BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Sex Lives Of The ( Not So ) Rich And Famous

 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
Ganesh
00:03 / 10.09.04
Ganesh and I never have sex anyway cos I'm saving myself for Sax.

That's sooo unkind. I do the 'chipper' roleplay and everything. What more do you want? Yellow trainers?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
05:58 / 10.09.04
Well, I'm engaged, and will be married next year.

Who knew?
 
 
imaginary mice
06:55 / 10.09.04
But I am very much in favour of marriage, if it means making a lifelong commitment to another person

Maybe I’m a bit too bitter and cynical but does anyone actually still believe in this? I think about 40% of all marriages end in divorce these days. Why take the risk? I will certainly never get married or have children. I find break-ups horrendously difficult to deal with – and that's without the lengthy legal process you have to go through if you have been married.
 
 
The Strobe
07:33 / 10.09.04
Worth noting that the average length of a marriage, not sure if this statistic is the world or the US, is about 13 years at the moment.

Which doesn't sound like a lot.

Until you realise that's exactly the same figure as 300 years ago. People got married at 17, they were dead by 30. Marriages were designed to last about 13 years. The fact they last longer is to their credit, not to the detriment of divorcees. Divorce is just a replacement for dying, if you look at it that way.

Just a curio, offered to the wind.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:24 / 10.09.04
I like the idea of getting married for an initial period of 13 years, after which you can renew it if you like...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:35 / 10.09.04
Fly, you may just be a genius. Marriages are legally binding so why not make them more like contracts with elective clauses and caveats. So many benefits.

Just out of interest, why is there such a continuation of stigma against divorce? Its practically common practice these days.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:50 / 10.09.04
Those who see me as atavistically opposed to marriage may be surprised to learn that I was handfasted - a year-long "marriage", after which both parties either renew or let the arrangement lapse. It's sort of a tenancy agreement but with each other's lives. Of course, it isn't legally recognised, which brings us back to "doh".
 
 
Alex's Grandma
11:17 / 10.09.04
Why is there such a continuation of stigma against divorce

Well picture the scene - The love of your life, the person who at one point you trusted above all others, who knows you better than anyone else does, is now using that information to destroy you in public, plus take as much of your cash as ze can get hold of. And then there's the lawyers to deal with. It's a worst case scenario, granted, but still, can you imagine ?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:31 / 10.09.04
That was meant to imply other peoples marriage.

So often it seems that people view other marriages in the process of splitting up and comment that its such a shame. The truth would be that it would be far more of a shame if they didn't get a divorce.

Of course divorce would be a lot less messy if people spent a bit more time communicating with their partner and a little less on trying to confirm to a ridiculous standard.

I probably shouldn't comment though. I am not have never been nor ever will be married. I find it ridiculous that we consider commitments and relationships so much the better because we wrote it down on a pice of paper and told everyone we know about it while getting them drunk and fleecing them for household goods.

I can think of far better ways to celebrate commitment to one another than that.
 
 
Cat Chant
11:39 / 10.09.04
Ooh. Interesting thread, and not only because it's renewed my intermittent puzzlement on why people seem to find it somehow threatening, rude or hostile if you ask them why they want to get married. (Like Haus, although I'm fully aware that there are many and various reasons for wanting to get married, I'm interested in the process by which people come to a decision about it - and also interested in the way that it does seem rude, hostile or threatening to ask, for reasons which are either unclear or so horrifyingly, staggeringly clear that I can't bear to entertain them. On the other hand, when I asked my sister why she was getting married, she said so that her children wouldn't be bullied at school, which given that (a) the proportion of children born out of wedlock is now approaching 50% and (b) she hasn't taken her husband's name so the other children are unlikely to know about her marital status, is nonsensical, so I quit asking.)

