Is it fair to hold creators' statements or politics against them?

[Spackling Compound]

I'd really need to see his comments on pedophilia before even attempting to discuss that, but polyamory is not at all harmful in some, if not many cases.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=7151
And I think he's cogent, intelligent and fair enough to discuss pedophilia or the eroticism of children in such a way that is academic.
However, if someone would say, "I think we over emphasize "childhood" which is a construct of about 100 years. People were married at 12 and still are being married", it would get some reaction.

So, no he doesn't defend or promote pedophilia. I was wrong there but he doesn't back off it.

Maybe there's nothing to see here.

And to the polyamory...does that mean adultery is not a bad thing for some?

[Reverend Smooth]

And to the polyamory...does that mean adultery is not a bad thing for some?
Adultery in what context? If all parties are consenting, no one is cheating.

And polygamy is being married to multiple women.

[Arrogantcur]

Polyamory is not the same thing as polygamy.

Correct. Polyamory is having more than one partner and, if I'm not mistaken, a polyamourous relationship is one where the people involved give each other permission to fool around with other people.

Polygamy, of course, is being married to more than one person.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=7151
And I think he's cogent, intelligent and fair enough to discuss pedophilia or the eroticism of children in such a way that is academic.
However, if someone would say, "I think we over emphasize "childhood" which is a construct of about 100 years. People were married at 12 and still are being married", it would get some reaction.

So, no he doesn't defend or promote pedophilia. I was wrong there but he doesn't back off it.

Maybe there's nothing to see here.

And to the polyamory...does that mean adultery is not a bad thing for some?

Polyamory, I believe by most commonly embraces definitiond, precludes mere 'cheating'.

[Reverend Smooth]

Correct. Polyamory is having more than one partner and, if I'm not mistaken, a polyamourous relationship is one where the people involved give each other permission to fool around with other people.

No, that's generally called an open relationship.

Polyamory is being in a relationship involving multiple partners.

And yes, one can cheat in a poly relationship, generally by involving a partner whom the others disapprove of, or not checking first. However, that's no different than a monogamous relationship: people who love each other don't hide things from each other or, at least, don't sleep with folks their sweetie doesn't want them to.

[Spackling Compound]

Adultery in what context? If all parties are consenting, no one is cheating.

And polygamy is being married to multiple women.

Adultery isn't cheating, is it?
Adultery is having more than one partner.

And for those in polyamorous relationships, are your children aware of this?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Adultery isn't cheating, is it?
Adultery is having more than one partner.

And for those in polyamorous relationships, are your children aware of this?

Adultry is when you have a sex partner other than your lawfully wedded spouse, or have sex with someone else's lawfully wedded spouse.

And in my case; yes, their daughter knew.

[Spackling Compound]

Adultry is when you have a sex partner other than your lawfully wedded spouse, or have sex with someone else's lawfully wedded spouse.

And in my case; yes, their daughter knew.

The daughter knew as part of the relationship? Or she found out?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The daughter knew as part of the relationship? Or she found out?

I was seeing the wife of a married couple. Both of her parents had sat her down and discussed matters with her. I, in fact, was introduced to the daughter.

In their case, polyamory saved their marriage.

[Arrogantcur]

No, that's generally called an open relationship.

Polyamory is being in a relationship involving multiple partners.

And yes, one can cheat in a poly relationship, generally by involving a partner whom the others disapprove of, or not checking first. However, that's no different than a monogamous relationship: people who love each other don't hide things from each other or, at least, don't sleep with folks their sweetie doesn't want them to.

Ah, got it. Thanks! :smile:

[Charles RB]

And for those in polyamorous relationships, are your children aware of this?

Poly couples sometimes live in the same house, so I would imagine any children there would notice.

[Reverend Smooth]

Adultery isn't cheating, is it?
Adultery is having more than one partner.It technically means, in the West at least, that if you are married and sleeping with someone else, you are committing adultery. Generally, it's assumed to be cheating.

However, I don't see the issue if everyone consents, particularly since not all of us are christian( but note that the Patriarchs turned out fine and they were products of polygamy), or adhere to certain tenets of christian morality. How is polyamory inherently wrong beyond saying 'sleeping with someone who's not your spouse if you are married is inherently wrong'? Why is it inherently wrong?

