A Feminist Marries Herself


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores

Tell me how many times you find yourself thinking,"This is insane!!" as you read this article.

Quote

A twice-divorced woman disillusioned by past relationships with men finally found “the one” when she married herself in an “empowering” $5,000 ceremony in front of 130 friends and family in June.

So, what is  more perplexing?  That she paid $5,000 for a ceremony dedicated to herself?  Or that 130 of her friends came to it? 

Quote

42-year-old British resident Melissa Denton told The Telegraph for a piece published in late April that an ex-boyfriend’s brutal Christmas Eve breakup text sparked an epiphany within the mother of two. A “potted (sic) and relentless history with men” that started at age 16 led Denton to realize that bouncing “from one man to the next with little time in between to heal or become independent” was doing her no favors. A “pattern of idolising boyfriends” and two failed marriages led Denton to the realization that her soulmate might have been the person she was staring at in the mirror.

Twice-divorced?  Gee, I wonder why.  Do you think that maybe understanding what relationships are supposed to be based on might have helped her more than a ceremony of self-aggrandizement?

Quote

“My ex used to say to me: ‘You can get married, darling, but it won’t be to me.’ It suddenly struck me that he was right. I could get married – to myself,” she said in a piece titled, “I married myself and it was truly empowering.”

Insane!

Quote

“For years, I had poured myself into relationship after relationship, losing myself in the process. It was time to put ‘me’ first – a way to affirm that I can be happy on my own and to move on from the relationship,” Denton added.

Ok. Whew.  I can breathe.

Quote

Denton described the process of wedding planning – picking out a ring (her fourth engagement ring) that cost less than $20 on Amazon, selecting a venue, hiring a DJ and catering a vegan menu.

Wow.  Who's surprised?  I think I'm going to have a heart attack from NOT surprise.

Quote

When it came time for the big day, the ceremony and reception went off without a hitch.

Now, was that pun intended?

Quote

“My friends colluded to help write my vows

Gee, I hope she takes them the way she meant them.

Quote

and I had a photo shoot on the beach with my ring and flowers,” she said. “For the first time in my adult life, I was single and happy – the experience was empowering. Rather than wasting my time, energy and love on someone else, I was putting myself first.”

Joining Denton in celebrating her commitment to herself were some ex-boyfriends and former in-laws. “It was just like any other wedding – just without a groom. I walked down the aisle, in a pink dress, with a big smile – towards no-one. A friend gave me away and another officiated. I repeated the vows and put the ring on myself, and we passed a paper plate around the 130-person congregation for everyone to sign in lieu of a register, as it’s not a legal procedure,” she said.

Not legal.  Ok.  The legal system hasn't bowed to her inanity.. ehrr.. insanity.

Quote

According to Denton, it was the best day of her life.

She needs to get out more.

Quote

But the Weymouth resident’s marital fidelity would be tested only two weeks later when she applied and was accepted to go on a dating show. “Two weeks after the wedding I was ready for a new challenge – and to start cheating on myself – so I applied to go on First Dates,” she said, referencing the British Channel 4 program.

She cheated on herself?  I wonder how she'll react if she ever finds out.

Quote

During her date with masseuse and hypnotherapist Damian, Denton disclosed her marital status. “This is my third time married, but you could say I’m bored,” she said to a perplexed-looking Damian. “So with the permission of my other half I’ve been allowed to go on a date.”

“The other half is me. I got married to myself,” Denton finally revealed.

Denton told The Telegraph she plans to renew her vows “at a similar ceremony every year” even if she is in a relationship. She’s already purchased four wedding dresses for the occasions.

Four wedding dresses?  I thought this new wave movement was to denounce materialism.

Quote

Some onlookers might tie Denton’s self-marriage in with the worst aspects of a particularly out of touch brand of modern feminism.

(Raising hand now).

Quote

Critics often accuse the present-day feminist movement of losing sight of what matters to the mainstream of society in favor of the outré and bizarre.

Really?  I wonder why.

Quote

In a scathing rebuke of the movement published in National Review in 2014, writer David French argued that modern feminism “actually strives to elevate the crazy, the stupid, and the just plain hysterical into the realm of actually relevant cultural and political commentary.”

