Topic of the Week: dating...

  • Posted on: 10 April 2017
  • By: thecollective

It can be tricky finding compatibility in dating and relationships at the best of times. So how do anarchist views and ways affect these things, especially considering anarchists make up a tiny percentage of the overall population?

Does dating within established anarchist circles help? Or does this become stagnant at some point?

For people living outside major centres, how do you find people to date who are of like mind or even who are not hostile to your ways?

Do you self-declare as an anarchist just to get it out of the way and weed out non-viable situations right off the jump? Or would you intentionally go out of your way to date non-anarchists, knowing that many anarchists clash with each other?

How do anarchists and non-anarchists find common ground for dating or long-term relationships? Do anarchist/non-anarchist matches work well in your experience?

What are some of the common sticking points created by anarchism within dating and relationships, in general?

And finally, do anarchists need their own dating service?

This topic submitted by Willow; thanks!

category: 

Comments

As the ideas of Max Stirner begin to eclipse the pathetic platitudes of leftism, including its feminine-ist tendencies, more and more anarchs are understanding insurrectionary potential of the volcel lifestyle.

cannot tell if this is a flame, but it is hilarious

Only potential "volcel" has is to be helping limiting the breeding of humans. Still it's never a certainty that contraception's going to be used by the average punk rock fucker. Who cares about responsibility, right?

"And finally, do anarchists need their own dating service?"

Yes, yes and yes. That's what I've been suggesting for a while, but yet they still are doing cryptic dating, mostly in private circles. You gotta be more assertive, gangs!

A well-respected counterculture bar in my town held a love match event last Valentine's Day (had to stab myself many times for missing it), so why can't you!?

Its a Grift. Anonymous grifters need a dating service so they can meet anonymous grifters of the opposite sex and have little anonymous grifter babies.

"...anonymous grifters of the opposite sex"

so your idea of a dating service is limited to hetero? no wonder you are so obsessed with commies...

Yes, coz you know hetero sex = patriarchy and "rape", and gay sex = "anarchy!".

(disregarding roughly 1500 years of ancient Greek and Roman gay patriarchy, and equally the same length of similar Islamic gay patriarchy, with women mostly kept in the gynecea/harem for reproductive purposes)

I've always found that anarchist analysis was a coincidental advantage for relationships in general because most of the emphasis for me was on understanding all the ways that we end up blindly treating each other like shit. I'm from a redneck shithole town so by the time I'd finished growing up there, a lot of my thinking was poisoned by the well. My interest in anarchism exposed me to different theories and gave me the tools to understand some anti-oppression and be way less likely to fall in to the same patterns as most of the people I grew up with. Fucked up attitudes towards women being one of the most obvious examples.

Presumably this helps a bit with dating, although that's beside the point. I have yet to meet another anarchist with whom I could even stand to be room-mates, let alone dating! We need a lot of space from each other in order to get along haha

"Fucked up attitudes towards women being one of the most obvious examples."

There sure are... but what about the similar fucked up attitudes within same-sex relations? The gay macho swine I've seen happening is in no way better. Neither is the ultra-possessive lesbo couple patterns I've seen coming happening among separatist, male-rejecting females.

Butt-fuck more ethical than vagina-fuck? Dunno... Interactions driven by the penetration obsession are the problem, or a major part of it.

I wasn't suggesting any ethical superiority, only talking about my experiences in the sticks in the 90s.

Homophobia didn't have any theory behind it, just primal, reptilian hostility direct at "the other". On the subject of women, most thought NWA was a great source of wisdom and to complete the perfect circle of stupid, thinking and talking about politics was "gay". So … safe to say we never made it to splitting hairs about 2nd wave feminist separatism. Plenty of emphasis on penetration though!

Also maybe you need to fight those prejudices towards these "other anarchists"? How long have you been living together with them? Personally I'm a quite decent roommate, based on other people's feedback...

It's not a "prejudice" by definition. I said "I have yet to meet", it was also a pretty lighthearted statement and you apparently managed to get defensive anyway. Simmer down.

What the fuck is dating? That should be the first question. Then, what does anarchism have to do with it?

There's at least three things "dating" usually refers to:

1) People who are meeting up to determine the potential to become reoccurring, but not necessarily committal sex partners.

2) Established reoccurring, but not necessarily committal sex partners

3) Testing the compatibility of prospective voluntary and romantic familial/life-partners

So given one or more of the three circumstances, what are the important factors? Well, they're different for each one. I'd specify more, but I don't want to make a very long post about this and I trust whoever reads this to think about it themselves. What I will say though, is that it's questionable how much someone's self-identification with anarchism will come into play.

