The 8 Myths of Monogamy
I ALREADY KNOW that I am going to ruffle some feathers with my fellow Sisters. And for that, I’m sorry. Please know that I’m not saying this with the intention to HURT you, but to help EMPOWER you.
Now that we’ve gotten that out the way, I have to say this: MONOGAMY IS BULLSHIT.
There. I said it.
Monogamy is a mythical beast whose existence has caused way more problems than it has EVER solved, and has ruined relationships that otherwise would have been able to withstand the trials and triumphs that are a natural part of a relationship dynamic. Monogamy has also destroyed families that might have otherwise remained intact, and has lulled many a female (myself included) into a false sense of security.
And this has all been based on a societal concept that has ZERO to do with our (African American) cultural paradigm.
Disagree? Then, read on.
Myth #1: Monogamy is the KEY to a successful relationship. If that were really the case, why is the divorce rate so high? One of my best friends recently divorced his wife of five years, NOT because he was “unfaithful”, and NOT because she was “unfaithful”. He never laid a hand on her; he always treated her with respect. They didn’t have money problems. She didn’t want for material possessions. Even now that they’re divorced, he STILL speaks of her with GENUINE love AND respect.
So, WHAT was the problem?
The ex-wife didn’t want to SUBMIT, neither to the Creator, nor to the Ancestors. She didn’t want to follow the RIGHTEOUS GAME PLAN her husband had laid before her.
And, WHY was that?
That’s simple: White Supremacy has TRAINED the Black female into believing that the focus in a relationship should be on HER, at ALL times. The ONLY thing my friend required of his wife was that she READ and STUDY (The Mis-Education of The Negro, The Destruction of Black Civilization), WORK with him in the community, and ELEVATE her MIND so that she could LIVE IN HER PURPOSE, and be of SERVICE TO OTHERS. But since it wasn’t what SHE wanted to do, and it wasn’t HER idea, she didn’t do it.
And, that was a WRAP.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to be a Spiritual person in relationship with someone who REFUSES to grow Spiritually, and a Spiritual person is NOT going to compromise his relationship with the Creator in order to placate a person who won’t even TRY to do what’s right.
Myth #2: ONLY a monogamous relationship can validate your “worthiness” as a suitable and desirable mate. If you’re seeking validation of your worth through your relationships, know this: Even if your guy is telling you the truth about being the “only one for me”, and he truly believes in his heart that there ain’t nobody better than you, if you’re an insecure partner with a constant need for reassurance, you’ll run him off. There’s ZERO upside to being in a relationship with an emotionally needy, co-dependent person. It’s psychologically and physically draining, and BEYOND irritating. Nobody owes it to you to spend the better part of his life trying to “fix” you. That’s YOUR job.
Myth #3: Monogamy is natural. Monogamy goes against the “computer code” the Creator used to “program” males. It’s really that simple. Everything in civilization that naturally occurs, humans have ACCEPTED WITHOUT CONFLICT. The sun doesn’t cause us disquietude by virtue of its existence, but if it “disappeared” one day, we’d notice that. If cows all of sudden stopped eating grass, and started eating PEOPLE instead, that would make us do a double take. In that same vein, if a male was meant to be monogamous, if that was part of the natural order of things, it wouldn’t be HARD for him to be monogamous, and he wouldn’t have to LIE about being monogamous. He’d JUST DO IT.
Pages: 1 2
12 Comments »
Leave a comment!
Thanks for having the courage to open this “can of worms”. Hopefully the discussion will reflect more than the anger, hurt and fear that the mere mention of “polygamy” or other forms of relationships than monogamy tend to elicit. You have raised questions that deserve real, rational consideration, even if folks don’t agree on the conclusions. The notion of plural relationships should be treated with at least the same level of tolerance as gay marriage.
Kojo,
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to this post. I am of the opinion (whether correct or not, only time will tell) that maybe this conversation will mean something different coming from the perspective of a Sister. And I agree with you; if gay marriage can be argued to the nth degree, SURELY unions that help perpetuate LIFE can be given MATURE and THOUGHTFUL consideration. The fact of the matter is females CANNOT continue to expect males to tell them the truth about ANYTHING, as long as the guys they’re involved with feel compelled to LIE about the very thing that makes them tick.
As I said in my piece: I’m not here to argue fair vs. unfair. What I AM saying, however, is that since the situation is what it is, why not try to understand it, and go about it, THE RIGHT WAY?
Those who are willing to suspend their anger and judgment may just find that what I’ve said makes a lot of sense; for those who are not, well, I’m prepared for that, too.
Thanks again for commenting…Please keep the conversation going.
- Kameko
First off I would like to applaud you for taking on such a controversial topic and providing a thoughtful argument. Here is my opinions of the Myths.
Myth 1: The statistic presented almost exclusively about the divorce rate is in fact wrong. 50% of marriages do not end in divorce, misleading statistics have provided the foundation for the argument. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
(I had seen the statistics in an official study a few years ago, but could not find the study as I am typing this response, I will try to find the link and send it)
With that said, I believe people have been going into marriages with false information on their minds and when their marriage ends, they chalk it up to being a 50/50 shot anyway. So if people have concluded in their minds that it will end before it even began, the chances of failure are greater.
Myth 2: Everyone desires to be valued and everyone usually struggles with self worth at some point in their life, but I do not believe that monogamy hinders that. An example I think of are celebrities, most are showered with validation from millions of fans, yet many celebrities turn to other sources (drugs, alcohol, sex) to fill a void. But the void cannot be from lack of validation if millions of people tell them they have worth daily. I believe the problem is deeper than that and if one does not have a relationship with God, he/she will struggle to find validation and worth for their entire life. Not saying spiritual people do not struggle with this also, but the value of having that one person who can help you see your worth to them is more valuable than a million people telling you you have worth. I believe if God is first, spouse is second then it will succeed. But both partners must have the same motivation to put God first and people who do not believe in God, are at a disadvantage in my opinion.
