Geez, and I thought it was getting better!

[joreth]

=====speedchaser70 wrote=====
I would prefer to be Jaba the Hutt if you were my slave!

Nice pics...would like to hear from you!
=====8564=====




=====Joreth wrote=====

Apparently you didn't read my profile.  This does not exempt you from the consequences.  Fuck off.

===================

For reference sake -
Line #6 in the profile:  If all you can think of to say to me is "ur hot" or "ur sexy" or "nice pics" or "hey beautiful" or anything related ... FUCK OFF 

 Throwing in that you would like to be a large, disgusting blob who captured the strong and independent Leia and forced her to wear a demeaning outfit against her will, whom she subsequently strangled with her own chains does NOT make this approach any more appealing nor does it make you sound witty.  It makes you sound like a loser who didn't read my profile.

Comments

[james-the-evil1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was thinking "You WANT to be a fat greasy tub of scum??"

[slouchinphysics.livejournal.com]

Well maybe he has some kind of feeding fetish and he wants you to lovingly craft him into a huge greasy mound.... wait I'm sure that makes him sound worse.

[a-rowan-dryad.livejournal.com]

I am not sure this is a good place to toss this but please forgive me as I am far to short on time I see if you have an email posted.

That little peice of "covering my ass" done...

Do you consider serial monogamy to be a form of polyamory?

[joreth]

My definition of polyamory is "the open, honest and ethical belief structure and/or practice of multiple simultaneous romantic relationships".

So no, I do not believe serial monogamy is a form of polyamory. I think it's a travesty when people feel the need to toss aside otherwise-functional relationships simply to move on to the next person. I do see it as "proof", however, that humans are not "monogamists" in the sense that we, as a species, are capable of loving more than one person in our lifetimes.

I agree that one can take the root of the word "polyamory" meaning "many loves" literally, which could include serial monogamy since there are many loves over a lifetime but not overlapping. But this is, IMO, serial monogamy, not polyamory - it has its own term for a reason. This is a situation where two individuals suppress their desires for other people for the sake of fidelity, and/or "overlap" relationships, and/or they throw away existing relationships in order to experience the next new relationship. All of this negates the "open, honest, and ethical" part of my definition.

Yes, it is also true that some individuals seem to be hardwired for monogamy, in the sense that they genuinely don't seem to have any desire for romantic connections once they have already made one. But my version of polyamory is not limited to only how many partners one has for oneself. In the "multiple relationships" part of my definition, I believe an important element to being poly is that one also desires/is open to one's PARTNER having multiple relationships.

It is my opinion that monogamous hardwiring is rare but existing. Most of what we think of as "monogamous" people include a very tangled mix of social programming and personal insecurities that they are unwilling to examine and let go of. And even more rare is the person whose attaction-switch gets turned off with only one focus and yet allows/encourages/desires/accepts their partner having other partners. I think one of the true tests of polyamory is not how many partners one has, but how one handles one's partner having other partners.

So, a serial-monogamist, in addition to suppressing his own desires/overlapping/throwing away, thereby negating the open/honest/ethical part, typically is also not open to their own partner having other partners. That does not meet my criteria for "polyamory".

[summer-jackel.livejournal.com]

hahahaha! I have a hard time NOT equating anyone who voluntarily says they'd like to be Jabba the Hutt with Loser. Man. Baaaaad pickup lines.

And how hard would it be to say, 'hey, that's a lovely and very well made costume. You also look great in it.' I mean, if they can't even give a polite complement...

I sweat, Joreth, you collect the odd ones. But hey, they entertain your friends, yes?

[joreth]

Yeah, it doesn't really take that much creativity to go from "nice pics" or "hot bod" to "that's a great costume and you look good in it".

:-) yes, the entertainment of my friends is why I continue to leave IM and messaging allowed on my profiles. That and the aforementioned "lesson" in my previous rant.

As my old producer used to say "anything you can live through and makes a good story is worth experiencing". These make amusing stories, so I don't disappear from the online personals entirely.

Overcompensating with ego

[(Anonymous)]

I dont know you. Im just a stranger browsing, so pardon if posting this is none of my business. Jabbas comments struck a cord. Too many women feel like they have to tolerate those kind of shallow, sexist comments. Maybe another girl would giggle and try to make a joke of it all. Thank you for sticking up for yourself. I only hope that someday he can recognize the ignorance and disrespect behind his assumptions.

Did he actually expect you would be flattered (rather than disgusted) that some looser is hard up and horney? And because you're poly he somehow has a chance with you? Why would he think that treating you like a ho was an appropriate come on? Does that approach EVER actually work for these guys, or do they live in a state of celebate confusion trying to figure out why they dont have a girlfriend?

Re: Overcompensating with ego

[joreth]

I can only surmise that, statistically speaking, if you approach 100 women this way, at least a few will respond favorably. Now, I'm all fine with these men actually finding those women. What I want to do is teach people to find positively-responding partners and not to treat those of us who don't want to be treated that way. *I'm* not one of those women and it's really really really easy to figure that out without wasting either of our time. That's the *point* of the profiles.