How much does someone being an anarchist (or not) have to do with their lifestyle? Their sexual preferences? Their compatibility in day-to-day affairs? I think ...very, very little. And to the extent that anarchists are critical on the subjects of interpersonal relationship and sexuality, lifestyle choices and political activism ...so are a lot of people that aren't anarchists. Especially in a society where politics is often just another form of consumption.

The wording is bad, indeed. I think whoever posted this TOTW meant actually "love-match". Dating definitely means the boring old pattern, of like talking a few words with someone, then exchange numbers and set a later moment for doing what you could do just there (i.e. fucking, or something close to it).

RE:
Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 04/10/2017 - 11:15
The wording is bad, indeed. I

Yeah, ok maybe the wording is bad. If that's the case, it's still questionable where anarchism fits into that. Here's a hypothetical:

After "dating" numerous anarchists without meeting the expectations someone hopes to meet, they open themselves up to dating someone who isn't an anarchist. Instead of going through channels they knew would introduce another anarchist into their life, they decide to date someone who they meet via their lifestyle choices. Maybe this is someone they meet through music, or through a bar scene, or through a hobby. Everything is great on a day-to-day basis. Food works. Going out together works. Friends are welcoming. Family approves. Sex is good. Chores are shared fairly. Conversation is enjoyable. All that shit, or whatever applies given what this person was looking for.

Ok - so there's this hypothetical non-anarchist. Where are the problems going to come from? What if this non-anarchist partner just doesn't care much for taking definite positions on systemic issues? They don't like the systemic stuff the anarchist doesn't like, but it isn't coherent and ideological for them. Maybe they spend their time thinking about something else.

You mean like ... how normal people do it?

What's normal? A lot of what's "normal" is just the path-of-least-resistance in an environment created by religions, states, and the economic systems created by states.

Whoooaaa … what does "normal" even mean bruuuhhh?!

get bent

You know you could give people a little more credit if you wanted a real conversation ;)

What is "real" tho, whoa

whoa! you introduced the term "normal" to a conversation just so you could follow up the response with another asinine comment. Fucking. Expanding. My. Consciousness. With. That. Dope. Anarchy.

Look man I think your consciousness could really get fisted wide open if you dropped your incel cry-cucking dry-shaft for some volcel Stirnerism

Also, this troll^ took over. My trolling is more cute and playful, plus I won't use that term cuck because you damn kids needs to get off my lawn with your rock music and skirts that show too much ankle dammit!

I guess I assumed it was obvious that my original reply was a joke. Taking the piss from self-identified anarchists including myself?

Wow, don't get all bunged up over semantics.

Dating is generally considered spending time with someone, doing things with that person, and getting to know him/her, usually with an eye toward a possible long-term relationship/commitment.

And what do your way of being and your sociopolitical views of the world (anarchism) have to do with that? Quite a lot, actually.

Re: Wow, don't get all bunged up

I've seen plenty of dates go sour because the "generally considered" was assumed. Some people specifically do NOT date with an eye towards long-term anything.

Anyway. What exactly does anarchism (as a particular sociopolitical genre views) have to do with it? Clearly I don't agree. So elaborate. It's not a self-evident proposition. In a society where a lot of the basic perspectives of anarchists are shared by many people that are not anarchists, what is the particular impact of self-identifying as an anarchist?

The point I'm making isn't that sociopolitical views don't consequently impact dating. It's that I don't think there's always such a gap between anarchists and non-anarchists that compatibility can be measured by such a standard. Especially when /being an anarchist/ doesn't actually say much about how someone is going to live, or approach sexuality, or approach dating.

So let's lay it out! A below comment about illegalist activity is an example of the sort of detail I think these questions deserve.

Also... c'mon. If you go to any dating website you'll have an instant example from loads of people that don't agree about what "dating" means, who have different expectations in a wide variety of areas, etc. It's not semantics, it's contemporary dating.

Well, that's more a commentary on the times (as far as people just looking to hook up). Sure, define what you're meaning by dating in a precise way or use a different word for it altogether, but it doesn't really change the overall topic, in my mind. Just speak from personal experience.

And yeah, anarchism means different things to different people. Still, that doesn't mean we can't discuss topics like this on an anarchist site.

