User Tag List

First 4191131139140141142143151 Last

Results 1,401 to 1,410 of 1614

  1. #1401
    typology curator Xann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evilrubberduckie View Post
    Alright. So I think I know how to place my thoughts on this. @Xann, you might be interested. Since I am going to do some heavy duty disintegration on your video.

    The concept of marriage is universal but even that is arguable. The way you define marriage isn't the same way someone else defines it. So putting the ideals of marriage in a neat little box and placing a bow on it is laughable.

    The vows being said. Also laughable. Since we all know that people break those vows consistently anyway. Most of the time behind the spouses back. Hell, sometimes its being broken without our own knowledge. So having them said is pretty much pointless. A romantic idea.

    Humans also having one committed mate for life is also a romantic idea. Humans aren't meant for "one, and one only" if so, then divorce wouldn't even be an existing factor. But for those of us who ARE loyal and only have one partner at a time. You aren't proving to us that it can be done, all you are proving is that it's your preference to be with one, and one only. I mean, the human eye strays. You might not do anything or act on your impulses, but that doesnt mean you dont envision yourself with someone else on occasion. To some, even this process is considered to be adultery. Sadly, when it comes to mates, humans are not wolves. We dont mate for life. We mate until it's inconvenient to do otherwise.

    I see no problem with a marriage where both partner agree upon seeing someone else on the side. As long as communications holds a heavy factor in the relationship, it can even be healthy. As long as they are safe about it, and their partners outside the marriage know the situation and come to agreement on what their role is. Then all is fine and dandy. Once kids are put on the picture. Well, you just have to be mindful of them, and be good parents. I believe Kids should always come first. Even before your spouses needs and your needs. But that's just how I feel.

    How feminism plays a role in this? Well, TRUE feminism want EQUAL rights. That means, if the man gets to do it, so can the women. Both also have to start on fair and equal grounds. Meaning, if the women can fool around, so can the man.

    Once you limit who can and who cant. That's when it doesn't become feminism, just some power hungry grab tainting the name of feminism to all.
    Well, all I can say to that is that if you don't believe in the vows, don't get married in the first place. The concept of marriage is constantly being eroded in society to the point where most people feel empowered to interpret it however they like, which goes completely against what the institution has historically been defined as for up until barely a wink of time ago human history-wise and the purposes it was created for in the first place. The ideals of marriage exist for a reason, without them, no one would bother getting married whether or not they fully believe in them, and society would rapidly disintegrate.

    How do you know that humans aren't meant for only one other? You have just as much actual proof of this as the alternative. Perhaps if the divorce laws weren't so inherently favourable to one particular side of a marriage (usually the woman due to how the resources are split), divorce wouldn't be the huge factor you see it to be.

    In the video, there was no mention of the man seeing any other woman on the side. It was simply the woman seeing other men. I would hazard a guess that if the man did attempt to see other women, his wife would promptly divorce him. Not only this, but due to the fact that he is the one doing most of the work raising the children, can you imagine the impact it would have on them if he began spending his time seeking sex and wining and dining other women besides the mother of his children? The problem with this paradigm is that there is nothing good that can come of this for the kids, and they are the ones who ultimately suffer.

    What you are describing with the "marriage where both partners see somebody on the side" is not really a marriage at all. Until you've actually tried this and seen it work and not had to justify all of the misgivings, lack of trust, negative consequences, and communication breakdown that occurs from this, consider me unconvinced that it's a good idea for you, let alone anyone else, especially where children are involved.

    The main issue that the video tries to bring up is that equating monogamy with patriarchal oppression is just completely wrong and blatantly misleading. It has about as much to do with feminism as your mom baking a cake for your dad on his birthday or your brother reaching for something on a high shelf for you because he's taller. Trying to make everything about feminism is not only intellectually dishonest but outright damaging to those who lack discernment.
    Likes SpankyMcFly, N/A liked this post

  2. #1402
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes Xann liked this post

  3. #1403
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    This post was referring to something that has been deleted from the thread by the NSA and The Hive Mindtm

    Ok, not really, but yeah, skip.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes Xann liked this post

  4. #1404
    The Senate Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    8,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    This post was referring to something that has been deleted from the thread by the NSA and The Hive Mindtm

    Ok, not really, but yeah, skip.
    You forgot to rope in the Illuminati and the Freemasons.
    Forget the dead you've left; they will not follow you.
    The vagabond who is rapping at your door, is standing in the clothes you once wore.

