Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
1
 :lulz:

Genius. Pure frigging genius right there.
2
I was thinking more RoboCop and I, Robot.

"You gotta read the fine print on the organ donor card"
3
This is how it starts.

Then it's "we must kill all humans to save living life in the universe" and "plug in the Skynet" and "your base are belong to us".  And then the wailing, and lamentations.
4
Fukken elektrick stove, REAL COOKING REQUIRES GAS!
IMPEDANCE REQUIRES RESISTANCE!
5
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« Last post by LuciferX on Today at 12:49:00 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.

Right on.  The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.

Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).

Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?

I tend to celebrate difference, and yes, that makes me quite alone.  For one, because monogamy admits the victory of love over any imaginary division we so delicately contrive.
6
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« Last post by Q. G. Pennyworth on Today at 12:43:15 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.

Right on.  The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.

Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).

Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
7
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« Last post by LuciferX on Today at 12:35:09 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.

Right on.  The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.
8
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« Last post by Q. G. Pennyworth on Today at 12:29:37 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.
9
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« Last post by LuciferX on Today at 12:25:27 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
10
The whole Duggar thing is fucked up beyond ALL belief, on so many levels. I won't even address it anywhere but this forum, because I've seen what happens if people get whiff that you might be taking anything other than the prescribed line on the subject; they go chicken on you, they think they see a red spot, and the next thing you know there's eighteen of them climbing over each other to try to pick all the meat off your facebones.

But I will say something here. I have actually tried really hard to avoid reading about it, because the last thing I need at the moment is to be horrified by nightmares that call up my own childhood. However, I did end up reading about it, because if I'm going to have to have this shit in my head, I want to know what actually happened because believe me, it's better than whatever my mind will invent in the absence of knowledge.

So basically, this kid who is perhaps 13-14 at the time when this started, is largely unsupervised in a family too big for parents to even start to spend adequate time with each child, in a repressive religion where sexuality isn't discussed other than as a shameful thing you don't do outside of marriage and procreation. So the little fuck starts groping the breasts of sleeping girls in his family, and also sometimes their crotches. He gets told on, and the dad tells their pastor, and instead of sending the kid to, say, a COUNSELOR or getting him any kind of actual help, they made him say he was sorry and send him to go spend the summer working on a deck with some asshole who is currently serving 56 years on a child porn possession conviction.

14-15 years later, it all comes to light, and everyone is supposed to hate the kid for being a pedophile. Because that's the right thing to do, right?

I would put money on him having been groped by someone higher up the chain. That doesn't excuse pedophilia, but I'm not at all convinced that a repressed 14-year-old is a pedophile.

Who's the villain, here? I would say that dad and pastor are the villains. Not to mention the creep they sent him to stay the summer with.

Thank you for this.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10