Ahem. Anyway, not the point. Me: cohabiting with person of same sex(es) as myself, but of a different nationality and generation. Currently trying to negotiate the shift in my position in my social group from single person to coupled person. Watched Shaun of the Dead yesterday and was squicked and terrified by its message (You do not have enough energy or resources to deal with the world, with your family of origin or with your friendship group. You must miserly channel your energies into cohabitating coupledom, killing the undead masses/friends/mother who seek to divert your energies from the heterobourgeois home). After having been firmly in the militant single wing of my friendship group (the Collective) for four years, there are constant negotiations to be made about who can make what claims on my time, attention, energy, money, and so on, and it's all too easy to being sucked into a set of assumptions that couples only care for each other on a daily, mundane basis. Particularly since my resources are pretty low atm, for thesis-related reasons, and since, having dragged this woman over from Australia, I feel some responsibility towards making sure she's settling in okay.
 
 
Sax
13:43 / 10.09.04
I’ve followed this and the other thread in the Head Shop with interest, but I’ve held back from joining in for a number of reasons. One is that marriage is quite a personal thing, anyway, and we all might have different reasons for doing it. The other is that when you shine the harsh light of analysis on marriage, and strip it down to its bare essentials, then it does - like a lot of things we routinely do in life - look a bit odd.

For my part, my marriage (in its actual sense) was born from a drunken night and a loved-up embrace and the sentiment that hey, we’re in our thirties and we love each other like we’ve never loved anyone else and how about us making the biggest commitment we can think of right now and doing this for the rest of our lives?

Of course, there are other commitments we could have made, such as skydiving together or joining a cult or going off to do missionary work in the Amazon, but right there and then marriage felt like the best thing in the world that we as two people could do to cement our relationship.

It seems to me that there are two basic debating points regarding marriage here. The first seems to be: "I just can’t for the life of me understand why anybody would want to go through this legal ceremony to saddle yourself with someone for, ostensibly, the rest of your life."

The other appears to be along the lines of: "Why do you take part in such a hetero-oppressive programme that gives you rights and benefits which are denied to other people who are not allowed by law to marry?"

Dealing with the first one: as I said, marriage is a very personal thing. If you’d have asked me ten years ago what my views on marriage were, I’d have probably told you that it was a cynical, pointless exercise and what’s the point anyway when divorce is so easy and doesn’t carry the stigma that it used to? But then something changed. I met the person with who, for the first time ever in my life, I could envisage spending a lifetime with. No, we didn’t need to get married to be happy, but we wanted to. And that made us just a little bit more happy. And yeah, you can have a party anytime, but at the risk of descending into cliché-dom, I’ll never, ever forget the day of my wedding and the sheer (Darius) amount of love in the room (/Darius).

And what do we get out of it? Stability. Partnership. Comfort. Understanding. Reliability. Commitment. Sharing. A sense of you and me against the world.

And, in a rather bizarre manner which I can’t properly explain, freedom. Marriage tends to focus and coalesce some of your feelings - or at least, this happened to me - and because we have an unspoken given that we are together, hopefully forever, then this takes away some of the pressure to be a couple. Since we married, if I’m out with friends or see family, I don’t get asked "Where’s Mrs Sax, then?" half as often as I did when we were unmarried. It’s as though by joining together to form a unit, our individuality paradoxically is magnified. People take it for granted that you’re a couple and don’t need to be in each other’s pockets all the time. Strange, but true.

The second argument I find harder to tackle, because deep down I know the points being made are quite correct. It isn’t fair. To drag Ganesh and Xoc into this once again, as other people in this thread seem to have decided they are fair game to use as case studies, no, it isn’t right that Mrs Sax and I get more legal rights than them. It isn’t right that if I die it goes without saying that my meagre assets go to Mrs Sax.

And I should point out that rights for married heterosexual couples aren’t quite as stupendous as people might think. There were no tax breaks for us upon getting married. When we had Zoot, we were eligible for Working Families Tax Credit, which amounted to about a tenner a week, paid into Mrs Sax’s bank account. Rather co-incidentally, I was put on a new tax code at the same time which - surprise, surprise - resulted in me paying about a tenner a week extra.

