🚀 go-pugleaf

holzman@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman) wrote:

>In article <61j5qb$lia$3@gail.ripco.com>,
>John Paulus <shadowm@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>>: It should do nothing of the sort.
>>
>>: If the PKs want to impress their critics, they'll promise not to
>>: dominate/hurt women and gays unconditionally, rather than taking it as
>>: yet another opportunity to remind everyone that they're
>>: anti-homosexuality.  We already know they are.
>>
>>So PK'ers should practice deception in order to assure homosexuals & women?
>
>Not at all.  No one asked PKers to issue a statement that they /like/
>homosexuals or homsexuality, just that they won't "dominate/hurt" them,
>to quote the original post.  If they can't even say that they won't
>without feeling compelled to tell everyone that they think homosexuality
>is suspect yet again, people are going to find that suspect.

Please, this is naive.  Can you actually imagine anyone making a
statement that they won't hurt someone.

It would immediately be taken as the reverse, as if they are going to
hurt someone, and the comment taken as a dishonest defensive response.

You can't do this in the real world.   Any declaration of intent can
get immediately accepted as the opposite as in:

"Mr. Senator, do you not acknowledge your use of public funds to
finance your illicit liason with over 200 prostitutes"

What do you think people will hear?  That he has been using public
funds to buy prostitutes.  That's the way news is 'created'.


>
>>PK tries to be as open as possible about what they stand for and why. The
>>statement i suggested is something for the whole world to hold PK
>>accountable for.  Homosexuals can hold PK'ers to the statement especially in
>>regards to homosexual-targeted violence, while fundementalists (some of whom
>>are actually suspicious of PK, too) can hold them to their belief in the
>>Bible.
>
>Homosexuals can hold PKers to a simple pledge not to "dominate/hurt"
>without a digression into the morality of homosexuality.
>
>Fundamentalists who are suspicious of PK can ask for their own pledge.
>

This shouldn't be a requirement.  Your insecurity should not be the
motivation surrounding their actions.   The only fair interpretation
will be based on their actions, not on their lack of response to
various demands you feel are just because they make you feel insecure.

>>: they can endorse Ephesians 5:22-30.  (Ephesians 5:21 is a part of a
>>: different sentence.)  Ephesians 5:22-24 is quite explicit that this is
>>: not a partnership of equals, but a hierarchical relationship wherein the
>>: husband is the head of the wife.  Exhorting the husband not to abuse this
>>: power does not change the nature of the relationship.
>>What does this "domination" look like. Let's set aside the extremely bad
>>examples, because we both know those are bad. i gather that you think such a
>>relationship, even at its "best" is bad. How would that look?
>
>McCartney describes this relationship, at "best," as one where the man
>makes the decisions, taking his wife's feelings and desires into account,
>but not being bound by them.  The wife abides by the husband's decision,
>even if she disagrees with it.  
>
>Of course, the question I'd like McCartney to answer is what this
>marriage looks like when the PKer comes home and announces he's taking
>back his leadership and his wife tells him she's not willing to follow.
>
From what I read the PKer comes home and requests the right to take
back part of his responsibility.  It was always 'request' and never
'demand'.

This also implies that the PKer is not the ruler of the house.  Rules
tell, they don't ask.

By this practice you have your answer, but I'm sure it will not be
enough.  It never is, is it.


>-- 
>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love 
>and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
>took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. --  The
>word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.