Thread: Exploring
View Single Post
  #6  
Old 11-01-2013, 02:02 AM
MichiganMusic MichiganMusic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
Yes-it would be.

It is TOTALLY REASONABLE to end up in a scenario with someone who doesn't want to look for other partners.
But to tell someone that you reserve that right for yourself and they are forbidden is hypocritical at best and somewhere along the spectrum as you are a male it is also misogynistic. If you a female it would be whatever the word is that is opposite-as in a female to a male.
But either way-it's a fucked up a way to manage a relationship.

Treating a partner as if they should not have the RIGHT to whatever right you want-is messed up.
Thank you for the response, but it is rather presumptuous.

I think BigGuy is correct in that there is nothing inherently misogynistic (or the opposite) about it - only the historical context. Gender has nothing to do with it, and there are easy scenarios to create that would illustrate that point.

There is a hypocritical element to it, that I wouldn't debate. This is where your argument becomes presumptuous - you are not not necessarily forbidding or removing the rights of the other person. Rather, the parties involved could have been looking for things that happen to compatible.

Example:
Some couples have one member who desires to stay home and take care of the kids while the other works...if this was something that was desirable for both parties then where is the fault? How is this different would be the question? I ask inquisitively, not combatively.
Reply With Quote