Anarchism, to me, involves non-hierarchical/voluntary free association. Autonomy, self-direction, self-responsibility. Doing things that feel natural, organic, and intuitively right to you. Holding no Earthly superiours except those that you have willingly and freely accepted as such. Not forcing people to do things or to go along with things that they don't feel are right, not forcing people to be things they are not, especially as it relates to fitting in to societal norms or constructs.

Anarchism, to me, involves getting rid of hierarchical authority figures and authoritarianism. Not accepting government, business, finance, religion, or the rules or machinations of those things (including the corrupt money system) as inevitable or necessary. Resisting and fighting authoritarianism and its violence. Deconstructing the power structures on this planet and refusing to be duped.

I think one of the main differences is that anarchist ways are usually more consensus based, rather than majority or mob rule ("democracy"). So in other words, everyone counts, every single person, and it isn't right to force certain things on people, even if the majority says it's OK to do that. This is a fundamental difference between anarchism and the way most things are done in Canada and the U.S., I think.

Solving our own problems together. A society that works for everyone. We're not free until we're all free. Groups that adjust to work for the individual, rather than the individual being forced to fit into the group, and then often being kept out of the group when he/she can't fit. People being given the space and respect to live according to their own ways, not being forced to swallow things they don't want to swallow. A mix of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

I've found that my ways (what I would call anarchist) definitely cause friction when coming into contact with most people's ways, including in dating/love relationship scenarios.

"I've found that my ways (what I would call anarchist) definitely cause friction when coming into contact with most people's ways, including in dating/love relationship scenarios."

I have found the opposite, or at least what I've found is that whether or not someone is an anarchist has meant very little when it comes to interpersonal dynamics. When I've dated anarchists, I've found that there's a tendency to explicitly negotiate relationship dynamics based on the assumption that explicating terms of the relationship will lead to more mutuality, less domination, and such. However, for as much as terms can be explicitly stated and negotiated, clarified and codified, opened and closed, and free ...those terms (formally laid out) have often had little to do with the the relationship's dynamics in practice. On that note, I've found that when I have dated people that are not anarchists, but rather dated them because I already liked the dynamics of the relationship, those dynamics have been pretty consistent. So in effect, someone being an anarchist and even practicing what others seem to believe are anarchist approaches to interpersonal relationships has had little to do with the relationship being mutually satisfying. And more peculiar to how I like to spend most of my time, I've found that disagreements I have with other anarchists can cause more stress and burden in a relationship than a relationship with a non-anarchist who is comfortable with my anarchist practices despite their own (usually cynical) views on authority.

I also just think it's paradoxical, as an anarchist, to base my anarchism on a view of other people that considers them more-or-less equals ...yet reserve my love-life for other anarchists. To me, this would be like saying that I think that anarchism is only for anarchists.

I'm also a female, and I believe a woman who doesn't accept authority/speaks her mind quite plainly is harder to tolerate for a lot of people.

Oh well... I guess it depends on what sort of an anarchist you are.

If you venture into illegal direct action, that can and occasionally will be an obstacle to forming close relationships. Mostly because relationships of that kind involve a lot of (preferably emotional, but sometimes also material) mutual dependence.

If you take risks in your life, it would be honest to disclose the level of risk you are taking to persons who you want to trust, and whom you want to trust you. So I do that....

...and it has probably had detrimental influence, but I still do that. And if others keep distance as a result of knowing that, it's good, because they've been able to make an informed decision and I've been able to be honest with them. Which means, even if romantic stuff just got crossed out, there is still a basis for friendship. :)

The other basis for friendship, namely shared interests... yes, that's a hard one. If one is into illegality + technology + not taking needless risks, then yes, one can easily be friends with hackers. With most well behaved office people, however, there is a distinct lack of common ground.

I think a joint agreement with someone saying you are dating them/they are dating you immediately creates obligation, hierarchy, and a whole mess of consequences. These consequences are under-explored in certain ways because all Anarchists I know, just like the rest of society, see dating as a almost "natural" and inevitable thing. I'm not really 'against' it, but generally would like all my relationships to be more fluid and anarchic.. I say relationships because I want this for all my relationships with everything and everyone regardless of if I want to fuck you right now or not. Which seems to be the general requirement of "dating".

Listen, incel...one more step if you want to be volcel.

Meet others, if there's chemistry, go for it, but specifically trying to meet others so as to fuck usually ends up bad. Not always...but usually.

Claiming the "no obligations, we're all freeeeeee to do as we please" version of things generally comes with a whole bag of problems also, in my experience.

Dating can definitely be a voluntary, free association-type of agreement between/among people. But most people do want a certain degree of commitment if getting intimately and emotionally involved.

Getting involved with someone means having a certain amount of responsibility toward that person. If you can't handle it being about more than just yourself and your own desires/whims/quest to be obligation-free, then don't get involved.

I agree.. the responsibility that intimacy results is the responsibility to the relationship, and relationships all inevitably have hierarchy and obligation in various forms which move and change over time and circumstance. I'm not saying that to have anarchic relationships this needs to be avoided, I don't think it can, but there are ways to minimize it and understand the way relationships work and try to help ourselves and our partners retain as much autonomy and independence as possible which still enjoying the relationship.. whether or not it's sexual. That said: 1. I think that having an obligation to a supportive partner can be "freeing" in many ways, and totally and completely worth any complicated hierarchical/relationship problems which can be worked with and through 2. I just think sexual/dating relationships can get more sticky and complicated then normal friendships where maybe you aren't as vulnerable and, so it's even more difficult to accomplish this. I guess this is why I said it was under-explored..

Yes, finding the right mix of responsibility/commitment/obligation and autonomy is key for anarchist relationships of all kinds, I think. And ultimately, making the responsibility/commitment/obligation something that both/all parties choose of their own free will and are happy to fulfill.

Like, I'm obliged to water my house plants, or they'll die. So I'm happy to take on that obligation and water them.

I'm obliged to harvest my garden, or it will rot and I won't get to eat it. So I'm happy to take on that obligation.

I think it's similar with keeping relationships healthy and happy. It has to be something you would naturally and freely take on because it's worth it, as you're saying. Not something that's prescribed just because "this is the way dating relationships are supposed to be." It's a continual process of identifying the undesirable constructs and dynamics that are being reinforced and then coming up with a better way together, breaking out of the manufactured societal relationship blueprint together.

Taking relationships to the sexual level most definitely changes things and makes things more complicated, gets emotions involved in a different and usually deeper way. So I think that's something that has to be taken on consciously with both/all people involved...with an understanding that there will be different responsibilities and possibly some unintended consequences.

So, back to what I was saying, clumsily: I'm thinking about the consequences of differentiating between someone you say you are "dating" rather than "just friends" with, and wondering if that simple differentiation is worth all the trouble. There seems to be this understanding that someone you're dating is more important that your just-friends, non-sexual people. As sex itself is not the most important thing in the world to me, rather, the intimacy/trust it represents is the thing I'm after. So a person I was dating/sexual with wouldn't automatically get a higher value apposed to someone else, rather.. value of my relationships is more based on intimacy/trust, reliability, etc rather than sex.. so this whole line of thinking is making me question the point in saying I'm "dating" this person vs. "just friends"... and all that..

If sex is involved or has been involved, you aren't "just friends," in my opinion. (Unless it has always been a clearly-defined "friends with benefits" situation with no one feeling or wanting more than that.) Saying you are "just friends" in that case would have its own set of personal politics involved. So there would have to be some discussion there to make sure you are on the same page as far as "what to call it." Because I think it does matter in a lot of cases.

It also depends on whether feelings were involved. For me, it's impossible to go back to "just friends" after sex and love have entered the picture. But that's just me.

It does change things for some people, but not for everyone. Sometimes you don't know what it will change until after, sometimes it doesn't change anything at all, sometimes it changes everything. It's hard to be honest about this with people without hurting feelings or be made out to be a bad person in some cases. So I'm trying to value all of my relationships on a wider basis than just sex (love has many forms), so then there are more avenues for freedom to retain a valuable and positive relationships with a person, while also respecting a changing and generally unpredictable sex-drive.. (I don't mean that most people just go out and want to screw everything randomly, I'm talking about how people are all different in their desires for sex and sometimes things do change for a person)

i visitdd a mink farm today.

I personally think that wording can be tricky but let's not fall into semantics as well. I found my current partner at a job we had. She wasn't a anarchist, I was. We enjoyed each other's company so we started to see each other. She ended up becoming a anarchist after lots of conversations. We are still together not because we are both anarchists now but because we have fun together, enjoy each other and are real with each other. I feel like anarchists forcing themselves to date other anarchists is very problematic. Anarchists should seek to spend time with the people they have affinity for and enjoy spending time with. And vice versa.

First we should have to define the identity of "anarchist", if there's one that's ground in any reality... or that may just be a system of beliefs? If the latter I guess that yeah, a Christian can definitely end up in a great relationship with a non-Christian, as long as they aren't from a sectarian milieu which is too insular to allow meet ups with any of those profanes around.

