--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > "Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of > > proof and make a devil's advocate argument. > > > > For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, > > polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way > > to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be > > more "natural" than two-personal marriages given the > > assumption that men are sexually voracious; > > An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong.
OF COURSE IT'S SEXIST!!!! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES ABOUT THE SEXES!!!!! HOW COULD IT NOT BE SEXIST????? IS IT NOW POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS BEHAVIOURAL, MENTAL, AND OTHERWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES? > > Any number of studies have indicated that women > are as "voracious" as men in their sexual appetites > and in many cases more so. This is a statement that > is clearly made by someone who knows no polyamorous > people. If you did, you'd know that sex is the least > of the issues driving their arrangements, and that > in the situations where polyamorous groups are living > together in a sexually-open situation (and not all are), > it's the women who mainly initiate the sex. > > > ...this version of marriage accommodates what people think > > is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. > > Again sexist, and again WRONG. The majority of polyamorous > relationships involve more men in the "group" than women. > > It's OK to be ignorant, Raunchy, but try not to be so > *blatantly* ignorant, OK? >
