There is nothing wrong in wanting sexual exclusivity, in the same way there is nothing wrong in wanting more than one partner.
Seeing either as “oppression” is limited mindset.
I literally linked you law. <img src=“https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/6dedb145-206a-4b35-ab5e-c9e41e1130c7.png” alt=“Amerikkka” width=“24” height=“auto”> law. Law that is used to litigate the divorce industry. These people are sexual leopards. It’s morally wrong to apply sexual exclusivities in order to sexual oppress partners. You can believe sexual exclusivities and romance rn’t modern moral quandaries, but these are the leopards eating each others faces party, using law to justify their oppressions.
Be aware, as a black anarchist polyeros, I disavow these domineers. But stating facts as I observe them doesn’t mean I avow sexual oppressions.
Yeah but it’s too much redpilled jargon to be understood by a simple mortal like me. So I’ll leave you to it since it’s starting to sound a lot like “anyone that doesn’t have my specific and niche point of view is an enemy and must be educated” and I don’t feel like being educated by someone that uses this amount of emoticons
That’s a broken link, but am I correct in assuming that you are claiming the high rate of divorce in the US compared to countries that practice polygamy is due to some kind of expectation of monogamy and not due to something like the legality of no fault divorce?
I am claiming these sexual oppressors profit through litigations, not dishonesty & contract litigations. The spectacle is clearly captioned as “McCheating on my wife,” and not “McLying to my [sexually liberated] partner.” Let’s not deny there are profit incentives in these relationships.
Is it sexual oppression if both parties consented to the relationship being predicated on monogamy?
“McCheating on my wife,” and not “McLying to my [sexually liberated] partner.”
Again, I’m a bit confused on what your definition of sexually liberated really means.
Let’s not deny there are profit incentives in these relationships
I don’t think many relationships are started with profit incentive on their mind. Plus, no one in the US can force you to agree to a monogamist marriage if you didn’t first agree to it.
It is sexual oppression to demand others exclusive sexual rights to a parner, and use law and state force to dominate it.
Imo oppression implies a lack of consent. I don’t see oppression happening when two people consent to enter a legal agreement based on mutual monogamy. I would feel less okay if you were not allowed to break that contract at any point, or if the penalties for breaking the contract were unknown or unusually extreme. Or even if there were no ways to legally modify the contract to include consentual exceptions before entering the agreement.
How are you confused about consentual liberated sexual societies? My definition is quite anarchist.
In your last comment it seemed to imply that we were already in a liberated sexual society, which seemed to be untrue by your terms.
Then “gold digger” would not be a term, esp. in family & divorce litigation. Please update your thoughts on current year matrimony incentives.
I don’t think there are a significant amount of gold diggers out there. That seems to be more of a concept that is amplified by the patriarchal aspects of social hierarchy. Plus there are prenuptial agreements that both parties could consent to if they were really that worried. I think a more legitimate concern when it comes to marriage finances is how a lot of labour that women conduct in the relationship isn’t financially recognized.
parents still sell children to marriage against their consent. So I urge you to remove this “thought” from your mind.
I have been predicating all of my arguments based on consenting adults, and children cannot consent. I think we can all agree no one was arguing in favor of child marriage, and you just inserted a fairly large strawman argument.
Also, I’m not the one down voting your responses. I’m not trying to be overly critical, I think you have a unique perspective and I’m just trying to comprehend fully what you are trying to say.
Eh, out of all political, social economic, and environmental issues we have today total sexual autonomy isn’t very high on the priority list. It’s more of a secondary issue to our patriarchal social hierarchy imo.
I don’t think anyone was trying to claim shaming culture wasn’t still around. I’m not sure what all entails to your use of the term monogamous domineers.
Is the wife domineering over the husband by divorcing him? Wouldn’t that just allow him to be sexually liberated to sleep with whom he wants?
What is the alternative in this scenario? For the man to continue being sexually liberal and force his wife to either adopt his views or be in a relationship structure she does not consent too?