Let's take the Hasidic community in the city where I live for instance... got nothing against those people (they got much healthier and prosperous values than, say, the crust punks who're just destroying themselves with this pbr & dogs worship thing), yet they're the best model of an insular, sectarian milieu. So good luck even meeting and getting together with any of those persons, unless you're joining the cult- like community.

I wasn't suggesting forcing anything...just asking what people actually do and how it works out.

So your gf was influenced in a good way by your way of thinking and you have grown into even more compatibility. Good outcome.

The idea I suggested with having "anarchist love-matches" is to be able to create a situation of more open love-matching where antiauthoritarian principles are taken into account in how connections are made. This can set a precedent for radically improving communications between individuals, not just for the relations, but also for the other aspects. And no, a love-match of course doesn't have got to be focused on fucking. Look at the "personals" section of Craigslist, and it's a mixed bag of people having different interests for endeavors.

Yeah, I think anarchist principles could potentially really help relationships, too. And in particular, exposing and moving out of the shitty power dynamics and manipulative moves people do to each other, often unconsciously or semi-consciously.

A staunch "no fucking with each other" policy sounds anarchist to me. And consciously moving out of relational fuckery together through good communication, etc.

"Not fucking with each other" policy... What do you mean by that? As in "no messing up with other", or merely "not fucking"?

We aren't Christans, no?

Fucking with each other...emotionally, psychologically, via power moves, by being dishonest, by using other people, etc.

Some of this:

- dating someone or sleeping with someone just to get back at someone else. This includes the classic "sleeping with all your ex-boyfriend's/girlfriend's friends" thing.
- dating someone or sleeping with someone just to get your mind off someone else
- manipulating someone who has fallen for you, misusing that power and the "upper hand" it gives you
- faking feelings for someone
- using people as a means to your ends
- saying all the right things and pretending to be interested in a real relationship to get someone into bed
- keeping a relationship "unlabeled" so as to keep your options open
- playing games like making plans and then breaking them, getting close and then withdrawing, using your social crowd as a power play over the other person
- lying, deceit, and omission of necessary information
- cheating, emotional or sexual
- taking advantage of the emotional vulnerability created in intimate relationships
- taking no responsibility for how your behaviour or words badly affect another person
- having multiple men/women on the go at once without their knowledge. This is absolutely chronic in the days of constant cell phone and social media usage. The texting games alone are enough to fill entire social psychology textbooks.
- having sex with people just to compete with your friends
- dropping someone out of the blue, discontinuing contact, and ignoring messages from that person
- refusing to end or resolve a relationship maturely and face-to-face
- leaving someone "hung up" on you
- getting satisfaction, glee, or a sense of personal empowerment from the pain and upset you've caused others

The tenet goes, "As long as you aren't hurting anyone or anything, do as you like." But if you ARE hurting someone or something, that's a different story.

Can we just come out and admit that most anarchist groups, spaces and events are already a glorified dating service? It's all that gets done in most and usually the primary reason people are there.

More importantly, can we admit that the endogenous dating practices of insular anarchist groups haven't exactly been good for us? The constant clusterfucks of drama have derailed just about every project and community they touched, often irrevocably.

Implicitly: yes, or probably yes.

There's a world of differences between an openly-accepted love-match space/event and a dating hot spot or event hypocritically hidden underneath a layer of political discourse and symbolism, or sexual positions hidden behind political positions, if you like. I can bet safely that homo-oriented males know exactly why they are going at the sauna over the weekend or at the gay park... but admit it, there's several blurry, interchangeable and non-exclusive reasons why people attend events set up by anarchists or radical Left at some social center, or get into an FnB or bike workshop type of thing. Or do you expect everyone going to an art exhibit just doing so to get laid? Not really. Dance party or wild concert? Maybe more, yet still not that clear (just fun with friends? the thrill of the sweaty mosh pit intensity? your favorite band/music playing? selling drugs? snitching on... oh wait)

Which is perhaps the main issue with any endeavor not obviously specific to any sexual preference... that it keeps it under the rug, or we're struggling to make the intent more open or obvious.

If you're working fine in such environments made of double entendre, good for you, but that's not the idea here. This type of setting is inherently hierarchical and I can't see it doing anything else than reproducing hierarchies in shitty dehumanizing relationships, which includes all the niceties listed in Willow's post.

More sweeping it under the rug is not what anarchy needs. Have fun with that in liberal dystopia capitalism.

