I didn’t say either one of these things. I didn’t say ALL men are pigs, and I certainly didn’t say that all women are easily victimized. I’m saying that women who are already vulnerable are the ones who get dragged into this swinger garbage.
Yeah, right.
Even if this were the case, it still wouldn’t be a loving relationship, would it? Ok then.
That’s an urban myth, and I never said any of this was rape.
The MacKinnon-Dworkin confusion was dealt with upthread by the board’s resident nutjob.
Why wouldn’t it be loving? What definition are you using for the verb love?
And those are not rhetorical questions.
When I say I love someone, I mean that my feelings for that person are such that his or her wellbeing is essential to my own peace of mind. Is that what you mean, or something else?
Becase you said yourself it was exploitive.
By your own definition then an exploitive relationship cannot be loving.
Okay, so why can’t a strong minded, independent woman decide of her own free will that she’s going to be in a polyamorous relationship? Even if she is a sexual abuse survivor? Why is the default assumption that it’s only vulnerable women getting dragged in and scumbag men doing the dragging? Why can’t the woman be the scumbag, even?
Here is what you wrote:
When you write men are pigs without putting any qualifier, you are making a statement synonymous with all men are pigs. I mean, if I I wrote women are whores, white people are evil, or Etruscans should all be killed, no would think I was talking about anything other than the entirety of the sets in question, would they?
If you meant to Most men are pigs or Many men are pigs, you should have written one of those. Now you seem to be backpedaling, at least in my eyes.
My point (and I concede that I was imprecise; I blame the many branches this conversation has taken) was this:
You have consistently alleged in this thread that heterosexual polyamourous relationships are bad for the women involved. I was asking you to explain why that must be so. Are you saying that women are so different frommen that it is impossible for them to be exploitative or abusive of them? If so, what is the cause of that difference? If not, then why is it inconceivable that a woman might be involved in an unconventional committed relationship of her own rather than than through the machinations of a man (or men) using physical or emotional coercion to force her into it?
Bullshit, Dio. You asserted it (it being "humans cannot bond with more than one other person at a time), you cite it. That’s the way the Dope has always worked.
Would love the cite on “all non-monogamous relationships are inherently immature” too, but that’s about as likely as all the air molecules in the room suddenly deciding to occupy one corner.
You’ve essentially enumerated the core belief of The Dio Zone.
don’t feed it don’t feed it don’t…ARGH!
Sure. I’ll accept that. What I (and many others) don’t accept is that a polygamous, polyandrous, polygynous or group marriage inherently exploitive. And you’ve not come anywhere near proving it is.
Because she is strong minded and independent.
I’m not going to get bogged down in one of these nit-picking semantic games.
Because the men don’t really love them. If they loved them, they would be exclusive.
Someone doesn’t know what ‘nit-picking’, ‘strong minded’ or ‘independent’ means.
- There is no such thing as a “group marriage.”
- Polygamy and polygyny are not mutually reciprocal bonds.
Actually, what I said was that I don’t believe groups (especially of more than three) can become mutually and reciprocally bonded (i.e. every individual is equally bonded with every other individual). This is quite obviously not the observed norm, and I’d like to see a cite that it exists at all. I call bullshit. The assertion that such a thing is possible what needs to be proven. I don’t have to prove a negative, and I don’t have to accept your word for it.
So a strong minded woman has to listen to people telling her that it’s sexist and wrong to engage in polyamory in order to know it’s wrong, instead of trusting her own beliefs and knowledge of what’s right for her?
So the Hawai’ian islanders did not practice punalua? The Dieri did not practice pirrauru? The Kurnandaburi are lying when they say they practice group marriage? What, do you think the concept of a group marriage was just thought up spontaneously by some hippies? Have you even googled “group marriage”?
Peeta is not putting up with Dio’s dumb shit tonight! I am loving this thread.