Originally Posted by The Rani

Someone (Matt or Arkham?) said that contracts are both private and public. I agree with that. I've also signed lots and lots of contracts over the years, and come to realize that if you think there is something shady about the deal, better to walk away than expect a piece of paper to save your ass.

Yep! you're free to walk away, or, you can always renegotiate. If the contract is not negotiable, then one shouldn't even give it a first reading.

Also, I think what Bob is getting at is the enforcement part of contracts. Did you ever sign a contract as a kid? I did, and I know other kids who did also, about various things. Sort of like the way that some therapists now have kids sign "behavior contracts" about household rules. If either party breaks that kind of contract, there's no way for the other to petition the state to get it enforced. Well, I guess they could try, but good luck with that. Not so with state-sanctioned contracts, notarized and approved by attorneys.

Precisely. That's why it's important for the parents to really stick to the rules. For parents that dont stick to the rules there's Parens patriae.

With the latter kind of contract, you're expecting someone else (the state) to take care of your own job, which should be fully understanding what you're getting yourself into. That's how we ended up with the current mortgage crisis.

Yes, having the state enforce contracts is your best bet....unless you have a private body guard, or private army to do it for you, but hey, it's not Somalia so private enforcement isn't allowed. State enforcement keeps it civil and isn't nearly as messy. Also, remember that in a libertarian minimalist state, anarchist collective, or the good old USA, you are the state! That's why it's the PEOPLE vs in criminal court!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I would ask you (someone else) to provide a logical, rational, fact-based explanation for why sexual behavior is equivalent to race.

... Please show how opposition to gay marriage or disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry.

Because homosexuality is not a choice (some men can love only men and some women can love only women) any more than race is. Nobody has a reliable explanation of the cause of homosexuality. I can think of sexual activities far more troublesome -- like child sexual abuse (no valid consent) and "bondage and discipline".

Do you oppose polygamy? Incestuous marriage between two adults?

Polygamy and incest are exploitative and destructive.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Because homosexuality is not a choice (some men can love only men and some women can love only women) any more than race is. Nobody has a reliable explanation of the cause of homosexuality. I can think of sexual activities far more troublesome -- like child sexual abuse (no valid consent) and "bondage and discipline".

Choice isn't the important factor, consent is. There is considerable evidence that pedophilia isn't a choice either -- but that doesn't make acting upon those desires acceptable. The reason why opposition to homosexuality constitutes bigotry is because the homophobe is condemning a person for engaging in consensual behavior.

Bondage and discipline is also consensual behavior, and while that may not be your cup of tea to call it "troublesome" puts a stamp of approval on mistreating people on the basis of freely chosen behavior.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Polygamy and incest are exploitative and destructive.

I don't see any reason why polygamy is prima facie exploitative or destructive. Sure it can be, but so can single marriages.

Incest (while IMO weird) could also be wholly consensual and non-exploitative.

Both you and JPT have drawn arbitrary lines about what sex is acceptable and what sex is "too dirty" -- your dirty list just happens to be shorter than JPT's.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Polygamy and incest are exploitative and destructive.

Incest has clear biological consequences (well, at leas if it leads to procreation), but why is polygamy exploitative and destructive? The latter has been a common practice in numerous cultures for millennia.

Let me take a crack at that. Individually, polygamy is not destructive unless other factors are involved. On a widespread scale it historically has led to a gender imbalance consisting of the big men having large harems while young men and commoners have difficulty getting wives at all. In many cases it has led to the locking up of women, since the harem has to be protected from the woman-hungry men outside. Also in many cases it has led to the marriage of young girls to older men.

That said, there is a case of polygamy in societies with heavy male casualties due to war or to dangerous occupations, in circumstances where the women cannot (due to extreme conditions or whatever) fend for themselves.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Let me take a crack at that. Individually, polygamy is not destructive unless other factors are involved. On a widespread scale it historically has led to a gender imbalance consisting of the big men having large harems while young men and commoners have difficulty getting wives at all. In many cases it has led to the locking up of women, since the harem has to be protected from the woman-hungry men outside. Also in many cases it has led to the marriage of young girls to older men.

