[hijack]
This is a bit of folklore. There’s not really any evidence that St. Valentine did this (or was killed for it).
[/hijack]
Maybe because it’s very degrading and sexist to the women.
Where, pray tell, are all the women with multiple husbands?
Once again, I will politely ask you to clarify what you mean. I am trying to be nice here, but you’re pushing it. I do not know why, other than you apparently have some personal agenda based on your TV and Web “research”.
Are you specifically speaking of the Mormonesque fringe-cultists? If so, then please say that. As I have stated before, I agree that there are serious problems with those folks, although I think the problems stem from the religion instead of the polygyny.
Or are you talking about polygamy/polyamory in general? If so, please let me know. We are in the Pit, so I can respond to your comments as they so richly deserve. Perhaps I’ll even post a link elsewhere and invite all of the “degraded”, “oppressed”, “abused” poly women I can find to come in and toast your ass as well.
That would INCLUDE the ones with multiple husbands/sweeties.
Patiently awaiting your reply…
Guin, before you judge all polygamous/polyamorous relationships on the Mormon standard, may I recommend that you check out http://www.polyamory.org/
redtail, much of Guin’s opinion has probably been influenced by sites like http://www.polygamy.org/ , which is fine for what it is but doesn’t take polyamory into account.
Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me that most folks have a negative view of polyanything - I mean, most people have only heard of the religious version of polygamy. I only discovered polyamory recently, though I think I’ve had tendencies that way all my life…
We can argue until the cows come home about whether the practice of polygamy is sexist in theory (which devolves into no more than an argument about the value of so-called “free love”), but it appears clear that the practice of polygamy as generally understood – multiple wives, one husband, an actual marriage – is very sexist.
A web search on “polygamy” brought up sites on Christian polygamy, Islamic polygamy, and Jewish polygamy. All reflect a paternalistic belief system, including the following: women cannot survive and/or prosper outside of the institution of marriage, and single women who cannot find husbands are therefore “wasted” or “deprived;” women have no higher function than to bear and care for children which, again, polygamy allows to ones who otherwise could not do so (note that this presupposes that marriage is still a social/cultural prerequisite for reproduction); and the proper structure of a family is one with the man as the absolute head of the household, with the wife or wives being subservient and submissive. These appears to be the general assumptions underlying almost every type of polygamy. In addition, and IMO quite significantly, none of the sites I have found that advocate true polygamy (or, rather, polygyny) as opposed to free love, are open to the possibility of “polyandry” – one wife with multiple husbands – because just as these advocates find religious/scriptural sanction for polygamy, they find religious/scriptural prohibition against polyandry. An option available to one sex and not the other is of course the very definition of sexism.
Looking just at one pro-polygamy site, which is apparently not a Mormon one, polygamy.com, we find the following arguments in favor, which I will refute:
-
Automatic childcare in a sexist society gives women more effective choice to have a career without devaluing the role of homemaker. This assumes, of course, that one or more of the wives must stay home to be the ‘homemaker.’ The “effective choice” is not given to all the wives, or the childcare would not be “automatic.”
-
Being able to marry men who are already married means that women can marry men who have already proved themselves, therefore minimising their risk. There is no reason to believe that a man who is already married is less of a risk in a relationship than a man who has been married and divorced. “Proven” compatibility with one woman does not translate to compatibility with another.
-
Being able to marry the men who attract most women means they don’t have to settle just for what’s left after other women have the best pickings. Most women would consider becoming a “second” wife to a man already having one as a form of “settling.” In addition, single-marriages ensure that if there is “settling” to be done, it is done by BOTH men and women as they seek monogamous relationships.
-
Having the possibility that a husband can remarry without divorce extends practical security to a woman. She needn’t worry about losing her husband and income as she loses her looks, because if her husband is attracted by a younger woman, he doesn’t even have to think about leaving his wife. Insulting to women as it clearly values them in terms of their looks, and ignorant of the modern structure of divorce, which DOES extend ‘practical security’ to a woman – and gives her the chance to marry again.