I also find that being married confers little or no noticeable respectability from "society". Sure, it pleased my mum, but that’s about it. People from all cultures and walks of life very often don’t bother to ask if I’m married and often assume I’m not. (Even though I wear a ring; Mrs Sax doesn’t). In fact, the only place I’ve ever felt it was an "issue" is here on Barbelith.

But still, yeah, I took advantage of an option that isn’t open to others, and as a result made myself part of the problem. As Haus said in the Head Shop (and this is perhaps the one thing that has caused me personally most upset in all my time here on Barbelith) recently - and I’m paraphrasing here, Haus, so apologies if I haven’t got this spot on - Getting married is like climbing on to a bus in 1960s America and sitting in the seats marked "whites only" just because you can. And if other people can’t sit there, well, maybe they will be able to one day so you’re not doing any harm by just sitting down, are you?

Maybe some people really see it like that. I’m saddened if they do, because there are a lot worse things in this world than getting married (and yes, I know we’re talking about marriage rather than "the worst things in this world", but still).

I’m sure more people lead much more politically pious lives than I do. I buy shit from Gap occasionally. I’ll walk past a beggar without meeting his gaze sometimes. I don’t always pick up the phone and pledge money to Comic Relief, simply because I can’t be arsed to. There are probably people who have contributed to this thread who live on Tesco No-Frills beans and send their food budget to the Sudan. I can’t match that. I start threads about yellow fucking trainers instead of entering into enough debate in the Head Shop. I wish I was more perfect. I’m not.

But I try to do other stuff, in the few ways I can. Yeah, sometimes I won’t walk straight past the beggar. Sometimes I’ll do stuff that might look like conscience-salving, but might help. I’ll help an old dear across the road. Mainly, I try to use my position as a journalist and column-writer to highlight injustice, rage against the machine, make people laugh. It might not yet have balanced out the fact that I’ve joined the climbed into the life-boat marked "married people only" while those unable to follow-suit stand and watch from the slowly sinking HMS Equal Opportunities, but hopefully one day it might go some way towards it.

Sorry if this has rambled on a bit.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:49 / 10.09.04
I was handfasted

Why did you decide to do that, Haus? (I have to admit it's much less opaque to me than 'marriage', so it makes more sense to me straight off the bat, but of course I could be completely wrong about your reasons for doing it, so I'd be interested to hear.) Also, how does it compare to marriage on the whole public-declaration thing, and the 'power' that Persephone identified in the Head Shop thread - ie did you and cohandfastee summon family members from afar? Did you want them there? Would they have come? Should they have come?

(Disclosure of my motives for asking: partly because thinking of having big loft-warming party with gf, but all my feelings about it are very tied up with sibling rivalry around my sister's wedding and now baby, so all the stuff around what "counts" as a public event, who attends and how "important" it is to whom, is interesting to me atm.)
 
 
Sekhmet
13:59 / 10.09.04
(*stands up and applauds for Sax*)

Bravo! Well put!

A sense of you and me against the world.

This is actually our motto. Whenever things get rough for one or both of us, we share a big hug and say, "You and me against the world, babe." It always helps.

And could we do that if we weren't married? Probably, but I'm not sure it would feel the same. It's sort of like a yoke. Maybe two beasts of burden can pull the same load on separate harnesses, but it's easier if you're both pulling at the same thing. Maybe sometimes it chafes a little, restricts your movement, but on the whole it's more effective. Does that make any sense?
 
 
Cat Chant
14:07 / 10.09.04
(Apologies for contributing to the 'rot', but I really don't want to let this one pass [because I like Sax, among other reasons])

As Haus said in the Head Shop (and this is perhaps the one thing that has caused me personally most upset in all my time here on Barbelith) recently - and I’m paraphrasing here, Haus, so apologies if I haven’t got this spot on - Getting married is like climbing on to a bus in 1960s America and sitting in the seats marked "whites only" just because you can. And if other people can’t sit there, well, maybe they will be able to one day so you’re not doing any harm by just sitting down, are you?