That said, there is a case of polygamy in societies with heavy male casualties due to war or to dangerous occupations, in circumstances where the women cannot (due to extreme conditions or whatever) fend for themselves.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, polygamy is advantageous for women, since it ensures that their offspring are sired only by high-status males. (Low-status males can neither attract nor defend a harem.) Even cultures that observe de jure monogamy (such as our own) practice de facto polygamy, as powerful men are apt to keep mistresses in addition to their wives.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And women with less-than-desirable mates (evolutionarily speaking) have sex with alpha males, while at the same time trying to keep their own husbands around to help raise the (bastard) kids.

Which the state makes eminently easy, thanks to no-fault divorce laws and biased family courts. Even if the husband gets wise and divorces the adulteress, she can still take him for the house, the kids*, and a third or more of his income. She is thus freed to repeat the process with other men while he is indentured to a woman from whom he no longer derives any benefit whatsoever. And this is called "progress" by feminists.

* Which may not be his, but for whom he is still responsible due to perverse legal requirements that subject cuckolded men to ongoing humiliation and exploitation in "the best interest of the child".

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

* Which may not be his, but for whom he is still responsible due to perverse legal requirements that subject cuckolded men to ongoing humiliation and exploitation in "the best interest of the child".

Those rules only seem perverse now that we have the technology to verify paternity. This rule previously prevented men from abandoning children on the claim that they were bastards.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Those rules only seem perverse now that we have the technology to verify paternity. This rule previously prevented men from abandoning children on the claim that they were bastards.

The technology to verify paternity has existed for decades. (Blood tests aren't completely accurate, but they can at least indicate a completely incompatible blood type.) Genetic tests are only the most recent and accurate iteration. But this is irrelevant. Most men do want to provide for their offspring, but unlike women, they can't (barring an expensive medical procedure) be absolutely certain who their children are. The historical purpose of marriage, as well as cultural prohibitions against fornication and adultery, has been to safeguard against female infidelity. Feminists will never admit this, but marriage is ultimately a boon to children, and by extension their mothers, even though it comes at the cost of female sexual license, because it secures paternal investment, which cannot otherwise be counted upon. (Contractually, marriage is an agreement between man and woman in which the former pledges his labor to the latter in exchange for exclusive access to her womb. In a rational society, a woman who violated this agreement would be in breach of contract and subject to penalties, but ours abandoned reason long ago.) From an evolutionary standpoint, a man who is tricked into unwittingly supporting another man's children has been defrauded in the most fundamental way imaginable, yet this is considered inconsequential next to the woman's "right" to dispose of her sex in whatever manner she pleases. This deplorable state of affairs has led, not unpredictably, to widespread skepticism among young men regarding marriage and fatherhood, and a growing unwillingness (arrived at through rational calculation, not some deficiency of character) to commit to any sort of binding domestic partnership.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

The technology to verify paternity has existed for decades. (Blood tests aren't completely accurate, but they can at least indicate a completely incompatible blood type.) Genetic tests are only the most recent and accurate iteration.

Even so, these technologies all substantially post-date the legal standard I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

The historical purpose of marriage, as well as cultural prohibitions against fornication and adultery, has been to safeguard against female infidelity.

No, the purpose of marriage was to provide stable homes for as many children as possible. The particular form marriage took guarded against female infidelity -- and that is where sexism plays a role.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Feminists will never admit this, but marriage is ultimately a boon to children, and by extension their mothers, even though it comes at the cost of female sexual license, because it secures paternal investment, which cannot otherwise be counted upon.

Female sexual license (nor male, for that matter) need not be proscribed in order to have a stable marriage that raises well-adjusted children. It is needed, however, if you have a society dominated by violent and insecure men.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

(Contractually, marriage is an agreement between man and woman in which the former pledges his labor to the latter in exchange for exclusive access to her womb. In a rational society, a woman who violated this agreement would be in breach of contract and subject to penalties, but ours abandoned reason long ago.)

