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

[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.