Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Uhm, Yes it does.

What you probably meant, is "out of wedlock" is a subset of "Infidelitous".


Wedlock is synonymous with traditional marriage.

"extramarital" literally means "outside of marriage".  Thus, "Extramarital" and "Out of wedlock", are synonymous, perfectly.

Infidelity, however, does not imply marriage. Only a 1:1 pairing of sexual partners (in the traditional sense)-- It can also mean "Seeking partners outside the polyamorous grouping" for other poly relationships, et al.)


And, out of courtesy, I will ignore your flamebait there, and tacitly just remind you that you are once again, painting me with the GOP shill brush, and reaching for "Disagree, therefor wrong", with a nice helping of "Wrong, and therefore EVIL."

I will ask you very politely to stop.

[None]

That does not help the woman who has been outed for having extramarital affairs--- Ideally, that should not be stigmatized, if both partners are OK with that--  However, her decision to do that without seeking the approval of her partner, places her partner at risk of getting STIs, or worse, and is gross negligence on her part.  It has nothing to do with being "A whore"-- exposing a partner, that assumes fidelity-- to STIs against their knowledge-- is unconscionably wrong.

?? ?? ??

I mean two people boning who aren't married. Ergo, boning outside of traditional marriage. That's still a big fuckin' deal in some cultures.

You know what, fuck this. I have no leverage if you're going to assume I'm painting you a GOP shillbot upon disagreement if the ideal plan is not carried out ideally and I'm not okay with the consequences. I'm done playing this game.

[NJW2000]

I never suggested that it should be in that order.  Where did you get that idea?

This is not one of those "Suspect dogwhistle-- TREAT LIKE DOG WHISTLE!" moments is it?

I really hate it when I get subjected to that-- it pisses me right off. Please do not do that.

Kindly read what I wrote. I was asking if you'd be ok with it happening in that order, not saying you'd prefer it to be.

Your posts are long and without real signposting, but as far as I could tell you were saying repeatedly that people "should complain about" ID inequality in itself, rather than the issues an ID requirement would bring up due to present ID inequality. This certainly suggests that you'd be willing to let good legislation make the world worse while bad legislation is being fixed, but doesn't give a clear stance. Hence the question.

If you wouldn't be happy with the ID requirement being implemented until that issue is fixed, there's no real disagreement here on that issue, just differing emphasis. If you think otherwise, then that's an interesting take on legislation.

I would still like to know which it is. I'm generally interested in the attitudes healthcare workers have towards laws.

[wierd]

I never suggested that it should be in that order.  Where did you get that idea?

This is not one of those "Suspect dogwhistle-- TREAT LIKE DOG WHISTLE!" moments is it?

I really hate it when I get subjected to that-- it pisses me right off. Please do not do that.

Kindly read what I wrote. I was asking if you'd be ok with it happening in that order, not saying you'd prefer it to be.

Your posts are long and without real signposting, but as far as I could tell you were saying repeatedly that people "should complain about" ID inequality in itself, rather than the issues an ID requirement would bring up due to present ID inequality. This certainly suggests that you'd be willing to let good legislation make the world worse while bad legislation is being fixed, but doesn't give a clear stance. Hence the question.

If you wouldn't be happy with the ID requirement being implemented until that issue is fixed, there's no real disagreement here on that issue, just differing emphasis. If you think otherwise, then that's an interesting take on legislation.

I would still like to know which it is. I'm generally interested in the attitudes healthcare workers have towards laws.

Oh! My apologies. My defenses are just on high alert here, due to the mud flying.

I believe that things that needlessly restrict access to healthcare services, especially things that are done ONLY to purposefully disadvantage people, are beyond unconsionable, and into the realm of unabashadly evil.

As such, any situation that does not remedy the causal situation that systemically disadvantages people FIRST, that might further disadvantage those people if left in place-- is in the realm of unabashedly evil.

That is to say-- 100%-- Fix IDs first.

[wierd]

That does not help the woman who has been outed for having extramarital affairs--- Ideally, that should not be stigmatized, if both partners are OK with that--  However, her decision to do that without seeking the approval of her partner, places her partner at risk of getting STIs, or worse, and is gross negligence on her part.  It has nothing to do with being "A whore"-- exposing a partner, that assumes fidelity-- to STIs against their knowledge-- is unconscionably wrong.

?? ?? ??

I mean two people boning who aren't married. Ergo, boning outside of traditional marriage. That's still a big fuckin' deal in some cultures.

You know what, fuck this. I have no leverage if you're going to assume I'm painting you a GOP shillbot upon disagreement if the ideal plan is not carried out ideally and I'm not okay with the consequences. I'm done playing this game.

I believe I see the disconnect:

Extramarital, as in-- "Just having sex"-- "No spouse at all."

vs

Extramarital, as in "Is married-- Is having sex outside that marriage."

I consider the first to be hmm. what is a good word.... Unimportant?  If there is no obligation, why is there a need to draw attention?  (again, I asserted, and still assert, that women should not be under any obligation to be 'Virtuous and chaste!!"-- and assign such things to "Toxic femininity") Again, "A whore" being laughable-- like "A nerd" is laughable now-- Nerdism is well accepted by society, and seen as beneficial, and normal in modern life.  "Whorishness" is really just the state of not being "Virtuous and chaste!"-- as stated, upholding that nonsense is toxic. It needs to die in a burning dumpster fire full of burning bacon grease.  It should be a pointless thing to bring up, and carry no stigma at all, except on the person trying to bring it up.