That's the one-size-fits-all definition that the state has imposed, at least. However, other types of marriages can exist and many do (just without legal protection). My own marriage, for example, only fits this definition according to the state. Neither our vows nor our conduct reflect this definition.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

This deplorable state of affairs has led, not unpredictably, to widespread skepticism among young men regarding marriage and fatherhood

Skepticism of an institution whose present form was designed for the agricultural age seems entirely healthy. I have to say, though, that I'm put off by the tone of your post since it seems to imply that stable relationships are undermined by the free sexual expression of women -- but, oddly, not by that of men.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Choice isn't the important factor, consent is. There is considerable evidence that pedophilia isn't a choice either -- but that doesn't make acting upon those desires acceptable. The reason why opposition to homosexuality constitutes bigotry is because the homophobe is condemning a person for engaging in consensual behavior.

I see a huge difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's fairly easy to develop ethical standards in which homosexuality is innocuous (unless one has the objective of having gigantic families to provide cannon fodder for wars and mill fodder to keep wages abysmal). Only the most contrived circumstances could possibly justify adult-child sexuality (procreation in a world of elderly-but-potent men and teenage girls, or teenage boys and women near 40 -- or else extinction of the population).

Bondage and discipline is also consensual behavior, and while that may not be your cup of tea to call it "troublesome" puts a stamp of approval on mistreating people on the basis of freely chosen behavior.

I think it sick because it involves either self-hatred or gross inequality of the "partners". Neither fits my definition of love. Anyone who participates in that seems to have a mental problem. Maybe it's my taste but I find it more repulsive than erotic.

I don't see any reason why polygamy is prima facie exploitative or destructive. Sure it can be, but so can single marriages.

It's easy to define an abnormal marriage and identify pathologies at their worst. I can see some situations in which polygamy is tolerable, most involving a huge disparity in gender populations. In fact I have been thinking of writing a science-fiction novel in which polygamy becomes a norm because the society chooses to have about a 5:1 female-male ratio -- to reduce the pathologies associated with male aggressiveness (most notably war and crime). That society chooses (consider the ratio of voters) to continue that norm.

Incest (while IMO weird) could also be wholly consensual and non-exploitative.

It usually implies very creepy people.

Both you and JPT have drawn arbitrary lines about what sex is acceptable and what sex is "too dirty" -- your dirty list just happens to be shorter than JPT's.

I think that I have put more thought into what I consider "dirty".

Originally Posted by The Rani

Sex without love can still be a lot of fun.

I think sex is always fun!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I see a huge difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's fairly easy to develop ethical standards in which homosexuality is innocuous (unless one has the objective of having gigantic families to provide cannon fodder for wars and mill fodder to keep wages abysmal). Only the most contrived circumstances could possibly justify adult-child sexuality (procreation in a world of elderly-but-potent men and teenage girls, or teenage boys and women near 40 -- or else extinction of the population).

It's interesting how you're viewing acceptability solely through the lens of reproduction since that lens is precisely the one that causes widespread disrespect for homosexuals. You also (amazingly!) point out that pedophilia is not outright objectionable when viewing sexual mores through this lens. This only reinforces to me the superiority of consent as the proper determinant of whether sexual behavior is acceptable.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think [BDSM is] sick because it involves either self-hatred or gross inequality of the "partners". Neither fits my definition of love. Anyone who participates in that seems to have a mental problem. Maybe it's my taste but I find it more repulsive than erotic.

Ah, but gross inequality of partners is the norm in traditional marriage. Is the stay-at-home mom inherently unloved? Again, consent seems a superior criteria here.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's easy to define an abnormal marriage and identify pathologies at their worst. I can see some situations in which polygamy is tolerable, most involving a huge disparity in gender populations.

Why would such a thing be necessary to make polygamy tolerable? Perhaps it's because you're assuming sexually exclusive marriages? If marriages are predominantly open, then the social problem of "maldistribution of nookie" never occurs.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think that I have put more thought into what I consider "dirty".

Probably, I was just pointing out how your evaluation of such things bears striking similarities to JPTs which you perhaps weren't consciously aware of.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Which the state makes eminently easy, thanks to no-fault divorce laws and biased family courts. Even if the husband gets wise and divorces the adulteress, she can still take him for the house, the kids*, and a third or more of his income. She is thus freed to repeat the process with other men while he is indentured to a woman from whom he no longer derives any benefit whatsoever. And this is called "progress" by feminists.

