| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In Missouri a whole host of things including: anal sex, oral sex, funny
> positions, etc. are illegal.
I'm sure. You're right, in most states they are.
When was the last time anyone was convicted of them, though? When was the last
time someone was *arrested* for them?
> On the other hand, you
> don't see anyone in power campaigning to free people's minds either.
Given the state of politics in this country, it's pretty clearly not in the
politician's best interest to say "I am whole-heartedly in favor of having oral
sex." A politician who went on some sort of crusade to get those ridiculous
laws off the books would be committing professional suicide. So they remain
there, even if the politicians go home and break them themselves.
> To call it copping out implies that they're not doing what they're 'supposed'
> to.
Maybe you use the phrase differently than I do, but I'm not going to argue
semantics.
> And even if you
> don't really mean it like that, your choice of language still reflects an
> attitude.
And that has what bearing on anything?
> > or 2) really enjoying having open relationships for the more
> > obvious reasons.
>
> Yeah, I tend to attribute it to this. But that's a good thing, not a bad one.
> More fun is good as long as the cost isn't too high.
I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing. But by the same token (and this
is my only real point in any of this, so listen closely), I find it difficult
to really beleive that a person in an open relationship is as serious about
that relationship as someone who looks for, and finds, one person to be with.
Note that I am NOT saying that all monogamous relationships are automatically
more meaningful than any open relationships, even.
> > but I do think that
> > trying to pass it off as "enlightened", or, even worse, some kind of inborn
> > sexual preference (like being hetero-, bi-, or homo- sexual) is just a load
> > of
> > denial.
>
> And on exactly what evidence would you base such an untenable opinion.
On plenty of discussions and reading about polyamory, mostly with (or written
by) polyamorists. I just don't buy it, sorry.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Happens all the time, as do convictions. They just don't make the news much. Read Playboy (I do. Hell yes I look at the pictures, but there's a lot of good reading there!), they bring up the ridiculous nature of some of these morality laws all (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) a (...) state (...) make (...) The only problem that I see with this explanation is that it's made up. I mean, I think it is. At best it's conjecture. (...) Ummm...all of them. I assume that you mean state as in national government, not states (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
