...to think 'partner' means a cohabiting partner, not just boyfriend.

[fideline]

This has twice caused major confusion recently.

I realise most of the time it doesn't really matter much, but referring to someone you are 'just' dating as your partner is confusing wrong.

Isn't it?

[daisychain01]

Just alighted on this interesting thread. Full marks must go to blessed for the most spectacular ever hi-jack of someone else's thread!!

fideline my FWIW opinion is that I agree, the word "partner" implies some significant commitment in the relationship, at least to have been together as a couple for a considerable time and maybe whether not planning to get married yet, or at all, or not wanting to use the word fiancé/e, which isnt everyone's cup of tea.

To my mind calling someone your partner kinda speaks to the fact you've both earned your stripes so to speak and it is beyond the boyfriend/girlfriend stage. But that isnt in a judgemental way, just the implication of the word.

At work I say "my other half" about my dp, but that's coz he is!

at the 22yo who has had 3 long term relationships

Probably lots of xposts, but its a very long thread!

[DrCoconut]

Not read the full thread but anyway. I have seen things where people aged 22 claim to have had say three long term relationships? Really? Maybe I am an old fart but a few weeks isn't long term to me. I guess relationships are so much more what you want them to be now, strict definitions have gone out of the window. For the record I am not bothered by this, if you consider someone your partner they are, if not they are not.

[TillyTellTale]

Are you having trouble keeping your story straight now?

You seem to know a hell of a lot about your friend's sex life. You persist in not only sharing it, but in speculating about other possible activities she could do. Now, either you're making it up, or you, the extremely committed Christian, who feels utterly disgusted by it all, have been actively asking her for details. Presumably so you can judge her better?

Do your mates never tell you what they spend on a new dress, or getting their hair done, or their holidays, etc? I don't understand your rationale at all.

Yes. If I sound like I'm genuinely interested.

Get my point yet? No-one interesting and nice just randomly recites information about how much they've spent on holidays, hair or dresses to any random ear. They only talk about prices in detail if they think someone was genuinely interested. Those are two-way conversations.

[blessedhope]

tilly you're wrong AGAIN. I can't believe you meant something even WORSE than I thought and you would dare stoop so fucking low as to talk of making-up AFTER Fide and Marf have had to eat humble pie with their "troll" speculation against me.

You think it's "weird" to know what a friend is spending on body cream they just brought back from abroad- what the fuck? Do your mates never tell you what they spend on a new dress, or getting their hair done, or their holidays, etc? I don't understand your rationale at all.

Are you telling me all the times in all-female chats from my mid teenage years to now where people have mentioned good deals on make-up, skin/body care, perfume etc. or compared prices they were paying for beauty products of some sort- most frequently in the couple of months before Christmas but all year round as well- me and a whole lot of perfectly ordinary women and girls I've known have been up to something "weird"?

[TillyTellTale]

It is perfectly reasonable to bring up that one of the strongest opposing views comes from someone whose...

Well, actually, given you are willing to recognise what it was, it's opportune to point out that such are classified as ad hominem attacks, a type of logical fallacy. Would have pointed it out before, but felt it would be a huge battle to get you to accept the description.

[TillyTellTale]

Well, yes, I do find your post weird, blessed. You've mistook the implication though. I'm not saying you're privy to samizdat sexual esoterica. I'm implying that you're either making the whole thing up*, or that you asked your friend extremely searching questions on how much she spent on cream!

I find it utterly weird and implausible that you have these details about your friend's unguents to continually provide. Even if she'd only told you her favourite brand of camel's milk butter (an ungulent-derived unguent!), you would only know the cost in Debenhams if you'd checked. And I can't imagine having such a level of prurient interest in someone's life to do that. Obviously you can imagine such a thing.

It wasn't an S&M forum, btw. It was a forum like this, which had a diverse community, and some members, who happened to also be active in the BDSM community, created a information thread.

*your posts remind me greatly of the false, slandering rumours about Catherine the Great's death, to be honest

[impatienceisavirtue]

Woooooah.

[gertiegusset]

Blimey Blessed, you do like the graphic descriptions don't you?

[AgathaF]

I'm just standing back, looking incredulously at your posts. - You are not the only one. Such narrow-minded, delusional crap. Oh well.

[EurotrashGirl]

I thought the point of the word "partner" was that it does not specify sexual orientation or relationship status.

[AmberLeaf]

Amber No, I am NOT "deluded". You're not going to help here by throwing Richard Dawkins rhetoric around

I'm not trying to help.

I'm just standing back, looking incredulously at your posts.

I pity your seemingly miserable existence.

[blessedhope]

And yet more extremist nonsense against me.

Amber No, I am NOT "deluded". You're not going to help here by throwing Richard Dawkins rhetoric around.

Fide "dare you to point to ONE example"... "rather rude" I said in response to marf reprising her 'porn' obsession that the very reason I added a definition for chastity was to make it less likely someone would make a silly comment about the word. By "people like you and [her]" I refer to those with an extreme aversion to sexual restraint, as opposed to the majority who do not agree with marriage being the only acceptable context for sex for everybody but are more open to those with a traditional view rather than calling them names and being so disrespectful.

