it is one of the reasons that the hippy movement was such a disaster zone
I wouldn't qualify the counterculture as a "disaster zone." That sounds highly subjective. If anything, it was instrumental in pushing towards civil rights for a lot of minority groups, and more personal freedom.
Marriage is the ONLY healthy norm that we currently know of;
Assuming you're talking about monogamy: This is pure speculation and not supported by any real objective evidence or research. There is nothing to suggest that monogamous relationships result in longer lasting happiness or intimacy than other kinds, such as polyamory. It is purely down to your own personal choice as consenting adults. Not the say of any higher power or authority.
Most of those issues you mentioned can be easily handled with sex education and health resrouces - in the case of STDs- or counseling, if jealousy is an issue between partners.
School is dogmatic, should we get rid of schools?
That's a stawman argument, and to be honest I'm a little disappointed but not altogether suprised that you would bring about such an obvious fallacy. But while we're on the subject, yes, the modern school system is just a holdover from pre-industrial times that sorely needs revamping to be more in tune with 21st century needs. It doesn't need to be "gotten rid of" but updated. Just like marriage.
You have a Source for this polygamy study?
Personality and Social Psychology Review (Nov 2012)
All current and reliable data shows sex is healthier when limited to 2 people.
Healthier in the male mind, perhaps. But it's largely an institution that has been imposed upon women for centuries, if not millennia. Time for a change.
And yes, Carl Jung was a little unorthodox in his approach, but also highly innovative and forward-thinking. He understood a lot about man's natural state of affairs.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
4 years ago
It sounds like you are just trying to find justification to engage in morally depraved actives and you want to prove to yourself it is okay so you don't have to face real consequences for the one's you have hurt or will hurt. You justify it as 'it is there problem not mine"
" If anything, it was instrumental in pushing towards civil rights for a lot of minority groups, and more personal freedom."
Was that not doable without the drugs, questionable hygiene, disease and other morally reprehensible things they did.
If the hippie movement was so grand why did Woodstock look like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/08/13/riots-deaths-sexual-assault-maybe-woodstock-was-always-nightmare/
"Assuming you're talking about monogamy"
Yes I am talking about Monogamy. Here a just a few articles that point out why it is healthier
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dating-decisions/201805/monogamy-versus-non-monogamy-who-is-more-sexually-satisfied
https://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/why-monogamy-might-be-good-for-your-health.aspx
https://smartsexresource.com/topics/monogamy
There are literally hundreds of studies that confirm this. If you want I can keep digging them up. Monogamy is safer, healthier and by most available data more satisfying; especially for women who tend to crave emotional connection and security relationships more than men.
"with sex education and health resrouces"
No form of birth control can protect against STD and unwanted pregnancies 100% that is a fact. Doesn't matter how educated one is, not even a condom protects 100%. There is no such thing as 'safe sex' there is only "mitigated risk sex".
out of space; starting a new reply:
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
It sounds like you are just trying to find justification to engage in morally depraved actives and you want to prove to yourself it is okay so you don't have to face real consequences for the one's you have hurt or will hurt.
Lmfao what a dumb ad hominem. You know nothing about my personal life. I don't even practice that. You sound like a crazed bible thumper.
Was that not doable without the drugs, questionable hygiene, disease and other morally reprehensible things they did.
What exactly is so morally reprehensible about drugs? Are you some kind of puritan abolitionist? If you don't believe in personal liberty, then move to North Korea.
If the hippie movement was so grand why did Woodstock look like this
You realize that article is talking about Woodstock '99 right?
Monogamy is safer, healthier and by most available data more satisfying;
Again, there is zero evidence of this. Did you even read those articles you posted? If anything it proves my point. That people in CNM relationships actually have more satisfaction in their sex lives. *facepalm*
protect against STD and unwanted pregnancies 100% that is a fact.
