I didn't take any offense to your remarks nor did I think they were directed at me. Substitute husband for partner and it makes no difference. All I was intending was to be all inclusive covering all bases.
No. Aaaaand...how is this relevant to the discussion at hand? . or else I'm going to go back to lurking.
No one is entitled to sex. Sex can only happen with the consent all parties involved, otherwise it's rape. With that said, the only thing limiting someone is the agreements they have with others. One's assumptions of what another agrees to at marriage are irrelevant.
I speak for no one else, but it doesn't change a thing for me. A secret is still not a lie. A secret may hurt, and hurt more when it is a loved one keeping it from you, but it is still not a lie.
I think the main issue here is that we’re not looking at the fact that there are three parts to a secret. The Object/Information/Action that needs to be kept secret. The decision to keep it secret. The activities employed to keep it secret. Now in my example about my secret...It’s an action that I keep secret. That is not a lie. It’s just something I do that I don’t want to have to explain to others outside a select group of people. I made a decision to not deal with explaining it to others. That is not a lie. I employ various actions to keep it secret and except for this thread...the topic has never come up save for a few times with people whom I didn’t mind knowing the secret. So I don’t have to lie to keep the secret. The secret is not a lie and thankfully I do not have to lie to keep it. Now in the case of infidelity exampled above... The action is the act of infidelity. It is an action that is a betrayal of trust, but it is not a lie. The decision to keep it a secret is not a lie. It’s not a good thing, but not a lie. It’s a decision that leads to the actions required to keep the secret... ...and those will likely be lies. Lies of omission, lies of where a person was when they were being unfaithful, perhaps even lies when the person tells their partner “I love you” when they may no longer do so in favor of the person they were unfaithful with. Those are the lies.
No one in our household (Poly family grouping of two women and two men) is entitled to sex. However, if one is desiring of some sexy funtime, being in that sort of family unit means that there is usually someone willing to oblige the other should they ask it. No coercion, no secrets.
Lying is telling someone something that is not true. Lying is also called misrepresentation. It depends on the context of what was asked and what was provided in the response. This means keeping a "secret" could be a lie if you withhold information someone asked you for, you have and you do not provide, and as a resulf of that non disclosure, they make a decision or come to a conclusion that they would not have otherwise arrived at, had you not withheld the information in the first place. So secrets often are lies. If you are open with someone who asks you information and you say, no I can not respond I was told certain information in confidence, that is not a lie. Many secrets are passive aggressive lies and used to mislead deliberately. So to say they are not is a rationalization and illogical and the law treats one who withholds misrepresentation of material facts to be unable to bind another to a contract and to be liable to pay damages for misrpresentations. They also trigger the doctrine of estoppel which means if you can show you deterimentally relied on someone's misrepresentation, you can seek damages for it if it was false or ask the contract it be connected to is thrown out. Thank you.
Interesting why are you speaking for the other two? You did not preface you were speaking only for yourself. You are presumptious. Lol. I spent over 25 years prosecuting sex crimes, then as a family mediator and lawyer for sex and abuse victims among other work. Try your shtick on someone else. The fact you speak for others in your response says it all. Try it on someone else. Mutliple sex partners require someone control the others. You know damn well they are not spontaneous free for alls unless perhaps you are all completely high or drunk in an orgy and you are rolling about in a stupor. In any sex act and relations among humans, there must be a degree of control by one over another and it is that degree of control and its context that determines whether it was consensual or not, not your lame attempts at rationalizing being able to phack more than one person with the other "consenting". You mean with you being able to control the other 2. Necessarily with more than two partners someone is in the minority and feels peer pressure. There is also a reason why the poly family groups exist. They exist because men are defined as having additional rights to multiple partners not women which is why its most always some man using his religion to rationalize his family quoting the Bible or Koran. Save it. Been there done that busting cults, narcissists, manipulators. Save your version of utopia for someone else. Been there with the people you phacked and their children. To me you arejust a manipulator. Even using the word "poly family grouping" the way youdo is manipulative. You use the words to make what you do sound intellectual and above board. If it was actually poly you would not be keeping more than one spousal relationshio at a time and your polys would co-exist but be completely dettached. Yah some of us actually know the correct terminology. Save the manipulation. Hey man in my world you are called a Pimp or a Charlie Manson low level. No moral judgement included. It aint moral judgement either- its just too bad if children have to be brought up in such an environment which has everything to do with your balls and nothing to do with the best interests of the children or the mental health and self respect of the other parties you have suckered under your control. Save it. In 25 years I never met a multiple spouse who was genuinely happy. They start off on the surface smiling and spewing Bible passages and honouring their husband. That usually gives way to their true feelings. Been there done that. Been there with the children who have problems with sexual boundaries with their siblings, parents, others because of the signals of their father. Save it Charlie.
Still not a lie. And especially if nothing is said in response to the question. That still doesn't mean that any given truthful response is a lie, simply because the person making the statement is aware that the listener will not understand the true meaning of what they said. A lie is only a false statement that is know to be false by the speaker at the time spoken. That's it, pure and simple. A lie only exists within knowledge and intent. A mirage is not a lie. It may be false, but there is no intent behind a mirage, thus it is not a lie. Believing something false and repeating it is not a lie. The person has no knowledge that it is false. A listener's perception and decisions are his own only and does not reflect whether or not the speaker told a lie. Secrets are never lies. To say otherwise is the rationalization. A secret is the withholding of information not the misrepresentation of information. A lie or misrepresentation can occur regarding the secret itself, but that is a lie about the secret, not the secret itself being a lie. How the law deals with things is irrelevant to how the rest of the world views things. This is why we have legal definitions that might not align exactly with the real world usage. For example, incest is sexual relations between two people blood related by a certain amount. Legal definitions not only vary as to how many degrees of separations are needed, but can also count legal relationships despite there being no blood between them. But even then we are still back to the secret being the withholding of information, and lying being about the secret. In cases where the keeping of a secret made a legally significant in ability to render informed consent to anything, that is still based upon withholding of information not misrepresentation of information. Not a single thing in that entire post is speaking for others. If you think so, the cite the exact words of his, and then counter with how they speak for others. If something is an opinion, such as whether or not someone is entitled to sex because of whatever definitions, then that's an opinion not speaking for others. Pot, kettle, achromatic. Good for you. I have spent almost all of that time in and working with the poly community, helping them to be able to separate out actual relationships and abuse. Not a lie, but certainly false. Absolutly false. Your proof of such a requirement? And now you presume to tell others what they know and think. However, in this case you are correct. Poly isn't a spontaneous free for all. An orgy might be, but poly is about the relationship, specifically intimate relationships, that one may have at the same time. Again, what is your evidence of this? Once again trying to tell others what they think or mean. For starters, there are 4 of us. Keep count. Skrudd said as much explicitly. Secondly, if there is anyone in control, it's the wives. But all of us are here consenting and willing, and in full knowledge of what we are doing. No it is not necessary. Again, where is your proof of this. I'm not trying to say that such situations don't exist, but that doesn't mean that such is the norm. Per force you will be seeing a skewed number of failed poly because what use would someone have for you in relationships that are working? ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!! The lack of knowledge in you is astounding! While I and the one woman I am legally married to are both Christians (of no set denomination, but neither of us has ever been Morman or FLDS), the other two are Wiccan. And as part of the poly community, I can tell you that we have a high percentage of both atheist and pagans among us as well as the Big Three religions. Really? Because I can count the number of people he's bedded on my fingers with some left over. It is all above board. You have any proof that it is not? Where are you getting your poly information from? Poly relationships can be separate or cohabitating or a combination of both. There is no one configuration. Sadly you are not among those, as this whole post as shown. Given the number of polyandrous marriages that are out there (obviously not on a legal level), I'm not sure where you get this. Again there is all kinds of combinations out there, which includes fewer women than men in the grouping. Furthermore, there are no studies that are not from biased sources (read religious) that show children of poly units as any more or less well off. Then you live a very limited life. But as noted, the successful ones would have no need of your services would they? As you stated it, your whole job is based upon the failures, not the successes. So you need to save it.
Maq I am responding. You stated: "Still not a lie. And especially if nothing is said in response to the question. That still doesn't mean that any given truthful response is a lie, simply because the person making the statement is aware that the listener will not understand the true meaning of what they said." You deliberateky create a specific context to justify a secret not being a lie. In so doing you show why your statement that all secrets are not lies is false. You had to twist and manipulate to create a specific context to try not make it a lie and you did a half assed job at that. Pretty lame actually. At no time did I ever contend that "any given truthful response is a lie." Do not manipulate and misrepresent I argued or stated things I did not. You then stated: " A lie is only a false statement that is know to be false by the speaker at the time spoken. That's it, pure and simple. " Again you raise a point I never argued and again you try manipulate. You now try the approach that a liar must know what he says is a lie for it to be a lie. Lol. Great. That means pathological liars, sociopaths and anyone who lies, can then further lie and claim they did not lie. Lol. How convenient. Lying is exposed for its inherent contradictions of the liar. Ultimately what you said is that someone must catch a liar to prove he is a liar. Its not a point I argued against or debated. In fact I spent 25 years catching people lying and know damn well what mens rea is and proving something beyond reasonable doubt in criminal court and how liars manipulate what they say playing innocent. You stated: "A lie only exists within knowledge and intent." Sophistic babble You are mixing up an actual lie with a detected lie. You then use a defective analogy to prove what I said which is a lie depends on the context of how it is used and presented, i.e., "A mirage is not a lie. It may be false, but there is no intent behind a mirage, thus it is not a lie. Believing something false and repeating it is not a lie. The person has no knowledge that it is false. A listener's perception and decisions are his own only and does not reflect whether or not the speaker told a lie." You create specific contexts, not general ones to again prove until you create a specific context to prove your point, you can not make a general stereotype that all secrets are not lies....not to mention a secret is not a mirage. A mirage is a phenomena that leads to an illusion based on someone's lack of scientific knowledge not what was said to them by someone to deliberately induce them into believing something. A secret is a deliberate choice, an action done with specific intent to withhold knowledge from someone. That withholding of knowledge can be done with the intent to deceive or with an intent to avoid confrontation or "spare someone'sfeelings" but it is still deliberate in that the person knows they are withholding information from someone else that will prevent them from knowing the full story (truth). If you say to someone you are withholding info due to promising another person you would or because of a confidential relationship between doctor-patient, lawyer-client, that is one thing, withholding info and not admitting you are withholding it is necessarily dishonest and its manipulative. You again repeat: "Secrets are never lies. To say otherwise is the rationalization." No actually its a rationalization to state a negative absolute as you have. You are doing a lame job trying to defend withholding info from people to manipulate their decisions as not being a lie. You stated: " A secret is the withholding of information not the misrepresentation of information." That is illogical. The two are the same unless the person holding the secret states to the other side they are withholding info. Here is my favourite response from you though: "How the law deals with things is irrelevant to how the rest of the world views things." Spoken like a true sociopath. How you doing lol. Who is the rest of the world and why is this "rest of the world" not bound by the law when it comes to marriage, divorce, contracts all based on not withholding secrets? Lol. There is no "rest of the world". In the context "rest of the world" you refer to only yourself and yes know doubt you do not give a damn about the law and also can't differentiate your views from those of others and thus put them in one pluaral category. Got it. Its called narcissism. Most people who manipulate and want to issue ultimatums of what is, and what is not, are. Hey ask Donald, Cuck Manson, Hitler. Then you state: "This is why we have legal definitions that might not align exactly with the real world usage. " We have legal definitions to provide objective methodology to determine how two people treat each other fairly. Its designed to protect people from those who lie or manipulate dishonestly. The only reason legal terminology does not match up with "real world usage" is the same reason medical terminology does not or any other professional terminology does not. You think it does not because you don't understand it. If you did you would know we can and do translate legal terminoliogy into every day language. That is why there is case law with Judges explaining their reasoning or doctors explaining to patients what disease they have. You also stated: " In cases where the keeping of a secret made a legally significant in ability to render informed consent to anything, that is still based upon withholding of information not misrepresentation of information." Sorry it is incoherent and makes no sense and doesn't sound like anything I challenged you on. You stated: "Not a single thing in that entire post is speaking for others. If you think so, the cite the exact words of his, and then counter with how they speak for others". You speak for your partners and as you said "the rest of the world". You stated: " If something is an opinion, such as whether or not someone is entitled to sex because of whatever definitions, then that's an opinion not speaking for others. " Sure it could very well be. In your case you wrote what you did to defend your beliefs and how they are imposed on others. If you detect a note of cynicism lol you bet. You stated: "Good for you. I have spent almost all of that time in and working with the poly community, helping them to be able to separate out actual relationships and abuse." Yep and in my world every pimp has said the above to rationalize their livelihoods. Lol. Yer a Saint. Got it. You stated" "Not a lie, but certainly false." Yah got it if I say something false its not a lie. You really want to play that shtick? You stated: "And now you presume to tell others what they know and think." No just you. I think you manipulate with words like you probably do with relationships from what I read. You stated: "Poly isn't a spontaneous free for all. An orgy might be, but poly is about the relationship, specifically intimate relationships, that one may have at the same time." Poly has been turned into a definition you use to rationalize different sex partners. Who you playin? Do your "poly mates" phack others as you do? Lol. Right. Who you kidding. Poly is fine as long as yer the one doing the multiple phacking right? Go play that on someone else. Interesting. You stated earlier to me you speak for no one else but you said this in your latest response: " But all of us are here consenting and willing, and in full knowledge of what we are doing." Your cognitive dissonance was bound to catch up. Oopsy. Yah I got it. You are the pimp daddy of your group. Yah they all are fully knowledgeable cuz you say so. Right Charlie. Here is another manipulative attempt I liked: "ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!! The lack of knowledge in you is astounding! While I and the one woman I am legally married to are both Christians (of no set denomination, but neither of us has ever been Morman or FLDS), the other two are Wiccan. And as part of the poly community, I can tell you that we have a high percentage of both atheist and pagans among us as well as the Big Three religions." You just proved what I stated-you are the only male in your group and your harem don't phack other men. Gee how hard was that to figure out. You stated: "Where are you getting your poly information from? Poly relationships can be separate or cohabitating or a combination of both. There is no one configuration." Excuse me I do not get my information on any human relationship from you. Your definitions are manipulative and designed to rationalize your sexual needs. You stated: "Given the number of polyandrous marriages that are out there (obviously not on a legal level), I'm not sure where you get this." I get it and got it from the victims. I get it and got it from the suicides, the incest, the rape, the out of wedlock pregnancies leading to abandoned children. I get it from the Pimps. My world is your world. Its just when you try pretty up your words I see them for what they are manipulative. I make no bones about it. Multiple relationships end up leading to someone sooner or later getting abused. But you keep spinning Charlie. I know, its all one happy famly. You stated: "Then you live a very limited life." I have witnessed lives of every race, colour, religion, gender, gender preference, economic class. The bruises, the blood, the broken bones, the mental breakdowns, the trashed hopes and dreams...I wish they had been limited. It aint. It spills into every damn criminal and family court in each and every country. I wish it were limited.
And how did he prove your statement that he is the only male in his group? Please Mr. Prosecutor. Explain to the court in detail how you were able to say with certainty that he is the only male in his group. <pulls out the popcorn and his portable chair> This should be entertaining.
A good friend of mine was once a councilor for battered and abused women. Day in and day out she had to deal with the women dealing with the emotional and physical damage caused by abusive men. So much so that she had to leave her profession behind because she was starting to hate all men...including her own husband. She knew all men weren't like that, but dealing with them day after day after day...it started to wear on her. Because...similar to what Maquiscat said when he stated... So looking at the failures that you've had to deal with, that you've seen the devastation of...that's a limited viewpoint since your profession isn't likely to to encounter the people in relationships who have succeeded. Much like my friend who was starting to take a narrow view of men as a result of her only having to deal with the carnage from abusive men.
This will be over a couple of posts. Responding to a long post just makes it longer, so character limits have come into play Honestly, I would rather that you had used the quote feature, as it then alerts me that you responded. It also helps to break up the quotes from the responses. No I deliberately addressed the specific context that you stated. Denying what you said is rather lame. Such withholding can either be in the form of no response to a technically true but misleading response. That's because it was not a counter to a specific argument but a statement to further enhance my argument of a secret not being a lie. How are you a quarter century lawyer if you can't tell the difference between a counter and an enhancement argument? And that is your strawman. My statements have nothing to do with whether or not a lie is detected or not. It has to do with the person making the statement. If the person is not aware that the statement he makes is false, then he is not lying. He can be wrong, but he is not lying. If the person does not intend to deceive, and says something wrong without realizing it at the time of statement, even if he knew better (i.e. something slips his mind), then there was no attempt to deceive and the statement is not a lie. Without both knowledge and intent, a statement cannot be a lie. For that matter, a person can lie while telling a truth, if they believe something else to be true and in their intent to deceive, end up with a true statement. Their knowledge was wrong, but because they based their statement on what they thought was real (i.e. what they knew), and intended to deceive, they lied even while making a true statement. The example of a mirage is to highlight the nature of a lie, not the nature of a secret. You stated: That leaves the impression that all misrepresentation is a lie. If that is not what you intended, then your word choice was poor. I used the example of the mirage, which is a misrepresentation, to illustrate that not all misrepresentation is lying. At no point have I argued that withholding information can't be dishonest or manipulative. But that does not make it a lie. To try to conflate the two is a fallacy. You are once again engaging in a conflation fallacy. You are assuming that I am defending "defend withholding info from people to manipulate their decisions". The simple fact that they are not lying does not mean that what they are doing is not wrong or illegal, or improper or whatever the situation warrants. The right or wrong of either lying or withholding information is, as you pointed out earlier, contextual. But they still remain two separate things. It is very logical, especially in the face of the definition of the words. Nothing about a secret makes it automatically false. One can lie about a secret, but a secret itself is not a lie. I will concede that people will wrongly conflate the two through idiom, but reality still is that a secret cannot be a lie. Pot, Kettle, Achromatic Really? Where in the law does it require that marriage and divorce require not keeping secrets? Or even contracts? Of course marriage is an excellent example of what I am talking about. The legal definition of marriage does not necessarily match that of religious marriage. Furthermore, I can get married before the state and not the deity of choice, and I can also get married religiously but not by law. The two marriages are factual, and separate. The legal marriage, while maybe based upon social or religious institutions, is required to be separately defined. Exactly, as I showed with my example. Laws can be made to define and encompass things not normally considered by the common use of the word, or to exclude. My apologies. The grandkids were here and I did miss putting a couple of words in. It should read, "In cases where the keeping of a secret made a legally significant difference in the ability to render informed consent to anything,..."
That's your strawman. You can keep it. You have yet to show where I have imposed anything on anyone. If all you have is ad hom, then you have no real argument. If you don't know the reality, then you are not lying. You are not deliberately deceiving. You still are wrong though. And you have yet to show where I am manipulating anyone. While sex is common among poly partners, it is not a requirement. Poly is not uncommon when one has an asexual partner. Furthermore, even within a given poly grouping, not all members may be having sex or even relationships with others. In a V configuration A may be involved with B and C but B and C are not involved with each other, while in a Triad A, B and C, are all involved with each other. Even then, then sexual relationships may be a V while the emotional are a triad. BTW, open relationship are the common phrasing when sex is the only connection between partners. By "phacking" I am guessing that the "ph" should be "f" and the "a" should be "u". On the assumption that I am correct, Skrudd and I are not sexually involved with each other. Wife K is sexually involved with both us men, and I am sexually involved with both woman. Wife D and Skrudd are not sexually involved with each other. Both Wife K and I have had other relationships, both emotional and purely sexual, outside the marriage. Skrudd and Wife D have not, but are allowed if they find anyone they want to and wants to get involved with them. Wife D did start dating someone several years ago, but he then moved out of area with a good job offer before it got too far. She has yet to find anyone since. Yes they are all fully knowledgeable because we all live together, the four of us. A single household. Skrudd is here to saying anything he wants for himself. Stating how things are is not speaking for him. Exactly how does that prove that I am the only male, and that Skrudd is not a male? Or that K is not "phacking" both of us, or that she doesn't have relationships outside of the marriage at times? Seriously, if this is the level of evidence that you use in court, I'm surprised that you've been doing it for so long. You are obviously not getting it from anywhere but making them up in your head, because a simple web search will reveal that what I said is true. Those in poly relationships define and decide what configurations work for them. Common labels exist, such as with "V" and "triad" and "quad" All you have is anecdotal information. Basically hearsay. As noted, your job does not put you into a position where you would normally encounter the success stories. You have a limited and skewed sampling. I challenge you to support your claims with actual evidence that is NOT limited to FLDS or radical Muslim communities. But since you want to make claims of that polys use their religion as their justification: Here are some other references to the realities of polyamory in all it's forms. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...d-estimate-number-non-monogamous-people-in-us https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/polyamory-bisexual-study-pansexual-754696/ Of course it is limited if you are not meeting success stories. But as noted your very job means that you are going to see more failed relationships, both mono and poly, than you do successful ones. Being in any kind of poly relationship(s) is no guarantee of "happiness". We are no more or less susceptible to the problems that monogamous people go through. BTW, just to make sure, you do know what the difference between Polygamy and Polygyny is, yes?
