But then there’s also the issue that most societies have traditionally been patriarchal, with strict restrictions on women’s sexuality in general (partially due to early contraception being unreliable and pregnancies dangerous). If you assumed that polyamory could work, but that most societies in history wouldn’t want to give women the same kind of sexual freedom as men, then that would suggest that we could expect to see lots of polygamous societies… which does seem to be case.
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse there. If patriarchy is a near-human-universal, doesn’t that suggest there’s a good reason for it?
What counts as success, anyway? Does a relationship have to last for life in order to be successful? I wouldn’t count e.g. a happy relationship of five years to be a failure, if it produces five years of happiness for everyone involved.
My impression is that the downsides of breakup dominate the overall utility compared to the marginal increase from having a better relationship. Particularly in the presence of children.
My impression is that the downsides of breakup dominate the overall utility compared to the marginal increase from having a better relationship.
My impression is the reverse. Breakups tend to be sharply painful, but the wounds heal in a matter of months or at most a few years. But if you’re unwilling to consider breakups, being in a miserable relationship is for the rest of your life.
If patriarchy is a near-human-universal, doesn’t that suggest there’s a good reason for it?
Sure—it was probably a natural adaptation to the level of contraception, healthcare, and overall wealth available at the time. Doesn’t mean it would be a good idea anymore.
And if you wish to reinstate patriarchy, then singling out polyamory as a suspicious modern practice seems rather arbitrary. There’s a lot of bigger stuff that you’d want to consider changing, like whether women are allowed to vote… or, if we wish to stay on the personal level, you’d want to question any relationships in which both sexes were considered equal in the first place.
My impression is that the downsides of breakup dominate the overall utility compared to the marginal increase from having a better relationship. Particularly in the presence of children.
That sounds unlikely in the general case (though there are definitely some spectacularly messy break-ups where that is true), but of course it depends on your utility function.
or, if we wish to stay on the personal level, you’d want to question any relationships in which both sexes were considered equal in the first place.
I think that happens; it’s hard to imagine e.g. a president with anything other than a traditional family (were/are the Clintons equals? More so than those before them, but in public at least Hilary conformed to the traditional “supportive wife” role (in a way that I think contrasts with Bill’s position for the 2008 primaries)). To a certain extent LW is always going to seem cultish if our leaders’ relationships are at odds with the traditional forms for such. And I don’t think that’s irrational: in cases where failures are rare but highly damaging, it makes sense to accord more weight to tradition than we normally do.
(on the voting analogy: I’d be very cautious about adopting any change to our political system that had no historical precedent and seemed like it might increase our odds of going to war, even if it had been tried and shown to be better in a few years of day-to-day use. I don’t think that’s an argument against women having the vote (they’re stereotypically less warlike—although it has been argued that the Falklands War happened because Thatcher felt the need to prove herself and wouldn’t’ve occurred under a male PM), but it is certainly an argument for not extending the vote to non-landowners and under-21s. In as much as war has declined since the vote was extended to non-landowners and under-21s—which is actually, now that I think about it, really quite surprising—I guess that’s evidence against this position)
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse there. If patriarchy is a near-human-universal, doesn’t that suggest there’s a good reason for it?
My impression is that the downsides of breakup dominate the overall utility compared to the marginal increase from having a better relationship. Particularly in the presence of children.
My impression is the reverse. Breakups tend to be sharply painful, but the wounds heal in a matter of months or at most a few years. But if you’re unwilling to consider breakups, being in a miserable relationship is for the rest of your life.
Sure—it was probably a natural adaptation to the level of contraception, healthcare, and overall wealth available at the time. Doesn’t mean it would be a good idea anymore.
And if you wish to reinstate patriarchy, then singling out polyamory as a suspicious modern practice seems rather arbitrary. There’s a lot of bigger stuff that you’d want to consider changing, like whether women are allowed to vote… or, if we wish to stay on the personal level, you’d want to question any relationships in which both sexes were considered equal in the first place.
That sounds unlikely in the general case (though there are definitely some spectacularly messy break-ups where that is true), but of course it depends on your utility function.
I think that happens; it’s hard to imagine e.g. a president with anything other than a traditional family (were/are the Clintons equals? More so than those before them, but in public at least Hilary conformed to the traditional “supportive wife” role (in a way that I think contrasts with Bill’s position for the 2008 primaries)). To a certain extent LW is always going to seem cultish if our leaders’ relationships are at odds with the traditional forms for such. And I don’t think that’s irrational: in cases where failures are rare but highly damaging, it makes sense to accord more weight to tradition than we normally do.
(on the voting analogy: I’d be very cautious about adopting any change to our political system that had no historical precedent and seemed like it might increase our odds of going to war, even if it had been tried and shown to be better in a few years of day-to-day use. I don’t think that’s an argument against women having the vote (they’re stereotypically less warlike—although it has been argued that the Falklands War happened because Thatcher felt the need to prove herself and wouldn’t’ve occurred under a male PM), but it is certainly an argument for not extending the vote to non-landowners and under-21s. In as much as war has declined since the vote was extended to non-landowners and under-21s—which is actually, now that I think about it, really quite surprising—I guess that’s evidence against this position)
There are many relationships where the “marginal” increase from not being in that relationship anymore far outweigh the downsides of the breakup.
Sure there are good reasons. Physical strength is one. Not being in a semi-permanent state of either pregnant or breast-feeding is another.