which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
True, but obviously that can go too far.
Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.
While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.
i have talked a little to some mormons, who really try to fit their marriages into traditional structures. it was kind of interesting because they acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily fit all that well, but that it's their conscious responsibility to try to fit the roles. the husbands need to learn to be responsible and decisive, even though it might not come naturally. the wives need to strive to be sensitive and supporting, though it might cut across their impulses.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.
This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
+3
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.
it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage
oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me
Serious response: i'm kind of going through a Thing(tm) right now so it's hard for me to say "I have an excellent long-term partnership!" But the things that are introducing stress in my life are the sorts of things that introduce stress into a lot of thirtysomethings' relationships - jobs, rent, ticking biological clocks. And I don't think that things would be significantly better if we were monogamous - just the flavor of suckage would be a little different.
It's not really an issue of trust, though. I mean, when you get to know somebody, and you get to know how they operate, that includes how they operate in other relationships, and from that familiarity and from shared experiences and mutual love and respect you (ideally) glean trust.
Meanwhile, part of the appeal of being nonmonogamous is that not every relationship has to be forever. Sometimes you want to have a relationship with somebody that only lasts a few months, and there's no pressure to progress on this timetable from dating to cohabitation to marriage to kids to retirement. That doesn't mean that those relationships weren't meaningful; it just means that you accept that they were finite. Just because a relationship doesn't have a long term doesn't make it a failure.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
True, but obviously that can go too far.
Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.
While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.
yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.
really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.
i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
i have talked a little to some mormons, who really try to fit their marriages into traditional structures. it was kind of interesting because they acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily fit all that well, but that it's their conscious responsibility to try to fit the roles. the husbands need to learn to be responsible and decisive, even though it might not come naturally. the wives need to strive to be sensitive and supporting, though it might cut across their impulses.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.
This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.
yeah one of my childhood friends - a mormon dude - decided he wasn't religious and couldn't be in a mormon marriage and broke up his family of i think 3 or 4 kids at the age of like 35. clearly it was a tough decision for him but he seems much happier who he is now.
by the same token, though, this guy is a really kind, generous, gentle, conscientious fellow. he works hard. he's responsible. he provides for his kids. he doesn't believe in the religion at all anymore, but concedes that he's grateful for a lot of the moral instruction and guidance that growing up mormon imposed on him.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
True, but obviously that can go too far.
Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.
While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.
yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.
really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.
i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.
hmm. reflecting upon that remark.
individual choices are both conditioned on, and have effects upon, aggregate cultural conditions
trying to coordinate visions of that culture through individual choices probably causes unnecessary amounts of grief and drama
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
i have talked a little to some mormons, who really try to fit their marriages into traditional structures. it was kind of interesting because they acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily fit all that well, but that it's their conscious responsibility to try to fit the roles. the husbands need to learn to be responsible and decisive, even though it might not come naturally. the wives need to strive to be sensitive and supporting, though it might cut across their impulses.
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.
This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.
yeah one of my childhood friends - a mormon dude - decided he wasn't religious and couldn't be in a mormon marriage and broke up his family of i think 3 or 4 kids at the age of like 35. clearly it was a tough decision for him but he seems much happier who he is now.
by the same token, though, this guy is a really kind, generous, gentle, conscientious fellow. he works hard. he's responsible. he provides for his kids. he doesn't believe in the religion at all anymore, but concedes that he's grateful for a lot of the moral instruction and guidance that growing up mormon imposed on him.
Yeah, fair enough.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.
True, but obviously that can go too far.
Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.
While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.
yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.
really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.
i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.
Agreed. Weirdly, it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Texas Primary season started today, so I've been inundated with many conservative political ads attesting to many candidates' "fiercely independent" attitudes.
It made me think about how many people that would enjoy being described as "fiercely independent" aren't insane assholes that need to be dropped into volcanoes. Outside of my LGBT friends, the answer is a remarkably small number.
Too many people conflate "individualism" with "mindless, oppressive anarchy" for the word to have any power left in it for me.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
There are certainly genetic (and epigenetic lol) predispositions to certain personality traits, which themselves might be predispositions to one relationship style or another.
Traits like extroversion, or variety-seeking.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
I'm interested if you could elaborate, if that's okay. It reads to me like a car crash.
Joel Watson & all the webcomic artists who failed to take Campbell's side of the spat - who are, themselves, fairly influential when talking about feminism and feminist issues, like David Willis - are just moving on with their lives, whilst Campbell is destroying achievements and burning bridges. I think the persuasive effect of doing so is improbable. So.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
There are certainly genetic (and epigenetic lol) predispositions to certain personality traits, which themselves might be predispositions to one relationship style or another.
Traits like extroversion, or variety-seeking.
Yeah, absolutely
I was more wondering if its more explicitly comparable to sexuality
in that someone can really be born poly- or mono-sexual, and there's a theoretical spectrum, etc.
and, like I said, I think that people have avoided that question because its a gigantic fucking minefield and even mentioning it I feel the need to create a long list of disclaimers that I'm not saying X, Y, or Z.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf
when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission
he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Many queer relationships come pre-loaded with drama and family baggage, making so many things normally taken for granted extremely anxiety-ridden and full of deeper portent than it should.
But basically I find it offensive how anthropologists project onto primitive (those that are far less advanced technologically and largely isolated) societies how they wish the world should be. Its almost always involves the phrase "The X don't have a word for <bad thing>." The culture in China @Atomika mentioned is an example.
The Mosuo are a patriarchal society. Males hold the the actual political power but women are heads of "households" which are more like clans or septs with multiple generations and far more distant relationships living in one house/compound for most of the people. Commoners trace their descent through these clans and property passes through these house lines. Men must ask a sexual partner for access to the "house" in order to stay the night. Neither men and women are prohibited from having more than one partner but in practice most sexual relationships are monogamous.