Aww...I wanted to see how long it would take for Death to figure out that we're in the same poly household. I has a sad.
Aww I wanted you to figure out how long it took for me Skruddgemire to know that you andMaq are one and the same and can claim anything hiding behind the anonymity of a forum and someone who needs to use multiples when responding clearly feels threatened and in need of multiplying themselves to be larger than they are to try establish credibility. Uh yah its a classic manipulative technique. Puff. Porcupine fish like to do it. Cats do it. They puff up to look bigger then they are. People gravitate to packs when they feel inadquate as individuals to gain credibility-yah and how long does it take for anyone to understand that? Depends on how insecure they are and why they need others to define themselves in the first place. Next you want to come on this forum and engage in advocacy of multiple phacking at the same time that advocacy and your sweepingf generalizations are indeed exercises in propogation and my responses are indeed challenges. To deny you came on here to promote and pose and posture is a gas. The colour graphs to justify your lifestyle hiding it behind antiquated orthodox organized religions that promote the definition of women as inferior to men is wonderful. That put me in my place. Well hey now Charlie Manson engaged in your lifestyle it must be legitimate. I mean he was a prophet. Lol. Listen up, multiple phacking relationships where women are subordinate to men call it that. Stop being greasy and spit it out. The attitude, the holier then thou, you are in the know and I am on the outside inferior to your superior way of life tone, the snot nosed patronizing tone in your dialogue to people who disagree with you, the vasoline language where you evade directly what you say and try deflect, the manipulative attempts to deny what you in fact stand for and advocate, it all means sweet PHACK all to me. Do I look like I care? lol. Been there done that with the children and victims of what you do. Do I sound like someone you think cares about your opinions? Oh you know me. I am the one that comes to take the children away or provide counselling to the abused people you leave behind. Do I look like someone that is going to engage you in empowering your lifestyle? Really? Lol. You know me. You know I know you. Oh come now. When the doors open and someone looks in your room its a small man needing to feel like he controls and has to be worshipped. Save it. You come here to advocate on being able to phack multiple partners and claim its healthy, normal, utopia. I came on here to advocate on behalf of the children or individuals who are victrims of your relationships. You want to provide graphs or stats on them along with your other ones? Hmmm? Tell me in your lifestyle you want to talk about how many children and vulnerable partners are exploited sexually, emotionally? Hmmmm? No of course not. Your entire presentation is about you and what you want. You don't discuss the best interests of children, of the vulnerable. Go on tell everyone now what a wonderful parent you are and how children who see their male figures with no sexual boundaries grow up to be well adjusted. Tell me how children seeing women with no sexual boundaries promotes their self esteem. As for the straw man argument responses that has to be the lamest deflection technique there is. Straw man. Lol. Psst over here. How long did it take for you to figure the more you sneer the more I laugh with contempt at your positions?