-
Polygamy removes the pressure on a husband to commit adultery, and removes damaging deceit from a marriage. It “removes the pressure to commit adultery” not at all; it just makes the relationship something other than adulterous. It changes the labels, not the actions, which remain a destruction of the traditional monogamous relationship. If it removes ‘deceit,’ it also removes fidelity and – again, very significantly – under most polygamous structures, adultery remains adultery for the wives, and remains prohibited.
-
Polygamy provides a method where a woman can have a female friend for life as well as a husband. * Whahahahahaha! Why in the world would you need your husband to MARRY your friends in order to keep them?*
7 . Polygamy provides a potential for at least three adult incomes, reducing state dependance and the fear of unemployment. *This would appear to auger for multiply-partner marriages and for polyandry as well as polygamy. Moreover, possible “state dependance” and “fear of unemployment” are not chief motivators for most people looking for a sexual-social relationship.
-
If a man wants to have another sexual partner in a polygamous system then he has to meet his responsibilities - pay for any children produced from all his relationships without priority being given to those from a ‘legal’ relationship. This is true in a monogamous society as well.
-
Polygamy removes or reduces the seduction of innocent young women - If a man promises to marry
her, he cannot use his existing marriage as an excuse for not fulfilling a promise. A man who wishes to jilt a woman of any age does not need an excuse to do so. If society believed that false promises were actions worthy of punishment, they could deter such actions by punishing them severely. This has nothing to do with polygamy. -
Polygamy reduces the number of women who are available. Currently, with more women than men, this ‘cheapens’ women. With less women available their ‘value’ goes up. In other words, polygamy makes men have to try harder and do better with women if they are to win them in competition with other men. The obvious sexism of this is so flabbergasting that it hardly merits a response, beyond pointing out that a shortage of women, or a severely unbalanced ratio of men-to-women, is not a problem in modern western society.
The sexism of this structure and the rationales underlying it seems to me to be self-evident. Moreover, in our American society the following appear to be clear: (1) Monogamous relationships are both the norm and the type or relationship most highly prized, and one-to-one fidelity continues to be highly valued. You, REDTAIL, may not conform to this, but most people do. (2) Polygamy as practiced in the United States gives no one any reason to admire it or consider it an arrangement either respectful or or nuturing of women.
I would also add, parenthetically, that as long as most women highly value monogamy and continue to see fidelity to a monogamous relationship to be a sign of deep respect as well as something they are entitled to (having taken vows), they are unlikely to be impressed by stories from other women about how fabulous polygamy is, when those women have chosen to give up this respect and entitlement.
So now maybe you can explain why polygamy, as opposed to free love, is so all-fired fabulous for women.
DOGSBODY – I would only comment that you and that web site appear to be advocating the 19th Century ideal of “free love,” as opposed to polygamy, or polygyny, as that term is generally understood and generally practiced. I would imagine that it would be far easier to defend truly consentual polyamory (or free love) than it is to defend the institution of polygamy.
The only comment I’m going to make on this is to observe that my personal interpretation of “free love” involves a lack of commitment to any parties involved.
Polyamory, OTOH and As I Understand It (at its best, admittedly), involves a commitment to the other members of the V or the Triangle or the quad or whatever.
Frankly, Jodi, I’m hardly an advocate for either! 
I’ll leave that to the folks who have experience.
Well, here we get squishy. The argument, I believe, is that any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult they wish, apparently without regard to marital status. This, to me, presents practical problems. Can a woman have two husbands? And her husband have two wives? So then who’s responsible for whom, financially and otherwise? Is there a primacy to a first marriage? If not, how do you allocate resources in the event the relationship (or part of it) goes south?
The rationale of promoting M/F monogamous marriage – and protecting it through law – is that it is the ideal familial structure. People can certainly debate whether or not this is true. I’m inclined to believe that it is, personally, but I’m not inclined to argue about it.
MY only point is that polygamy both as generally understood and as generally practiced does not appear to be a great institution for women. That’s all.
Jodi-how do you do it? Everytime I make a point, you always say it better than I ever could? Will you adopt me?
The idea of polygamy in the way most of us think of it sits very ill with me. Call me a hopeless romantic, but there is nothing that turns my stomach more than the idea that if I fell in love with someone, I wouldn’t be enough for him.