(Unless you wish to establish that any deviation from a tight set of christian morals is inherently wrong?)

And why shouldn't the kids be aware? Or are you implying that a loving relationship between folks (consenting adults!) is somehow harmful to kids?

Edit: It should be relatively easy for anyone to tell their kids at some point, 'Just because Mommy, Daddy and Dad have this kind of relationship, doesn't mean everyone does: there are many different kinds of relationships. If you want a relationship like ours, you should only do that with people who feel the same way. If you want a relationship with just one person, that's okay, too.'

[Spackling Compound]

It technically means, in the West at least, that if you are married and sleeping with someone else, you are committing adultery. Generally, it's assumed to be cheating.

However, I don't see the issue if everyone consents, particularly since not all of us are christian( but note that the Patriarchs turned out fine and they were products of polygamy), or adhere to certain tenets of christian morality. How is polyamory inherently wrong beyond saying 'sleeping with someone who's not your spouse if you are married is inherently wrong'? Why is it inherently wrong?

(Unless you wish to establish that any deviation from a tight set of christian morals is inherently wrong?)

And why shouldn't the kids be aware? Or are you implying that a loving relationship between folks (consenting adults!) is somehow harmful to kids?

Edit: It should be relatively easy for anyone to tell their kids at some point, 'Just because Mommy, Daddy and Dad have this kind of relationship, doesn't mean everyone does: there are many different kinds of relationships. If you want a relationship like ours, you should only do that with people who feel the same way. If you want a relationship with just one person, that's okay, too.'

The Patriarchs also didn't have much of a deal with intergenerational sex either and I suppose they still came out, as you say, ok.

[Reverend Smooth]

The Patriarchs also didn't have much of a deal with intergenerational sex either and I suppose they still came out, as you say, ok.A) Anwer the question-- How is polyamory inherently wrong or harmful to kids?

And b) you just compared polyamory to pedophilia. Right, because consenting adults are just the same as kids. :o

[Spackling Compound]

A) Anwer the question-- How is polyamory inherently wrong or harmful to kids?

And b) you just compared polyamory to pedophilia. Right, because consenting adults are just the same as kids. :o

Why should I answer that? I have no idea. I guess it's not inherently wrong for kids. I have no idea.

And I didn't compare the two.
And sometimes, yes, consenting adults are just like kids. More like kids than kids sometimes.

I said intergenerational sex. No distinction of age differences.

[Reverend Smooth]

Why should I answer that? I have no idea. I guess it's not inherently wrong for kids. I have no idea.

And I didn't compare the two.
And sometimes, yes, consenting adults are just like kids. More like kids than kids sometimes.

I said intergenerational sex. No distinction of age differences.That's not a very good evasion. ^^

[Spackling Compound]

That's not a very good evasion. ^^

I can't speak for polyamory. If you're polyamorous, then fine. I was just asking if children knew and how they knew.
Not saying it was bad or good.

Someone at one point brought up that he'd like to tell his child that being gay is ok and talk of gay sex when he talked of straight sex (when the time came) so I wondered if polyamory was also something that involved the child as part of their environmental awareness.

That is all.

[Arrogantcur]

My two cents: so long as nobody is being deceived, and so long as there are no unwelcome surprises sprung on anybody, I can't see anything wrong it.

[Rob Allen]

Some of the best parents I know are a three-adult family - two men and one woman. They've been together over 25 years and have three kids of their own and have fostered a couple of others. The youngest kid is now 17 and they're all doing well.

[section 8]

Polyamory is not the same thing as polygamy.

So I can get started on that harem now?

[40footwolf]

Who's PAD? Peter David?

It's hard not to hold it against them because when you know a person's politics and thoughts, you know some of their thought processes, and it goes into whatever they do whether they realize it or not.

[Arrogantcur]

Who's PAD? Peter David?

It's hard not to hold it against them because when you know a person's politics and thoughts, you know some of their thought processes, and it goes into whatever they do whether they realize it or not.

Yes, those are his initials and that's how he signs all of his posts both on his site and when he posts at CBR, or anywhere else.