It was me that said that, I think - or at least, I said something very similar about drinking in an all-white bar (though I've used the bus analogy offline and possibly in the Gay Marriage thread in the Switchboard, I forget), although I hope what I said was more focussed as a response to one particular piece of what I thought was shoddy arguing ("since these rights will eventually be extended to all people, there can be no ethical problem in availing myself of them in the meantime"). I appreciate being told that it was personally upsetting, and I apologize for that: I know I get very aggressive around discussions of marriage (I think it's because I find the assertion that my lack of understanding of/sympathy for the transparency of marriage is my fault upsetting, and I get defensive about it and make wilder and wilder assertions to try and illustrate the extent to which I really don't intuitively 'get' it).
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
14:09 / 10.09.04
That's a lovely post Sax, possibly the most constructive one from a straight person on this board.

I will add this though. For all of the claims of unfairness and "selling out your gay friends" etc, I am utterly convinced there is nothing that will do more to address the imbalance of the construct than married couples supporting marriage for everyone.
 
 
Sax
14:23 / 10.09.04
I just checked to make sure I didn't wrongly attribute that to Haus or take Deva's quote out of context. I'm not making an issue of this at all; it's a good and clever analogy (although a little harsh in terms of comparing it to marriage, I think) and I don't want to Haus to think I'm demonising him or lying in torment over it. But it was one of Haus's and here it is, for reference:

Well, yes. As marriage currently stands, participating in it is a bit like just happening to take advantage of the fact that some seats on the bus are designated for whites only. It's certainly possible to sit down without having as your primary objective the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, or indeed the desire to express an opinion either in favour of or against them. The fact remains, however, that you are getting a seat that someone else would not be able to use, and whether or not you are thinking "ah-hah! A chance for me to assert segregation!", you get to take the weight off either way.

Oh, and it's not all toasters, getting married, either. We got a signed copy of Orbital's last compilation album.
 
 
Cat Chant
14:23 / 10.09.04
The other thing that I maybe haven't made clear enough is that as far as I'm concerned, the whole of life is made of this kind of trade-off, so I don't find those kinds of analogies as offensive as (I'm learning) other people seem to. Do you get on the white-only bus is never a question that poses itself in the abstract in life, and I should try and make it clear that I don't ask it as an abstract or rhetorical question (meaning "You are a rascist omg!!"). Do you get on the white-only bus... if it's the only bus that goes to your work, and you're late, and you can't get there any other way, and you'll get the sack? Do you buy clothes from Gap... if you can get ones you like just as much for the same price from a fair-trade shop next door? What trade-off are you willing to make between having the access to the resources you need in order to live the life you want to live, and being complicit in a system that denies those resources to other people? I don't think there's a moment in the day, whether you're getting married or drinking a cup of tea, where you don't have to make those kinds of decisions.

Incidentally, when I was an expat teenager in Bahrain, and really old enough to know better, I spent many, many weekends at a beach on which only white people were allowed (which was entirely unthought-through by my teen self and is incomprehensible to my present self). Which might be one reason the "whites only" analogy has resonance, but not "extremist" connotations, for me.
 
 
Cat Chant
14:24 / 10.09.04
(Me and Sax are posting simultaneously, btw.)
 
 
Squirmelia
14:42 / 10.09.04
I realized that I used to hold the very naive assumption that people would no longer bother with marriage. I've been trying to figure out why I thought that, and as far as I can tell, it was based on some 90s' concepts that I had projected.

