posted
Then you could say "some" or "my" religious circles rather than "even in religious circles", which implies all of them.
quote:I don't know....are your standards the same as mine? Whose standards are we going to encourage?
Everyone encourage what they consider moral, and apply it equally to everyone? I'm not talking about the force of law, so there doesn't need to be just one answer.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone encourage what they consider moral, and apply it equally to everyone?
You run into problems with that in that what people consider moral can differ across different classes of people. Men versus women, married people versus single people, people in my religion versus everyone else, etc.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately, all of those things can happen and the world will carry on just fine. The world doesn't collapse if someone disapproves of your actions, and the world doesn't collapse if someone does something you don't approve of.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was that directed at what I said? If so, I don't think you understand what I meant.
I was saying that people's ideas of what they consider moral is different across groups, so that applying it equally to everyone is often going to look like not applying it equally.
For example, considering it okay for men to be promiscuous but not okay for women can be a case of applying what is moral equally.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:even in religious circles it seems more important that women remain virginal to their wedding day. In fact, you get some teasing of virginal adolescent men...they will often lie about this fact. Virginal 20-something men is something that many people consider a sign of weakness whereas a virginal 20-something woman is just innocent or devout.
Not my religious circles. Not at all. That is utterly foreign to my experience.
The double standard is terrible, but wouldn't it be better to encourage ethical and moral sexual behavior in everyone rather than making it expected of no one?
Within the standards of what is acceptable LDS physical romantic interaction, is it more okay for guys to have more partners than women?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:applying it equally to everyone is often going to look like not applying it equally.
So?
quote:Within the standards of what is acceptable LDS physical romantic interaction, is it more okay for guys to have more partners than women?
You mean sexual partners? No. The standard is chastity before marriage and fidelity after, and that's for both sexes.
If you are talking about less dramatic physical interaction, macking on multiple people is looked down on for everyone.
In other words, you can date as many as you want at a time but it's sketchy and skanky to be kissing more than one at a time, and that holds regardless of gender.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps any, I do not recall any models noted on Hatrack that propose the world collapsing in the case of immoral behaviour.
The closest would be the "fiery meteor death" scenario, but even that would be more of an explosion rather than an implosion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Then you could say "some" or "my" religious circles rather than "even in religious circles", which implies all of them.
quote:I don't know....are your standards the same as mine? Whose standards are we going to encourage?
Everyone encourage what they consider moral, and apply it equally to everyone? I'm not talking about the force of law, so there doesn't need to be just one answer.
Perhaps I should have said "many" but I thought it was implied...I was not suggesting that every person and every social circle across the country felt the same way about this issue, even in non-religious circles.
As for the rest...definitely. I hold men and women to exactly the same standard. For me, that is honesty and fidelity. I believe in truth and vows. I am not particularly concerned about chastity though open promiscuity strikes me as troubling.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: For example, considering it okay for men to be promiscuous but not okay for women can be a case of applying what is moral equally.
I'm not following this...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Men and women are different classes of people, so it may be morally okay or even correct for a man to be promiscuous while morally wrong and degrading for a woman to be.
It's a case where there are different rules for different classes of people. The rules are applied equally, but the context or group that they are applied to are different.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to point out when I refer to poly I'm referring to Poly-Fidelity, not swinging or having an open relationship. (except an open relationship as Dating to find a stable third.)
I realize this is not the way others see it, including Ambyr. It makes since that her group would not seek marriage rights.
Kath: I don't believe your experience is wide spread in America. As near as I can tell, even amongst the faithful, it's ok for guys to have had many more partners than women.
BTW, speaking of double standards... Back when I was dating, I was looking for a relationship, not just sex. I wanted to make sure the person I was with was someone I could potentially spend the rest of my life with before hopping into the sack. Anyway if you say "Not yet" to a guy, they generally take it ok. If you say "Not yet" to a woman you generally don't get another date. I have no idea how many potential girlfriends I lost simply because I wouldn't put out.
Earendil: Congratulations on coming out and having someone special to do it with! I was the one who mentioned Jealousy. I found it was manageable until one day I was unceremoniously dumped out of a 3.5 yr relationship. (which, at the time, was my longest relationship.) Worse yet, it had nothing to do with poly. (but that is a sob story for another time.) Anyway, after that my jealousy was fed by my insecurities.
I hope that never happens to you, but please understand why some people have a harder time with it than others.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes a rule can be applied equally, but the inequality is incorporated into the rule itself. "Men can have many partners, women can only have one" can be applied consistently.
It reminds me of the "gay people already have equal rights to marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex" argument.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I picture the world collapsing as more like a building collapsing than an implosion. ...
