So sick of hearing about you “poly” people and your “open relationships”. No, you’re not evolved or secure, you’re either
A) a sex addict
B) a cheat
C) in the closet; or
D) you’re just an emotionally-constipated commitment-phobe. Whatever your shtick is and whatever you’re selling, I’m not buying.
—Callin’ it like it is
This article appears in Jun 4-10, 2015.
They’re not selling “anything”. That’s probably why you’re so butthurt. My question is, who gives a rat’s ass. Consenting adults, durka durka, herpa derpa – if it feels good, and harms nobody – do it and if you’re not invited, tough shit. Save your Readers Digest style psych evals for yelling at the TV screen when you’re watching Dr. Phil.
I vote E) Confused
Ugh. They are the worst.
Well this is just ignorant and silly, it’s like complaining someone’s gay or transwhatever. Why do you give a remote shit about anything they’re doing? You’re like the old lady looking at people from her picture window and calling the cops cause everyone that walks by is “up to no good”. If it really bothers you then chalk it up to two people that shouldn’t have gotten married like a lot of other “normal” relationships you see everyday.
The problem is that people try to identify as a small and insignificant part of themselves. They need to be something other than who they are; so they can accept their own self. Then they feel the need to educate the rest of us; and get angry when we could care less. Silly.
Agreed 100% with My Lord and Saviour. I’m only too damned happy to mind my own damned business. Stop putting me to the test and don’t cry “Hate Crime” when I appear to be underwhelmed by your metamorphosis. I’m neither enemy nor ally (Judas H. Priest, how I hate that word)- I simply don’t give a fuck.
http://www.polyamorytoronto.ca/
Wanna play with me?
I think the OB cares too much about his Lord and Savior’s monogamy rule.
By “Lord and Saviour” I did, of course, mean Jesus Sonovabitch and not that boring old hippie who was born in a shed and went around telling everybody what to do until he came a cropper with a pair of rum coves on a hillside in Johnny-Arabland
Ya I got that, you don’t seem like the religious type, blue waffle.
Well, you’ve ruined watching Dr. Phil for me.
‘You are calling it like it is’ for you that is. They probably could not care less what you think and are off having a good time doing what they do – sans you. Some of them may have an ‘a’ ‘b’ ‘c’ ‘d’ list of what you may be, but then again may be non-judgemental enough not to give a fig or care what your sex life is about.
I think you should fuck who you want, when you want, where you want, how you want and for whatever reason. In fact, I command you to do this!
With that said, my wine date with MM has just gotten a whole lot more promising!
Jesus Nukka, they’re going to the zoo!
First of all, OB, I think you are confusing the words pollyamorous and pollyanna.
A pollyanna is a person who is excessively optimistic. It comes from the childrens’ novel “Pollyanna’ by E.H. Porter.
You are, of course, concerned with polyamory. I’m sure there are exceptions but the evidence I have seen is that polyamory is something that is typically proposed by males who want to keep a female partner(s) on the hook in case they don’t have any dating success. I guess you can’t blame them for trying but it doesn’t speak well of either party to such an agreement. If she agrees, it suggests that the female has such low self esteem that she will allow herself to be a reserve and “on call”. It also suggests that the male lacks the confidence to strike out and look for new partners – i.e. to be a serial monogamist.
Anyway, that’s The Owl’s view.
Jesus, that should be “you’re going to the zoo!”
Can’t wait to see the Pandas!
Canada is too accepting of everyone and everything. The pendulum will go back some day. This is why groups such as ISIL want to wipe us out. There are no morals any more. Everything goes.
If someone wants to be polyamorous that’s entirely up to them. What I utterly can’t stand, however, are those who claim that the monogamous are less evolved as people because we cling to what polys call a “social construct”. These polies are the same sociopathic assholes who’ll blame their victims for allowing their hearts to be broken. Why can’t people simply date, for chrissakes? Keep it in yer pants until you’re seeing someone exclusively.
OB, I can’t see what could be so horrible about consenting adults coming together who are on the same page about what they want out of their relationships. Maybe it’s alright to allow people to seek out experiences that will enable them to learn and grow in their own ways, even you, yourself, can’t see the positive benefits of those experiences. I don’t think your opinion on the mindset/rationale/intentions of those “sex addicts” and “cheats” can offer much, if any, insight.
An adult can not fully consent to sex if manipulated into having sex.
That is what is called a “truism,” a superficial conclusion following necessarily from the terms of the statement itself. Of course no one can “fully consent” to sex after having been “manipulated” into having sex since having been manipulated into having sex precludes the very possibility of full consent. Studied much logic lately?
The Riddle of Rape-by-Deception and the Myth of Sexual Autonomy
Jed Rubenfeld
122 Yale L.J. 1372 (2013).
“Rape-by-deception” is almost universally rejected in American criminal law. But if rape is sex without the victim’s consent—as many courts, state statutes, and scholars say it is—then sex-by-deception ought to be rape, because as courts have held for a hundred years in virtually every area of the law outside of rape, a consent procured through deception is no consent at all. Moreover, rejecting rape-by-deception fails to vindicate sexual autonomy, which is widely viewed today as rape law’s central principle and, indeed, as a constitutional right. This Article argues against the idea of sexual autonomy and against the understanding of rape as unconsented-to sex. A better understanding, it is argued, can be arrived at by comparing rape to slavery and torture, which are violations of a person’s fundamental right to self-possession. This view of rape can explain the rejection of rape-by-deception, which current thinking cannot, but it will also suggest that rape law’s much-maligned force requirement may not be so malign after all.
The charge of “Rape by Deception” does not exist in Canada and exists only in a few states in the USA.
My point was logical, not legal. You must try to keep your categories distinct.