I wish to make clear there is a manipulative technique used by people who want to justify phacking more than one person in the same family model. They pose themselves as similiar to a multiple parent family. The two are not the same. For example, same sex parents often will have adults of the other sex whether it be close friends, the persons who pro-created with them, their fathers, brothers, grandfathers assist them with parenting. This is NOT what I question or attack. There are of course families where the husband and wife divorce and marry again or enter other relationships and we have co-parenting with supportive step parents. This is not what I question or attack. I also do not question any consenting adult and what they do or choose to do on their own free will in a bed-room. None of my phacking business. However when I read smug partial propoganda on how marvelous and wonderful mutiple phacking relationships are, that is when I speak up. I speak up because what you read from me comes from those of us on the front line, nurses, teachers, social workers, family lawyers and mediators, police-what we know from the real world is far different than these simplistic depictions. Our world is full of incest, rape, broken bones, suicide, emotional injury imposed on people who were not asked or were manipulated. I could spend thousands of pages in depth on why adultery can and does injure people and so why in all societies how these societies deal with adultery and sexual boundaries is complex. I am not here to state one society's choice of sexual boundaries is better. I am not here to say in certain parts of the world where sexual boundaries are defined differently, monogamy is superior. I don't get into that bull crap. What I know is and its my opinion and its multi-cultural, is that the best interests of children should always come first in any relationship. Next me myself and that is all I speak for, have come to see that I have never seen people in multiple phacking relationships without some kind of problem impacting on someone negatively. I am not here to proseltyze. I don't proseltyze sex workers and never have. I do not judge them. I wait until they are ready to ask for help to get away from a pimp. With people in cults, I waited until they asked help to exit. I never initiated help I waited for it to be asked of me, As for children, no I did not wait. When we had sufficient evidence in these kinds of relationships to document incest, underage sex, forced sex we moved in. Do I apologize for that, no. Does it make me a facist, no. On the contrary. People like me only got involved when there is violence or non consensual sex or where children are being hurt. Make no mistake, other than victims who get hurt, I could care less about the people who want to advocate how they can screw more than one person at the same time and its just fine. I am no religious preacher. To me God is a concept of mutual respect for life. I don't claim to know what is morally superior or not. I just know when lifestyle promotes individual desires that hurt others, someone must and should challenge it. As for the multitude of articles on polygamy, it all depends on who writes them and what references they use, of course: https://goodme nproject.com/families/impact-of-a-polygamous-marriage-on-children-and-family-wcz/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-tragic-stories-of-children-of-polygamy https://www.traumaawareness.net/modern-day-polygamy/ https://www.compassion.com.au/blog/what-impact-does-polygamy-have-on-children https://eduprojecttopics.com/product/the-impact-of-polygamy-on-children-education/
I'll touch on this elsewhere so as to not further thread jack. But @Robert what did I predict the other day long before he posted?
Yah you are psychic. You predicted? Listen Prophet Maq, my response was damn obvious one sentence in on my first response. But pose/... its par for the course when one is a polygamous prophet.
I'm going to stop you right there. What you are accusing us of doing is against the Terms and Conditions of this website. 14. MULTIPLE USER ACCOUNTS Multiple user accounts are not allowed. The use of anonymous proxy IP addresses and systems, which are often used to hide identities for the purposes of creating multiple accounts, is also prohibited. Usage of these tools can lead to immediate and permanent banning. Now since Maquiscat and I are in the same house using the same internet, when I first signed onto this site (some time after he did) the administrators questioned both he and I about the matter and they were satisfied with out answers and understand that we are indeed two different people with two different accounts coming from the same IP address. And as the administrators are the only ones who matter in this situation, you may cling to whatever belief you wish to cling to. It matters not. Secondly, you are making assumptions about me. About us actually. Fair is fair, you believe what you believe, I believe you to be an overly argumentative sort of person as evidenced by the fact that you derailed a philosophical discussion on secrets being lies or not and turned it into a lengthy dissertation as to why you feel that Poly family groups are skeevy perverts right up there with Charles Manson. And since you are being overly argumentative about a minor loose thread in another topic...I can surmise that it's going to be impossible to convince you that we are in fact two different people. I could... share the emails sent by and replied to the admins, but you could counter that "I just did a good job of snowing the admins" show you a picture of the four of us taken at one of our camping trips together, but you could argue that I just trolled Hipcamp and found a picture of two couples camping together and am submitting that as "evidence" get into a zoom meeting (or other online meeting software) with you, but you could counter with "I just grabbed some random friend to act as the other" I could physically drive out to meet you at a neutral location and you could counter with the same argument as in the zoom meeting. Trying to convince you that we are two different people when you have this mindset would be as successful as convincing the flat-earthers in the conspiracy theory forums that the Earth is in fact round. So with that in mind and not wanting to deal with the futility of banging my head against your wall of belief...we are done. I will, from this point forward ignore you. Toodles!
I am calling you out. This kind of statement is self-serving. Anyone who buys in to it I would warn this-you know of a pimp who claims he exploits or screws anyone without their consent? Charlie Manson died claiming he never did anything wrong. Lol. I love it.
I have time to go back on this crap. One's assumptions if incorrect and led them to make the decision to get married would be relevant to the person who made the incorrect assumptions for two reasons-1 they would not want to remain married or be married mistakenly under the same assumotion which is common sense, the other is that in law, a contact can be considered null and void if it was induced by misrepresentation. This is just one of so many false things stated and posed as an absolute.
