Cavorting in our natural environment

[lavendertook]

Here is more evidence of why we adore lawlesslawyer, once again rescuing our brains from the additional bursting blood cells that articles such as this induce, especially during this painful time of hoping the Democrats locate a back bone or find a place to rent one.

And as we can deduce from the comment thread of her essay, no matter how dripping with acid your bloody knife of mirth is, someone is always going to swoop in like a seagull from Finding Nemo, trussed up in lemon, basil, and garlic sauce, proclaiming to be the fucking center of the universe.

There is no public space free from this. Carry a fork always. And remember, the salad fork goes on the outside of the left place setting.

Comments

[fromaway.livejournal.com]

You can really see what it's about for those men — it's not about women's rights or women's equality, it's about THEIR inalienable right to have 100% guaranteed control over the consequences of heterosexual intercourse, no matter what that means for the women involved.

That dude is a misogynist; he even admits it on his LJ. Check out this bit on the legalization of polygamy (which I'm not personally for because I think it would be a logistical nightmare, but):

I want to see a repeal of the alimony laws governing support before I get on the polygamy bandwagon. There's no way i'm hooking up with two women, and after a few years, divorcing them both only to have to support the BOTH of them until they remarry, because of some backwards ass law.

How about child support? If I marry two women who all ready have three kids a piece? Will I have to pay child support for all six of them if we divorce, too? Imagine the winfall some wily woman could cook up? Getting child support out of me, as well as other guys, to live high on the hog while I recieve the shaft.

AAAAUGH.

I cannot believe the total ignorance about how spousal support works, and the total refusal to take responsibility for his own (hypothetical) behaviour. It's all the fault of the "wily women," all the time.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's pretty clear about this one.

"Polygamy" means multiple women legally bound with one man--it doesn't even cover the women's bonds to each other--and to legalize this arrangement only is definitely based on sexism, so if that's all you were addressing I agree with you.

But I'm for the legalization of "polyfidelity" or "polyamory". I know people in such arrangements and they should have legal coverage for their spouses. Some people do manage committed relationships to more than one person. And lawyers live to figure out legal logisitical nightmares. (-;

[fromaway.livejournal.com]

I guess that's true. Nonetheless, having some knowledge of what happens when a monogamous marriage ends, I find that the notion of dissolving multiple marriages simultaneously, or dissolving A's marriage to B while leaving both A and B married to C, or what have you, makes my head swim. The lawyers' fees would be monstrous, and I do wonder if there's a point at which formal legal recognition for one's unions comes at too great a price, or whether it's better to revisit some of the benefits associated with marriage and see if they could be assigned in a more flexible way, or to eliminate the institution of state-sanctioned sexual relationships entirely, or...you get the picture.

Polygamy does actually mean more than one spouse — it's polygyny that is multiple wives only.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right on the definition of polygamy--I got that totally wrong--sorry for the time-waster there. I think the term does carry with it the connotations of the "one man with multiple subordinate women" model--polygyny--and that's where my interpretation came in, even if I see my Webster's carrying a more egalitarian sounding definition. In my experience, people use the term polyfidelity and polyamory to distinguish their relationships from that traditional sexist model.

The added legal complexity--which I don't find to be an inhibitor--is still no reason not to honor relationships between multiple commited spouses in the same way that you would honor a pairing, just as same-sex unions should be honored as heterosexual unions.

And yeah, I'd be fine with legality and the idea of marriage being separated for all unions, but I don't think a majority of heterosexual pairings will give that up, so if one configuration can marry, so should all of our configurations be included.

And the legality is so very necessary in cases of sickness and hostile birth-families trying to get in the way of a spouse or spouses trying to support their ill spouse.