--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > And now Barry's hallucinating that *Raunchy* was > talking about polyamory!
Raunchydog was projecting a bent, feminist sexism onto the word "polygamy," which *describes* a form of polyamorous marriage. Only one form, as it turns out, and you did it, too, getting all defensive because you had said that there were "good reasons" for not allowing polygamy, and then tried to wig- gle your way out of it by quibbling words. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you were probably thinking of the word "polygamy" as most people; that is, as practiced by Mormons; that is, a form of sexist patriarchy. It is not the only form of polygamy or poly- amorous marriage, which my post was intended to bring out. Instead it brought out in Raunchydog only her standard hatred of men and tendency to speak about them in cliches. WRONG cliches, scientifically, but she doesn't care about that. The problem is probably really mine. I had been lured into a false sense of being able to deal with sexually-rational human beings by being back in France again. I should have known better to bring up real discussions of sex and sexuality with sexual barbarians. :-) For the record, that is what I consider most members of this forum, although that is not entirely their fault. On the whole, the mem- bers of this forum have grown up in and had their sensibilities shaped by two of the most sexually-ignorant and sexually-repressed cultures on the planet -- 1) America, and 2) the TM movement. How *could* they have a balanced view of sex and sexuality?
