What's really pathetic about this society-wide pandering to the perv agenda is - while shack-ups (can ya spell "fornicators?") may prefer this fuzzy definition of their arrangement - married couples (i.e., a man married to a woman) are submitting to this gender invalidation, perhaps on account of misplaced - and totally unwarranted - guilt. Uhm, why should Mr and Mrs Smith feel the need to muddy their legit union? Because one or more of the MARRIED couple's friends have settled for just playing house? Uhm, not the Smith's monkey, not their circus. "Partner" erases all differences between marriage, and just playing house. There is a difference, a big difference - and the players know this.
Mr and Mrs. Peep lived together for a few years before marriage. I think it can work well. I've been married more than 22 years. Why give people a hard time over this?
ReplyDeleteDear Mrs. Peeps, here at this cyber side-street of a side-street, (my blog) i am simply calling the "partner" b.s. for what it is - demographic dumbing down. Btw, when that p-word is invoked, i can't help but to wonder, who's wearing the pants in that marriage?
ReplyDeleteWhy does there have to be one dominant partner in a marriage? Ponder that one. Remember the "pee-wee's love to dominate and lord over women. I'll take the "partner" stuff. One thing a lot of men in fundamentalism get tired, especially among the Quiverful fundies, the women are like little children, can't even pay a bill, never work in that privileged world, and the man has to carry all the adult responsibilities. All she is expected to do is pop out babies and be "joyfully available" while doing housework. It just doesn't work in this world today, maybe for some rich people.
Delete