1. Divorce - I presumed the divorce rate would raise even higher and thus people would just no longer bother with getting married.
2. Religion - I thought the abandonment of religion by many would mean less marriages.
3. Infantilisation - Made me think people wanted to still be child-like and would never do something that grown-up.
4. Little luxuries - Wedding ceremonies are expensive, so I thought they would be shunned in exchange for little luxuries.
5. Alternative relationship structures - Polyamoury, friends as a replacement for traditional family, etc.
6. The statistics at the back of Generation X - the statistics showed that less people were getting married than they were in the past, so I presumed that trend would continue.
7. The cult of aloneness - All those cool, single and independent role models, who don't get married.
8. Scott and Charlene's wedding - No need to attend anyone else's wedding when you can just watch that on video repeatedly.

I'm still a bit surprised that marriage is actually still kind of the normal and socially acceptable thing to do. I'm just trying to figure out why I am surprised by that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:50 / 10.09.04
Sax: You use "some people" or "other people" twice in your post, once to criticise and once to pity. In both cases, as far as I can tell, you mean by that me. Why is that?

Deva: Honestly? For fun. Because what we were doing had absolutely no strength under British law, a friend and I decided to handfast for a year in the knowledge that it would have no legal or social ramifications whatsoever. We would not need to go to bed with each other again to "activate" it, it would give neither of us any recourse in the event of infidelity or mental cruelty, and it would mean our non-existent children would still be bullied at school. After a year, we decided not to do it again, and it ceased to be an issue.

I chatted to Anna de L (who most certainly is not Mr Collins) about this last night, and we came up with a number of situations, as I believe Lurid Archive mentioned in the Head Shop also, where marriage might be seen as practical or necessary - immigration being one, welfare being another, "honour" being another. But these are situations in which laws perceived as unjust are being either appeased or perhaps deceived by a sort of marital guile. In a way that *does* make sense to me, but it's pretty specific, and it's about outsmarting a system weighed against you by using a mechanism...
 
 
grant
14:53 / 10.09.04
The "yoke" metaphor for marriage is one that goes back to the New Testament at least and probably much farther. So yeah, it's one that has made a lot of sense to a lot of people. Emotional life, it's work, kinda.

I have friends who were handfasted, but it didn't have the limited duration thing in it, as far as I know. I was once part of a group shordurmar (SubGenius short-duration-marriage), but it was, well, a SubGenius thing. Hard to tell if it was a joke or not. Maybe a joke with repercussions? I like the idea, anyway.

I had a different sort of whites-only experience than Deva. I know I've told the story properly elsewhere, but it involved apartheid South Africa, spicy curry for two meals in a row, the whites-only toilets being pay toilets -- except the final stall, which had no toilet paper (the poor had to take paper from a roll by the attendant's counter), and a coloured man with a broom chasing me out of the coloured toilets, which were free and had toilet paper. And, as a kid visiting from overseas, having no South African currency to operate the pay stalls. There's a lesson mixed in there about the nature of hegemonic structures and self-policing boundaries, somewhere. (And for those interested, I wound up having to use candy wrappers I had in my pocket - I think I was 12.)

I don't mind people asking me about marriage because I asked most of the same questions myself. I'm a little cautious about the issue, but never want to find myself getting defensive.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:00 / 10.09.04
Does that make any sense?

Well, sorry, but no. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me that the fact that you are married makes the hug and the "you and me against the world"iness different. I mean, it's you and your spouse against the world, and you have a piece of paper from the government proving it, and also saying that you cannot feel that it is you and anyone else against the world, and nor can your spouse? Without that, would you be unable to tell the difference between the hug from your spouse and a hug and a statement of "you and me against the world" from a friend? Would it make the experience less satisfying? Why is that particular form of zeugma more zeugy than any other?

I'm really not trying to be rude here, but I am bewildered...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:11 / 10.09.04
Hang on... is it something like "When we say 'you and me against the world', we can be confident that we have not gone through this particular process with anyone else, even more so than Sax's alternatives like bungee jumping or skydiving, or at least are not currently going through this process wth anyone else". So it's like... um... to go back a bit, like tattooing each other's names on each other's foreheads? Obvious, clear and unreplicable?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:13 / 10.09.04
Perhaps it's not the fact that they're married (legal status) so much as the fact that they've made a commitment to be with each other against the world for the rest of their lives.

