report this user
Jun 26, 2015 emote_control commented on Up Early for the Supreme Court—Marriage Decision Could Come Today or Monday.
From the ruling, answering Scalia soundly:

"That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one."
Mar 16, 2013 emote_control commented on Addedum to SL Letter of the Day.
A priest in your bar deserves no more respect or deference than someone in your bar openly wearing a swastika. Don't waste any shame on the chance you offended him. If he had any human dignity he'd hang up his collar and leave the Church.
Aug 25, 2011 emote_control commented on There Is No "P" In "LGBTQITSLFA".
How do we straight people feel? We feel "that's your problem."
Mar 23, 2011 emote_control commented on Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama.
What the fuck is wrong with the American Left that makes them want to split hairs to the point where they're trying to cast their allies out because they're not ideologically pure enough? I went over and tried to read the drivel on that site and it make me want to just start punching people in the face and never stop. So stupid. So short-sighted.

They wish so hard that they had a little red book that everyone must memorize and agree with, but the complexity of plurality in the Left makes them wail and gnash their teeth.
Feb 16, 2011 emote_control commented on Hello, I'm Not the Enemy.
Dan's response is pretty much spot-on. I've met so many fat people in my life who were looking for someone to vilify so that they could somehow defeat that person and thereby overcome their issues with themselves. Lindy has constructed a narrative in which Dan is Darth Vader, and she's the rotund Luke Skywalker of Dignity.

Seriously, now that this girl has learned to love herself, she needs to get over herself. This sort of projection of her own inner struggle onto Dan isn't just rude, it's embarrassing.
Oct 22, 2010 emote_control commented on SL Letter of the Day: When It Rains....
@58: The analogy to BDSM doesn't hold, because your flogger doesn't get hurt feelings if you use your safe word.

If you agree that these things are best handled with a redistribution of time and attention, then you ought to also disagree with Dan's repeated advice in his column, his blog, and his podcast, that secondaries should be tossed out unceremoniously when there's trouble in the primary relationship, because for some reason you can't deal with problems in the primary relationship when there's a secondary relationship also happening. That's the thing I take issue with, and why I say Dan has no idea what he's talking about with respect to open relationships. He's always giving that same advice, and it makes about as much sense as saying you should dump your primary because you're having some extra stress at work, and how can you deal with your work stress when you also have to deal with a marriage?

It seems that you actually don't think that secondaries are disposable, and therefore you disagree with Dan's advice. So why are you arguing?
Oct 22, 2010 emote_control commented on SL Letter of the Day: When It Rains....
@54: Are you suggesting that there is not enough time over the course of a week to spend time with more than one person, even if you live with one of those people? Because if that's the case I humbly suggest that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Since I am actually living in a situation that requires me to spend quality time with both my primary and secondary partners, play in two bands, take dancing lessons, work part time, look for more work, raise two kids, go out to social events, get in some online gaming, post on messageboards, and sleep, I can say from experience that there are plenty of ways to find extra time if someone needs it.

I think I am to understand that you aren't in a poly or open relationship, and so you actually have no idea what kind of time commitment having multiple partners involves, or how easy or difficult it is to deliver on that commitment.
Oct 22, 2010 emote_control commented on SL Letter of the Day: When It Rains....
@46: You're missing the point. I certainly am not advocating the notion that there should be no primaries and secondaries, and that these relationship categories shouldn't have different priorities. I have a primary partner, to whom I am married. I have a secondary partner as well, who has her own primary. That makes me a secondary too. I have a greater obligation to my wife than to my girlfriend as far as emotional support is concerned. But that doesn't mean that it's fair, ethical, or even rational to just drop my secondary if my primary needs more of my time and attention. I can just spend more time with my primary, perhaps at the expense of some time with my secondary.

And my wife also cares about the feelings of my girlfriend, as crazy as that might sound to you or Dan. She doesn't want to force us to do anything that's going to hurt us. We all want to find a mutually-acceptable solution to any problems that arise. Toward the beginning of our relationship, my girlfriend's primary felt a bit threatened by our relationship, because they were new at being open and he wasn't really comfortable with the idea of her doing things with other guys. So we kept it platonic for a while. And then added more sexual things as he started to feel better because we were demonstrating that I was not going to change their relationship. We didn't call it off at the first sign of trouble. We worked something out, keeping the priority on the primary partners, while still respecting the secondary relationship as a real, important relationship.

This is not rocket science, but you and Dan and some of the "I'm monogamous, but I have opinions about open relationships!" people in these comments seem to think that people are simply disposable objects that are there to be used and discarded when they're no longer convenient. That's terrible.
Oct 21, 2010 emote_control commented on SL Letter of the Day: When It Rains....
Yup. It's confirmed. Dan Savage thinks that secondary partners are not real people. They are Real Dolls and can and should be discarded on a whim if the primary has any kind of problem with anything.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that relationships are relationships, and people need to be treated with respect and humanity whether they're "primary," "secondary," or "person I met five minutes ago at a bar"?

The people who call Dan out for "bashing monogamy" have no fucking clue what they're talking about. Dan has no idea what an open relationship is, and he's way more monogamous than he wants to admit. It colours his judgment, and he can't see it.

The wife needs to talk to her husband, tell him that she's feeling bad, and get him to pay more attention to her. And let him keep seeing his girlfriend. She can't just tell him to end his secondary relationship because she's a bit upset right now, but she can expect that her partner will provide emotional support. We don't know whether she's actually had a conversation with him about the way she feels. It seems like she hasn't. But it's very important for her to know that she can ask for more attention without destroying the other relationship her husband is having. And it's important to remember that her husband's relationship is a real relationship, and the secondary has feelings too, which deserve respect.

For fuck's sake, Dan, you're giving open relationships a bad rap by giving people the idea that if they get into a relationship with someone who already has a partner, they'll be discarded as soon as there's any problems. Way to piss in the punchbowl, Dan.
Oct 21, 2010 emote_control commented on Savage Love.
@15 & @62 & @73: You guys summarize my opinion pretty nicely. I'm really disappointed in Dan's response.

@50: That's funny, all the open relationships that I know that haven't crashed and burned don't have a veto. Not having a veto means that you actually have to deal with the inevitable snags and problems, and treat your partners like human beings, not like masturbation toys that can be thrown away when they become inconvenient. Dealing with these problems, by addressing them and talking through them like adults instead of just freaking out and running away, strengthens all the relationships. Your position seems kind of craven.