Nothing protects against those "100%". Sex is ALWAYS risky no matter what. But you can still diminish it to such an extent that it's almost negligible. Saying you can't have safe sex in a CNM relationship is idiocy. That's like saying someone who's had more than five partners in their lives is at equal risk. I mean, they are, but it's not substantial. What you're advocating is backwards, 19th century era thinking that would leave people cowering in fear.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
4 years ago
Okay you have regressed to petty insults; gave up on logic and reason and now almost ever statement has a logical fallacy in it.. Clearly you lost this argument.
" You sound like a crazed bible thumper."
You claim I am using ad hominem falsely and then follow it up with a blantant ad hominem. I am not a "bible thumper" and not even religious and not sure what I believe about a god. So YOUR ad hominem is dismissed.
Drug use is bad for you body and mind; just because I think drugs are stupid and people that use them are stupid to do so does not mean I think the government should interfere. this is a non sequitar. another fallacy. Just because I think there are some traditions worth keeping doesn't mean I have to believe; I go off the evidence.
"You realize that article is talking about Woodstock '99 right?"
I did not; but none the less the point is the 'spirit' of free love is not without its serious consequences. People are not ready for this sort of things. And if it brings us closer to animalistic type of behavior than is evolutionary regression not progression. We have higher order thinking; we should act like it.
Clearly you did not read the articles so you are lying. The point of the articles was to demonstrate that more couples report happier and healthier sex lives when in traditional monogomous relationships. I read the articles and the peer reviewed studies; did you. Where are your sources that say CNM report more satisfaction in their sex life (both partners, not just the men). "*facepalm*" your appeal to ridicule is dismissed.
If you are only having sex with one other person you CANNOT spread STD; dumbass, it is literally impossible to spread. That is why anything but traditional monogamous sexual relationships CANNOT be safe no matter what mitigation steps you take.
" What you're advocating is backwards, 19th century era thinking"
this is an appeal to novelty fallacy. a thing being old does not = it being bad by default.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
4 years ago
"Lmfao what a dumb ad hominem. "
BTW, you fail to properly identify even fallacy type you claimed I used. Questioning if the a claim is inspired by one's lack of objective reasoning (due to them wanting something to be true) is not a fallacy but it is close to one; depending on how it is used it would actually be closer to a fallacy called appeal to motive (a special case ad hominem circumstantial argument).
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
4 years ago
"That's a stawman argument"
No your claim was: "marriage between two people is an outdated social norm as evident by the falling marriage and rising divorce rates" You try blaming the age of a thing on why it is failing; that is a fallacy. I was only pointing out that the age of an institution is not an attribute of why it fails. "It is old so it must be bad and needs to be updated" is a fallacy in of itself.
Marriages and divorce rates are going up for multiple reasons. One being information on how often spouses are caught in affairs and people generally being selfish. That is a reflection of how 'not ready' humans are for multiple sexual partners.
Monogamous Marriage is an institution of 2 people being bound together. There is no "updating" that because then it is no longer monogamous. You are making an argument in support of polygamy which is antithetical to monogamy.
"Personality and Social Psychology Review (Nov 2012)"
That is not Carl Jung; that peer-review publication is from 2012 Jung was dead for a long time.
Here is a article that calls that study into question:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/sg/blog/love-without-limits/201304/the-truth-about-polyamory?amp
"But it's largely an institution that has been imposed upon women for centuries, if not millennia. Time for a change."
That is just so incredibly backwards. Women are happier than men in marriage. Marriage acts as a safety and assurance net for the women. Otherwise what is to stop the men from leaving them pregnant and vulnerable. Men are the ones that prefer variety; women prefer stability. Who are you trying to convince here?
"He understood a lot about man's natural state of affairs"
He also understood that the narrative of human civilization evolved over time. He never suggested we regress back to animal like, hedonistic pleasure seeking; just because he observed things about human behavior doesn't mean he recommended them.
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
You try blaming the age of a thing on why it is failing; that is a fallacy. I was only pointing out that the age of an institution is not an attribute of why it fails. "It is old so it must be bad and needs to be updated" is a fallacy in of itself.
What fallacy is that called? Something being outdated and inefficient is not a fallacy you twat. It's called reality. If anything, you're the one being fallacious by appealing to the argument of age. Hilarious.