I.e. it's the commitment, irrespective of the form/duration, which is the key to the special bond which both Saxy and Sekhmet have identified. And that is, presumably, a slightly different commitment - to them - than a feeling of 'you and me against the world' experienced with a friend would entail. Would this feeling be different if a couple underwent a different type of ceremony affirming their commitment to each other which was not 'marriage'? I don't know - not qualified to comment... I think perhaps some people are more inclined than others to think of every relationship they are involved in as being a negotiation in progress, if you see what I mean (I am not particularly inclined that way) and therefore it is easier to delineate what is appropriate to one relationship, and not appropriate to another.

On the other hand, I don't know what I am talking about.

I personally am not very interested in getting married married, but wouldn't cry foul on anyone else for doing it. I do think it peculiar when people get engaged every time they have a relationship which lasts longer than a couple of months (and there are such). Even my mother thinks that modern young women shouldn't feel any need to get married...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:28 / 10.09.04
Yeah... I think we reached that point at about the same time, K-CC. Like... you only have one finger on which you can wear a wedding ring. So, you can only wear one wedding ring at a time.

Bit like Dungeons and Dragons, really.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:39 / 10.09.04
Reading over some of the ( very eloquent, excellently argued posts - Sax, I am humbled... ok generally, I'm humbled, I am less than a worm, ) on this thread, I do get the feeling that even if the legal situation was changed, as it should be, to accomodate whatever form of life-long commitment one wished to pursue, ie if same sex couples were afforded the exact same rights as the " straight " alternative, it wouldn't really make much of a difference to anyone's view about marriage in general. The current ( absurd ) legal situation as regards same sex weddings is a convenient rod to beat the institution's back with, but in say ten years time, hopefully less, as and when gay marriage is just run of the mill, this same discussion is going to continue indefinitely.

Which is to say, all legal issues aside, the idea of marriage is depressing or not, depending on how you want to look at it really - you're either a cat person or a dog person, I suppose.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:45 / 10.09.04
So let's just get back to talking 'bout Steve, yeah, or other unattainable objects of desire ?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:51 / 10.09.04
Well... I can't speak for anyone else here, Alex, but from my point of view I disagree. I would agree that marriage is it currently stands is a deeply odd institution, and that "gay marriage" only goes some ways to adress this deep oddness, as would "polyamoorous marriage", "Boston marriage" and so on. A marriage which I felt was truly equitable would probably either have to be very broad in its applicability or very narrow in its legality. On a more basic, grunty level I find the "you and me against the world" thing a bit antithetical, because if I'm going up against the world I prefer to have a whole passle of people I can trust and rely on watching my back - Fellowship of the Ring stylee rather than Butch and Sundance stylee, but that's a bit of a different thing. I certainly don't want to stop people from doing what they feel is necessary to make clear to themselves and/or others that they are functioning in a particular way together, be that official recognition, heart lockets or facial tattoos...

Oh dear. I'm afraid this thread is rotted through... maybe we should start another "Sex Lives" thread, since this one is a bit knackered.
 
 
Sekhmet
16:13 / 10.09.04
Haus - I suppose that might be one way of looking at it. I was, of course, joking about the forehead tattoo (although I am an only child, and I admittedly do tend to be jealous, possessive and territorial - I'm sure that's a factor if we want to get psychoanalytical).

Sociologically speaking, taking that step demonstrates to us and the rest of the world that we are a Couple, dammit, and nobody can deny it, dissolve it, or dismiss it, on any legal, moral or social grounds. However you want to define a "couple", we are It. There's power in that.