Look-if you want to do it, fine. BUT, I am disgusted by a lot of the abuse in the system.
Haven’t had time to post here for a couple of days, but eventually I get 'round to it.
dogsbody - I know that is Guinastasia’s problem. She’s said as much several times, in several threads. She has also chosen to ignore many posts in several threads (by myself and by others) that carefully explained that those cultists are NOT representative of the majority of poly’s in the USA today.
I’ve said before (and evidently must say yet again) - I do not condone nor defend child abuse, spousal abuse, incest, forced marriages, child marriage, etc., that are evidently common to the Utah cultists. However, those ailments are not products of polygamy, but rather products of their religious beliefs. For example, here is a quote from the polygamy.org (Tapestry) site that she loves so well:
These people are prone to violence due to their religious beliefs. That propensity for violence extends to their families. But it still comes from their religion, not their polygamy.
In this very thread, I’ve asked her politely, twice, simply to admit that there is a difference between fringe Mormon cultists and the more common polyamorists. She still refuses to do so.
As far as I can see, she chooses to cling to and defend her ignorance, rather than just admit that she doesn’t possess all of the facts, or that the facts in her possession are neither representative of nor relevant to many polygamists (of the non-Christian-sect sort). That alone is enough to justifiably draw my scorn.
Evidently she lets her intestinal rumblings rule her life, and somehow seems to feel that they should be a valid operating system for the rest of society as well. Doesn’t surprise me much - it’s the same sort of thing you hear from homophobes about gay rights and gay marriage, from racists about minority rights and miscegenation, so on and so forth.
In fact, now she says “Look-if you want to do it, fine. BUT, I am disgusted by a lot of the abuse in the system.”
Guinastasia, I ask you: WHAT SYSTEM? If there is a SYSTEM of polygamy, I wanna know about it, because I feel left out. Or are you still just talking about the Mormons. If so, once again, PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN.
Sounds damn similar to the infamous “Gay Agenda” to me. :rolleyes:
Jodi, I’ll get back to you. It will take me a bit to go through your posts and reply.
They have always been a bit crazy in Utah. Must be the drinkin’ water. :rolleyes:
Astounding! So, if you take all of your data from websites devoted to religions that are traditionally sexist, paternalistic, and misogynistic, you will find that, when sects belonging to those religions advocate polygamy, the polygamy they advocate tends to be sexist, paternalistic and misogynistic. Reason in circles much? Then, of course, you can blame the problem on polygamy (which you don’t like) rather than religion (which you do). I’ll quibble later with your definition of “true polygamy”.
BUT you’re falling into the same abyss as Guinastasia. Simply because some members of sexist, paternalistic, misogynistic religions practice polygamy does NOT mean that all polygamists are sexist, paternalistic and misogynistic.
In fact, you said it yourself above and STILL missed the point: “All reflect a paternalistic belief system”. The polygamy reflects the belief system, not the other way around.
Try it this way: Set A = Judaism/Christianity/Islam (historically sexist, paternalistic, misogynistic religions)
Set C = Polygamists
Subset B = Polygamists who are also Jewish/Christian/Moslem
B = A intersect C (can’t get the dern symbol to print!)
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN that A=C.
Please note that all of the items you mentioned (women must marry or be ‘wasted’, women are for bearing children and little else, marriage is required for reproduction, proper family structure = man as head & woman as submissive) are values that are historically true for those religions and/or cultures and have until recently been applied (and sometimes are still applied) to society in general, not just polygamous relationships.
Now, I will grant that you simply searched for ‘polygamy’ and reported what you found. Most polygamists in current US society avoid that word, because of exactly the attitudes, misconceptions and ignorance that have been repeatedly displayed on this message board. Should I cave in to such attitudes, misconceptions and ignorance, and let y’all ‘win’ the argument simply so that you can feel comfortably superior? Possibly so, but I’m not quite ready for that.
