Please Help! Boundary Issue
- Thread starter bofish
- Start date
Marcus
Well-known member
The fact that you would even ask that series of questions tells me that it is very unlikely you have anything to learn from me. What about any of my statements even hints that I am not in favor of equal protection and opportunity?
It seems likely to me the problem is you are looking through a very tight "you're either with me or against me" lens. It's not unusual for an activist to have this kind of mindset - some would say it is actually a requirement to be an activist. If an activist gets too deep into introspection, considers the gray areas of ideologies, and doesn't hate people who have conflicting views.... would they get anything done? It's debatable, but I personally find that kind of narrow view of the world to be a detriment unless the circumstances are extraordinary (like San Francisco in the 70s).
But... to answer what I presume is the meat of your question, simply print out the post from CattivaGattina, put it next to your mirror, read it every morning.
I am often quite abrupt and am RARELY coddling when posting on discussion forums like this. It gets a lot of people twisted up and they start taking swings at me. I understand that this is a consequence of my style.
If your goal is for people to like you, be reasonable and courteous. If your goal is for every straight-white-male on the planet to roll their eyes at you and dismiss everything you have to say... try to shame them about their orientation, ethnicity, and gender.
Dirtclustit
Banned
good God
after nineteen pages of nonsense, that's the way a person says no?
Damn! you had me going for a second there, you just have a sense of humor like Kevin and Helo
after nineteen pages of nonsense, that's the way a person says no?
Damn! you had me going for a second there, you just have a sense of humor like Kevin and Helo
What I decided to do
As far as my husband, I told him this morning that my control came out of fear. As Vin suggested, my husband is working on being able to be himself and not morph as other people come along. I told him that I felt since GF was so into sex parties, if I had not asked him not to, he would have become just a person who went to sex events on a regular basis. He agreed this was true. I told him that I would not be able to figure out IF I wanted to stay with him if he didn't know himself and didn't change with each person.
As far as GF, I decided just to back off having any relationship with her. I went out of my way to include her in family events just because I''m inclusion like that and it's what husband wanted. But it's not really my place and not really appreciated. I also told him that I would not babysit when his parents were in town so he could go out with her when he won't come out to his parents. I just don't feel it's my place to cover.
Marcus, you are not going to answer the question...I asked you a direct question. The circumstances in my opinion ARE still dire. People with disabilities have a 70% unemployment rate, 60-90% of people with Downs are aborted, pWD have no sexual presence in the world, and are still regarded as weak or less than. Gay men are routinely beat up, AIDS still exists, gay marriage is only legal in a few states.
As far as Ca - (forgetting posting name). This is not hypothetical. I have been an activist within disability rights for 14 years. In that time, I have aleinated some people (most disabled - able people tend to just strongly agree with me or disagree). I've had to learn the hard way that although I view MY disability CP as just part of who I am, like being Chinese, people who become disabled still have a hard time viewing disability as negative. I learnt this in qa fight with a quad poet, who go so mad at me, he refused to participate in our anthology (which is now a textbook). I also have to deal with it on a daily basis with my MS students. I had to deal with it again, when after all my ranting about not aborting fetuses with Downs, my friend (single) had a fetus with Downs. I had the really ask myself would I keep a fetus with Downs, would I adopt hers? How did my activist meet my real life? (She had the baby and I am helping her care for it.) Just because I come off as a judgemental bitch on a listserv doesn't mean I haven't been through these things and thought about them deeply.
I have a friend who is a very "big" AIDS activist. He often is interviewed by the nY Times. When I complained to him about people being rude to me for being outspoken, he said. "Ha! I get email death-threats on a regular basis. It's just par for the course."
As far as my husband, I told him this morning that my control came out of fear. As Vin suggested, my husband is working on being able to be himself and not morph as other people come along. I told him that I felt since GF was so into sex parties, if I had not asked him not to, he would have become just a person who went to sex events on a regular basis. He agreed this was true. I told him that I would not be able to figure out IF I wanted to stay with him if he didn't know himself and didn't change with each person.
As far as GF, I decided just to back off having any relationship with her. I went out of my way to include her in family events just because I''m inclusion like that and it's what husband wanted. But it's not really my place and not really appreciated. I also told him that I would not babysit when his parents were in town so he could go out with her when he won't come out to his parents. I just don't feel it's my place to cover.
Marcus, you are not going to answer the question...I asked you a direct question. The circumstances in my opinion ARE still dire. People with disabilities have a 70% unemployment rate, 60-90% of people with Downs are aborted, pWD have no sexual presence in the world, and are still regarded as weak or less than. Gay men are routinely beat up, AIDS still exists, gay marriage is only legal in a few states.
As far as Ca - (forgetting posting name). This is not hypothetical. I have been an activist within disability rights for 14 years. In that time, I have aleinated some people (most disabled - able people tend to just strongly agree with me or disagree). I've had to learn the hard way that although I view MY disability CP as just part of who I am, like being Chinese, people who become disabled still have a hard time viewing disability as negative. I learnt this in qa fight with a quad poet, who go so mad at me, he refused to participate in our anthology (which is now a textbook). I also have to deal with it on a daily basis with my MS students. I had to deal with it again, when after all my ranting about not aborting fetuses with Downs, my friend (single) had a fetus with Downs. I had the really ask myself would I keep a fetus with Downs, would I adopt hers? How did my activist meet my real life? (She had the baby and I am helping her care for it.) Just because I come off as a judgemental bitch on a listserv doesn't mean I haven't been through these things and thought about them deeply.
I have a friend who is a very "big" AIDS activist. He often is interviewed by the nY Times. When I complained to him about people being rude to me for being outspoken, he said. "Ha! I get email death-threats on a regular basis. It's just par for the course."
So he agreed but did he say that was definitely a bad thing? Because going to sex parties isn't inherently a bad thing.
Now, I'm not saying changing your core values all the time is a good thing but new people in your life do bring about change whether it's new hobbies, new perspectives or new things in the bedroom. That's a benefit of polyamory.
Dirtclustit
Banned
I hope you know bofish
that I am not saying sex parties are wrong, in fact I am not saying that any behavior exhibited together or when apart, so long as that is what people agree to while being fully educated and knowledgeable so that it prevents the situations where consent is NOT really consent due to the level manipulation.
It is not my intent to influence your outlook or beliefs in what you should see as acceptable behavior, that is only something you, your husband and GF should decide.
But I think you understood that my intention was no to vehemently endorse nor condemn people of behaviors at sex parties. I don't believe anybody should ever feel ashamed about any sexual feelings.
What I actually didn't agree with was anyone telling anybody else what they had to accept or was "within your rights" or "not within your rights"
that NOBODY has the right to even attempt to influence another person's decision in regards to what makes them happy, and what they desire in their life. Even though it may not always appear this way, I am very against influencing others decisions about who they are, what makes them genuinely happy, and the things they desire from life
that I am not saying sex parties are wrong, in fact I am not saying that any behavior exhibited together or when apart, so long as that is what people agree to while being fully educated and knowledgeable so that it prevents the situations where consent is NOT really consent due to the level manipulation.
It is not my intent to influence your outlook or beliefs in what you should see as acceptable behavior, that is only something you, your husband and GF should decide.
But I think you understood that my intention was no to vehemently endorse nor condemn people of behaviors at sex parties. I don't believe anybody should ever feel ashamed about any sexual feelings.
What I actually didn't agree with was anyone telling anybody else what they had to accept or was "within your rights" or "not within your rights"
that NOBODY has the right to even attempt to influence another person's decision in regards to what makes them happy, and what they desire in their life. Even though it may not always appear this way, I am very against influencing others decisions about who they are, what makes them genuinely happy, and the things they desire from life
Last edited:
Marcus
Well-known member
Are you a stupid asshole? Answer the question. I have asked you a specific question and I want you to tell me whether or not you are a stupid asshole. IF you are not a stupid asshole then perhaps I have something yet to learn from you.
Do you see the problem inherent in that question? It suggests that you have given me some indication that you are, in fact, a stupid asshole and I am pressing you to defend yourself. I am displaying that I already assume that I have made the correct "stupid asshole" classification and am merely seeking solid clarification. However, if you have given no such evidence then why would I ask? Further, why would you even gratify such a question with a response, certainly when inquired by some loud mouthed stranger on the internet who, as yet, has given you no reason to respect their opinion?
Marcus,
I read some of your other posts, and I THINK I understand where you are coming from. I am NOT SURE though. I know very little about anarchy, very little. But, from what I am deducing, my views would not be respected by you.
It is my naive understanding that Anarchy means there would be very little, if any government, and few laws. Societies would fall into place somewhat organically. This would seem though related to Darwin's survival of the fittest. Just organically, the "weak" -- perhaps people with disabilities or gay men affected with HIV would die away. The "causes" I am fighting for would (ultimately) have to backed up by a government who responded to people fighting for those laws - i.e. IDEA, the ADA, gay marriage, and affirmative action. I am guessing in an anarchist model, these laws would be considered "forcing" people to believe a certain way. Although, I see force as problematic, I'm not entirely again using it to provide equality.
I'm probably wrong about all this, but I am just deducing from what I understand about anarchy. I could be totally wrong.
I respect your views...from what I understand of them. This understanding was had to come by because it's hard to sort through the insults! LOL
Anyway, I kNOW sometimes I sound like a dumb ass. I type fast, have a motor skills issue, don't fix the typos. I also tend to blab on about many topics. But, I'm not entirely stupid - I'm just a poet and not into as academic speak as you.
Take Care.
I read some of your other posts, and I THINK I understand where you are coming from. I am NOT SURE though. I know very little about anarchy, very little. But, from what I am deducing, my views would not be respected by you.
It is my naive understanding that Anarchy means there would be very little, if any government, and few laws. Societies would fall into place somewhat organically. This would seem though related to Darwin's survival of the fittest. Just organically, the "weak" -- perhaps people with disabilities or gay men affected with HIV would die away. The "causes" I am fighting for would (ultimately) have to backed up by a government who responded to people fighting for those laws - i.e. IDEA, the ADA, gay marriage, and affirmative action. I am guessing in an anarchist model, these laws would be considered "forcing" people to believe a certain way. Although, I see force as problematic, I'm not entirely again using it to provide equality.
I'm probably wrong about all this, but I am just deducing from what I understand about anarchy. I could be totally wrong.
I respect your views...from what I understand of them. This understanding was had to come by because it's hard to sort through the insults! LOL
Anyway, I kNOW sometimes I sound like a dumb ass. I type fast, have a motor skills issue, don't fix the typos. I also tend to blab on about many topics. But, I'm not entirely stupid - I'm just a poet and not into as academic speak as you.
Take Care.
LovingRadiance
Active member
bofish;249730 Anyway said:
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
Ah...the old "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" question...never fails to infuriate.
Marcus
Well-known member
Anarchy is a complex topic and, without a great deal of interest and patience, most folks would just assume not acknowledge it as a method of relating. That being the case, the fear of "survival of the fittest" would seem to be a natural association with anarchy. For fear of taking this thread so far afield that it can't recover, I'll leave this assertion by simply saying it is more complicated than that, but not unreasonable to come to that conclusion at first glance.
I believe strongly in a persons right to be who they are, free from injury or coercion, so long as they follow the one rule of "do... no... harm". My opinions about what you should or should not do are profoundly irrelevant and while I am free to express those opinions, I would be a villain if by means of bullying, guilt, harassment, enslavement, etc I forced you into behaving in a manner of my preference. I am truly not my brothers keeper.
There is your answer.
Why, madam, I do believe you are flirting with me.
/gives bedroom eyes
"I would be a villain if by means of bullying, guilt, harassment, enslavement, etc I forced you into behaving in a manner of my preference."
How do laws fit into this? Are laws "forcing people into behaving in a manner of my preference?"
Do you consider Affirmative Action and "curb cuts" preferences?
I totally get it. Asking people to be "out" is being my "brother's keeper." But how do we deal with folks who have been marginialized and killed and instutionalized. Do you understand this from a disability perspective?
On the other hand, I actually respect you if you can use this model in a real-life, poly romance. It must take a lot of balls to be self-assured enough not to have jealousy or abandonment issues OR to be strong enough to take responsibility for these feelings wholly on your own and solve them. To just trust that if you are in no way your lover's "keeper" everything will work out for the best or you will be able to handle it. I think most poly people must have this strength to a certain degree, right?
I think this (if it is accurate) may just be the bone people have to pick with Anarchy relating. Most people aren't emotionally up to that task. i.e. my gay friends who deal with their loss through meth, self-hatred and not taking their meds.
I say this without irony. If you can maintain that, you are very strong (and MAYBE had good attachment parenting, perhaps not) hats off to you!
How do laws fit into this? Are laws "forcing people into behaving in a manner of my preference?"
Do you consider Affirmative Action and "curb cuts" preferences?
I totally get it. Asking people to be "out" is being my "brother's keeper." But how do we deal with folks who have been marginialized and killed and instutionalized. Do you understand this from a disability perspective?
On the other hand, I actually respect you if you can use this model in a real-life, poly romance. It must take a lot of balls to be self-assured enough not to have jealousy or abandonment issues OR to be strong enough to take responsibility for these feelings wholly on your own and solve them. To just trust that if you are in no way your lover's "keeper" everything will work out for the best or you will be able to handle it. I think most poly people must have this strength to a certain degree, right?
I think this (if it is accurate) may just be the bone people have to pick with Anarchy relating. Most people aren't emotionally up to that task. i.e. my gay friends who deal with their loss through meth, self-hatred and not taking their meds.
I say this without irony. If you can maintain that, you are very strong (and MAYBE had good attachment parenting, perhaps not) hats off to you!
Marcus
Well-known member
Discussing an anarchist model within an existing democratically elected republic which is a heavily regulated pseudo capitalist society is asking for trouble. These concepts are best done in theory and not shoehorned into an existing complex structure. Doing so just adds more confusion.
I do, and I don't care.
Groups who are enslaved, oppressed, repressed, or are under the impression that they are one of the two are subject to the activist righteousness. A person or group protesting that they are harmed doesn't impress me unless it is demonstrably true.
This is another question you've asked me which concerns me. I am beginning to wonder if I am missing a huge chunk of what you are getting at.
When speaking about what I believe and what I know to be true I can come across as a rock. However, when speaking about my personal experiences (successes and failures) I try to be realistic. I am far from capable of living my ideals every moment of every day... some days I am right on and some days I can't seem to even approach my ideals. My stance is that, as long as I am striving to live the best version of my ideals then I am taking steps in the right direction. This is true with all forms of thought when compared to practical application.
Now THAT is certainly its own topic.
Just thinking this through: I think a difficulty with "do no harm" is that a lot of harm is not meant to be harmful. If person A. lived by do no harm they would naturally stop calling the kid on the subway faggot or me "retarded."
However, if all the store owners on the street leave steps up to their stores. They do not intend to cause harm, they are just maintaining their preference for aethetic or financial reasons. If person A uses a wheelchair and wants to buy milk - they may be "harmed" because, well, they need milk. So, the intension is there, but the two are at odds. This is just a pretty mundane example.
If I go into a teaching interview with equal or better qualifications than able people and I barely get to say three words because I have a slight speech impediment, this person causes me "harm" by making the job market impossible for me with their "knee-jerk" reaction to disability. But, my point about coming out was if they KNOW people will all sorts of disabilities, they will not be startled or judge in this way...but I do admit that's making the world easier for ME and therefore, perhaps selfish. Replace the word gay or queer or poly with disability.
However, if all the store owners on the street leave steps up to their stores. They do not intend to cause harm, they are just maintaining their preference for aethetic or financial reasons. If person A uses a wheelchair and wants to buy milk - they may be "harmed" because, well, they need milk. So, the intension is there, but the two are at odds. This is just a pretty mundane example.
If I go into a teaching interview with equal or better qualifications than able people and I barely get to say three words because I have a slight speech impediment, this person causes me "harm" by making the job market impossible for me with their "knee-jerk" reaction to disability. But, my point about coming out was if they KNOW people will all sorts of disabilities, they will not be startled or judge in this way...but I do admit that's making the world easier for ME and therefore, perhaps selfish. Replace the word gay or queer or poly with disability
."A person or group protesting that they are harmed doesn't impress me unless it is demonstrably true."
I can provide many examples of this. But again, I'm "talking too much." I think if you just look for two seconds of this video, what I'm saying might be demonstrably true. But again, maybe I'm misreading you. I'm trying to communicate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_sYn8DnlH4
I can provide many examples of this. But again, I'm "talking too much." I think if you just look for two seconds of this video, what I'm saying might be demonstrably true. But again, maybe I'm misreading you
. I'm trying to communicate!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_sYn8DnlH4
LovingRadiance
Active member
No, they wouldn't.
IF they were taught that it was harmful, then they would stop.
But it wouldn't just happen.
The thing is-many people do things that harm others-without EVER KNOWING it.
People who actively try to live the "do no harm" philosophy, still do harm-often times-WITHOUT EVER knowing it.
The assumption that others know the harm they do is a dangerously erroneous assumption.
Excellent point. And faulty reasoning on my part.
The other two examples are about harm done without knowledge as well.
I know actually that the best way is to just be kind and tell my story.
Since, disability is just being taught now in schools, many people are not educated about this. We can't educate people person by person, so my best answer is laws (which may seem like coerion.) Fought for by activists who are willing to disclose and be open about their disability. But, as Marcus says. that is their choice.
The other two examples are about harm done without knowledge as well.
I know actually that the best way is to just be kind and tell my story.
Since, disability is just being taught now in schools, many people are not educated about this. We can't educate people person by person, so my best answer is laws (which may seem like coerion.) Fought for by activists who are willing to disclose and be open about their disability. But, as Marcus says. that is their choice.
Dagferi
Well-known member
Folks she just isn't worth your wasted breath.
I am sure I will be called a bigot by the OP.
Btw... I am a disabled veteran due to injuries received during the conflict in Bosnia. My husband is one too from the Marines he was never supposed to walk again. Yet neither of its expects the world to give us anything. We just live our lives instead of whining the world owes me something
I am sure I will be called a bigot by the OP.
Btw... I am a disabled veteran due to injuries received during the conflict in Bosnia. My husband is one too from the Marines he was never supposed to walk again. Yet neither of its expects the world to give us anything. We just live our lives instead of whining the world owes me something
LovingRadiance
Active member
I am pretty sure Martin Luther King jr actually said precisely the opposite-but I'm tired and not motivated to go find it.
But-I definitely disagree with you. The BEST way to teach people is person to person. There is no reason why we can't teach that way-we absolutely can.
Disabled people and those who have experience with them are educating others every day, person to person.
If you mean it's a slow process-well yes, CHANGE is a slow process because LEARNING is a slow process which in turn makes TEACHING a slow process.
Realistically-laws may help, but they don't fix a problem. If they did, then we wouldn't have racism issues or sexism issues any more-because we created laws against that. But-the truth is that laws are just rules and plenty of people see rules through the "rules are made to be broken" window.