. 

Maybe it was from Shakespeare. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." And that which we call a shark, would still be just as deadly by any other name. Islam is indeed a religion of peace because none dare say publicly that it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:


Randall Ahren wrote:

Mormons take a lot of heat because they're non-violent and it's not politically-incorrect to ridicule them. You'll never see a TV series like Big Love produced about Muslims. When it comes to hypocrisy and cowardice, there's no place worse than Hollywood.

You can only ridicule the ridiculous
:)
Which certainly includes the other kind of ridiculous True Believers™ that you mentioned. I mean the misogynists with poor impulse control, who wrap their women in beekeeper suits and commit even more infant genital mutilation than the American people.

There is no group of people that can't be ridiculed, and there are many who don't care one bit about how politically incorrect they are (including myself). Some even preach outright hatred. Being poked fun at for talking crazy and believing in fairy tales is a pretty harmless calibration tool compared to being told that you're a morally inferior sinner who deserves to be sentenced to burn in some underworld place for all eternity by some vengeful deity. And yet I fully support everyone's right to freely speak their mind.

 

Personally, I only ridicule pink elves of ambiguous gender, because everyone else in the world has some sort of antidefamation league.

Tolya (would blow you a kiss if he weren't such a homophobe :smileywink: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Randall Ahren wrote:

Wisom is in knowing what to ridicule and what not to, and the beginning of wisdom is kindness. I would never ridicule you.


Perfectly worded.

 

That being said, I think that the poster who said "just do it" was on the right course. I personally would be "for" such a place but then I agree with plural marriage. I think I am imagining what you are- not a Master/owner set up, not post apocalypse, not "swinging" . An honest to goodness "regular" world where polygamny just happens to be the norm.

I guess I would just say, be as explicit and detailed in your summary as possible about what your rp does and does not include/is and is not about. No need starting off with a crowd looking for something that you are not about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you think plural marriage would operate in practice? In the TV series referenced in the OP, the husband provided each of his three wives with a separate house arranged around a common yard. The spouses then set up a schedule in which the husband would spend one night with each wife in her house. I can see why the husband would like this arrangement, but what would be attractive about this arrangement for the wives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HA!!!

My in-laws would have a heart attack, apoplexy and a conniption fit all rolled into one if they knew about what Clover and I do :)  If I told them a few details about the four of us in one of our puppy-piles they might just croak on the spot.

 

Hey ... maybe we're on to something here ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I thought there would be more objections from the ladies. I guess it could work. The husband spends Monday with one wife, Wednesday with another, and Friday is group night. Where plural marriage is mainly practiced in RL is in areas having Islamic law. From what I've read, when the husband brings in another wife, she is almost always younger than the current wife or wives, and the youngest wife becomes the favorite. 

For example, Mohammed's favorite was Aisha, who was his youngest wife. He married her when she was six and I think he was around 50. Osama Bin Laden's favorite was also his youngest wife. 

Sexual dimorphism indicates that pre-historic humans practiced polygamy extensively. Basically, one large alpha male controlled the tribe and kept most of the women pregnant. Somewhat like sea lions, where the males are just enormous compared to the females, because size provides a reproductive advantage in being able to defeat male competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3314 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...