--mmmm hmmmm. And what did you have for dinner? ...listening.....
- 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," 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? >