Q.E.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Where's the link to the article? 

I didn't want the source of the article to color anyone's perception.  But I quoted the entire article.  The only editing I did was to allow me to insert my comments.  And I inserted one (sic).  I.e. that was what the article  printed as a direct quote from the woman in question.  But they did not add (sic) in the article.  But it was obviously an incorrect word.  Whether she said it wrong or the author wrote it wrong...

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
11 minutes ago, Mores said:

I didn't want the source of the article to color anyone's perception.  But I quoted the entire article.  The only editing I did was to allow me to insert my comments.  And I inserted one (sic).  I.e. that was what the article  printed as a direct quote from the woman in question.  But they did not add (sic) in the article.  But it was obviously an incorrect word.  Whether she said it wrong or the author wrote it wrong...

But you're not supposed to quote someone, especially the whole article without giving credit to the source. That's a form of plagerism. My comment was intended as a friendly reminder to share your source. 

https://www.bowdoin.edu/dean-of-students/judicial-board/academic-honesty-and-plagiarism/common-types-of-plagiarism.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
20 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But you're not supposed to quote someone, especially the whole article without giving credit to the source. That's a form of plagerism. My comment was intended as a friendly reminder to share your source. 

https://www.bowdoin.edu/dean-of-students/judicial-board/academic-honesty-and-plagiarism/common-types-of-plagiarism.html

Do you honestly believe I was trying to take credit for the article?  I had all those quote boxes.  What person in their right mind would believe that was my intent?

Even the link you provided stated

Quote

Without attribution and without quotation marks.

 -- emphasis added

Those quote boxes are a form of quotation marks.  So there.  I satisfied the source YOU provided.

Besides, I don't even remember what site I got it from anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

No, I don't think you were trying to take credit for it, but quoting an entire article without giving the reference is still a form of plagerism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No, I don't think you were trying to take credit for it, but quoting an entire article without giving the reference is still a form of plagerism. 

No, it is not, unless he was trying to pass it off as his own work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
7 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, it is not, unless he was trying to pass it off as his own work.

Okay, my mistake, a better term is likely copyright infringement. 

@pam if someone took an Ask Gramps Article or a Third Hour article and posted the whole thing somewhere else on the internet with naming the source or giving a link. That falls under copyright infringement, correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Okay, my mistake, a better term is likely copyright infringement.

Yes, it is technically copyright infringement to quote all or most of an article without attribution. It is vastly unlikely that any action would be taken in a case like this, though. Perhaps JAG's URL fulfills the legal requirements to avoid even a technical faux pas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that said, I can understand why @Mores would want to avoid the possibility of the well being poisoned if someone doesn't like the source he used.  We've all seen people dismiss arguments outright just because of what they saw in the URL.  

I wish there were an ideal solution, but if there is, I can't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

All that said, I can understand why @Mores would want to avoid the possibility of the well being poisoned if someone doesn't like the source he used.  We've all seen people dismiss arguments outright just because of what they saw in the URL.

Dismissing an argument based on a news source so is nothing but cowardice, closing your eyes to the truth! Unless you're dismissing Fox News. Then it's not only allowed, it's encouraged. Heck, it's practically mandatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Dismissing an argument based on a news source so is nothing but cowardice, closing your eyes to the truth! Unless you're dismissing Fox News. Then it's not only allowed, it's encouraged. Heck, it's practically mandatory.

Agreed... it is cowardice but it does happen.  And unfortunately we do have to factor that in when we choose our supporting links.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of this website policy we do require such massive quotations to be referenced.  This is due to the legal issue it might cause should the author have issues with it.

 

While others might discard the data based on the source... another complication is that it also must be within the site rules... For example no linking to anti-sites.

Please note this is not a rebuke for anyone's current action... But rather a "since we are talking about it here is some official stuff we want here." reminder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I keep thinking of the Seinfeld episode where he breaks up with his fiancee saying, "We're too much alike! I don't want myself! I hate myself!" 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Okay, my mistake, a better term is likely copyright infringement. 

@pam if someone took an Ask Gramps Article or a Third Hour article and posted the whole thing somewhere else on the internet with naming the source or giving a link. That falls under copyright infringement, correct? 

Absolutely.

 

Whether in part or in whole, all content on this Web site is protected by the United States and international copyright law. AskGramps.org retains all reprint rights including the right to disallow reuse of content for any reason.

Occasionally, an article contains copyrighted material owned by others. In rare cases, copyright restrictions may apply. Please honor the stipulations of the copyright statements on each article.
As a general rule, you may print, forward or reproduce copy(s) of the content for personal and not-for-profit uses. In such cases you do not need to request permission, but you are acknowledging and agreeing that:

  • AskGramps.org retains the ownership and management of the copyright;
  • you will include the article’s exact copyright statement;
  • you will display www.AskGramps.org in your reproduction; or, if you are reprinting on your Web site, you will hypertext link back to www.AskGramps.org;
  • you will not modify the content in any manner without seeking our permission.
  • For all other uses, including commercial uses, you must make written request and receive written permission.

When you correspond with Gramps, you are giving your permission to use all personal and proprietary content contained in your correspondence, including your name, without remuneration or credit of any kind. You are stating that the content you are sending us, and thereby assigning to us complete ownership of, is solely yours to assign and does not infringe on another person’s or entity’s copyright or privacy. If you have restrictions, you should edit your correspondence accordingly or make a clear note. Your correspondence to us, by which content ownership is transferred to us, also implies your agreeing that we have unrestricted permission to edit your content as long as the resulting edit does not infringe upon your privacy.
For more information, see Terms of Use & Privacy Information: “Correspondence Ownership & Posting Content”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's go by what the site rules say:

9. Do not post any copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you.

What I recommend doing if you want to bring up an article...you can copy and paste the first 2 paragraphs and then post the link so they can read more.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ought to come as precisely -zero- surprise to anybody that this sort of things is happening.  We live in a culture that tells us to love ourselves first, foremost and nigh exclusively.  To put one's own needs above those of the community, family, even friends.  To value one's notions of themselves as so high that laws are being enacted to keep that from being challenged by anyone for any reason.  To value one's self not for any higher spiritual connection or for one's accomplishments, but just because it's more emotionally satisfying that way in the short term.  We're told to never challenge someone's assertions about themselves - their highest priority - no matter how ridiculous they become.  If a 55-year-old man claims to be an 8-year-old girl, who are any of us to question it?  be a man, be a woman, be a porcupine.  Be what you want and let no one question you.

So at last someone is so completely shameless as to publicly declare herself the object of her own love and regard to such an extreme that she's marrying herself...

….  and we got laughed at when we said marriage was being eroded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
41 minutes ago, unixknight said:

It ought to come as precisely -zero- surprise to anybody that this sort of things is happening.  We live in a culture that tells us to love ourselves first, foremost and nigh exclusively.  To put one's own needs above those of the community, family, even friends.  To value one's notions of themselves as so high that laws are being enacted to keep that from being challenged by anyone for any reason.  To value one's self not for any higher spiritual connection or for one's accomplishments, but just because it's more emotionally satisfying that way in the short term.  We're told to never challenge someone's assertions about themselves - their highest priority - no matter how ridiculous they become.  If a 55-year-old man claims to be an 8-year-old girl, who are any of us to question it?  be a man, be a woman, be a porcupine.  Be what you want and let no one question you.

So at last someone is so completely shameless as to publicly declare herself the object of her own love and regard to such an extreme that she's marrying herself...

….  and we got laughed at when we said marriage was being eroded.

BTW, she's not the only one.  When I went on a search for the article quoted in the OP (to find a link for it) I found a dozen other such cases that came earlier.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

BTW, she's not the only one.  When I went on a search for the article quoted in the OP, I found a dozen other such cases that came earlier.

Not surprised.  Whenever I see a news article like this I assume for every one that gets reported on, there's a bunch more we don't happen to hear about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 hours ago, Phineas said:

Why do feminists exist in free western societies? They’re badly needed in other parts of the word.  

It's actually a great question. I'm gravely disturbed when so called "feminists" refuse to speak out against Islamic mistreatment of women because they don't want to seem prejudiced against Islam. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share