Monogamy oppresses women (insightful article included)

A general chat area, here you can post anything that doesn't belong in another forum.
User avatar
Paramultart
VBB's Partner in Crime
Posts: 3004
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:36

Monogamy oppresses women (insightful article included)

Post by Paramultart »

Hey guys, if you don't think it's okay for your wife to sleep with multiple men a week, then you're oppressing her and you're on the wrong side of history.

What's the matter? Women enjoy sex too, you know, and monogamy is sooo outdated. We're not living in the 50's anymore, so check your privilege.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-op ... inism.html


Lololololol...
"Father Mabeuf was surveying his plants"
User avatar
BlueGasMask
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:56
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by BlueGasMask »

Sure is great that this couple figured out that they're more comfortable with an open relationship but I really don't understand how this constitutes as feminism.
Image
User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly »

...Yes? What's with the sarcasm?
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass
namida
Vortininja
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:35

Post by namida »

BlueGasMask wrote:Sure is great that this couple figured out that they're more comfortable with an open relationship but I really don't understand how this constitutes as feminism.
Modern feminism basically comes down to "women should be allowed to do anything they want, with no consequences, and if anything bad happens, it's men's fault".
User avatar
Levellass
S-Triazine
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40

Post by Levellass »

namida wrote:
BlueGasMask wrote:Sure is great that this couple figured out that they're more comfortable with an open relationship but I really don't understand how this constitutes as feminism.
Modern feminism basically comes down to "women should be allowed to do anything they want, with no consequences, and if anything bad happens, it's men's fault".
And modern civil rights comes down to 'black people can do no wrong, it's all white people's fault.' The south will rise again I tell you!


The modern everything has broken down into a war between those who stick to the old oppressions, whining like spoiled children at the slightest threat to their dominance and those who whine nonsensical things because that's the only way to be heard above the noise. There's perfectly reasonable progress to be made but it's drowned out by all the crud.


I myself come down on the side of 'feminism' mostly because they have the fewest asshats. Take Sarkessian; she has a youtube channel and rants about sexism in video games. I agree with some of her points and not with others. (Doom being violent is a problem? Who are you, Jack Thompson?) Her asshattery is low level.

On the other side we have death threats, rape threats and general garg. Two guys have managed to get the internet to pay them $5000 a week to... do nothing. But they'll eventually produce a 'documentary' against Sarkessian, as soon as they get *7000* a week! Are you serious? It's like watching religious nutcases shelling out $150 for Glenn Beck's newest book, except without the book.

They're so garg even ED looks good next to them. https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Sarkeesian_Effect
What you really need, not what you think you ought to want.
User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly »

polygamy oppresses no one.
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass
User avatar
Levellass
S-Triazine
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40

Post by Levellass »

Well... not exactly. Firstly it tends to encourage gender imbalance, each man with many wives means some men will have no wives. This tends to create a number of sexually frustrated young men. This is one reason why countries that allow polygamy are more violent. (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan! Surely countries to emulate.)

There are other issues as well.
What you really need, not what you think you ought to want.
namida
Vortininja
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:35

Post by namida »

Levellass wrote:Well... not exactly. Firstly it tends to encourage gender imbalance, each man with many wives means some men will have no wives. This tends to create a number of sexually frustrated young men. This is one reason why countries that allow polygamy are more violent. (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan! Surely countries to emulate.)

There are other issues as well.
You seem to be coming very much from an assumption that only one gender is allowed to be polygamous. Which might be true in the specific laws of the country you quote; but there is literally no reason why, in an equal society which allows for polygamy, that a man could have many wives and a woman could have many husbands, if they so wished. In this context, the only people being "oppressed" are the "muh traditional marriage!" types who aren't content with simply following their "traditional" definition in their own lives, but feel the need to demand everyone else follows it too.
User avatar
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon
Vortininja
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 22:09

Post by GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon »

What the fucl did I just read.

You know... polygamy... I disagree with it, anyone who doesn't, whatever, it's fine, they can do what they want. Open relationships are the couple's business.

But saying garg like "monogamy oppresses women" and presenting it as an issue of feminism....

Lord, what the hell happened to the world? What IS happening to the world? What is this???
User avatar
MoffD
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 1220
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 17:30
Location: /dev/null
Contact:

Post by MoffD »

GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon wrote:What the fucl did I just read.
Fairly sure para's trolling...




I hope
mortimermcmirestinks wrote: Now I wish MoffD wasn't allergic to me.
Levellass wrote:You're an evil man.
Image
User avatar
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon
Vortininja
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 22:09

Post by GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon »

MoffD wrote:
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon wrote:What the fucl did I just read.
Fairly sure para's trolling...




I hope
I mean the article.

He was definitely being sarcastic. Para that is
User avatar
MoffD
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 1220
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 17:30
Location: /dev/null
Contact:

Post by MoffD »

GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon wrote:
MoffD wrote:
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon wrote:What the fucl did I just read.
Fairly sure para's trolling...




I hope
I mean the article.

He was definitely being sarcastic. Para that is
I read an article from someone under the impression that all men should just die while women live on in harmony with nature... I may look for it later.
mortimermcmirestinks wrote: Now I wish MoffD wasn't allergic to me.
Levellass wrote:You're an evil man.
Image
User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly »

He didn't say monogamy is oppressive. Para just wants you to think he said that.
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass
User avatar
Levellass
S-Triazine
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40

Post by Levellass »

Or does he...?



The problem with articles on the internet, as with everything on the internet is 90% of them are garbage. If women are in harmony with nature how do you explain Paris Hilton?
What you really need, not what you think you ought to want.
User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly »

Who said women are in harmony with nature?

I know who: Marrion Zimmerman Bradley.
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass
Post Reply