[40footwolf]

Okay, well, I've never seen him post on this site OR anywhere else, so I didn't know that.

[Arrogantcur]

Okay, well, I've never seen him post on this site OR anywhere else, so I didn't know that.

Well, now ya do. :wink:

[40footwolf]

Ballin', my good sir.

Ballin'.

[Charles RB]

And why shouldn't the kids be aware? Or are you implying that a loving relationship between folks (consenting adults!) is somehow harmful to kids?

I personally got uneasy on this thread when it came to the question of children knowing and Maxine saying "yes we told them", because gut feeling & conditioning is that's wrong.

But I can't think of a rational reason for not telling them.

[Michael P]

The "A" is for "Alan."

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I personally got uneasy on this thread when it came to the question of children knowing and Maxine saying "yes we told them", because gut feeling & conditioning is that's wrong.

But I can't think of a rational reason for not telling them.

Honestly, I couldn't get past that either. Even though intellectually I believe in what they're doing. Part of why polyamory just isn't for me.

[Corrina]

So I can get started on that harem now?

So long as you find consenting adults. And you can only be legally married to one. And you still have to provide for children of any of them. :)

[Paul McEnery]

Honestly, I couldn't get past that either. Even though intellectually I believe in what they're doing. Part of why polyamory just isn't for me.

Oh I know. Who needs all that full and frank disclosure? People should have secrets from each other -- how else do you keep things interesting?

Don't ask don't tell seems like a much better idea to me. I never care if my whatever is getting a little extra, but that doesn't mean I want to hear about it. And if I've had my sneaky liason that perks me up a bit, there's nothing would bring me back to earth faster than having the whatever intrude into the sitch by demanding the details. Yuk!

[Corrina]

Well, that seems a bit snarky if you're directing it at Maxine, Paul.

She didn't say she'd sneak around. From what I read of her post, she decided that monogamy, not poly relationships, were more comfortable for her.

[Spackling Compound]

Oh I know. Who needs all that full and frank disclosure? People should have secrets from each other -- how else do you keep things interesting?

Don't ask don't tell seems like a much better idea to me. I never care if my whatever is getting a little extra, but that doesn't mean I want to hear about it. And if I've had my sneaky liason that perks me up a bit, there's nothing would bring me back to earth faster than having the whatever intrude into the sitch by demanding the details. Yuk!

Snark or not, isn't the fun of it sometimes doing the naughty naughty in the dark? With the chance you'd get caught?

[Spackling Compound]

Oh and the whole thing about the polyamory and paying for child support? Suck the life out of it why don't cha!

[Paul McEnery]

So I can get started on that harem now?

Would that be the harem scarem?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, that seems a bit snarky if you're directing it at Maxine, Paul.

She didn't say she'd sneak around. From what I read of her post, she decided that monogamy, not poly relationships, were more comfortable for her.

Precicely. No judgement.

In the realm of desire, politics, principles, and theory tends to fall apart under the pure onslaught of Id.

What gets us off is in an entirely different place than where we nurture our ethics.

Polyamory doesn't do it for me. Spending an afternoon with parents and their daughter doesn't put me in the mood to be ravished by wifey. And shacking up with a family unit that had been established wasn't what Eros whispered in my ear.

So what? That's who I am. There are those who would be all about those things, and good for them. I'm cut from a different cloth. Good for me. To each their own.

Jeez.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

In fact, last I heard both parents had their own secondary partners, and were very happy.

[Dazzler]

Oh I know. Who needs all that full and frank disclosure? People should have secrets from each other -- how else do you keep things interesting?

Don't ask don't tell seems like a much better idea to me. I never care if my whatever is getting a little extra, but that doesn't mean I want to hear about it. And if I've had my sneaky liason that perks me up a bit, there's nothing would bring me back to earth faster than having the whatever intrude into the sitch by demanding the details. Yuk!

Whoa, Paul.

Nobody said anything about keeping secrets and/or having sneaky liasons.

I know in San Francisco the idea of honest monogamy seems a little crazy, but there are those of us who not only prefer it, but practice it.

It seems wholeheartedly outside the spirit of the city to mock and denegrate someone's relationship preference, when it's just the same exercise of "do what you like" that we're SUPPOSED to be famous for.