And just how, pray tell, did you decide that polygamy.com was not a Mormon site? I looked through that site - the vast majority of information on the site was devoted to news and events regarding Mormons and/or Utah. It may not have been solely a Mormon site, it may not have banners stating “THIS IS A MORMON WEBPAGE”, but it was definitely primarily oriented towards Mormons. Much more of the site was avowedly Christian, although not explicitly stated as Mormon. For example, of the first seven pages (if you work through the index), over half are explicitly Mormon and several more were by a British man who bases everything on the Bible (although he never states whether or not he is Mormon). The religions listed with links were 3 Christian (including Mormon), 1 Islamic and 1 Jewish, plus 1 listed as “Vietnamese” that linked to an article with no mention of religion.
The entire “In the News” section was devoted to Mormon cases in Utah. 4 of the 6 items listed under “Legal Information” pertained solely to Mormon cases in Utah. The two links listed under “Political Action Committees” were to Mormon sites. Not to mention the “Utah Family Being Prosecuted For Polygamy - HELP IS NEEDED!” link on the main page.
There was not A SINGLE LINK NOR MENTION of any of the numerous polyamory sites that are on the Web. In fact, I think I read something on one of their pages disavowing polyamory as mere promiscuity.
(Sorry, I didn’t go through all of the “personals” and “looking” type of links.)
It is absolutely without doubt a site dedicated to a Christian version of polygamy. Here’s a few quotes that I found:
From Polygamy 101 (the first page listed on the index): "Certainly the alarming divorce rate and skyrocketing number of single parent families are indicators of how badly we need old proven Biblical models for relating. "
From From a Woman’s Place (under Practical Aspects of Polygamy - the same place you got your quotes): “There is no “Rule Book for Polygamous Marriage” that lays down the structure and form of the practice. The only guide we have is the Bible, the Holy Word of God, which should guide and enlighten each Christian as we strive to be obedient to God’s will for our lives.” “A polygamous marriage based on Biblical truths and precepts, as all marriages should be, should meet the same standards as any monogamous marriage. Husbands should love their wives, and wives should be submissive to their husbands, based on Biblical principles.” “It is a lifestyle ordained by God for some people.” “It must be based on Biblical principles and lived in obedience to God’s will, as any monogamous marriage must be.”
I could continue, but I think you get the point.
Really, Jodi, you’re usually better than this. Jump to conclusions much? Where’s your famed judgment (or is that judgmentalism)?
I shan’t bother to refute your refutations, since I am not Christian and I feel no need to defend that sexist, paternalistic, misogynistic religion in any of its twisted incarnations.
No, actually that is exactly my point. It is NOT AT ALL CLEAR because polygamy as it is commonly practiced in the USA today DOES NOT FIT THE “GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD” DESCRIPTION you’re using. Shall I repeat myself yet again? Or should I simply give up and let ignorance reign? Probably I should, but I guess I’m just another fool, tilting at favored windmills.
The practice of marriage as it has generally been applied throughout the world, throughout the majority of cultures, and DEFINITELY throughout the majority of American and Christian history, has been unbelievably (by today’s standards) sexist and oppressive to women. The 19th century Free Love Movement that you mention was, in fact, promoted by the feminists of the day, in opposition to the “generally understood” and generally accepted sexist and oppressive marriage customs. The practice of marriage as it is GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD today is still quite often sexist and oppressive to women, although not to as great an extent as it once was. Many of the concepts that you listed above to show that polygamy was sexist are still often part of how marriage is GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD to work by many people. So I guess that means that you will join those crusading to end marriage because it, as GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD, constitutes essentially a form of whoredom and slavery for women?
Ah, but Jodi, I have no objection to monogamous relationships being the norm. I have no objection to that type of relationship being highly prized. I have no objection to “one-to-one fidelity” being highly valued.
My only objections are (1) the misuse of the word polygamy, (2) being grouped with a bunch of twisted religious freaks, despite my repeated protestations to the contrary (that exact thing being what originally brought me into this thread), and (3) being told that my preferences should remain illegal simply because you don’t care to follow them.
However, since you quite obviously don’t know shit about “polygamy as practiced in the United States”, you might want to refrain from making judgments about it. (What happened to that 99% rule of yours, eh, Jodi? Except, of course, that it was never anything but rhetorical bullshit.) If you want to make judgments about how polygamy is currently VIEWED in the U.S., go right ahead. You seem to have a pretty good handle on that. But learn a bit about your subject before you start making pronouncements about the practice of polygamy.