...Only those who view gender relations as a zero-sum game where legislative fiat designed to favor women is more important than cultural politics suggestive of equality. In other words, you're describing a small (if perhaps powerful) minority.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

The historical purpose of marriage, as well as cultural prohibitions against fornication and adultery, has been to safeguard against female infidelity.

The historical purpose of marriage was formed in the highly patriarchal societies where heterosexual households were the standard, rather than free individuals. The State codified this (and inevitably inputed their own views) by ensuring complete control by the man over his wife (her body, labor, etc.), and marriage was the process where this power was shifted from the father to the husband. This vulgar sexism has obviously lessened over the centuries, and particularly recently, but traditional marriage is still predicated on the same grounds, and I think it would be foolish to assume that there is hardly any of that patriarchal ethic remaining in modern, formalized relationships.

Feminists will never admit this, but marriage is ultimately a boon to children, and by extension their mothers, even though it comes at the cost of female sexual license, because it secures paternal investment, which cannot otherwise be counted upon.

Feminists object to the institution of marriage as is usually conceived (normally, the cultural aspects >>>), but not radically-conceived voluntary relationships premised on equality -- which may or may not be called marriage depending on your definition.

(Contractually, marriage is an agreement between man and woman in which the former pledges his labor to the latter in exchange for exclusive access to her womb. In a rational society, a woman who violated this agreement would be in breach of contract and subject to penalties, but ours abandoned reason long ago.) From an evolutionary standpoint, a man who is tricked into unwittingly supporting another man's children has been defrauded in the most fundamental way imaginable, yet this is considered inconsequential next to the woman's "right" to dispose of her sex in whatever manner she pleases.

Well, people do have a right to have sex with other consenting adults, and anything less is a serious violation of individual liberty, but I think you're arguing apples and oranges. If a contract of heterosexual monogamy, with children in mind, entails honesty regarding the kids (and I think it does), what does that have to do with "rights" (by the quotes I assume you mean the loose language regarding rights) "to dispose of her sex in whatever matter she pleases?" To put it another way, what human being (feminist or no) would argue that a woman tricking a man into supporting another man's children constitutes a moral non-hazard? How many would support the idea that it doesn't constitute fraud?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

If a contract of heterosexual monogamy, with children in mind, entails honesty regarding the kids (and I think it does), what does that have to do with "rights" (by the quotes I assume you mean the loose language regarding rights) "to dispose of her sex in whatever matter she pleases?" To put it another way, what human being (feminist or no) would argue that a woman tricking a man into supporting another man's children constitutes a moral non-hazard? How many would support the idea that it doesn't constitute fraud?

I'm a feminist, and what you're describing is most certainly fraud.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Even so, these technologies all substantially post-date the legal standard I mentioned.

My point is that it has been possible to establish paternity by technological means for decades, so the current incongruity cannot be chalked up solely to the law lagging science. There is deliberate obstructionism going on for ideological purposes, and it is not simply a conservative reaction to the erosion of the nuclear family. A recent attempt to mandate paternity tests for all children born in Tennessee, regardless of the marital status of the putative parents, met with greatest resistance from...feminists. The only thing I can conclude from this outcry is that feminists want women to be able to commit paternity fraud with impunity.

No, the purpose of marriage was to provide stable homes for as many children as possible. The particular form marriage took guarded against female infidelity -- and that is where sexism plays a role.

False. Anthropological studies of marriage identify two principle functions for the institution in every human culture where it exists as a formal concept: the control of (female) sexual activity and the cementing of socioeconomic alliances. There are not a few human cultures in which marriage does not exist as a formal concept; that is, in which sexual pairings have no legal or customary force. Men and women in such societies can declare themselves married or divorced pretty much at will, yet they manage to rear healthy, well-adjusted offspring just fine. This notion that marriage is somehow a requisite for effective child-rearing is a purely modern construction.