How did this happen? The Musuo were dominated by an aristocratic classes practice patrilinear monogamy in the same way as exists in most societies. Because power came through these marriages/descents they encourages or imposed a marriage-less matrilinear structure on the peasant and slave classes that make up most of the culture. Additionally, the masculine ideal and role for the male was to be a trader or to work on a caravan. Men were expected to be gone weeks or months at a time, if they returned at all. Rather than a female sexual partner living with her male partner's kin while he was away, she stayed with her mother, siblings, grandparents, etc.
These magic negrospeople supposedly have no word for murder, rape, war, father or jealousy. It helps that they are preliterate so these claims can't be disproven easily.
Posts
are you avfacing?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Always.
True, but obviously that can go too far.
Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.
While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.
Nope... still not time for Titanfall.
*check clock again*
me, too, bro
me too
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.
This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318
I love Patrick Warburton and I'll watch anything he (or his voice) are in.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh jesus.
yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.
really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.
i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.
http://boohooboo.tumblr.com/post/77377862645 is more informative
yeah one of my childhood friends - a mormon dude - decided he wasn't religious and couldn't be in a mormon marriage and broke up his family of i think 3 or 4 kids at the age of like 35. clearly it was a tough decision for him but he seems much happier who he is now.
by the same token, though, this guy is a really kind, generous, gentle, conscientious fellow. he works hard. he's responsible. he provides for his kids. he doesn't believe in the religion at all anymore, but concedes that he's grateful for a lot of the moral instruction and guidance that growing up mormon imposed on him.
He thinks he's Spider Jerusalem.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
Time to abandon London to the endless wars of the Titans.
papa bear is SO MAD
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Done.
Rush out the door leaving new server to do critical things while I cook cajun food for 40 people and probably drink a bunch of beers?
YESSS LETS GO
This feels perilous but fuck it. I have confidence it's working!
aaaaaaaaaaaa *panics*
I love that rant, by the way.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well that's a mental breakdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_3xrqjTyes
hmm. reflecting upon that remark.
individual choices are both conditioned on, and have effects upon, aggregate cultural conditions
trying to coordinate visions of that culture through individual choices probably causes unnecessary amounts of grief and drama
holy shit that guy really went off his fucking meds
set up a fight club in his basement
maybe more of a fight tumblr i guess
Yeah, fair enough.
Agreed. Weirdly, it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Texas Primary season started today, so I've been inundated with many conservative political ads attesting to many candidates' "fiercely independent" attitudes.
It made me think about how many people that would enjoy being described as "fiercely independent" aren't insane assholes that need to be dropped into volcanoes. Outside of my LGBT friends, the answer is a remarkably small number.
Too many people conflate "individualism" with "mindless, oppressive anarchy" for the word to have any power left in it for me.
There are certainly genetic (and epigenetic lol) predispositions to certain personality traits, which themselves might be predispositions to one relationship style or another.
Traits like extroversion, or variety-seeking.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I want this so bad
but my friends will be so salty when I kill them
DO NOT CARE, OFFLINE MULTIPLAYER IS THE BEST!
I'm interested if you could elaborate, if that's okay. It reads to me like a car crash.
Joel Watson & all the webcomic artists who failed to take Campbell's side of the spat - who are, themselves, fairly influential when talking about feminism and feminist issues, like David Willis - are just moving on with their lives, whilst Campbell is destroying achievements and burning bridges. I think the persuasive effect of doing so is improbable. So.
Until drama. Oh god drama sucks.
the first rule about fight tumblr: you do not talk about fight tumblr without a trigger warning
i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy
Yeah, absolutely
I was more wondering if its more explicitly comparable to sexuality
in that someone can really be born poly- or mono-sexual, and there's a theoretical spectrum, etc.
and, like I said, I think that people have avoided that question because its a gigantic fucking minefield and even mentioning it I feel the need to create a long list of disclaimers that I'm not saying X, Y, or Z.
masterful
It's kind of sad watching a mental breakdown in real time.
i just wouldn't want my sister to marry one or anything
that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf
when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission
he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked
Many queer relationships come pre-loaded with drama and family baggage, making so many things normally taken for granted extremely anxiety-ridden and full of deeper portent than it should.
But basically I find it offensive how anthropologists project onto primitive (those that are far less advanced technologically and largely isolated) societies how they wish the world should be. Its almost always involves the phrase "The X don't have a word for <bad thing>." The culture in China @Atomika mentioned is an example.
The Mosuo are a patriarchal society. Males hold the the actual political power but women are heads of "households" which are more like clans or septs with multiple generations and far more distant relationships living in one house/compound for most of the people. Commoners trace their descent through these clans and property passes through these house lines. Men must ask a sexual partner for access to the "house" in order to stay the night. Neither men and women are prohibited from having more than one partner but in practice most sexual relationships are monogamous.
How did this happen? The Musuo were dominated by an aristocratic classes practice patrilinear monogamy in the same way as exists in most societies. Because power came through these marriages/descents they encourages or imposed a marriage-less matrilinear structure on the peasant and slave classes that make up most of the culture. Additionally, the masculine ideal and role for the male was to be a trader or to work on a caravan. Men were expected to be gone weeks or months at a time, if they returned at all. Rather than a female sexual partner living with her male partner's kin while he was away, she stayed with her mother, siblings, grandparents, etc.
These magic negrospeople supposedly have no word for murder, rape, war, father or jealousy. It helps that they are preliterate so these claims can't be disproven easily.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+