Yes, but we've rather unpacked each other's viewpoint. I think I now really do get what you're saying. Don't agree with it. But get it, which I think is useful.
Perhaps you've 'unpacked' my viewpoint. I, however, understood yours to start with, I thought you were wrong then, I think you're still wrong now, and if you haven't come to agree with me I'd consider the exchange pretty unproductive in every respect - it neither interests me nor edifies me that you've managed to grasp my argument.
I'm glad that you got something out of the exchange but I'm afraid all I gained was a backlog of editing work and an irritation at my own inability to avoid going down pointless cul-de-sacs with people who're incapable of making a distinction between silly semantic asides and serious questions about personal responsibility, consent, the nature of sexual agency and the role of the active participant in any physical context.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm glad that you got something out of the exchange but I'm afraid all I gained was a backlog of editing work and an irritation at my own inability to avoid going down pointless cul-de-sacs with people who're incapable of making a distinction between silly semantic asides and serious questions about personal responsibility, consent, the nature of sexual agency and the role of the active participant in any physical context.
In short, don't patronise me.
no subject
The downside of electronic communication is that it is free of non-verbal cues and verbal intonation. Mine at the moment would be very respectful.
no subject
no subject
Take care
Z