See, the problem is that polygamy in the U.S. IS NOT THE SOLE DOMAIN OF MORMONS. REPEAT: MOST POLYGAMISTS IN THE U.S. ARE NOT MORMONS. REPEAT: NOT ALL POLYGAMISTS IN THE U.S. ARE MORMONS.
Simply because the cult freaks get all of the sensational news attention DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES OUT THERE.
And your point is? I am not trying to CONVERT anyone, for crying out loud! Jesus Allah Krishnu, you people sound more and more like the homophobic bigots. “OH MY GOD, LOOK, THE POLYAMORIST IS HERE! QUICK, HIDE THE KIDS BEFORE IT TRIES TO CONVERT THEM!!” “RUN! RUN! RUN! THEY’RE HERE, THEY’RE HERE!! THEY’LL DESTROY MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT!!! KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL BEFORE THEY RUIN MONOGAMY FOREVER!!!” Am I talking to reasonably intelligent people out there? I thought I was, but I begin to wonder.
Aside from which, fuck you in the eye with a bicycle and a sharp pointed stick. Not one woman practicing polygamy that I know (and I will remind you once again that I don’t know any practicing Mormon polygamists or others of their ilk) has given up an iota of respect. Simply because these women disagree with the idea that they are somehow “entitled” to own another human being, and have no desire to sell themselves to another human being, doesn’t mean they are not respected. Simply because they choose a different set of vows than you would (perhaps because most of them belong to a different religion, neh?) doesn’t mean they have “chosen to give up … respect”. Many of them feel that they have more respect, both for and from themselves, and for and from their partners, than they would in a monogamous relationship.
Sorry, not my job. In the first place, you are the one making some sort of distinction between ‘polygamy’ and ‘polyamory’. Although polyamory covers more ground than polygamy, in that it includes many other forms of relationship besides marriage, it certainly includes polygamy - although I will agree that it specifically excludes YOUR type of polygamy, which is based solely on sexism and religion. In fact, you’re the one incorrectly juxtaposing ‘polygamy’ and ‘free love’. IIRC, the Free Love movement of the 19th century did not specifically advocate polygamy; they merely opposed government intervention into private matters and supported the concept of sexual freedom for individuals.
I’m arguing that y’all are (1)using ‘polygamy’ incorrectly and (2)incorrectly attributing polygamy only to a small group of religious fanatics, ignoring the far larger group of polygamists (whom you define as ‘free love’ or somesuch) AND (3)offensively attributing the illegal and immoral actions of that small group to the larger group (and thereby defaming us).
According to Webster, polygamy is
Although it does state that polygamy is usually polygynous (which I have never denied), the FIRST definition as well as the REPEATED definitions state quite clearly that polygamy means having more than one spouse of either sex.
Secondly, I NEVER SAID that polygamy was “so all-fired fabulous for women”. I never said that all women would be interested in polygamy. I never said that most women would be interested in polygamy. I never said that at all, even if you replace ‘polygamy’ with ‘polyamory’ or ‘free love’ in the preceding three sentences.
In fact, I never said anything that even remotely resembled anything of the sort.
HERE is exactly what I said:
I posted a couple more times, essentially repeating those points and asking Guinastasia to direct her comments towards the problem - namely certain ‘un-Mormons’ who are not very nice people - rather than making broad slurs against people who DON’T DO THE THINGS THAT SHE’S COMPLAINING ABOUT. I never made any claims about polygamy AT ALL. (In fact, I challenge you to find ANY quote from me ANYWHERE ON THIS BOARD where I make a claim that “polygamy …is so all-fired fabulous for women”.)
Or did you not bother to read any of that, either, before you leaped to your conclusions?
I am in a polygamous relationship. That relationship (and the poly r’ships of everyone I’ve ever known or spoken to) do not fall under what you mistakenly call the “generally understood and generally practiced…institution of polygamy”, as they do not meet your specifications of sexist, patriarchal, and oppressive to women. In fact, some number of them are polyandrous relationships.
Most of these people use the term ‘polyamory’, because of the overwhelming ignorance of the American populace. Here, in a place devoted to fighting ignorance, I’ve chosen to do battle with that ignorance instead. Anyone who doesn’t like that can kiss my sweet ass.