I don't know how many times a week I get made fun of for preferring a monogamous relationship in this town, but it never ceases to get my ire up.

--Dazz

[section 8]

So long as you find consenting adults. And you can only be legally married to one. And you still have to provide for children of any of them. :)

Married?
Why on earth would I put my self through that?

The idea of a polywhatsis relationship DOES seem appealing.

Unfortunately I am in a relationship right now, and I don't think she'll like the idea.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, that seems a bit snarky if you're directing it at Maxine, Paul.

She didn't say she'd sneak around. From what I read of her post, she decided that monogamy, not poly relationships, were more comfortable for her.

Who said anything about sneaking around?

I'm just talking about the kind of understanding I'd prefer instead of the endless talking things through that seems to come with polyamory.

[Michael P]

It seems wholeheartedly outside the spirit of the city

Outside the mythical spirit, but probably much more in keeping with the real one.

[Dazzler]

Outside the mythical spirit, but probably much more in keeping with the real one.

Depends on the company you keep, I guess.

--Dazz

[section 8]

Would that be the harem scarem?

Hmmmm...........I don't get it.

[Paul McEnery]

Hmmmm...........I don't get it.

You're a lovely straight man, really you are.









Help for yoooooouuuuu!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harum_Scarum

http://www.yourdictionary.com/harum-scarum

[Michael P]

You're a lovely straight man, really you are.









Help for yoooooouuuuu!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harum_Scarum

http://www.yourdictionary.com/harum-scarumReally, isn't "the worst Elvis film" like saying "the most painful flesh-eating virus"?

[Arrogantcur]

I don't know how many times a week I get made fun of for preferring a monogamous relationship in this town, but it never ceases to get my ire up.

Why would you get made fun of, Dazz? For anybody to mock monogamous relationships in a time like this, when sleeping around can be so risky, strikes me as kind of insane.

[beetlebum]

Sometime I'd like to go back in time and explain to Ayn Rand that according to quantum physics A is not just A, A is also B, and sometimes A is both A and B at the same time.

To expand upon this:

The law of identity (x=x), does not hold universally.

Quantum objects are not individuals, in the sense that they need not satisfy the law of identity, and yet may still be regarded as existent objects in the domain of the existential and universal quantifiers.

The Law Of Identity, like the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, is shown to be (at least in principle) dispensable; it seems that none of the three most fundamental principles of classical logic is sacrosanct.

The Identity of A can only have meaning through defining what is different from A, “not-A”. We find that everything is “not-A” including the same 'A' a second later (so long as the premise that all things are in motion is true), and thus arises the “Maxim of Diversity”; the evidence to the contrary makes it hard to support Ayn's Parimendian axiom.

And besides, according to Susan Stebbing, apparently, Aristotle didn't say that A is A after all.

As for the subject of this thread:

As I said in another thread: I tend to agree with the notion that the artistic value of a piece can be judged independently of the circumstances surrounding its inception, except insofar as that history affects the work's appearance, or content (the 'autonomous' view of aesthetics.)

Though when it comes to sentimentall value, and what one draws from the piece, the work can be rendered an "inferior" piece if it clashes with one's personal beliefs.

You can enjoy a piece, by (in the words of Barthes) not incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of text; as writing, and creator, are unrelated.

So I can still enjoy the works of Benvenuto Cellini, despite the fact that Cellini was a complete and total dick to one of his models (Caterina) while making the Nymph Of The Fountainbleu. And I can still listen to M.I.A, even - if the allegations are true - she may support the L.T.T.E (at least in principle).

But I won't support Dave Sim, not only because of his disgusting views on women, but also, on the account of the behaviour exhibited by some of his fan boys.

So, like others have said, it's your money; do what you want with it.

You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.

[beetlebum]

Precicely. No judgement.

So what? That's who I am. There are those who would be all about those things, and good for them. I'm cut from a different cloth. Good for me. To each their own.

Jeez.

And you shouldn't be ashamed of the way you feel.

I say good on ya for your beliefs.

See his posts in this thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=229391).

That's awful.

I'm disappointed to hear this, as I do have Chuck Dixon's 1992 Huntress mini (Cry Of The Huntress), and his entire run on Birds Of Prey.