  5. #1405
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva View Post
    You don't think holding marriage vows as a tool to prevent you from sleeping with other men is also sexist?
    Marriage vows are not a tool. They are a commitment of one person to another, and the other to the one. If one person breaks their commitment, the other person is justified in feeling wronged and terminating the relationship. I am not faithful in my relationship because my spouse holds something over me, I am faithful because I care about him and I value my commitments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xann View Post
    I think he meant allowing within the context of not divorcing her if she broke her vows, or at least getting upset about it. This can go either direction in a marriage and is not in and of itself sexist, even if it did have the connotation you think it intends. Frequently I have heard tell of "wives allowing their husband" to do this or another thing. What word would you have chosen to use instead?
    I would say, "I can't put up with my spouse doing X", or "X is a dealbreaker for me in relationships". Then, it's all about what I will choose to do.

    Yes, I hear about women not letting their husband do this or that. More often, I hear men saying, "I wouldn't let my wife get a motorcycle/change a tire/deal with a clogged sink/etc." Usually they mean it in a protective way, trying to spare their wife hard or dirty work, or danger, or stress. Still, it comes off as patronizing. When women do it to men, it is domineering. Not good either way.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #1406
    Senior Member evilrubberduckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A None
    Posts
    794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xann View Post
    Well, all I can say to that is that if you don't believe in the vows, don't get married in the first place. The concept of marriage is constantly being eroded in society to the point where most people feel empowered to interpret it however they like, which goes completely against what the institution has historically been defined as for up until barely a wink of time ago human history-wise and the purposes it was created for in the first place. The ideals of marriage exist for a reason, without them, no one would bother getting married whether or not they fully believe in them, and society would rapidly disintegrate.
    Words and thier meanings change over time, so do values, cultures, and humans. C'est La Vie

    "Advance, and never halt, for advancing is perfection. Advance and do not fear the thorns in the path, for they draw only corrupt blood."
    -Kahlil Gibran


    What are you waiting for?
    Johari
    Nohari

  7. #1407
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Agreed, and it goes both ways. People should be together and faithful to each other out of choice, not control. I'm not in the position to "disallow" my husband to do anything, and he refuses to "disallow" anything for me, for which I'm deeply grateful. This isn't something feminism or I as a feminist forced on our marriage- actually, it's something his autonomous INTP nature insisted on, and was even a bit uncomfortable for me having been brought up in a controlling/sexist religious environment and married young. On some levels as a young wife I expected my husband to want to control me and wasn't sure how to respond when he was like "fuck that."

    Yes, my husband was a better feminist than me back then, and I've learned much of my feminism and sense of autonomy from him. Howdya like them apples, sexists?
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Presuming to allow or disallow your wife to do anything is sexist. If she breaks her marriage vows to you, you can divorce her, or give her a chance in counseling, etc. But you do not control her, only yourself.
    For god's sake you are mods - you more then anyone should at the very least have the basic understanding that what you allow or disallow isn't dependent on force but rather the consequences of how you choose to react - In the negative consequences you can cause from within your choices and the power you have on what you can provide or withhold. - and that such reactions don't need to be violent or physically forceful for those consequences to be a form of control and enforcement.

    The problem is that when agreements are made, complications arise. If you'd also have a basic understanding of responsibility, you would understand that this is not a neutral moment to moment decision divorced from the past and future, but a process built on trust and reliability in accounting for what you agree to do.
    For instance, if she commits to an exclusive relationship with the the blogger and he trusted in that commitment and made certain decisions and sacrifices in his life trusting that she would, or if she made decisions and sacrifices for him on the assumption that he'd be exclusive, either way they would have more to loose the more they build on the assumption that the other person can be trusted to what they commit too.

    And maybe we aren't entitled to force anyone to be held accountable to what they say... Except that as a society we do that all the time. If I make a purchase trusting that a shop owner will then deliver the product and doesn't, I have the legal ability to force them to stick by their commitment. In financial matters we try to hold people accountable to the promises they make as the norm, and it is completely acceptable, and we view not doing so as a sign of corruption. We attempt to hold our doctors and pharmaceuticals countable for the promises they make in treatments and meds, and when law enforcement in manipulates break their commitments to the citizens we tend to express outraged.