Yes, the argument is that consenting adults should be able to marry as they choose, and not be bound by the requirements of the majority religion’s majority view on marriage. Many, if not most, polyamorists are NOT Christian, if for no other reason than that the few that try to remain Christian are ostracised by their fellow believers if found out.
Practical problems? Yes, probably so. That doesn’t mean they can’t be resolved, and it is certainly not sufficient reason to infringe on people’s religious and personal freedoms. The abolition of slavery caused a lot of problems, too, but I don’t see you arguing that the laws shouldn’t have been changed because it was such a hassle to fix them.
As far as “ideal familial structure” - that is total and complete bullshit. But since you’re not inclined to argue, I’ll write it off as nothing but your personal, biased, and completely uninformed, opinion.
The rationale behind promoting and legally protecting male/female monogamous marriage in this country is that IT IS THE STRUCTURE FAVORED BY THE MAJORITY OF RELIGIONS AND POPULATION IN THIS COUNTRY. Nothing more and nothing less. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights, remember? To protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
But I guess that just doesn’t count in this particular instance; since the concept in question goes against your personal preferences, my personal freedoms (and in fact, the very concept of personal freedom) should just get tossed out the window.
And finally, I would like to note that it must be OK for you to jump all over people’s asses for being pissed off and making offhand, generalized, obnoxious comments about Christians – AND it’s obviously OK for you to turn around and judge other people as immoral and wrong based on nothing but your ignorance and arrogance. I just love double standards. Obviously you do too.
::::applauds redtail::::
Okay, let’s just recap. This is not a subject I care much about, having not bothered to wade into the Great Debate on it at all. But I figure what the heck; I do a bit of internet research, look at a couple of cases, and post, prefacing my post with “What the heck, I’ll take a flier at it” – clear indication that the argument is, for me, academic, and probably not one I care a whole lot about.
To which I recieve the perfectly civil advisement “Jodi, I’ll get back to you. It will take me a bit to go through your posts and reply.” Okey-dokey.
Then, a week later – surely time enough for tempers to calm, not that there has been any indication that tempers flared in the first place – I get a spittle-flecked thesis inviting me to “fuck myself in the eye with a bicycle and a sharp pointed stick.”
Allow me to be blunt: I do not give a shit whom you eat with, live with, sleep with, or share a toothbrush with. I do not give a shit if your bed-companions are the offensive line for the Packers and a llama named Earl. I also don’t give a shit if you consider polygamy to be the greatest invention since the parting of the waters. Nor do I care enough about either this particular topic or you personally to exhaust myself wading through the epic you posted, much less responding to it. Since I can’t be bothered to read your post, you must realize that you’ve done nothing to change my mind on the topic. You may construe this as wllful ignorance; it would, however, more accurately be deemed extreme disinterest in the opinions of people who tell me to go fuck myself. Nor do I see why it would take you a week to formulate that extremely banal invitation; next time you feel the need, at least do me the courtesy of not waiting a week. That way I won’t waste my time checking back in the erroneous hope that you might actually post something I would consider worth reading.
Well, Jodi, ya see, that was the trimmed-down, toned-down version. What do you think took me a week?
You really didn’t want to see the original - and truth be told, the original was the product of frustration with you, Guinastasia, and DITWD over in GD all spouting the same nonsense without ever, evidently, bothering to read or comprehend contradicting posts. It wasn’t JUST you, that’s why I took the time to wait to calm down & rewrite my original response to you.
Evidently you did bother to wade through the epic, since you’ve mentioned several pieces of it - pieces towards the end, at that. And evidently you did care enough to respond, or else there wouldn’t have been your last post. And I must say, that was quite an epic you wrote yourself, for a “flier” at something in which you ostensibly have no interest. I do wonder at your choice of forums for your “flier”, however, given your apparent inability to take a single insult in stride - there are 2 GD threads running after all, in neither of which would I have made the comment I did here.
