--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > And now Barry's hallucinating that *Raunchy* > > was talking about polyamory! > > Raunchydog was projecting a bent, feminist > sexism onto the word "polygamy,"
Barry, you can't wipe out your howling errors in this thread by snipping my explanation of what they were: > > Nor did he notice, apparently, that she was > > quoting somebody else. > > > He also didn't notice that the person she was > > quoting was making a *devil's advocate* argument, > > even though that's explicitly stated in the first > > paragraph he quotes. > > > He has no idea whatsoever what it is that's being > > argued in Raunchy's post, but on the basis of his > > total confusion he accuses Raunchy of being > > sexist and, in a later post, a bigot. You screwed up, badly. You were so hot to find a way to attack Raunchy that you didn't bother to read her post. You do this *all the time*. You try to make yourself look smart by dumping on somebody else--preferably a woman--and end up making yourself look REEEEELY REEEEEELY STOOOOPID. And then when you get self-defensive and try to cover up your errors, as in the post I'm responding to, you just look REEEEELY REEEEEELY STOOOOOPIDER. > which *describes* a form of polyamorous marriage. > Only one form, as it turns out, and you did it, > too, getting all defensive Here's Judy "getting all defensive": > > Did you hallucinate that I mentioned polyamorous > > marriage? Judy's *making fun of Barry*. > because you had said that there were "good reasons" > for not allowing polygamy, I said no such thing. You were in too much of a hurry to challenge me, in the hope that I'd give you something to attack me about, that you didn't read what *I* said either. Let's have another look, shall we? ----- > If there were a movement in favor of incestuous > marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as > substantial as there is in favor of same-sex > marriage, you might have a point (although there > would still be good arguments against it), but > there isn't. ----- Now, what did I tell Shemp there was a good argument against? BIG HINT: It wasn't polygamy. > and then tried to wiggle your way out of it by > quibbling words. Here's Judy "quibbling words": > > Did you hallucinate that I mentioned polyamorous > > marriage? Judy was *making fun* of Barry. > 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. Gosh, that's big of you. But as it happens, most *polyamorists* don't think of polygamy as a form of polyamory. That's just your peculiar definition. In any case, the polygamy Raunchy and I were both referring to, of course, *was* the patriarchal type. If you had been following the actual argument instead of trying to find a way to dump on Raunchy and me, you'd know it wouldn't have made any sense to refer to any other kind. > 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. Nope. You've got the sequence backwards. Raunchy quoted the devil's advocate argument you're so freaked out about *before* you asked your question. You didn't "bring out" a thing but your inability to read, your penchant for trying to impose your idiosyncratic definitions on everybody else, and your burning need to attack others that's so urgent you can't take the time to figure out what they're actually talking about. You read the phrase "men are sexually voracious" and immediately said to yourself, "Aha! I can use this to attack Raunchy!" *Of course* it's a sexist assumption. That was the whole *point*, dumbass. Plus which, all the feminists *I* know insist women have just as strong sexual appetites as men. So it's not a "feminist" argument at all; to the contrary. Knowing he's in a hole, Barry just can't stop digging: > 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. :-) In fact, you haven't got a *clue* as to what Raunchy or I think about sexuality. And given your knee-jerk reaction to what Raunchy quoted, you're hardly in a position to accuse anybody else of not being "sexually rational." That one phrase freaked you out so badly your mind just stopped working. > 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? Bullcrap. The TM movement did not shape my view of sex and sexuality even a little tiny bit, and I'm probably one of the least sexually ignorant or repressed people you've ever encountered.