It's a psychological issue as much as a sociological one. Marriage, at least for me, confers a sense of security and commitment and permanence, even if it's semi-illusory. It's much like the difference between renting a flat and owning your own place. Granted that you might plan on renting the flat till the day you die, or that someday you might sell the house, but owning a house just feels more settled and permanent and secure. Now, whether you want that sense of settled permanence is an issue. Lots of people, including close friends of mine, consider it to be hopelessly old-fashioned and bourgeois. Which is fine. But we're married, and we do own a house. It's a very personal choice, and one that I'm comfortable with.

In passing, I should note that we got married fresh out of college, and largely because we'd been dating for three years, we were still madly in love, and it just seemed like the "natural" next step. I won't dispute that what made it seem "natural" was probably societal conditioning; but I'm also not convinced of the fact that if something is condoned by society it must be wrong. And of course, at 22, it wasn't something we considered all the socio-political implications of; we really didn't consider much besides the way we felt about it. Frankly, I'm not sure that was a bad thing either; individuals have to make the right choices for themselves, and I think it was the right choice for us.

To be clear about my own position, and not to speak for anyone else: I feel no personal responsibility to make anyone else happy about my lifestyle choices, and I don't feel guilty about making my commitment to my life partner a legally recognized institution. I believe that should be an option for everyone, and fully support both gay marriage and legal rights for life-partners who don't choose to marry. I don't agree that I'm "oppressing" others by being married; the politicians who are making the laws against gay marriage, and the people voting for those politicians, are the oppressors. The key to equality on this front is not abolishing marriage as an institution, as some people have suggested. How does taking more rights away from more people increase freedom? To borrow the "whites-only" metaphor, that would be like allowing NOBODY to get on the bus at all. We should focus instead on changing the power structure and overthrowing the hegemony so that everyone has the same options and the same rights, the same choices available. That is what oppressed peoples have always struggled for; not reducing everyone to the same level, but raising everyone to the same level.

(Blargh. Sorry, got a bit ranty there. Viva la threadrot!)
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:14 / 10.09.04
Not at all Haus - God only knows, there are enough other fora, on this board alone, to talk about Steve.

The sad bitter truth though, is that one's friends do get married, after a while, and there's nothing too much you can do about it really. I remember calling Matthew Perry ( Chandler from Friends ) a cunt ( behind his back, but to his girlfriend, so I still think... well to be totally honest I shudder at the memory, but I guess it got back to him, as I fell down the stairs, ) at a very good pal of mine's engagement party, and that still wasn't enough to stop the ceremony.
 
 
Sekhmet
16:16 / 10.09.04
Ack - I was replying to something upthread and apparently took too long, the conversation train has left without me...
 
 
Jack Fear
17:00 / 10.09.04
Haus: Loath though I am to involve myself further in this debate—I do so hate it when we fight—the question remains: On what, would you say, is your bafflement with the notion of "marriage" primarily predicated? On (a) the heteroexclusive nature of the institution as it (mostly) exists today? Or on (b) a larger bafflement with the phenomenon of monogamy (or more properly monoamory, I suppose)?

You seem to be making either argument as it suits you, which might give the appearance, to these poor, befuddled eyes, of an attempt to keep the goalposts mobile.
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
17:33 / 10.09.04
I am currently "fixed up", I suppose. I have been exclusively dating the same woman for the last year and some change. However, we have no plans to marry, or even spend the rest of our lives together.
 
 
Sax
17:38 / 10.09.04
Sax: You use "some people" or "other people" twice in your post, once to criticise and once to pity. In both cases, as far as I can tell, you mean by that me. Why is that?

Haus, if I meant by that you, I would have named you.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
17:44 / 10.09.04
Actually, rereading the abstract, I'd like to applaud Alex for hir acknowledgment of the possibility of there being 'somewhere in between' to inhabit

As (professional fencesitter, moi? ) this is a lot more accurate a description of where I am than pretty much every conversation I'd had outside a very specific/special environment. (BiCon)

And the lack of comprehension of the 'somewhere in between' is, I realised in that space, something that' I'm finding difficult to deal with.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply