Is this man the ultimate feminist?

Oh, hello James. Dropping in on yet another of my threads?

What makes you think I haven't? Your very first sentence on this thread, and you're already making assumptions.

And does part of becoming the ultimate feminist involve being happy that your partner is having sex with other people? Must one denounce sexual exclusivity to be the ultimate feminist? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice.

No, and it's more indicative of your own prejudices that you assume I'm upset. If anything, I find the entire article humorous. If a man finds pleasure in his wife having sex with other men, then more power to him. It's hardly the most unusual sexual behavior out there. However, I am perplexed by his claim that doing so is 'feminist'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why, of course, absolutely! Because some random guy on the internets says so.

Are you seriously this fucking stupid?

Are you equally perplexed by a guy who posts that he's not a racist because he has a black friend? Do you ordinarily suspend critical thinking when reading shit on the internets? Do you accord any and all comments on a typical YouTube video with such gravitas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Congratulations. You've met tali89.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It makes me sad how dishonest people are in relationships justifying anything. There is no such thing as just sex, otherwise there would be no desire to be with other people, you could just masturbate for release. Sex with others still is motivated by attraction and intimacy. It is hypocritical and demeaning for someone to claim the love someone like a security blanket their fond of especially wife, husband, gf/bf while they just happen to want to have sex with others. They are just using you as security, backburner etc. Those who sell this notion which are many are decievers and those who buy it are fools.

 

Anndd another one:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What on earth does being buggered by a strap-on have to do with feminism?

 

Cute guy, those specs don't really suit him though.

 

Because I think sex is properly an expression of love.

 

Just in case anyone needs a little clarity on what marriage is defined as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Sex is bonding behavior. Exclusive sex between a married couple enhances their pair bond and makes their relationship stronger. This will enhance the pairs efforts toward reaching their mutual goals both as individuals and as a couple. The converse is also true - sex outside the marriage brings the possibility that a new pair bond will weaken or replace the extant one. If marital fealty is part of the marital contract, then changing that requires both involved parties agreeing to the change in the contract.


As for feminism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

I don't see jack about sex outside of marriage there either.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe if her husband wants an "open marriage" then she could go out and pleasure herself as well. Otherwise is appears that feminism as more about equality than sucky - fucky with strangers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes.

I didn't say necessarily, I said properly. Of course people have sex just to have sex, with people they might have no emotional connection with. I'm calling that dysfunctional.

 

Really? I think most people can love more than one person. It's one of the good things about love.

Love does not equal emotional connection, nor is there only one level of emotional connection.

 

As far as romantic love, I disagree. Sure you can love people platonically.

 

I was with someone who has a lifelong history of simultaneous relationships. What you find out is how deceitful it is because form doesn't equate to content. When a new shiny toy came along, he claimed he still loved me but all actions showed otherwise. I mean, if one enjoys being treated like a uninteresting property, maid, mother, platonic friend, disinterested fukbuddy or sister while they still claim they still are in love with you, then I guess that's for you. Suspiciously, lover and all that denotes missing from relationship. Some people may be okay with being condescended to and fooled, taken for a ride etc. But just because someone claims they love more than one, read between the lines. Its not the same type of love. So it is misleading. They've moved on, just not physically and continue to 'pretend' for just security, option, familiarity etc. No, because it is unfulfilling and lonely for me,unfair to the other party so I ended it. Some people may keep on with these outwardly functions while they both have outside relationships but its a lie.

 

To each their own.

 

So you've finally calmed down from your previous rage quit? Good. I was a little worried when you stormed out of our previous discussion and Bells saw the need to intervene.

No. You cited a certain section of the article where the author mentioned that they both have sex with other people. That's hardly surprising, it is an open marriage after all. However, that has no bearing on the fact that the author goes on to claim that by not maintaining sexual exclusivity over his wife, he is the ultimate feminist. He doesn't consider himself a feminist because they both get equal treatment in their open marriage. He considers himself one because his status as a man is no longer tied up with having sexual exclusivity with his wife. If you have trouble understanding this, then by all means say so, and I'll walk your through it slower.

OK. Why not say this to begin with, instead of going straight to petulant snipes and suppositions about my mindset? Is your ego so bruised from our previous discussions that you will seek every opportunity to get into a pissing match with me? Let me guess, this is a way to prove I'm 'not worth your time'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Neither. That you'd assume either is reflective of your own mental state, not mine.

 

You'll make tali89 fat, you know.

 

Ah, I have no doubt that your rage-quitting our previous discussion and Bells feeling the need to intercede is something you'd sooner forget. Yes, let's move on before your selective memory fails you.

Did I ever say it was? You're putting words in my mouth, but then that's hardly a novel occurrence for you. What I was actually observing is that the author claims that his being a feminist involves embracing the notion of his wife having sex with other men.

And I have provided a further quotation from the article which elaborates on the material you cited, where he explains that his status as a man used to hinge on his wife being sexually exclusive until he embraced feminism. Indeed, I even patiently walked you through his rationale, which you seem to have conveniently overlooked. It's all there is my previous post, James.

https://archive.is/EaUjs

"It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it and wanted to do more than kiss next time that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife fucked only me." (emphasis mine)

He mentions his 'status as a man' word for word. Now it's become clear who hasn't read the entire article.

What do you think I don't understand? Because so far each one of your assumptions about my mindset and behavior has been shown to be erroneous conjecture. You assumed I hadn't read the entire article quoted in the original post, although we've actually found that it's you who has not done so. You've assumed I have some sort of qualms with a man not having the dominant role in a sexual relationship, when I actually don't. And let's not even get started on assumptions you have made about me in past discussions. For someone who spends an unusual amount of time attempting to divine my innermost thoughts and motives, you sure miss the mark a lot.

Ahh, you might say that, but I'm a big believer in looking at what someone does, rather than what they say. In one of our past discussions you were childishly goading for a rematch, and in another you rage-quit, after which another moderator interceded on your behalf. And lo and behold, here you are again attempting to get into yet another pissing match with me, in spite of you having previously claimed I'm 'not worth wasting time on'.

Yet you claimed I was not pleasant to talk to in a previous discussion of ours. With all your moralizing about personal integrity, it's rather ironic you'd lie in such a blatant fashion.