Jun. 22nd, 2009

joreth: (Dobert Demons of Stupidity)
LeslieNielsen I read over your profile, but couldn't help but notice you've simultaneously stated you're not looking for someone monogomous, while eliminating 99.999999% of the human population from messaging you.

Uh, yeah.

Point 1: that statistic is completely pulled out of your ass. Since almost my entire circle of friends is polyamorous, and it's a very wide circle thanks to the extroverts in it, I haven't noticed a shortage of poly people to choose from.

Point 2: I am "not looking for someone monogamous", but I am also not actively looking in general. I joined OKC for the tests and I am interested in meeting interesting people for conversation and if some of them happen to develop into friendships or romantic relationships, that's great, but I'm not actively seeking any particular kind of relationship, so eliminating most people isn't like it's hampering a search for a mate.

Point 3: yes, I'm eliminating everyone who isn't compatible with me. I see no point in attempting to strike up relationships with people who want fundamentally different things from their relationships ... that isn't fair to either of us. Monogamous people *want* me to not pursue them because they do not want the kinds of relationships I offer. Isn't the goal of monogamous people to eliminate everyone on the planet except one person? What else are we doing by dating except weeding out people who aren't compatible so that we can focus on those who are? If I am interested only in polyamorous people, why would I waste my time with anyone who wasn't? Since I currently have 3 partners, it's not like I'm concerned about spending the rest of my time alone anyway.

I'm not sure what the problem is with eliminating the bulk of the population and filtering for people who are actually compatible with me. Are you suggesting that forcing myself to be romantically involved with people who will be unhappy with my romantic structure is a better strategy than being single and waiting for someone who is more compatible? Unlike many people, I am not afraid to be alone when the other option is to be with someone not compatible. And since I am polyamorous, I am rarely "alone" anyway.
joreth: (Dobert Demons of Stupidity)
06/19/2009 - 9:45pm
For doing your damnedest to educate people stupid. Polyamory is just a rebranding of something I like to call, "having more than one sexual relationship at a time," a nice way of saying, "slutty."A rebranding of "slutty" doesn't really help your case. Now I have to say that I won't date or befriend "sluts" *or* "polys" because they're usually too much of a hassle to deal with.

Just now!
Wonderful! That means I don't have to put up with your ignorant shit! Now why did you waste my time with this?

This asshat also just messaged a friend of mine on OKC, starting it out to sound like a compliment by going on and on about how beautiful she is, but mixing that up with how beautiful people are crazy and fucked up and ending with how mentioning polyamory makes "usually respectful people go squick".  He outright called her "disgusting".

I continue to fail at understanding why people spend their time messaging people they don't like to tell them only that they don't like them.  Now, however, thanks to my public journal entry, people are recognizing his name when he contacts them.

Fucking loser.
joreth: (polyamory)
Trying to help out the poly community: New Poly Dating Site - go sign up, it works better with more people! http://www.lovemany.com/

I'm a huge fan of OKC and I love its poly-friendliness, but I'm also a supporter of the poly community in general, and sometimes poly people get tired of the anti-poly sentiments, even when we're minding our own business and leaving the monos alone who then decide to contact us and give us shit for being poly and trying to stay away from them.

So, go check it out. It's very small right now, but it will work better when there are more people in its database. At the very least, it will be one more source to count numbers of poly people for future reference, when they say that poly isn't very common.
joreth: (Dobert Demons of Stupidity)

This is one reason among many why gay marriage is not a state's rights issue. There are just too many complications between the states when each state gets to make up its own rules about civil rights.

In this case, both women in a lesbian couple had one baby each, and then adopted each others' babies under the same-sex adoption laws in Washington state.

Now, one of the women lives in Florida and is trying to get married to a man and is refusing her ex-partner parental rights to her child (that is, the adopted child of the Washington lesbian but the natural child of the Florida former-lesbian) under Florida's denial of adoption rights for same-sex couples, on the grounds that their adoption isn't legal in Florida so she isn't eligible for parental rights.

This case is going to trial and will severely test Florda's idiotic same-sex adoption ban.  It's stupid and it's cruel.  If a heterosexual man tried to deny his ex-wife rights to the child she raised (but didn't birth) through some loophole that says their multi-year "marriage" doesn't count in the region he happened to move to (but was legal where it took place), you can bet everyone would be screaming about how she was a true "mother" for all her years of service and devotion to the child regardless of blood and how could he take the child away from a caring woman?  I know I get pretty pissed whenever someone suggests that a non-biological relationship is somehow less important or less worthy than a biological one.  I dare anyone to tell me to my face that my mother, who raised me from 15 days old, didn't *really* love me as much as she would have loved a "real" daughter, with all her years of sacrifice and saving and sleepless nights of worry and taking me to the doctor and watching me take my first steps ... I could go on, but I won't.

Besides the fact that it's just plain unethical and discriminatory, when you let every state make up a different rule about personal rights, you waste taxpayer dollars whenever each state tries to figure out how to handle cases that were legal somewhere else but the people now live in a new state. If Florida didn't have the stupid ban, this case would be handled by existing parental custody laws, by precedent and by a simplified process that was designed for this very circumstance.

This was amply demonstrated in the article about transgender spouses in a recent post. If a man and a woman get married, then the man becomes a woman and is legally allowed to change his gender in his state, then he will be part of a legal same-sex marriage in a state that does not allow same-sex marriage. If he gets divorced, he will now be only legally allowed to marry another man, but in a state that doesn't recognize sex changes, "she" will be only legally allowed to marry another woman.

As it says: "a lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the country’s gender laws as they pertain to marriage: “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton [male-to-female whose male husband died], while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

Utterly ridiculous.  Legal contracts require that the signees be of legal age and of sound mind to give informed consent.  That's it and that's all it should be.  It makes absolutely no sense to include discriminatory clauses onto marriage contracts and it causes all sorts of legal confusions that are totally unneccessary, wasteful, and open up the legal system to loopholes and abuses.


September 2017

3456 7 8 9
1011 12 13141516