This is why I glommed on to the second potential interpretation, and rambled on about a partner. (the presumed husband, with whom a marriage exists, to produce the state of the sex being extramarital.)  It did not even occur to me that you meant the former-- I do not ascribe to such notions, and did not interpret the phrase "Out of wedlock" in that capacity.  To me, people who try to use the phrase in that capacity, are just idiots.

I apologize for the confusion.

[None]

To me, people who try to use the phrase in that capacity, are just idiots.

I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks for the parting shot.

[wierd]

To me, people who try to use the phrase in that capacity, are just idiots.

I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks for the parting shot.

No-- No no no.
You misunderstand.

I am used to people who use that phase in that capacity, being "The church lady", only not a parody.

They are idiots.

I do not consider you to be in that category, (and thus, not an idiot), which is why I did not assign that usage.

You are instead, referencing the church lady type idiots, and their usage.


You, yourself, are not assigning such things, and not using it to invoke invective. Thus, not an idiot.  I do not intend to fire a shot there.

[ChairmanPoo]

An extramarital sexual relationship is one between a married person and someone who is not their husband or wife:
an extramarital affair

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extramarital

extramarital
(ɛkstrəmærɪtəl)
ADJECTIVE [usu ADJ n]
An extramarital affair is a sexual relationship between a married person and another person who is not their husband or wife.
Her husband has admitted having an extramarital affair.
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

extramarital adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
ex·​tra·​mar·​i·​tal | \ ˌek-strə-ˈmer-ə-tᵊl  , -ˈma-rə- \
Definition of extramarital
: of, relating to, or being sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse : ADULTEROUS
an extramarital affair
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extramarital

[wierd]

It is really the combination of the prefix "extra", meaning "Above, beyond, outside of, exceeding", and "marital", --of or relating to marriage.


The implication that one MUUUUUUST be married to have "OK" sex, is where the stigma comes from.  It is a very puritanical thing, and very abundantly manifest in the US.  Since there is no marriage AT ALL, any sex that occurs, is immediately "Above, beyond, outside of, or exceeding" the non-existent marriage, and is thus "Extramarital."


The usual "Dog-whistle" phrase is "Out of wedlock!"

Eg, "She shacked up with billy joe and had that bastard child of hers out of wedlock!!"


The sentence is ambiguous.

It applies equally to--

She (subject) shacked up with Billy Joe (without her husband knowing) and had that bastard (illegitmate, concieved outside of a marrriage-- archaic, and stupid term that means nothing to anyone except 'church ladies') child of hers out of wedlock! (outside the GOD APPROVED sex with her GOD APPROVED marriage with her husband.)


and to

She (subject) Shacked up with Billy Joe (To whom she is not married-- even though neither she nor he are married, either to each other, or to anyone else) and had that bastard child of hers out of wedlock (DARED to be having sex without a GOD APPROVED marriage!!)

In both cases, the people using the phrase are making very asburd assertions about what is right and normal behavior, (and most importantly, the universality of their god, and the moralistic pablum that is associated), making aspersions against a child that has done nothing wrong, and generally being unpleasant and idiotic.


"out of wedlock" CAN be used in a more clinical fashion, as an archaic expression for "Outside marriage"-- and thus, "Extramarital."

[McTraveller]

Honest question here - what is actually so difficult about getting an ID?  I can see it being difficult if you have no chain of identity, but what is so hard about going to your local ID office with a birth certificate, at least establishing identity?

I can see needing an address being an impediment - is that the reform that is needed, to remove proof of residence from identity? I mean, my passport doesn't have an address in it... it's just identity.

I suppose the cost is a factor, and I could get behind making passports free, or maybe just the price of printing. I don't understand why they are over $100 to be honest.

[martinuzz]

I suppose the cost is a factor, and I could get behind making passports free, or maybe just the price of printing. I don't understand why they are over $100 to be honest.

Modern anti-forgery measures aren't cheap.

[nenjin]

I mean.... this is the rub right? Some demographics just DGAF, don't bother with IDs unless they absolutely have to. That's why the focus is on IDs. Because certain political groups understand this reality and know that if it becomes a requirement (for voting, abortions, w/e) it is going to freeze out certain demographics. (The poor, the severely under-educated, illegal immigrants, etc....)

Is that fair? Do we protect people's right to do things even if they refuse to do simple things like have a current ID? My feelings are yes, but even I'm like "Guys, just stop being "that way" and go get a fucking ID....."

[Dunamisdeos]

We've had this discussion before in detail, and some very valid and convincing points were brought up that there are also barriers in place to prevent people from these demographics from getting an ID.

Certain specific requirements, locations of offices, cost, things like that. They don't seem to be identical from US state to state, but it is a method of shutting out certain people from voting/services.

TLDR was: Do we need ID's to for certain aspects of modern society to function? Yes. Does our government use ID laws as a blunt instrument of control over certain groups of people? Also yes.

[Frumple]

I mean, don't forget the systemic sabotage of access in plenty of areas. It's not so much DGAF as it is being fucking stonewalled or having to take a vacation from work just to get to the goddamn office.

Don't be "that way" probably applies to the usual asshats screeching for ID in the US more than it does for the folks lacking one.

and ninja'd, but whatever, i've wrestled with autocorrupt long enough this shit's getting semi-immortalized now

[nenjin]

For sure. There are people on both sides of the equation. Some people are legitimately discouraged by intentional barriers to entry, some people can't be assed. I've seen both in my life time.