For an excellent analysis of the origins of marriage and its likely fate in the post-industrial West, see this article from the anthropological blog Savage Minds.

Female sexual license (nor male, for that matter) need not be proscribed in order to have a stable marriage that raises well-adjusted children. It is needed, however, if you have a society dominated by violent and insecure men.

Yes, it does. Because the control of female sexuality is one of the chief reasons for marriage. Male insecurity is not some damnable character flaw that men just "need to get over"; it has a sound biological foundation in the historical inability of men to conclusively establish their paternity. This is a big deal in evolutionary terms, since a man who is duped into raising another man's children can potentially see his own genetic line extinguished as a consequence.

That's the one-size-fits-all definition that the state has imposed, at least. However, other types of marriages can exist and many do (just without legal protection). My own marriage, for example, only fits this definition according to the state. Neither our vows nor our conduct reflect this definition.

Good for you, but if your spouse ever decides to unilaterally modify the terms of your agreement, she will have the backing of the state, and you will not.

Skepticism of an institution whose present form was designed for the agricultural age seems entirely healthy. I have to say, though, that I'm put off by the tone of your post since it seems to imply that stable relationships are undermined by the free sexual expression of women -- but, oddly, not by that of men.

No, stable marriages are undermined by female sexual liberation. Because marriage as an institution was established to control female sexuality. What we have now is an odious legal double-standard, in which the wife is freed from all the obligatory restrictions on her sex, while the husband is still expected to provide for her and her offspring -- whether or not they are his -- even after the marriage is terminated. In essence, the state has empowered women to sequester a man's labor without compensating him in any way. Under any other circumstances, this would be called slavery.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

It's interesting how you're viewing acceptability solely through the lens of reproduction since that lens is precisely the one that causes widespread disrespect for homosexuals. You also (amazingly!) point out that pedophilia is not outright objectionable when viewing sexual mores through this lens. This only reinforces to me the superiority of consent as the proper determinant of whether sexual behavior is acceptable.

There's a tribe in Melanesia, the name of which escapes me at the moment, in which it is generally accepted that men are not born with the ability to produce semen, but must obtain the fluid from other men. This leads to ritual acts of fellatio, in which teenage boys receive the "life seed" from older men so that they can marry and sire children. (As to where the semen originally came from, I believe it is part of the tribe's mythology that it was ejaculated by some god in the remote past.) Upon first witnessing this practice, Western missionaries were predictably horrified.

A misogynistic anarchist. How oxymoronic.

Originally Posted by Odin

A misogynistic anarchist. How oxymoronic.

That's a pretty serious charge, Odin (the misogynistic part, obviously!). Arkham's been demonstrating anti-feminism, which you may well call sexism, but I see no evidence of misogyny on his part.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

...Only those who view gender relations as a zero-sum game where legislative fiat designed to favor women is more important than cultural politics suggestive of equality. In other words, you're describing a small (if perhaps powerful) minority.

Such minorities have a way of driving legislation through sheer single-mindedness.

The historical purpose of marriage was formed in the highly patriarchal societies where heterosexual households were the standard, rather than free individuals. The State codified this (and inevitably inputed their own views) by ensuring complete control by the man over his wife (her body, labor, etc.), and marriage was the process where this power was shifted from the father to the husband. This vulgar sexism has obviously lessened over the centuries, and particularly recently, but traditional marriage is still predicated on the same grounds, and I think it would be foolish to assume that there is hardly any of that patriarchal ethic remaining in modern, formalized relationships.

Which is why marriage is increasingly untenable in the modern era. It is an institution predicated on the control of one sex by another. For most of recorded history, that has meant the control of women by men, but astoundingly -- because it represents such a legal and moral coup -- feminism has managed in less than a century to reverse that formulation. Men are now wholly at the mercy of their wives, who may dissolve the marriage without cause at any time and still retain the benefits of a male provider, thanks to the aggressive intervention of the state. If women are to have this freedom, then men must have the corresponding freedom to sever all ties to their erstwhile spouses, including the prerogative to withhold child support if their parental rights aren't respected. This last part is going to ruffle feathers, but women cannot be allowed to brandish their offspring like a loaded gun in the face of men. There is a perverse incentive in our society for female sexual incontinence; that is, for women to have babies whenever and by whomever they like, because they know the children will be provided for somehow, even if it is at public expense. If women could not count on state support in lieu of a reliable mate, they would be a) far more discriminating about whom they sleep with, and b) far more likely to avail themselves of contraceptives and abortifacients. Ironically, massive state intervention on behalf of single mothers is perhaps the only thing that keeps the pro-life movement a going concern.