    And yet in all of those accounts you could equally say that it was your choice to trust whoever made the promises made. You bought the product, you signed the insurance policy, you chose to listen to your doctor, you chose to live where that police department operates, who are you to be entitled to hold them to their commitments?

    Perhaps you could say that personal relationships should be an exception, and I might agree to that, except that as in the topics we've already debated here - divorce laws - we also make plenty of exceptions there in regards to which commitments we hold people too, such as with the case of financial inter dependencies. And yet in other aspects we choose not too, because we value the ability to be flexible and adapt to new situations as they arise. But whether that situation can include finding out you'd rather sleep with someone else or finding out you don't have enough of that product in stock, is always a matter of negotiation we make as a society.

    The reality of the matter is, we negotiate which commitments should people be held accountable for on a case by case basis as a society, and there is no applied universal law that says we are not entitled to them, instead we simply use the words 'entitled' and 'deserving' interchangeably depending on whether we approve.
    Likes Also liked this post

  8. #1408
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    And maybe we aren't entitled to force anyone to be held accountable to what they say... Except that as a society we do that all the time. If I make a purchase trusting that a shop owner will then deliver the product and doesn't, I have the legal ability to force them to stick by their commitment. In financial matters we try to hold people accountable to the promises they make as the norm, and it is completely acceptable, and we view not doing so as a sign of corruption. We attempt to hold our doctors and pharmaceuticals countable for the promises they make in treatments and meds, and when law enforcement in manipulates break their commitments to the citizens we tend to express outraged.

    And yet in all of those accounts you could equally say that it was your choice to trust whoever made the promises made. You bought the product, you signed the insurance policy, you chose to listen to your doctor, you chose to live where that police department operates, who are you to be entitled to hold them to their commitments?
    As I wrote, you can only control yourself. Everything involves some level of risk. The law sometimes does allow us to hold others to their commitments, particularly where finances are involved. It's been a long time since we've punished people for adultery, though, at least in the U.S. And if there isn't a legal marriage, there is nothing for a law to enforce.

    Yes, it is your choice to trust the people with whom you have relationships, especially personal relationships. Unlike employer or landlord or even parental relationships, these are relatively unregulated by law. If you turn out to have made a poor judgment, or have hooked up with a particularly deceitful person, you can end up badly hurt. Unlike those insurance representatives, doctors, or police departments, friends and lovers aren't bound by truth in advertising laws, the hippocratic oath, or public accountability. You have fewer safeguards, so must do even more homework before making a commitment.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Osprey, Hard liked this post

  9. #1409
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    As I wrote, you can only control yourself. Everything involves some level of risk. The law sometimes does allow us to hold others to their commitments, particularly where finances are involved. It's been a long time since we've punished people for adultery, though, at least in the U.S. And if there isn't a legal marriage, there is nothing for a law to enforce.

    Yes, it is your choice to trust the people with whom you have relationships, especially personal relationships. Unlike employer or landlord or even parental relationships, these are relatively unregulated by law. If you turn out to have made a poor judgment, or have hooked up with a particularly deceitful person, you can end up badly hurt. Unlike those insurance representatives, doctors, or police departments, friends and lovers aren't bound by truth in advertising laws, the hippocratic oath, or public accountability. You have fewer safeguards, so must do even more homework before making a commitment.
    Yes, you have successfully repeated most of what I've just said.

    I will correct though the minor differences:
    1. Many places still regulate commitments made between lovers (a.k.a. divorce laws and alimony as well as their application to common law).
    2. They are perhaps more bound by public accountability then ever before, not by law but by the social media court room phenomena (I.E. Slut shaming).

  10. #1410
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    1. Many places still regulate commitments made between lovers (a.k.a. divorce laws and alimony as well as their application to common law).
    Generally only the financial aspects of the relationship are regulated, e.g. alimony and division of assets. I have never heard of courts in the modern age punishing anyone simply for infidelity, or requiring someone to stay in a marriage in order to fulfill their marriage vows.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    2. They are perhaps more bound by public accountability then ever before, not by law but by the social media court room phenomena (I.E. Slut shaming).
    As I understand it, slut shaming is generally reserved for women who want to "play the field" in lieu of a single committed relationship; not to women who enter a commited relationship and then violate it.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Osprey liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts