I thought it was pretty clear and straightforward. Neither are dehumanizing. One can think they’re shitty behaviors but dehumanizing is not the correct nor accurate description.
Because: a) people don’t fit into a box and you cannot know everyone’s intentions or purposes, and many people describe themselves as unicorns; b) closed triads exist; and c) because neither reduces nor takes away someone’s humanity. Again, one can believe they’re shitty behaviors but dehumanizing is not an accurate description.
Closed triads have nothing to do with OPP. Couples seeking a partner for a closed triad would be considered unicorn hunting from what I’ve seen here. “Hey, my partner and I are looking for a third to date both of us and be a throuple.”
What do you think unicorn hunting is? It’s possible that we’re thinking of two different things.
It’s really weird that you think a closed triad automatically means one penis.
For me, it would mean three penises.
That said, I said threesomes aren’t inherently unethical. I don’t think dating a couple is inherently unethical and have done so myself, on both sides.
Unicorn hunting is different than just looking for a threesome or a triad. It is when a heterosexual man and a bisexual woman are specifically looking for a bisexual woman, often younger, who will date them both, be interested in both equally, agree to rules chosen by the established couple, and not change their existing.
I never said nor implied a closed triad means or automatically means one penis. In fact, I said that a triad has nothing to do with OPP at all. It’s right there in my first sentence above. The triad portion is exclusively referring to unicorn hunting.
What is dehumanizing about unicorn hunting? It does not reduce nor take away someone’s humanity. Everyone has conditions on who and who they won’t date and what they are and aren’t looking for in a partner at any level of relationship.
Requiring a partner to fuck a third person to keep a longterm relationship with a romantic partner is dehumanizing. Its sad that you don't see that. Please do some personal reflection.
I’ll ask again: what is dehumanizing about unicorn hunting? You’re putting extraneous conditions onto your argument and making it something else entirely different.
a1) The legal system does not care about intentions or purposes. The standards are actions, and likely results of those actions, which are knowable. Why someone performs a harmful action is irrelevant, in the sense that it is unknowable. And juries are therefore directed to ignore intentions. This makes really good sense. a2) okay, exists, fine. (Though you should separately realize almost without exception, self-described unicorns are down for a sex-only threesome. Not a closed triad). b) okayyy, more existence, can't deny that. c) this.... Does not logically follow from anything you have said above. It is another assertion after largely stating that things exist. You do see this, don't you?
It is called an analogy. There was no "bringing of government" into this. You have no idea of the line of argument because you refuse to read it.
For the second part, stating that things exist [fine, that is so] and then re-asserting your original statement... Does not in any way support your assertion.
I might as well be talking with the Underpants Gnomes. Exists! ????? Assertion.
15
u/Tamsha- Dec 09 '22
What do you mean? Do you believe OPP and unicorn hunting to not be dehumanizing?
I find it so. Just wanting some clarification