The wives, 3+, are using this spectacle to shame the dishonest man. How do you not see shaming culture is dominating both, the relationship, the public, and the legal system?
What is the alternative in this scenario?
I gave 4 examples already, on how to liberally praxis liberal sexual autonomy, and still deal with a dishonest individual. I am not sure how I can make it more boomer literate for you. May I also suggest you research modern day sexual liberation research on your own?
wives, 3+, are using this spectacle to shame the dishonest man. How do you not see shaming culture is dominating both, the relationship, the public, and the legal system?
Again, I never made the argument that shame culture wasn’t widely prevalent, influential, or good.
I gave 4 examples already, on how to liberally praxis liberal sexual autonomy, and still deal with a dishonest individual. I am not sure how I can make it more boomer literate for you. May I also suggest you research modern day sexual liberation research on your own?
This comment was made before you specified your criticism was about the concept and not aimed solely a particular individual in this example.
keep on educating yourself on dominant state monogamist enforcement oppressions
Again… When have I defended the action of the state?
leave my sexually liberated polycule alone.
I haven’t even been critical of your sexual inclusivity, nor would I want to do anything to your relationships? I don’t even think the state should really be involved in how we organize our relationships. Short of that happening, I think the state should expand legal benefits/protections to anyone who wants them.
Cheating isn’t about monogamy, it’s about lack of respect for the other part
Not in Mcnogamy. These are sexual domineers.
We both comprehend intimacy betrayal.
Heck, even dignity tarnish.
But sexual oppression, in the 21st‽
There is nothing wrong in wanting sexual exclusivity, in the same way there is nothing wrong in wanting more than one partner.
Seeing either as “oppression” is limited mindset.
I literally linked you law. <img src=“https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/6dedb145-206a-4b35-ab5e-c9e41e1130c7.png” alt=“Amerikkka” width=“24” height=“auto”> law. Law that is used to litigate the divorce industry. These people are sexual leopards. It’s morally wrong to apply sexual exclusivities in order to sexual oppress partners. You can believe sexual exclusivities and romance rn’t modern moral quandaries, but these are the leopards eating each others faces party, using law to justify their oppressions.
Be aware, as a black anarchist polyeros, I disavow these domineers. But stating facts as I observe them doesn’t mean I avow sexual oppressions.
As a polyero, would you start a relationship with someone that wants a monogamous relationship?
please read the 🧵. I already answered this question, twice.
Yeah but it’s too much redpilled jargon to be understood by a simple mortal like me. So I’ll leave you to it since it’s starting to sound a lot like “anyone that doesn’t have my specific and niche point of view is an enemy and must be educated” and I don’t feel like being educated by someone that uses this amount of emoticons
You can also pick up a book.
But thank you for disengaging.🙇
“I linked you a paper please agree”
Lmao. You scream about liberation yet you’re the one wanting to control other people’s relationships.
Reading comprehension maybe another thing Mcnogamists lack. Try rereading @ruby@lemmy.dbzer0.com, AdolfSchmitler, @athatet@lemmy.zip, & @azalea_flower@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Ayyo. Get my name outcha damn mouth.
your rank.
I’m not clicking on your weirdass links.
That’s a broken link, but am I correct in assuming that you are claiming the high rate of divorce in the US compared to countries that practice polygamy is due to some kind of expectation of monogamy and not due to something like the legality of no fault divorce?
I am claiming these sexual oppressors profit through litigations, not dishonesty & contract litigations. The spectacle is clearly captioned as “McCheating on my wife,” and not “McLying to my [sexually liberated] partner.” Let’s not deny there are profit incentives in these relationships.
Is it sexual oppression if both parties consented to the relationship being predicated on monogamy?
Again, I’m a bit confused on what your definition of sexually liberated really means.
I don’t think many relationships are started with profit incentive on their mind. Plus, no one in the US can force you to agree to a monogamist marriage if you didn’t first agree to it.
