Since you said you thought it should be public, here’s what I sent.
A lot of that stuff she ranted about above exists only in her imagination. I “slimed her brothers and parents?” WTF? I’m trying to “treat her like a broken thing?”
I think she’s projecting a lot of motivations onto me that were never there. Whatever. I apologized for whatever I thought I might have been wrong about. I’m not going to aopologize for things I never said and never thought.
I’m not entirely comfortable discussing this in detail, because it was private correspondence.
I am primarily concerned with the objectification and dismissal of my self in favor of just-so stories that “explain” me and the unprovoked personal insults to my partners. Dio apologised for crossing personal boundaries (apology conditional on his having done so), for accidentally implying immorality (not an issue at all; I did not believe that he had), and inappropriate presumptions or implications.
I will acknowledge that the third is partially on point; I did not do so in my private reply to him, and I should have done so.
I said in my private response that I did not consider his behaviour forgivable; I am, now that I’ve blown off some steam here, willing to moderate that to a possibility of partial forgiveness if he actually displays understanding of how he offended and reads my goddamn cite (or the papers it references).
Lilairen, I still don’t really understand why I pissed you off so much. I do think that you’re attributing motivations to me that I didn’t have. I’ll read your cite and see if it helps me understand where you’re coming from.
It’s not about your ‘motivations’, it’s about what you actually did. That you didn’t intend to do it - well, your own first post to Lilairen demonstrates that you knew you were saying something inflammatory.
Your ‘apology’ is bullshit. It’s not that you passed ‘moral judgment’, it’s that you still continue to act like you think your approach and arguments were somehow valid. Here’s the apology you should have sent:
“I was a total jackass and I apologize. I didn’t know what I was talking about, and made several offensive and ignorant statements. I will try to educate myself on the topic before bringing it up again, and I realize that my speculations about your background were inappropriate and irrelevent to my point. Again, I am very sorry.”
An apology doesn’t begin with “If”, Dio. What a fucking weasel you truly are.
The short response to this is, “I do not think that loving and being loved is worthy of pity.”
You said that women in polygamous relationships were victims worthy of pity – and treated me like I had to be such a creature. You characterised my family as a pattern of seeking chaos without knowing a damn thing about it beyond the fact that it is not centred around a monogamous relationship, based solely on your assumption that there has to be something wrong with me for me to love wonderful people.
You also said that the men in such relationship systems were pigs – in fact, you called my husband a pig pretty directly, as he is a member of this board in good standing and was reading (and, for that matter, posting to) that thread. I don’t know about you, but where I come from slamming someone’s spouse is fighting words.
You demonstrated no interest in understanding the subject, only in trying to fit me into the pattern you envisioned – complete with an attempt to accuse me of promiscuity, which is something that has a significant amount of historical usage as an attempt to put women in their place and establish social control over them.
The cite is an overview of psychological research done on people in open relationships; it is casually written (a rewrite of a talk given by its author to other psych professionals) but has references to the research on which it is based. I have also seen references to a more recent paper dealing with the comparative long-term stability of open and monogamous relationships (pretty much identical), but do not have a link to it; it was referenced in casual conversation.
Irrelevant. He made the same kind of accusation against women who mentionned they have had sex while underage with adult men.
** Diogenes ** seems to have some sort of problem with women who enjoy or enjoyed sexual relationships that fit in his self-defined “abused woman” category. Their protests are irrelevant. They must be in denial or have been victimized as children. He knows better.
I can’t understand why a generally rational poster has such an irrational way of thinking regarding these issues and seems unable to realize that other people know better than him what they feel and what their life history is. And to ponder the possibility that it might be his categorizations which are faulty and need to be rethought. He believes something to be universally true and if the facts (in the form of the testimonies of dopers) disagree with his beliefs, the facts must be wrong and can be safely ignored.
** Diogenes **, think about it. If you had a theory of your own about homosexuality, for instance, you could similarily state : “You just believe you’re enjoying homosexual relationships. Actually, inside, you’re miserable, you just don’t know it and are in denial. Men can’t have satisfying sex with men, and you must have some sort of issue if you engage in it.” There’s really no difference. Once again, people know better than you what they feel. And there are great differences between people, expecially regarding sex. You should really ponder that and wonder what kind of issue you have regarding women’s sexuality.
May 2 cents:
I’d give the apology a C.
You left out the part about saying any polygamist is a “pig” and any woman attached to said polygamist is just part of a “pig’s harem”*. You claimed that she must have been abused and that any denial is a sign of rationalization.
Why not apologize for and retract the exact comments you made in the thread? And while you’re at it, admit that you’re not a psychiatrists at that attempting to psycho-analyze someone on a messaeg board is wrong.
The last paragraph is the best part, but you need more.
It’s hard to apologize appropriately. It’s not something we learn in school. As someone already noted, “if” isn’t a good way to apologize (try “that”) and neither is “but”. Just say you’re sorry and end it at that.
*sure, you posted that before Lilairen entered the thread, but you had to know someone would take it personally. Lilairen is a poster in almost every polygamy thread I’ve seen here… no need to insult people in advance.
A first name, shared by tens, perhaps hundreds of thosuands, is rather difficult to use against a person.