I guess if I think it through, that would be correct. Maybe something like the world being sucked into itself like a black hole (e.g. Star Trek)?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Men and women are different classes of people, so it may be morally okay or even correct for a man to be promiscuous while morally wrong and degrading for a woman to be.
It's a case where there are different rules for different classes of people. The rules are applied equally, but the context or group that they are applied to are different.
Are we back at separate but equal?
Look, having rules differ based on race, social class, sex, or anything else is a double standard, by definition. Perhaps you think the double standard is ok, but it's still a double standard.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, Do you think holding moral rules that says that married people should have sex but that unmarried people should not is a double standard?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Christine, Do you think holding moral rules that says that married people should have sex but that unmarried people should not is a double standard?
Possibly, it depends upon whether you think that the term applies to a distinction that is a matter of choice. My husband got down on one knee and proposed. I said yes. I was born a woman -- nobody asked.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, you can date as many as you want at a time but it's sketchy and skanky to be kissing more than one at a time, and that holds regardless of gender.
That's not actually what I meant to ask about, though I could see how that might come across.
Let's say there's a limit of acceptable romantic physical interaction X, be it sex or fondling or deep kissing, etc. Is it more acceptable for a guy to have, in his past, mostly monogamously, done X with many girls than for a girl to have done X with many guys?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Possibly, it depends upon whether you think that the term applies to a distinction that is a matter of choice.
Do you think that there should not be different moral rules for adults versus children? That's a distinction that is not a matter of choice.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have double standards for the handicapped versus the non-handicapped - for instance, expectations regarding giving up your seat on the bus for the elderly. Some handicapped people are born handicapped, so they have no choice in the matter.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is it more acceptable for a guy to have, in his past, mostly monogamously, done X with many girls than for a girl to have done X with many guys?
No. Although, there is such a strong cultural taboo in general against doing much more than kissing that neither gender would exactly announce the fact. Perhaps that's your answer - "locker room" stories are not welcome from either gender.
It isn't that the only taboo is actual sex. Most things between deep kissing/snuggling and actual sex are also off limits, so doing them at all will not meet with social approval, much less with a lot of people, guys or girls.
quote:Possibly, it depends upon whether you think that the term applies to a distinction that is a matter of choice.
Do you think that there should not be different moral rules for adults versus children? That's a distinction that is not a matter of choice.
I'm not even sure why or how we got here, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I never said all double standards were always a bad thing. Here's what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Look, having rules differ based on race, social class, sex, or anything else is a double standard, by definition. Perhaps you think the double standard is ok, but it's still a double standard.
Let me go back to the comment that began this line of discussion:
quote:I was saying that people's ideas of what they consider moral is different across groups, so that applying it equally to everyone is often going to look like not applying it equally.
This is where I take exception. Applying different standards across groups does not just have the appearance of inequality, it is unequal.
Do you think there should be differing standards for men and women in terms of sexual relationships?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Applying different standards across groups does not just have the appearance of inequality, it is unequal.
It's unequal, but my point is where the inequality comes in. It does not have to be that you are applying standards unequally. It can be that the standards are unequal.
The criticism that people are applying their standard unequally isn't going to affect them when, in their perception, they have different standards for different groups.
I tried to show examples in our culture where we accept that people in one group are held to different standards than people in another.
---
I don't have different standards for men and women in terms of sexual relationships.
Do I think that other people should not have them? That's a trickier question.
Legally, yes, of course I think they should be equal standards. However, social/moral standards is a different question. To me, it depends on a lot on how they view the concepts in question, what they are trying to accomplish, and how realistic there are in these things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: A boyfriend is not a husband.
Everything changes when you have kids.
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: There's an incredible amount of conditioning that we have, that really doesn't get questioned,
This is untrue. There has been lots and lots of questioning of the reasons we involve ourselves in monogamous relationships and the reasons there is a double standard. Among other things, there's never a question who the mom is.
A boyfriend could be a husband, but current GLBT rights aren't up there yet in most states. I'm not sure if you're saying one is better than the other, but it brings up the question of how one rates the relationship, and again, those assumptions. I think there can be bad husbands, and great boyfriends.
Maybe not the biological mom, but who actually nurtures and cares for the kids, and what effect that has is being debated. Some believe that if kids don't get that special something from both sexes, they're deprived somehow. Gender roles are being questioned.
I'm sure there has been questioning about the reasons to stay monogamous, but I suspect those questions, especially in religious circles, contain assumptions regarding what children require, what the "best" kind of relationship is, etc. in order to support the status quo, instead of looking at how polyamory could work, or investing energy into the investigation of such things.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: A boyfriend could be a husband, but current GLBT rights aren't up there yet in most states. I'm not sure if you're saying one is better than the other, but it brings up the question of how one rates the relationship, and again, those assumptions. I think there can be bad husbands, and great boyfriends.
