I didn’t say it was “wrong.”
Healthy women are able to form healthy bonds, though.
I know it doesn’t exist in the United States, or any other civilized country I know of. Yes, if Hawaiian natives say they’re in a group marriage they’re lying through their teeth. Hawaii does not recognize “group marriages.”
So you are going to nit pick group marriage to mean ‘legal’ marriage? Haaa. Peeta is bustin your ass.
Usually, when you pull this sexist crap, folks just tire of the Dio show and bail before it gets fun. But I see you are really gettin’ your ass busted tonight. It’s beautiful.
Of course it means “legal marriage.” It has no other meaning. It’s just a legal contract, and nothing else. That’s not nitpicking, that’s the fucking definition. There is no such thing as group marriage. sorry. I don’t care how many monkeys the Hawaiians try to fuck.
By the way, I don’t do sexism. You’re imagining things. Only on this board would opposition to misogyny be called “sexist.”
Wow. So in places where gays can’t legally marry, but they have wedding ceremonies and consider themselves wed in the eyes of their families and loved ones…you can’t see that as a definition of a marriage?
It is sexist to assume that women must have different psychological reasons for choosing multiple partners than men do. That is crystal clear.
Only misogyny in this thread is yours, **Dio **my love. But thanks for worrying so about we weak willed, stupid women who don’t really love men, the pigs. Much 'preciated.
[
I already answered this upthread. No. They’re not married. I wish they could be.Their bond is the same, but they don’t have the legal status of a recognized mariage.
Women are different sexual creatures than men are.
The women probably really think the love the men, but the men don’t love the women. I also never said any of these women were either weak-willed or stupid.
Dio, did you think this thread was about legal marriage. Huh? Don’t you think we have to talk about the same kind of ‘marriage’ we think of when two gays in New York get married? You know that is the kind of hypothetical we have to use to even have this discussion about poly or group marriage or anything other than man and wife marriage. So stop with the cop outs, it makes me cringe.
I know that men and women are different sexual creatures. That has ZERO to do with the fact that women can have the same psychological reasons for wanting a group marriage as a man does. No way to say different without sounding like a sexist.
ETA: For the record, I also find ‘men are pigs’ sexist. So you are just sexist all over the damn place. You are just busy with sexism.
“Civilized”, huh? Were Christianity not the dominant religion of the west, our concept of what “civilized” marriage looks like would be very different. Your concept of marriage has a lot more to do with religion than legality.
Hawai’i was an independent kingdom that wasn’t overthrown until 1893. Before that, it had a constitution and had been accepted into the Family of Nations. I’d suggest looking at some pictures of the royal family, should you doubt how civilized they were. They had some snazzy clothes.
It is a legal recognition of a personal relationship. Depending on the country, the time and the place, what is legally recognized and not can vary wildly. If it would make you feel better though–this always makes my dad calm down a bit–we could call it a group domestic partnership.
I consider myself quite lucky to have had my MeeMaw around when I was growing up, as she smacked one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned into my head at a young age: If you step in to try to protect a woman from something she does not need protecting from and does not desire protecting from, you are being sexist. You are denying her ability to make her own decisions and implying that you know better.
You’re not opposed to misogyny here, you’re being a misandrist, and a pretty unhinged one at that.
Besides, your automatic assumption that women in poly relationships *must *be either bullied victims or unhealthy braincases is, you know, sort of in the vicinity of being a chauvinist pig as well.
And I say this as a moderate chauvinist piggish misandrist myself, mind you.
I’m not trying to step in and protect anyone from anything. I wish people would quit making up shit I never said. Let me be clear:
I DON"T GIVE A FUCK IF PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE THIS WAY. I don’t want to stop them. I don’t want to talk women out of it. I don’t care it gets recognized legally. I’m just expressing some personal opinions about it. I have no wish to interfere with it, but that doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously when they try to tell me they’re all really in love with each other. I’m just rolling my eyes at it, the same way I roll my eyes at fat, middle aged rich guys with smoking hot 22 year old trophy wives.
So, strong minded and independent women can’t be involved in polyamorous relationships because they are strong minded and independent? Now that’s what I call a strong argument!
No, wait, sorry. My notes got mixed up. That’s what I call a bullshit tautology.
This cite lists 10 different definitions of “marriage.” Of those, five refer specifically to interpersonal relationships. Of those five, only three mention legal sanction. Of those three, none require legal sanction, and one specifically refers to relationships without legal sanction.
What is interesting is that, in all of the threads we have had on the subject of gay marriage, you have never once voiced this specific objection to people calling themselves “married” despite the lack of legal sanction of their relationships. This suggests, to me, that this focus on the legality of the relationship exists in your mind only when it applies to a relationship you disapprove of. Which is one more massive logical fallacy we can add to the pile you’ve accumulated here. It is rather sad to see you arguing so poorly, and with such self-delusion, considering how often I have seen you tear apart others for performing just as you have here, when the subject is something in which you do not have as intense an emotional investment.
Wow, that’s pretty racist! Didn’t see that coming at all!
Yes, Dio, you are sexist, in precisely the same way someone who says, “Black people have such great rhythm,” or “Jews are great with money,” are racist. You are *extraordinarily *patronizing towards women. While this is a bit better than being an outright misogynist, it’s still condescending and insulting.
Why does my feminist wife agree with me then?
Who knows? I don’t try to pretend I know what all women think and feel.
Unlike some people in this thread…
This is the same feminist wife who thinks that all porn is exploitative of women, right?
Clearly she’s one of us women who are incapable of standing up to manly wiles. You know, like the women who choose to be in poly relationships.
Dio, you seem to be assuming that all women who are in poly relationships are broken and/or deluded into thinking the men they’re in a relationship with love them. Just because you wouldn’t be able to love more than one woman at once, it doesn’t mean that no other man can - do you generalise from your own abilities about everything? (I realise you might, in fact, do this, so it’s a genuine question - if you do, there’s even less point than I first thought in this conversation.)
What would it take to convince you that there are perfectly mentally healthy women in poly relationships with men who love them? Because they do exist, on this board, no less. You’ve heard from them. You’ve heard from men in poly relationships who love the women they’re in relationships with. Are you calling them all liars? Delusional? Unable to know their own minds and feelings?
Yes. She’s like an old school, Gloria Steinem feminist. If I was a sexist, she wouldn’t be married to me.