Well, people do have a right to have sex with other consenting adults, and anything less is a serious violation of individual liberty, but I think you're arguing apples and oranges. If a contract of heterosexual monogamy, with children in mind, entails honesty regarding the kids (and I think it does), what does that have to do with "rights" (by the quotes I assume you mean the loose language regarding rights) "to dispose of her sex in whatever matter she pleases?"

If the agreement is for exclusive sexual access, adultery is a clear violation of it. Yet there is no repercussion for female infidelity at this time; in fact, such infidelity is rewarded by the family courts, creating a perverse incentive for more of it. Meanwhile, men are severely penalized for failing to meet their marital and paternal obligations.

To put it another way, what human being (feminist or no) would argue that a woman tricking a man into supporting another man's children constitutes a moral non-hazard? How many would support the idea that it doesn't constitute fraud?

You'd be surprised. For some people, justice doesn't enter into the equation. The desired end is instead vengeance.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That's a pretty serious charge, Odin (the misogynistic part, obviously!). Arkham's been demonstrating anti-feminism, which you may well call sexism, but I see no evidence of misogyny on his part.

One of the greatest rhetorical frames ever established in the popular consciousness is the feminist equation of anti-feminism with misogyny. It's the perfect armature for a class of professional victims. No criticism whatsoever can be leveled against the class without eliciting accusations of repression. It's brilliant.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That's a pretty serious charge, Odin (the misogynistic part, obviously!). Arkham's been demonstrating anti-feminism, which you may well call sexism, but I see no evidence of misogyny on his part.

I was speaking more about the tone of his post then the factual content. Though his use of evo-psych arguments are disturbing in any case, my selfish genes do not define right and wrong, they can go jump in a lake all I care.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

There is a perverse incentive in our society for female sexual incontinence; that is, for women to have babies whenever and by whomever they like, because they know the children will be provided for somehow, even if it is at public expense. If women could not count on state support in lieu of a reliable mate, they would be a) far more discriminating about whom they sleep with, and b) far more likely to avail themselves of contraceptives and abortifacients.

Looks like something some right-wing ditto-head would say "black welfare queens with 5 kids in a cadillac blah blah blah...".

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Which is why marriage is increasingly untenable in the modern era.

[...]

If women are to have this freedom, then men must have the corresponding freedom to sever all ties to their erstwhile spouses, including the prerogative to withhold child support if their parental rights aren't respected. This last part is going to ruffle feathers, but women cannot be allowed to brandish their offspring like a loaded gun in the face of men. There is a perverse incentive in our society for female sexual incontinence; that is, for women to have babies whenever and by whomever they like, because they know the children will be provided for somehow, even if it is at public expense. If women could not count on state support in lieu of a reliable mate, they would be a) far more discriminating about whom they sleep with, and b) far more likely to avail themselves of contraceptives and abortifacients.

...Which is partially why I think radical feminism and radical libertarianism have so much to offer each other. The State is a corrosive influence wherever it interferes (the libertarians are right about that) and yet patriarchy must be battled as a cultural phenomenon (the feminists are right about that). If the fathers' rights movement does have some grounds for objecting to the treatment of men in divorce proceedings, then it will only be because the State has perverted, as is with many other things, the true aim of feminism.

You'd be surprised. For some people, justice doesn't enter into the equation. The desired end is instead vengeance.

That article consists of nothing more than a series of strawmen (as is far-too-common among antifeminist blowhards), with some offensiveness to boot. I hope you didn't write it.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

One of the greatest rhetorical frames ever established in the popular consciousness is the feminist equation of anti-feminism with misogyny.

Well okay, but, for the sake of balance..

All sex is rape?