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.
reread what, your comments about how not wanting a partner to cheat on you somehow equals sexual oppression? wouldn’t policing what kind of relationships people are allowed to have (aka what you’re trying to do) be closer to domineering?
I never said anything about my partners, or my choices, but those in that snapchat, that made it all the way to threadiverse!
I don’t police. The people in the snapchat do.
They even made it a spectacle!
they police that the guy is lying to his wife and having a secret relationship behind her back, and they’re very right to police that. cheating on a person you supposedly love for life is vile and disgusting and the wife has every right to be upset that her husband is secretly pursuing romantic partners behind her back (and judging by the sitting woman’s expression, she likely doesn’t know, so he’s likely hiding his marriage from her too).
is posing with a sign in public and making a scene distasteful? yeah, might be. but it’s nowhere as bad as cheating.
that’s also assuming that the situation is real, which i doubt. but it applies to all cheaters in general regardless of this specific image.
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.
If you agree children cannot consent to matrimony, then you have to agree “many relationships are started with profit incentive on their mind. Plus, [some] in the US can force you to agree to a monogamist marriage if you didn’t first agree to it.” Otherwise the state wouldn’t even consider marriage as component of their litigation, whatsoever.
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.
Removed by mod
“I linked you a paper please agree”
Lmao. You scream about liberation yet you’re the one wanting to control other people’s relationships.
Removed by mod
reread what, your comments about how not wanting a partner to cheat on you somehow equals sexual oppression? wouldn’t policing what kind of relationships people are allowed to have (aka what you’re trying to do) be closer to domineering?
I never said anything about my partners, or my choices, but those in that snapchat, that made it all the way to threadiverse!
I don’t police. The people in the snapchat do.
They even made it a spectacle!
they police that the guy is lying to his wife and having a secret relationship behind her back, and they’re very right to police that. cheating on a person you supposedly love for life is vile and disgusting and the wife has every right to be upset that her husband is secretly pursuing romantic partners behind her back (and judging by the sitting woman’s expression, she likely doesn’t know, so he’s likely hiding his marriage from her too).
is posing with a sign in public and making a scene distasteful? yeah, might be. but it’s nowhere as bad as cheating.
that’s also assuming that the situation is real, which i doubt. but it applies to all cheaters in general regardless of this specific image.
This is where we disagree, morally, politically, and ethically. And why
I disavowed this anti-autonomy act.
But is child marriage ok?
It was. Scroll up to the tumblr proof.
Ayyo. Get my name outcha damn mouth.
your rank.
I’m not clicking on your weirdass links.
then stop downranking what everyone can see ¯\(ツ)/¯
lol no 😘
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.🙇
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.
If you agree children cannot consent to matrimony, then you have to agree “many relationships are started with profit incentive on their mind. Plus, [some] in the US can force you to agree to a monogamist marriage if you didn’t first agree to it.” Otherwise the state wouldn’t even consider marriage as component of their litigation, whatsoever.
I think that is a false dichotomy. You can believe child marriage should not exist while also believing that gold digging is not a significant issue.
How would the state open litigation if you did not agree to get married?