533 words.

[kiya]

Somewhat unexpected; I had another one of those 'Hey, when did I write this entire screenful of text? I thought I'd just done a sentence or two. . .' moments.

Though I know I'm too tired when I start a sentence with 'Dawn;'s'. Too much MUSHing, too much MUSHing. So I go to bed now.

Today's bafflement: why does this person posting on why he thinks permitting polygamy is a legitimate concern speak only to the question of men collecting women in apparent ignorance of the idea that women might like to collect men? (I'm torn as to whether this is the polygamy/polygyny thing that gets me in a twist or the fact that it seems to not occur to some people that women have a sexuality independent of Their Man. oneironaut said that it was probably "Yes", which I suspect is both accurate and a bit depressing.)

Comments

ignint ....

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

when i run in to folks that ignint, i like to cheerfully ignore them and continue collecting my men :)

let's toast to our man collections! :P

*clink*

Re: ignint ....

[kiya]

He made the same "point" again, so I replied more loudly.

Excerpt:

But my major point, now.

Women do, in fact, have the possibility of having sexualities independent of Their Man. If "rich men collecting women" is going to be a problem, there will also be "rich women collecting men" besides. Forming a bond to one man does not mysteriously remove a woman from the "market" if she's so inclined. See me. See mika, for that matter, though she won't see this thread.

I _know_ that there's a cultural presumption that a woman is the property of the man that she's bonded to, that her genitalia are signed over to him until she is released. I'm just shocked to see it _here_, in a newsgroup for a religion one of whose significant themes is the reclaiming of female self-determination (and sexuality).

Yes, this is the same argument in alt.religion.WICCA.moderated that I was bitching about the other day. (mika is the party who has been in essence arguing, "You can't know you really want monogamy unless you try all the other options, because you've been culturally brainwashed.")

Re: ignint ....

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

idon't read alt.wicca.anything, so i can't say... however, i *can* say that i agree with you wholeheartedly about the point above.

of course, according to jimbat of a.p., i'm not a real woman because i shave. so you may want to take my support with a grain of salt! ;)

Re: ignint ....

[kiya]

Given the strong feminist streak in a number of branches of Wicca, often to the point of goddess-forms being given heirarchical preference over god-forms, the whole "If you're female, you're owned by your partner" meme seems really alien to the forum.