[Calybos]

Well said. Just because the artistic merit of something can be viewed independently of its creator doesn't mean you have an obligation to give that creator your money.

Those are two different things.

[Charles RB]

Snark or not, isn't the fun of it sometimes doing the naughty naughty in the dark? With the chance you'd get caught?

No, that's part of the fun of adultery and all the fun of sex in public places. Which aren't polyamory.

[Spackling Compound]

No, that's part of the fun of adultery and all the fun of sex in public places. Which aren't polyamory.

Not so.

One can be dating someone and cheating on that person. I don't think there is a solid definition of polyamory as it is fluid enough to provide some comfort to the participants and allows them to say what it is and isn't for themselves. This thread proves it. Definitions can suck the life out of things.

[Mister Mets]

The customer can do whatever he or she wants, but I think it's wrong to hold anything other than the actual quality of the material against a creator.

The only problem is when the creator's opinions result in the quality of the work suffering, and that's inappropriate even if you support the policies in question. There may be instances in which a creator's publicly expressed opinions result in a messed up new interpretation of their work, but in this case it influences the perception of the quality.

But if the creator's opinions have nothing to do with the work, boycotting them shows that quality isn't your primary concern. And it encourages writers and artists to be more private about their opinions, which I don't believe to be a good thing.

Plus there's always the possibility that you're wrong, in which case you're punishing someone for being right.

[Dazzler]

Why would you get made fun of, Dazz? For anybody to mock monogamous relationships in a time like this, when sleeping around can be so risky, strikes me as kind of insane.

Well, it's not really like how it sounds. I don't get mocked mercilessly or cruelly. Just most of my friends are in open relationships (it IS the city of free love, after all), and they don't understand why I would want to limit myself to one person, so they tease me about being a prude.

Still, it pisses me the frick off. ;)

--Dazz

[Arrogantcur]

Well, it's not really like how it sounds. I don't get mocked mercilessly or cruelly. Just most of my friends are in open relationships (it IS the city of free love, after all), and they don't understand why I would want to limit myself to one person, so they tease me about being a prude.

Still, it pisses me the frick off. ;)

--Dazz

LOL, okay, glad it isn't as bad as I thought.

[Calybos]

But if the creator's opinions have nothing to do with the work, boycotting them shows that quality isn't your primary concern.
Correct. And for many of us, it isn't. Some principles are more important than others and outweigh "I llike to buy these things." That's what a boycott IS, after all.

And it encourages writers and artists to be more private about their opinions, which I don't believe to be a good thing.
Why not? Reprehensible opinions SHOULD be cause for public shame.

Plus there's always the possibility that you're wrong, in which case you're punishing someone for being right.
The word I'm not getting here is "punishing." How is the artist or writer entitled to my money? If I were a Klan member, I wouldn't be "punishing" President Obama by refusing to buy his books. I'd be exercising my consumer choice not to support someone I disagree with or dislike.

(Granted, in that example, I'd be a racist jerk--but it would still be perfectly ethical for me to make that purchasing decision.)

[Arrogantcur]

The customer can do whatever he or she wants, but I think it's wrong to hold anything other than the actual quality of the material against a creator.

Well, let's look at an extreme case here, Mets. Charles Manson wrote a song or two IIRC. I've never heard them, but what if they're really good? Should I be thinking only of the quality of the song, and not who made it?

Now obviously there is a big difference between voicing support for a war and going on a murder spree, but I hope that you can see the problem here. I need to be able to respect somebody in order to bother with their work. I don't buy the work of people I hate.

The only problem is when the creator's opinions result in the quality of the work suffering, and that's inappropriate even if you support the policies in question. There may be instances in which a creator's publicly expressed opinions result in a messed up new interpretation of their work, but in this case it influences the perception of the quality.

Yup. If somebody agreed with me politically but wrote really awful stories, either as a result of their opinions or just because they weren't very good, I wouldn't buy those either.

But if the creator's opinions have nothing to do with the work, boycotting them shows that quality isn't your primary concern. And it encourages writers and artists to be more private about their opinions, which I don't believe to be a good thing.