One being information on how often spouses are caught in affairs and people generally being selfish. That is a reflection of how 'not ready' humans are for multiple sexual partners.
If anything that's a reflection on how people would be better off learning to be happy in CNM relationships (as evidenced by your articles, thanks) and not worry about cheating all the time. For most people it's not natural to be stuck with one person their entire lives. This is clear evidence that human beings want to be polygamous.
Monogamous Marriage is an institution of 2 people being bound together. There is no "updating" that because then it is no longer monogamous. You are making an argument in support of polygamy which is antithetical to monogamy.
Maybe try grasping the simple concept that marriage doesn't have to be religiously monogamous. Did that thought ever skitter across your brain?
That is not Carl Jung; that peer-review publication is from 2012 Jung was dead for a long time.
Yeah.... I never said it was by Jung. *slow clap*
Here is a article that calls that study into question
If anything, that article supports the thesis of the study. You're not very good at this.
Marriage acts as a safety and assurance net for the women. Otherwise what is to stop the men from leaving them pregnant and vulnerable. Men are the ones that prefer variety; women prefer stability. Who are you trying to convince here?
Wow, what a ridiculously misogynist take. Assuming that all women want is "security" and to make babies. Hilarious. And again, without a shred of evidence.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
4 years ago
"What fallacy is that called? Something being outdated and inefficient is not a fallacy you twat"
it is an appeal to novelty, you have not actually demonstrated the "new' is better than the "old" and to assume one is outdated and therefore inefficient is a logical fallacy.
"This is clear evidence that human beings want to be polygamous."
Sources? And also which sex is reporting a desire to be polygamous? Men? Women? both? mix and matched of each? Do those reports of the sample size represent an accurate trend in the general population? Does the words "evidence" or "scientific method" mean anything to you? BUt I am the bible thumper?
"Maybe try grasping the simple concept that marriage doesn't have to be religiously monogamou"
When did I ever say it needed to be religious? Non sequitar is dismiss. I am advocating for traditional sexual relationships of sex only being between 2 people. There is nowhere in my argument in which I brought religion into this. You brought religion in to this. Chip on your shoulder much?
"Yeah.... I never said it was by Jung. *slow clap*"
Yes you did:
You: " there are countless indigenous cultures where polygamy was encouraged, and were also deemed to be higher thinking by scholars such as CARL JUNG due to their ties to the extramundane."
Me: "You have a Source for this polygamy study?"
You: "Personality and Social Psychology Review (Nov 2012)"
You called Jung's name but then provided a source that had nothing to do with him.
"If anything, that article supports the thesis of the study"
Another lie; the article specifically questions the results of the study. Did you read it?
"Wow, what a ridiculously misogynist take"
ad hominem is dismissed.
Are women not more vulnerable when pregnant? Is it not to there benefit to have the father there to help? Logically 2 people helping raise a child is better than one. And nearly ever study done on fatherless homes proves this.
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
He never suggested we regress back to animal like, hedonistic pleasure seeking; just because he observed things about human behavior doesn't mean he recommended them
You have no f-cking clue what you're talking about. That's ANOTHER strawman on your part. Jung never implied any of that, nor did I. I suggest you try actually picking up a book and reading for a change. Jesus christ, lmao
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
4 years ago
HOW IS THIS A STRAWMAN? do you know what a strawman is. I am pointing out there was no recommendations from Jung on engaging in pleasure seeking relationships. That is a fact. YOu are the one that tried to bring him up as your appeal to authority and you failed miserably.
"I suggest you try actually picking up a book and reading for a change"
Non sequitar is dismissed. I promise you I have read many more books than you; you clearly rely on google as your source of information.
"Jesus christ, lmao"
Your appeal to ridicule is dismissed.
You lost the argument and proved not only do you not rely on evidence or logic for you conclusion. You have also demonstrated an aggressive emotional bias on this subject. Your ability to be objective in this topic is highly (HIGHLY) questionable.
reply
share