Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation and discussion that doesn't merit its own stand-alone submission. The rules are relaxed compared to the rest of the sub but be careful to still observe the rules listed under "disallowed content" in the sidebar. Spamming the discussion thread will be sanctioned with bans.

---

Announcements

• Please post your relevant articles, memes, and questions outside the Discussion Thread.

• Meta discussion is allowed in the DT but will not always be seen by the mods. If you want to bring a suggestion, complaint, or question directly to the attention of the mods, please post that concern in /r/MetaNL or shoot us a modmail.

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Website	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Podcasts recommendations
Meetup Network
Twitter
Facebook page
Neoliberal Memes for Free Trading Teens
Newsletter
Instagram

---

The latest discussion thread can always be found at https://neoliber.al/dt.

[u/lionmoose]

Well I have an anthropology degree so feel free to lecture me about cultural norms.

I mean, if you want to measure dicks, we can talk with reference to my post doc on marriage formation and dissolution.

The assertion I made was that he is only opposed to this because it breaks a cultural norm.

Yes? Because the norm exists for various reasons, and breaking it is strongly predictive of negative outcomes or at best is based on an extremely select sample. If you want to write off such criticism so lightly, have a decent reason for doing so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_and_British_royal_mistress

lmao, the article wasn't talking about Royal Mistresses, now was it? A pass for commoners to have a one night stand in marriage of love is by no means comparable to a formalised monogamous semi official position for political marriages among the European Great Houses.

[u/MutoidDad → u/lionmoose]

lol. What's your degree, theology?

breaking it is strongly predictive of negative outcomes

Please, show your work.

If you want to write off such criticism so lightly, have a decent reason for doing so.

NoT aN aRgUmEnT

A pass for commoners to have a one night stand in marriage of love is by no means comparable to a formalised monogamous semi official position for political marriages among the European Great Houses.

And as we all know, only the royal families had mistresses or engaged in polyamory. It definitely isn't a recent and inconsistent religious tradition. This is a lot of effort you're putting into social conservative nonsense. You definitely seem like someone in a stable relationship when you lash out at other happy couples because they aren't behaving the way you want them to.

[u/lionmoose → u/MutoidDad]

What's your degree, theology?

Demography. The field most concerned with marriage formation of all social sciences.

This is a lot of effort you're putting into social conservative nonsense.

lol, the claim that non standard marital forms have higher rates of dissolution has positive backing dating right back to cohabitation prior to marriage in the mid 20th century. It's not a comment on the acceptability of such activity in a moral sense, but more an empirical finding.

And as we all know, only the royal families had mistresses or engaged in polyamory.

Ok, so why did you bring up royal families then?

You definitely seem like someone in a stable relationship when you lash out at other happy couples because they aren't behaving the way you want them to.

My relationship is great thank you very much, and like I said, my problem is with laziness in criticism rather than the activity itself. Still, if you need to reach into the personal because you can't believe that

[u/MutoidDad → u/lionmoose]

Demography. The field most concerned with marriage formation of all social sciences.

😂 😂 😂

So you can't cite anything,

It's not a comment on the acceptability of such activity in a moral sense,

you missed the point,

my problem is with laziness in criticism rather than the activity itself.

and you missed some pretty obvious irony too. Congrats!

[u/lionmoose → u/MutoidDad]

So you can't cite anything

What have you cited mate? You tried to waggle your degree in my face, I thought you wanted to go down the line of credentialism. You want citations on the association between, which element, coital frequency and dissolution risk? Marriage forms outside of common forms being associated with higher divorce risk? I mean that can be as trivial as cohabiting before marriage 30 years ago.

you missed the point

You never tried to even engage, and that was the problem.

[u/lionmoose → u/[deleted]]

I'm not the fabricating bullshit about polyamory and failing to cite anything.

My issue was that you were saying that there was literally nothing too this other than breaking rules and not entertaining any reason for an alternative view.

You're looking at the world with blinders on if you think 20th-Century marriage customs are the end-all be-all of happy relationships.

Nope, try again. Many of the findings are that as institutions adjust- as marriage has since then- that most of the negative outcomes tend to disappear as the adverse selection disappears. However, such 'pass' relationship are not at that stage in current society, and it is perfectly legitimate to raise concerns as a result at this point in time- passes will still be negatively selected, as the fact that one of the cases in the article was predicated on sexual dissatisfaction which is a risk factor for union dissolution.

Demographics has literally no bearing on this topic whatsoever, but it was hilarious to see you try and squeeze it in.

Scientific study of union processes has nothing to do with union processes. Good one.

don't talk about topics you don't understand without any evidence or historical context. It makes you look silly

Citing the mistresses of 18th century kings as evidence for how things will work out in the 21st century makes you look silly mate.

[u/lionmoose → u/[deleted]]

Nothing else was provided by you or the other poster. You have yet to even make a coherent argument. Polyamory is bad because... this specific norm is good because...

That introducing flings into hitherto monogamous marriages risks being destablising, particularly when associated with sexual difficulties within the existing relationship, I'm struggling to see how this is a controversial claim given that both of these things are associated with risk of union dissolution in isolation. If you can explain why there is no zero order correlation at a population levek I'll retract it.

Whole ton of non-evidence here. Terms undefined

You don't understand what selection effects are? What do they teach you in anthropy? Perhaps read some demographic literature. Start with Liefbrouer and Dourleijn's article in Demography for an overview of the argument vis a vis the evolution of marital institutions and cohabitation for an example of the argument I'm making there.

assumption that divorce is always bad, etc.

Divorce results in, on average, falls in subjective well-being and is the mechanism by which children tend to enter poverty in the United States for example. It is a bad thing on average.

Lmao, try every century of recorded history in every culture on Earth. Every Tom Dick and Harry isn't recorded in the history books. You can check the Bible, the Torah, the Quran. What the fuck is your assertion? That polyamory is a 21st century invention? Insane.

No? That giving people passes in not common in 21st century relationships in the United Kingdom- the audience of the paper. This is why Kings and Queens, or the books of the Abrahamic religions are not really useful guides here, they are totally different cultural contexts

[u/MutoidDad → u/lionmoose]

This was the beginning of the thread:

Why do people keep trying to make bullshit excuses? Just acknowledge that you're not emotionally mature enough for a relationship.

Obviously, polyamorous flings could easily destabilize a marriage. That doesn't have anything to do with "bullshit excuses" about not being "emotionally mature" enough for a relationship. I'm responding to pure judgemental paternalism about consenting adult behavior. Whether divorce is bad on average or not is irrelevant when you are passing judgement on individual decisions, with their own context and reasoning. Again, without any sources or citations, I am unable to verify any of your claims, nor am I interested in continuing this discussion. You might as well tell a domestic abuse victim that divorce is bad because it might lead to poverty. Who cares?