It was marf, tilly and another poster who I found to be wrong in referring to general descriptions of sexual or quasi-sexual behaviour in circumspect language, on a website for mums where grown-up talk is generally not censored and other people speak about 'fucking' and 'sucking cock', as somehow related to 'erotica'. You have at least had the decency to avoid this calumny.

As for it being 'rude' to define the term I have heard degree-educated people confuse the term with 'celibacy' in regular conversation, including Catholics who have most use for the two words- so it is hardly an insult to intelligence if I clarify before a mistake can be made.

Tilly though absolutely takes the fucking cake: Weirdly, however, not a single contributor went into detail on the costs of equipment or unguents, unless explicitly asked to give product recommendations. So I have no idea how blessed gets information in such detail.

Talking about an S&M forum then opening the sentence about me with the adjective 'WEIRDLY'? To suggest I am...what, more sexually abnormal than hardcore fetishists? That would be bad enough. Then we have 'costs of equipment or unguents'- I have never provided the 'cost' of any BDSM item, 'unguents' are not exactly limited to that scene. Then you see fit to end with a dark mutter about me being privy to samizdat sexual esoterica, "information in such detail"? The only costs I mentioned were for the body cream and perfume bought by my friend, which she. fucking. told. me. and could be obtained by a simple check online or in a large department store if she hadn't. Curiosity satisfied yet? I have reported your post.

Marfisa, I respect you for understanding that I had very good reason to believe it was relevant and that you were first between us two to search for evidence of motive from past threads. When I am being attacked for my Christian-based moral beliefs it is perfectly reasonable to bring up that one of the strongest opposing views comes from someone whose childhood traumas associated with the faith were so severe she can't even have Christmas mulled wine among the 'Religious Right' without it troubling her.

It's not personal against you: if someone was posting harshly against, say, a Muslim who advocated more faith schooling and their MN history showed they were an atheist who had left religion after running away from home at 14 to escape family sending her to Pakistan for a first-cousin arranged marriage it would be just as fair for others on that thread to point out that poster is going to be very strongly biased one way. It wouldn't be a simple matter of 'discounting' or 'psychoanalyzing' their views, but of acknowledging all human beings' beliefs and understandings of reality are conditioned by our lived experience of reality thus anyone who has had an exceptionally positive OR negative experience of a particular group of people, ideology, lifestyle, etc. is susceptible to extreme passion on the subject which if unchecked can lead to the suspension of reason and/or unfairly universalizing one's anecdotal evidence.

I apologize if I upset you by linking myself to your family. It was purely a reference to conservative moral beliefs, not fundamentalism or violence. As for the 'crazy messed up place' on what's more immoral... I certainly hope you don't believe I would take such a stance. In fact, the woman who I complained about being decadent could spend every single night expressing the lusts of her flesh- being massaged in bed with expensive creams and oils, listening to DP confide his fantasies and sexual past using all the 'dirty language' she liked to hear, talking filth herself, extramarital sex with younger men, porn, BDSM, vibrator use, cunnilingus, drinking too much, gluttony, and the rest- and she would still be morally far superior in my eyes to anyone who would use a belt on children for 'Biblical discipline.' The difference is I find both worthy of rebuke.

[marfisa]

That does sound like a highly educational thread, Tilly.

marf MN Towers say they will not delete that post because it is not a personal attack.

No worries, Bit, thanks for thinking of me. This is AIBU after all!
TBH I felt a bit queasy when I first saw the post about my background because I thought I might have got drunk one night and spilled lots of raw intimate details on MN, but on further reflection I realise that the thread blessed was referring to was probably one where I referred to my past in a fairly offhand and generic sort of way: it was a thread I made about feeling uncomfortable when neighbours asked me round for a glass of mulled wine and it turned out that all the other invitees were members of a local conservative evangelical church. So I can see why blessed thought it was relevant to this thread.

I do enjoy the diversity of views on MN. And yeah, I suppose fundamentalism is my Achilles' heel because nothing else has the potential to wind me up like that does. I know I should step. away. from. the. computer for the sake of my own mental health, but I can't! ARGH! I feel quite mellow about this thread though; there are so many good posters on it, including the OP.

However, I admit this suggestion to me from blessed boggled my mind:

Perhaps that can be your Lenten discipline: go 40 days without using dirty-minded or extreme language to argue against those who believe similarly to your family or I.

My first reaction: you're drawing a parallel between yourself and my family? really? even after having discovered that they were fundamentalists who took their beliefs to the extreme of physical abuse? To me that says it all. I know you probably didn't mean this, but it feels like you are speaking from some crazy messed-up place where expensive massage cream and dirty language are worse than laying into kids with a belt.

My second reaction: someone has used 'dirty-minded' language on MN? really? Stop press!

[TillyTellTale]

fideline the internet is interesting . And I was once a member of a forum that had a BDSM education thread on the difference between BDSM and abuse.