But whatever. I have no illusions of changing your mind. I’ve read too many of your posts on too many subjects to see any possibility of an open mind on your part, especially in the areas of sex, marriage and personal freedoms. You occasionally state that you have no problems with what others do, but then generally proceed to explain at length just why they are so wrong and immoral for doing it. And it’s not the first time I’ve seen you claim no great interest in a subject but proceed to debate for days, so I’ll wait and see on that too. Whatever, whichever.
I had decided a while back not to respond to anything you posted because you will nitpick for days, twist and weasel, insist that everyone accepts your statements at face value while you are allowed to interpret everyone else’s as you wish, or whatever else it takes to win the argument - I’m sure those habits stand you in good stead professionally, but I’m not really interested in playing. Obviously, in this case, on a subject which is important to me, I decided to make an exception. If you truly don’t care about the subject, then I expect I won’t hear back.
At any rate, I was responding to the incorrect information and generally offensive statements you made, because I decided that I did not wish to let those statements stand unrefuted on a public message board. And if you don’t like my timing, oh well, I guess I’ll live.
Sorry I offended you so with my one comment. I really didn’t expect you to take that quite so seriously. Had I known that the ‘f-word’ was such a bugaboo for you, I wouldn’t have used it. But then again, since you’d already offended me several times with your post, and since you don’t ever seem to have a problem with being offensive to others, I must confess that I’m not horribly distraught.
However, I must have struck a nerve or two somewhere. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Methinks so, too. She didn’t have time to wade through your post (which was very well done, by the way), but managed to read the one sentence to take umbrage with and exit the argument. Talk about picking and choosing…
Esprix
REDTAIL –
Typing it out would be my guess.
Huh. I don’t know what you’re talking about here, because I didn’t post to the thread(s) in GD on this topic. At all. So you won’t be surprised to hear that it is true I neither read nor comprehended your posts there – just as I neither read not comprehend thousands of posts in threads I am not bothering to follow.
Trust me, I didn’t. I skimmed it briefly (in the process of highlighting it to paste it into an answer and then address it), saw the ONE portion I have alluded to, and decided not to bother.
THIS was where I found the thread in question – not in GD, since I wasn’t following the other two – and at the time I made my original post, it seemed a perfectly fine place to put it. I realize (or, rather, give you the benefit of the doubt) that you would not have posted the insult you did in another forum; that does not place on me any onus to respond to you in light of it, either in kind or at all.
: Yawn : Blah blah blah. This would all be very difficult to swallow if I knew who your were of gave a shit what you thought. Fortunately for me, I don’t. I would be happy to reciprocate by gratuitously critiquing your posting style, but I must confess I have never noticed a thing you’ve posted (until today) so I’m not in a position to do so.
So you say; a statement I will just have to let stand, since I didn’t bother to read your post, and have no idea of doing so.
For what it’s worth, your apology is not accepted as I believe it to be insincere. Your persistence in insulting me – in more moderate terms, but insults nonetheless – does not lead me to believe your apology is sincerely offered.
I have no real problem with the “f-word” per se; I don’t appreciate it when it’s being used to explicitly and directly insult me, any more than the next person would. The difference between our “offending,” of course, was that I did not intend to offend you; you manifestly intended to offend me. I rarely intentionally offend people, your belief to the contrary notwithstanding, and when I do, I do not bother to first lead them to believe we are engaged in a civil discussion. It smacks a little too much of dishonesty for my taste.
Maybe it was that fucking-bicycle-sharp-stick thing. Give it some more thought; I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
ESPRIX –
I assure you that the phrase I quoted is the one – the only one – that leapt out at me. Believe that or not; I really don’t care.
By the way, you don’t actually have a dog in this particular fight, do you?
I’ve been reading the thread, which I find interesting; I agree that your assessment of all polyamorous relationships is stilted and inaccurate; in general I assume I am permitted to have a dog in every thread on the SDMB; and based on some of the threads you and I have debated in recently, I found myself agreeing that you’ve been decidedly contrary of late (or perhaps you’ve always been, but I never noticed it before).
But, like you said, you don’t care, so never you mind…
Esprix
Your opinion I care about (in a low-key, message-board sort of way); his (I assume “he”?) I do not. I admit that your stopping by for some gratuitous rock-throwing in my direction surprised me, but I will keep it in mind so I wont’ be as surprised the next time.