No, one is not better than the other. But they are different; they represent a different level of commitment, not to mention a different lifestyle. A boyfriend, however intimate, is a friend, not family. Marriage is a commitment to have a family together...no, to be a family. This is just one reason I am a whole-hearted supporter of the rights for gays to marry. They have every right to define their relationship as a family if they choose, as well as to bring children into it.
quote: I'm sure there has been questioning about the reasons to stay monogamous, but I suspect those questions, especially in religious circles, contain assumptions regarding what children require, what the "best" kind of relationship is, etc. in order to support the status quo, instead of looking at how polyamory could work, or investing energy into the investigation of such things.
See, now we're not arguing whether or not polygamous relationships should be legal, but whether or not they would work.
Honestly, I have no idea what the answer to that is and I'm not claiming to know. I will say, though, that the people I've known who got themselves involved in "open" relationships had terribly low self-esteem and were afraid that they would lose their partner if they did not agree to such a relationship. I've seen this type of relationship used to hurt people and have never seen it in any kind of loving or healthy light. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way sometimes -- but it does mean you're going to have to get specific and persuasive to convince me. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: A boyfriend could be a husband, but current GLBT rights aren't up there yet in most states. I'm not sure if you're saying one is better than the other, but it brings up the question of how one rates the relationship, and again, those assumptions. I think there can be bad husbands, and great boyfriends.
No, one is not better than the other. But they are different; they represent a different level of commitment, not to mention a different lifestyle. A boyfriend, however intimate, is a friend, not family. Marriage is a commitment to have a family together...no, to be a family. This is just one reason I am a whole-hearted supporter of the rights for gays to marry. They have every right to define their relationship as a family if they choose, as well as to bring children into it.
quote: I'm sure there has been questioning about the reasons to stay monogamous, but I suspect those questions, especially in religious circles, contain assumptions regarding what children require, what the "best" kind of relationship is, etc. in order to support the status quo, instead of looking at how polyamory could work, or investing energy into the investigation of such things.
See, now we're not arguing whether or not polygamous relationships should be legal, but whether or not they would work.
Honestly, I have no idea what the answer to that is and I'm not claiming to know. I will say, though, that the people I've known who got themselves involved in "open" relationships had terribly low self-esteem and were afraid that they would lose their partner if they did not agree to such a relationship. I've seen this type of relationship used to hurt people and have never seen it in any kind of loving or healthy light. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way sometimes -- but it does mean you're going to have to get specific and persuasive to convince me.
Hehe, well, it's still a work in progress, and so far I think we're both on the same page and are communicating well.
I'm still not sure about the friend definition as we have several friends in my family, who might as well be part of our family. I think I understand what you're saying though.
As for persuasion, well...all I have is "so far, so good" and "amazing learning experience". Maybe I'll catch up with you in a few years. Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polygamy reference case could open door to legalizing multiple marriage
By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun November 21, 2010
Canada is on the cusp of either legalizing polygamy or strengthening the 120-year prohibition against multiple marriage.
That’s what is at stake in the constitutional reference case that will begin Monday in B.C. Supreme Court and is scheduled to last at least until the end of January.
The case will weigh whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional. The reference case was initiated by B.C. attorney general Mike de Jong to finally get a clear legal lens through which to examine the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful in southeastern British Columbia.
If Chief Justice Robert Bauman agrees with those in favour of legalization, Canada would be the first country in the developed world to lift the prohibition on multiple marriage. It would be swimming against a tide of criminalization in developing countries in Africa and Asia.
It would also likely be interpreted as Canada putting out a welcome mat for fundamentalist Mormons, who have been largely rooted out of Utah and Arizona and are under attack in Texas, as well as to Muslims, Wiccans and to secular polyamorists.
...
Like all trials, there are two sides in the reference case. But unlike criminal and civil trials, there are also interested parties, who have registered in order to be able to make opening and closing statements, file evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses.
The attorneys general of British Columbia and Canada will both argue in favour of the existing law. They’ll be first up when the case begins next week.
Their “allies” include: Stop Polygamy in Canada, Christian Legal Fellowship, B.C. Teachers Federation, West Coast LEAF, Real Women Canada, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of the Child and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights.
To make the opposing case, the chief justice appointed Vancouver lawyer George Macintosh as the amicus curiae — friend of the court — to advance the striking down of the law.
Allied with Macintosh are: the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association for Free Expression.
posted
That's interesting that the teachers are arguing against it. On the one hand, dealing with two parents who don't like each other very much is bad enough, what happens when the kid has eight ex-step moms? On the other, more step-parents means more volunteers for school functions. I'd have thought it would be a wash for the school.
I'll be really curious to hear the school's rationale.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
