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.
Not when your laws dictate otherwise.🙃
Otherwise these laws wouldn’t not exist.
Not my laws? Nor have I defended all aspects of marriage law in general?
By suing you. Do you believe the state itself cannot sue, and is an inactive participant in domineering these laws?
For one, any examples of the state suing a person for not getting married because they did not want to enter a monogamist relationship? Secondly, even if there were examples… I am not defending the actions of the state.
Just because I’ve claimed that I do not have a problem with two consenting adults agreeing to a monogamist marriage, does not mean I agree with all aspects of marriage law, or that I agree with all actions committed by the state.
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?
Not when your laws dictate otherwise.🙃
Otherwise these laws wouldn’t not exist.
By suing you. Do you believe the state itself cannot sue, and is an inactive participant in domineering these laws?
Not my laws? Nor have I defended all aspects of marriage law in general?
For one, any examples of the state suing a person for not getting married because they did not want to enter a monogamist relationship? Secondly, even if there were examples… I am not defending the actions of the state.
Just because I’ve claimed that I do not have a problem with two consenting adults agreeing to a monogamist marriage, does not mean I agree with all aspects of marriage law, or that I agree with all actions committed by the state.