I care about quality, but it actually isn't my primary concern because there is so much quality fiction out there for me to read that I can afford to pick and choose. If I have a choice between two very well-written books, with one book written by a person I like and another being written by a person I hate, I am going to read the one written by the person I like.

Plus there's always the possibility that you're wrong, in which case you're punishing someone for being right.

There are some things I may be wrong about. But I refuse to entertain the possibility that Orson Scott Card is right about gay people.

I also refuse to accept Dixon's idea that torture is acceptable, even if that torture actually does save lives. There are some causes people have been willing to fight and die for. They were willing to die for those things because they acknowledged that some things were more important than their survival. So "survival at any cost, by any means necessary" does not seem very American to me at all. I would prefer America, and Canada too, AND Israel, stay on the moral high ground rather than abandon that moral high ground out of fear.

Finally, if you can accurately call what I'm doing "punishment" then I am not punishing Dixon for disagreeing with me. I'm punishing him for disagreeing with me in a dickish way.

Here is the thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=229391) with his posts again. I know that you're a Republican and conservative and so on, Mets, but so far you've been pretty polite and I appreciate that. Dixon, on the other hand, was anything but polite in his posts there.

[Reverend Smooth]

No one is punishing anyone by not buying their work. No creator has a moral right to anyone's money. 'But the work is good!' Maybe so, maybe no, but it's still my money and I am entitled to spend it where I want. Why is it assumed that said creator deserves my money?

I'm a creator, and I don't labor under the illusion that I deserve anyone else's cash. Art is a frivolous expense. If people virulently disagree with my opinions, to the point of not wanting to buy my art, that's certainly their privilege!

Buying someone's product is supporting them in their efforts. It may not be outright approval of their efforts, but I still don't see the point in sacrificing my hard-earned money to support the views of someone who wants to undermine me or my rights (or the rights of others). And yes, that includes contributing to their rent, food, and the internet bills that facilitate their rants.

'But you're missing out on great art/literature!'

It's a book with pretty pictures in it. It's not food, housing, or clothing. I think the suffering of my fellow human beings at the hands of a jerk is more important than something that's not a vital necessity for life.

Anyway, if sticking to one's principles was always easy, there'd be no moral point to doing so.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, it's not really like how it sounds. I don't get mocked mercilessly or cruelly. Just most of my friends are in open relationships (it IS the city of free love, after all), and they don't understand why I would want to limit myself to one person, so they tease me about being a prude.

Still, it pisses me the frick off. ;)

--Dazz

Yeah.

I hesitate to talk about Polyamory, because people think that because I believe in it, I'm a hypocrite for not CHOOSING it. No. It's my fucking choice, and nobody's business but mine.

And, you know, my wife's.

[Arrogantcur]

Yeah.

I hesitate to talk about Polyamory, because people think that because I believe in it, I'm a hypocrite for not CHOOSING it. No. It's my fucking choice, and nobody's business but mine.

And, you know, my wife's.

I find that odd, Maxine. It doesn't seem any more hypocritical than me believing in same-sex marriage but not being married to a man, or engaged. :confused:

EDIT TO ADD: You know, maybe it's just a sign that I've heard it too many times, but when you wrote it was "nobody's business but mine" it reminded me of this song. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vCN7MLURPCU) I have it stuck in my head now.

[Arrogantcur]

(Er, I posted what I wanted to post in the wrong place. Disregard this)

[DeathXIII]

This is a long topic and I haven't read most of it, so I apologize if I bring up something that was already discussed.

Does holding a person's statements or politics against him or her apply to all artists or does it only apply to comic book creators?

For example, are you able to enjoy the works of Richard Wagner despite the fact that he was an anti-semite? Are you able to appreciate one aspect of a philosopher's work while disagreeing with some other aspect of their work or disagreeing with an aspect of their personal life?
I say this because I appreciate Martin Heidegger's revolutionary work in the field of ontology despite the fact that he was a card-carrying member of the Nazi party even after World War II. I also appreciate many of the ideas of Julius Evola even though he was an ideological racist and a fascist.

And do you feel this way because you simply don't want to support the artist, i.e. contribute to his income/career? Well then why can't you simply download scans of the creator's works online, from a torrent site or something? You wouldn't be contributing to him or supporting him at all.