Go read Wilhelm Reich (not the latter stuff about orgone) and come back to me on this.

I mean … that's definitely a dynamic to rise above. If everybody is just secretly trying to meet people and get laid, that would be one of the major differences between a real anarchist movement and scene-bullshit. The total is the sum of the parts, every community will have folks meeting, falling in love and/or just having some fun but if that's the only real point, we all lose.

Yes, of course. But I don't see how that's such a big deal to be setting up events that are explicitly or at least clearly implicit (like the sauna example) love-match events.

The difficulty lies in the shortcomings with the already-available solutions (i.e. the concert bars and house parties -that aren't that bad if you're lucky to find one for you- as the main ones to not be attached to any specific sexual orientation... correct me if there are others), which would require to push the boundaries by creating happening-type of events, but open discussions too, maybe fuelled by correspondances and other texts. To push the intimate intents outwards; while making the externalities take the more intimate, and pragmatic dimension (as to better accept ourselves as fighters of the social war).

Aside than time-fractioned moments, there are the "meatspaces"... which as the term suggests may end up being factories of commodification of people as tools for the pleasure of a few cavemen with big mouths. It seems to me that the way to get out of these sick patterns sowed jnto private enclosures of life, is to he casting it outside.

It is possible to bring sexuality upfront -which is all I'm suggesting here- in a way that avoids dynamics of abuse. That's my belief, that is based on a few experiences. Creating a dynamic where the love or sex jntercourse is no longer releaguered under the carpet, so that, as Luke observed, it can become a way to discuss and organize on the sides, in a more vivid manner.

This is really interesting to know, thank-you. I've lived outside major centres for the past number of years and haven't been involved in any type of "anarchist culture" at all. (I usually find the established Anarchist Scene repellent when I do come into contact with it online.) I'm a pretty serious-minded person when it comes to the work at hand, and it would annoy/piss me off to find out that an event or project was really just a facade for people to hook up. That type of subtext would really suffocate any synergistic anarchist work going on. What a waste of time. And boring, too. Yawn.

I grew up in the old-school gay male scene, and to this day meet most of my partners in that environment. I would describe myself as "traditional gay culture Bi." Yes, I do discuss politics with my dates, and I've gotten a hell of a lot of support since that November Catastrophe. I also tend to react to attacks on partners, their families, or anyone similar to them as attacks on myself and in fact that has driven some of my political work in the past.

Since I have Aspergers, to meet sexual partners outside of environments where everyone is looking for the same thing is nearly impossible, as I can't read potential interest of lack therof very well. I am open to approaches from people in other environments, but have only had a few of those. In short, outside intentional "cruising" situations I have to wait to be approached.

One advantage of this is no negative "ex" situations anywhere, and certainly none interfering in my organiziing work. I have seen close relationships that have ended lead to problems in collective situations. In rock bands one author said the only stable situations were all band members partnered with other band members, all band members outside partners only, or freeform casual sex among all band members. Anything else was considered a formula that could break up the band. Wonder how much of that applies to affinity groups? Certainly I've seen some ugly situations.

i hate dating other anarchists they are pretentious and cloying when i hear that someone is an anarchist i run the other way i much prefer to date into difference lol bc if the anarchists come together what will it make more anarchists well you will never hate me as much as i hate my self

I have learned much about contemporary US anarchism from reading this thread. Thank you.

My own thoughts on the topic are being withheld because I believe the OP is possibly using the thread as a market research group with the intention of developing an app or similar "service".

Emile tells us Soviet "Sarin" delivered in Russian war-planes and Syrian & Iraqi "children" are a false binary opposition smuggled in by language to make Anarchist news look like it has some power to change things.
This is a convincing argument for impotence and a great contraceptive device. We all here are in his great debt. Its not like this world needs any more babies.

Of outward-inward flow of non-relational binary predicaments derived in the plenum of species/being. Need I say more?

Good satire involves inversions & distortions of concepts, not just regurgitations of words gleaned from bad-faith reading. You need to go deeper.

Yeah but what about those text walls of bad-faith writing that this troll is still publishing?

ohhhhh..... should black folks date white folks? should asians date south americans? should moslems date jews?

that is exactly what it sounds like when i hear people talking about "dating anarchists" vs non-anarchists.

relate with whoever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want, however the fuck you want. the only constraint is the other individual(s) you are relating with, and what/when/how they want.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
2
H
c
r
i
4
a
Enter the code without spaces.