Red Mosquito

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:So, are you telling me that I could identify as a murderer without ever actually attempting to murder anyone?

that's an interesting question given the number of people who'd say someone with a criminal desire should already be condemned as a criminal

but in any case, again, is it OK to murder? no

is it OK to "go outside a monogamous relationship"? potentially, yes, let's talk about baby

Morality aside, could one correctly, technically identify as someone who does certain things who doesn’t actually do those things?

I certainly will not speak for Ms. H but if y'all will allow an outside opinion here, I will say... yes. There are countless gay/lesbian identifying people who, for a variety of reasons, do not act on being gay/lesbian. But that's different than "murderer" which is the example you keep bringing up.

One can imagine killing a person and never kill a person. This person is not and should not be defined as a murderer. However, a person can be gay and not act on being gay. That person is still gay. So it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The differential should be obvious.

Oops. I agree with this. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say they are polyamorous or polygamous without actually committing the act

You have an impulse. Society/your community/you religion/fear/perspective tells you not to act on those desires/impulses. You don't act.

You said you understand the difference between gay and murderer. How is this different for you?

It's pretty simple.. you have an impulse to murder but you don't murder, so you're not a murderer. You have an impulse to have multiple relationships but you don't, you're not actually polygamous. But if you're gay and don't act upon it, then you're still gay.

Cool. Now imagine that gay and polyamorous are the same.

Gay means an attraction to a particular sex. Polyamory is the act of having multiple simultaneous relationships. Murder is the act of having killed someone. A desire for something doesn't make you the thing, by definition. I mean, having a desire to be gay doesn't make you gay, you're either gay or you're not. It's not an act. You could even have sex with someone of your own sex and not be gay. You can't murder someone and not be a murderer.

epilogue wrote:Aparently 74 pages is my limit.

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:So, are you telling me that I could identify as a murderer without ever actually attempting to murder anyone?

that's an interesting question given the number of people who'd say someone with a criminal desire should already be condemned as a criminal

but in any case, again, is it OK to murder? no

is it OK to "go outside a monogamous relationship"? potentially, yes, let's talk about baby

Morality aside, could one correctly, technically identify as someone who does certain things who doesn’t actually do those things?

I certainly will not speak for Ms. H but if y'all will allow an outside opinion here, I will say... yes. There are countless gay/lesbian identifying people who, for a variety of reasons, do not act on being gay/lesbian. But that's different than "murderer" which is the example you keep bringing up.

One can imagine killing a person and never kill a person. This person is not and should not be defined as a murderer. However, a person can be gay and not act on being gay. That person is still gay. So it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The differential should be obvious.

Oops. I agree with this. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say they are polyamorous or polygamous without actually committing the act

You have an impulse. Society/your community/you religion/fear/perspective tells you not to act on those desires/impulses. You don't act.

You said you understand the difference between gay and murderer. How is this different for you?

It's pretty simple.. you have an impulse to murder but you don't murder, so you're not a murderer. You have an impulse to have multiple relationships but you don't, you're not actually polygamous. But if you're gay and don't act upon it, then you're still gay.

Cool. Now imagine that gay and polyamorous are the same.

Gay means an attraction to a particular sex. Polyamory is the act of having multiple simultaneous relationships. Murder is the act of having killed someone. A desire for something doesn't make you the thing, by definition. I mean, having a desire to be gay doesn't make you gay, you're either gay or you're not. It's not an act. You could even have sex with someone of your own sex and not be gay. You can't murder someone and not be a murderer.

Forget what you understand about contemporary definitions. And take a few days to just imagine that they are the same.

Jorge wrote:

epilogue wrote:Aparently 74 pages is my limit.

It's more like 12 pages, you weren't really around for most of this

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:So, are you telling me that I could identify as a murderer without ever actually attempting to murder anyone?

that's an interesting question given the number of people who'd say someone with a criminal desire should already be condemned as a criminal

but in any case, again, is it OK to murder? no

is it OK to "go outside a monogamous relationship"? potentially, yes, let's talk about baby

Morality aside, could one correctly, technically identify as someone who does certain things who doesn’t actually do those things?

I certainly will not speak for Ms. H but if y'all will allow an outside opinion here, I will say... yes. There are countless gay/lesbian identifying people who, for a variety of reasons, do not act on being gay/lesbian. But that's different than "murderer" which is the example you keep bringing up.

One can imagine killing a person and never kill a person. This person is not and should not be defined as a murderer. However, a person can be gay and not act on being gay. That person is still gay. So it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The differential should be obvious.

Oops. I agree with this. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say they are polyamorous or polygamous without actually committing the act

You have an impulse. Society/your community/you religion/fear/perspective tells you not to act on those desires/impulses. You don't act.

You said you understand the difference between gay and murderer. How is this different for you?

It's pretty simple.. you have an impulse to murder but you don't murder, so you're not a murderer. You have an impulse to have multiple relationships but you don't, you're not actually polygamous. But if you're gay and don't act upon it, then you're still gay.

is a person with no partners because they just haven't found any, monogamous by default?

Monogamy is a practice. You practice monogamy. One can be inclined to want to practice monogamy. They are not monogamous by default.

Jorge wrote:This thread sucks now

epilogue wrote:

macphisto wrote:

epilogue wrote:

macphisto wrote:

epilogue wrote:

macphisto wrote:If I'm polyamorous and cheat on my wife, I should be free of consequences. My sexual identity trumps any societal constructs.

As usual, you seem to need to misreprent/misunderstand actions and consequences. Never change.

Please wokesplain it to me then. I'm here to learn.

Sure, it's simple: go fuck yourself.

You lack impulse control and have a very poor temperament. Be better.

I will be better when you go fuck yourself.

macphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet

Jorge wrote:

macphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet

Okay this got a big laugh out of me

Ms Harmless wrote:in trans speak: if you're a "guy" who "wants to be" a girl, are you a girl? yeah, why not? unless you decide you're not

if you're a "guy" who thinks being a guy is kind of shit actually, are you nonbinary? yeah, if you want; it's a valid nonbinary narrative

Jorge wrote:

macphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet

Okay this got a big laugh out of me

Rob wrote:

Jorge wrote:

macphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet

Okay this got a big laugh out of me

Lol, me too. Sorry Epilogue. This was good.

epilogue wrote:As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.

epilogue wrote:As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.

wease wrote:

epilogue wrote:As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.

Does this mean you wear ladies’ undergarments?