Weirdly, however, not a single contributor went into detail on the costs of equipment or unguents, unless explicitly asked to give product recommendations. So I have no idea how blessed gets information in such detail.

[TillyTellTale]

blessed I certainly find your sexually-obsessed concept of decadence to be on that funny line between laughter and weeping.

Point 1)
So, if it's right for people to be informed about their teenage daughter's pregnancy because 81% of Americans agree with that and 63% of Britons, then why on earth are you arguing on this thread? Have you considered what percentage of Britons would say they were fine with sexual activity outside marriage?

Or do is it magically different when the majority disagree with you? Me, I weigh up my ethical decisions independently of surveys.

Point 2) looking at the numbers you've presented, it looks very much as if that survey has included all the people who think it's their right to force a teenage daughter to terminate. There's quite a lot of them. So, are you of that viewpoint yourself, with your love of "parents' rights" or just so shamelessly idealistic and careless with your advocacy that you didn't realise that some parents did that?

"Parents' rights" doesn't just mean rights for "parents like [me]". It means having rights just because you're a parent.

[HettiePetal]

Blimey.You've got a right one on here

Christian "love" eh? Such a precious thing.

[AmberLeaf]

Totally deluded.

[LineRunner]

blessed, I think you are deluding yourself if you think you aren't, deep down, doing an awful lot of hating.

[BitOutOfPractice]

Blessed. I am not sure what I find most cringeworthy about your last post.

Really, you seem to live on a different planet to me. With a completely alien set of beliefs. I read your post open mouthed in amazement that someone should see fit to not only lecture me on my morals (or lack of) but also my literacy (or lack of) and bible knowledge (or lack of).

You have completely derailed the thread with your spietfulness and frankly bizarre sexual opinions and I am struggling to understand why you would bother (2000 word PMs? Really?). Do you think you might convert someone? Is that your motive? Or do you like showing off how clever and superior you are to everyone else? Or are you getting off on it? Whatever, you are boring me now.

[fideline]

Blessed

a) It is rather rude to imply that we wouldn't understand what the word 'chastity' usually means or that we would alight on any definition other than the garden-variety one

b) Not at all sure what you mean by 'people like' me and marf, but I challenge you to point to an instance of me manufacturing an obtusely lewd interpretation of anything at all, and

c) You really do have a colossal nerve to be casting aspersions about people other than yourself bring a sexual or soft-porn slant to this thread. It was you who started relating the final detail of a third party couple's alleged perversions. Don't suggest other people need to eschew dirty-mindedness for Lent. In fact don't tell other people how to observe Lent at all.

[blessedhope]

marf the psychological suffering that comes with the pressure to conform to certain rigidly defined rules of behaviour and belief.

Well that's just exactly why you are talking past me here. Christ Himself suffered and died for our sins, the Apostles suffered greatly to the point of martyrdom in most cases for standing in the faith, the Scriptures clearly teach that we are to EXPECT some level of suffering while living in this fallen world. If you are seriously saying that you think it's better to drop beliefs that might make us uncomfortable or give up on following a moral code just because its 'too much pressure' and it doesn't feel good, then we are so far apart there is no real possibility for any mutual understanding between us. Doing the right thing sometimes requires a sacrifice to be made- whether that's physical, psychic, relational or financial suffering.

I find this concept particularly offensive and repulsive early on Ash Wednesday morning. The start of Lent and the Penitential rite today, and one of the very first things I see is there should be no 'pressure' to stop sinning or repent because it's mental abuse of some kind? Sorry, don't buy it AT ALL. As St Paul said I am to finish the race that God gave me, endure to the end...if that means psychological suffering then so be it.

We are born sinners... therefore it is not always going to be easy to conform to God's plan. Even mature born-again Christians regenerated by the power of the Spirit continue to have the original sinful nature, which we are spiritually at war with. THIS is what repressing the flesh means when a Christian uses it in a serious way- sadly with the Biblical illiteracy of much of our society too many people just think it means 'not having sex', which is only a small part.

And I put a qualification on what chastity means because I thought otherwise a)it would be confused with celibacy in an honest mistake or b) people like you or fideline may make some snarky remark about belts, having already referred to me being 'Victorian' or similar earlier in this thread...only for you to bring up 'porn' yet another time in response. I can't do right for doing wrong on here. Perhaps that can be your Lenten discipline: go 40 days without using dirty-minded or extreme language to argue against those who believe similarly to your family or I.

[blessedhope]

LineRunner Homosexual agenda: the attempt to subvert morality by political, cultural and religious advocacy of the position that homosexual sexual behaviour is somehow morally equivalent to sex between a man/woman married couple.

Course I don't do personal attacks. I argue against beliefs and behaviour I see as wrong, not hating any individual 'for God is NO respecter of persons' as the Scriptures say.

[fideline]

I have Bit. That's what I mean- she's too late now!

[BitOutOfPractice]

I thought you'd changed your mind fide!!

marf MN Towers say they will not delete that post because it is not a personal attack.

TBH I wouldn't care who had done that to whom. I think it was beyond the pale

[LineRunner]

What in the name of pants is 'the homosexual agenda'?