It is sexual oppression to demand others exclusive sexual rights to a parner, and use law and state force to dominate it.
How are you confused about consentual liberated sexual societies? My definition is quite anarchist.
Then “gold digger” would not be a term, esp. in family & divorce litigation. Please update your thoughts on current year matrimony incentives.
Now I utterly need you to update your legal understanding of <img src=“https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/6dedb145-206a-4b35-ab5e-c9e41e1130c7.png” alt=“Amerikkka” width=“24” height=“auto”> law. I am not going to counsel you in law. A lot of <img src=“https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/6dedb145-206a-4b35-ab5e-c9e41e1130c7.png” alt=“Amerikkka” width=“24” height=“auto”>parents still sell children to marriage against their consent. So I urge you to remove this “thought” from your mind.
Imo oppression implies a lack of consent. I don’t see oppression happening when two people consent to enter a legal agreement based on mutual monogamy. I would feel less okay if you were not allowed to break that contract at any point, or if the penalties for breaking the contract were unknown or unusually extreme. Or even if there were no ways to legally modify the contract to include consentual exceptions before entering the agreement.
In your last comment it seemed to imply that we were already in a liberated sexual society, which seemed to be untrue by your terms.
I don’t think there are a significant amount of gold diggers out there. That seems to be more of a concept that is amplified by the patriarchal aspects of social hierarchy. Plus there are prenuptial agreements that both parties could consent to if they were really that worried. I think a more legitimate concern when it comes to marriage finances is how a lot of labour that women conduct in the relationship isn’t financially recognized.
I have been predicating all of my arguments based on consenting adults, and children cannot consent. I think we can all agree no one was arguing in favor of child marriage, and you just inserted a fairly large strawman argument.
Are you claiming that in countries that have legal polygamy there is no sexual oppression?
Never.
That shaming culture is alive and well in 21c, and Monogamous domineers exist, still.
Also, I’m not the one down voting your responses. I’m not trying to be overly critical, I think you have a unique perspective and I’m just trying to comprehend fully what you are trying to say.
Ah. Learn some anarchism.
I think that’s a bit patronizing, total sexual inclusivity is not a very large focus of anarchist literature as a whole.
In fact, Murray Bookchin is one of my favorite political writers.
Then keep on reading more anarchist writings on what it means to have total sexual autonomy, and total relationship agencies.
Unlike statists, I don’t use cops to maintain my autonomies and agency.
Eh, out of all political, social economic, and environmental issues we have today total sexual autonomy isn’t very high on the priority list. It’s more of a secondary issue to our patriarchal social hierarchy imo.
I don’t think anyone was trying to claim shaming culture wasn’t still around. I’m not sure what all entails to your use of the term monogamous domineers.
Is the wife domineering over the husband by divorcing him? Wouldn’t that just allow him to be sexually liberated to sleep with whom he wants?
What is the alternative in this scenario? For the man to continue being sexually liberal and force his wife to either adopt his views or be in a relationship structure she does not consent too?
The wives, 3+, are using this spectacle to shame the dishonest man. How do you not see shaming culture is dominating both, the relationship, the public, and the legal system?
I gave 4 examples already, on how to liberally praxis liberal sexual autonomy, and still deal with a dishonest individual. I am not sure how I can make it more boomer literate for you. May I also suggest you research modern day sexual liberation research on your own?
Again, I never made the argument that shame culture wasn’t widely prevalent, influential, or good.
This comment was made before you specified your criticism was about the concept and not aimed solely a particular individual in this example.
Then keep on educating yourself on dominant state monogamist enforcement oppressions, and leave my sexually liberated polycule alone. Mcpisce?
Again… When have I defended the action of the state?
I haven’t even been critical of your sexual inclusivity, nor would I want to do anything to your relationships? I don’t even think the state should really be involved in how we organize our relationships. Short of that happening, I think the state should expand legal benefits/protections to anyone who wants them.