Enjoy,
Steven
My first posts on the Dope were in a Pit thread about whether or not open relationships work. 
I’m consistent!
Me either.
I was talking about the kind of polygamy with one dominant male and a bunch of subservient wives. I draw a distinction (and I should have done this before) between polygamy of that sort and more equitable (non-exploitive) polyamorous paradgms. My problem with the former (which I won’t apologize for) is the extreme potential for exploitation and debasement of women. Those are the guys who I think are pigs. Those are the women I feel sympathy for.
I don’t “pity” you. I don’t think your husband is a “pig.” All I was trying to say about non-exploitive, polyamorous relationships (and I will divorce your situation from this because I’m trying to make a general statement, not a personal one) is that they are likely to lack intimacy. I know from the shit I went through dealing with my own trauma history that people with trauma histories tend to avoid intimacy. I also learned from my own shrink (there’s my cite, people- my shrink) that people who don’t like intimacy (or who seem to be avoiding it by avoiding monogamy) are likely (not guaranteed) to have had trauma histories.
If I’m wrong about anything, it’s my assumption that poly relationships will tend to lack intimacy. I’m still trying to read your cite. If I’m wrong in that assumption then I’m probably wrong in assuming trauma histories for women in (non-exploitive) poly relationships. If that’s the case, then I’ll apologize for making that assumption.
I dunno. It seemed like a pretty sincere and thoughtful apology to me, but then, I’m not the one who has to accept it. I wouldn’t have expected him to apologize for each and every statement in that conversation that could be taken as an affront; the spirit of the apology is more important, IMHO, than the letter.
The spirit is precisely where the problem is.
“Bring up any bad feelings” sounds like he’s saying “I’m sorry I reminded you of your horrible past” and “anything immoral” (second time he uses the word in his ‘apology’) isn’t and never was the point. He did say he was sorry “if” he got too personal, which is sort of a step, but again, what’s this “if” business? Gee, what’s her problem not accepting this, it’s practically seppuku. :rolleyes:
I would still like an answer to the points in my OP, but what are the odds.
Why do you have such a hard on about this? What the fuck business is it of yours?
That’s a fine fucking question coming from you!
Your first response to me was “I’m going to get killed for saying this, but I’m guessing you must have gone through some serious childhood trauma (abandonment, maybe? alcoholic parent? Something worse?) to want to live with this much chaos and fear of intimacy.” You continued to harp on this theme of the horrible traumas I must have suffered throughout the thread, characterising my family as “a result of damage” and me as “unhealthy”.
I chose “pity” as what you were expressing, because the other option I perceived was “contempt”.
Kalhoun posted “You accused her of being non-feminist, and you called her husband and lover “pigs”. Or is she the pig?”
You responded, quoting that post, “Oh, the men are definitely pigs. It’s only the women I think are unhealthy.” (post #92 in the GD thread)
You said my husband was definitely a pig in response to a question specifically about him, unless for some reason you think that he is not a man. If you do not actually hold this belief, why were you so vehement about insisting it was the case in GD?
If you did not intend to convey insult with that, you need to adjust your language to be able to communicate clearly. I would suggest fewer sweeping generalisations.
And as a general statement, you have no basis for this other than your prejudice. When you were questioned on this by cthiax, you said, “The more people who are involved in a relationship the less intimacy it has and the more inherently unstable. What a stupid question.” No cite, no evidence, just blind assertion of axiom.
For a little gratuitous personal sharing here, I don’t do group relationship. My lover is no more “a part of” my relationship with my husband than any one of my friends is “a part of” my relationship with any one of my other friends. If having multiple people involved in interactions is so intrinsically unstable, it would preclude anyone from having healthy interactions with anyone other than their mate. (I believe it is generally considered the case that humans are social animals and need a certain breadth of social interaction; further, I am not aware of a situation in which someone’s social contact was limited to their mate that was not abusive.)
The OP of the original thread, AerynSun, responded to that argument with “Does this mean that the more children I have, the less intimate and more unstable my relationship with each is?” (I do not believe she is aware that this is a fairly common response from polyfolk to that argument; it’s not one I personally care for.)
I will await your retraction, then.
Once again, Dio exhibits the integrity he’s so well known for.
In spite of all your bullshit attempts to suggest otherwise, I never made any attempt to “pry” or get information out of Lilairen at all. I said “I’m guessing…” I never expected an answer but (I thought) she had implied one anyway from some of the other things she said.
You made a bunch of suggestions about my life and history and then harped on them consistently when I chose not to explicitly deny them. In order to satisfy you or shut you up I had to provide you with personal information.
No I did NOT “harp” on them. I made generic statements about people with trauma histories. You kept projecting yourself into every statement I made.
I’m starting to suspect that it won’t be possible for me to submit any apology that you would accept that would be sincere on my part. We’ll see. I’m not going to apologize for anything I haven’t said or thought.
I guess that was a moment of pile-on exhaustion. My exchanges with kalhoun had started in the other thread and mostly pertained the Tom Green brand of polygamy. That was some tired reading on my part, I guess. I don’t rembember relating that question to you in my mind. I was talking about the creepy guys with harems, not all poly paradigms.