Myth 3: I think we have to be careful when we look at what is “natural” and what is right. When my kids were 2 or 3, their natural reaction when another child took their toys, were to hit the other kid and get the toy back. But it is my job as a parent to try to teach both kids that their actions were not appropriate and to see that we cannot always act on our natural tendencies or desires. I do believe males and females are created different, but acting on natural instincts and behaviors exclusively, would be disastrous.
Myth 4: I think most people deep down desire to have that one person they can grow old with. Some of the happiest, contented people I have ever met and continue to meet are couples that have been together for 30, 40, 50 years. They are best friends, lovers and truly believe the other provides all they need in a partner and the thought of not having loved, lived and learned from the other for all those years is unfathomable.
I agree people shouldn’t be lied to, but people should not accept non-monogamous relationships if they really want a monogamous one. For in doing so, they lie to themselves.
Myth 5: I agree there is a difference with equity and equality, but i also know a lot of guys who may want non-monogamous relationships, but they sure as heck would not accept the same from women. I think men are more wired to be possessive that anything and I cannot see too many men accepting “mutual” non-monogamous relationships.
Myth 6: I think the “Boaz” concept/desire is rooted in unhealthy ideology in the first place. Although material items are necessary and the desire to be protected are good, I think the relationship is of a far greater value. If a woman receives safety, security and material wealth from Boaz, but does not have that special love, and has to share Boaz with others, would she be content? I think most women would rather have the one love over all the other stuff.
Myth 7: Im sure wars, conflicts and “male” dominated “dangerous” jobs worldwide have contributed to the ration being what it is.
Myth 8: Only monogamy in real Practice, not in name only, can help slow down the spread of STDs.
Overall, I am a Christian and believe the bible teaches monogamy. I know David and Solomon had many wives, but I believe God allowed it just like he allowed divorce “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” Matthew 19:8
I also agree with the apostle Paul when he says “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” 1 Cor. 10:23
I don’t think non-monogamous relationships are profitable or edifying.
Thanks for allowing the discussion.
Franklin,
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. You said a lot; however since most of it stems from your perspective and beliefs as a Christian, I’ll base my response on that:
Christianity, unfortunately, teaches that it’s okay to use the Bible when it supports a particular point of view, yet DISCOUNT that same Bible when it doesn’t support it. The Creator (GOD is an acronym, but that’s another conversation for another day) allowed multiple/plural situations for Abraham, Solomon, etc. because these males/men had PROVEN themselves to the Creator as RIGHTEOUS servants who would DO HIS WORK, and FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTION. I would also ask you to define what “marriage” really means, as during the days of the Old Testament, there were no marriage licenses or formal ceremonies.
What, then, was the link that bound people together, if there were no contractual agreements of this kind around, back then?
Also keep in mind, when you use Christianity as the basis for discounting the righteousness of a situation, that Christianity was ALSO USED as the BASIS to JUSTIFY ENSLAVING AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE, denying BOTH their personhood AND their HUMAN RIGHTS, all based solely on skin color.
In terms of “Right vs. Wrong”, allow me to also point out that slavery – thought certainly NOT natural – was nonetheless viewed as RIGHT, LEGAL, SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE (some even considered slavery to be the NATURAL order of things), and had been the law of the land for CENTURIES.
Also, what RELIGION was Jesus? Did he even HAVE a religion? It seems to me that those who profess a desire to be more like the Son of the Creator would be FIRST IN LINE to REJECT the programming of Christianity (again, as Christianity was used as the basis upon which the ENSLAVEMENT of OUR PEOPLE was found to be JUSTIFIED).
I’ll leave you with this: I know what you SAY you believe; what I’d like to know, however, is if this is WHAT FRANKLIN BELIEVES, or are these things that he’s been PROGRAMMED TO ACCEPT as Truth, without having thought about it?
Mark Twain once said that “It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they’ve BEEN fooled.” Eurocentric Negro Christianity has gone a LONG way toward proving this point.
If you are not looking at this through the LENS OF THE CULTURAL PARADIGM of our people, then it is more than a little bit possible that you’d have an aversion to what I’ve laid bare.
I would challenge you to be a little more open-minded on the subject, however; doing so doesn’t mean that you AGREE WITH ME. It also doesn’t mean that you’d have to start SEEKING a/ENGAGING in a plural situation, if that’s truly something you wouldn’t be comfortable with (there ARE, after all, about 5 percent of guys who – for a VARIETY of reasons, CAN do monogamy).
And finally…with regard to the couples you know of that have been married for 4+ decades; IF they’re willing to tell you the Truth about it, I am willing to bet you that the husband – at some point- had been part of a plural relationship.
That’s actually more common than you may think.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply to comments, and I implore you to keep the conversation going. I am learning from you; I hope that – in some small measure – you are ALSO learning something from me.
Looking forward to your response.
- Kameko
Thanks for the response. Although I agree with the fact the European culture has hijacked Christianity, similar to how they have stolen/hindered/changed other cultures (African, Native) I still believe it does not invalidate it.
Christianity’s roots are in Israel and one of the earliest churches was in Ethiopia, and most of the others were in Asia Minor. Even though Christianity has been used to justify slavery, wars, genocide, racism, sexism… I do not believe Christianity was Practiced – or truly believed for that matter – and therefore it does not nullify the truth of Jesus and his teachings. Not to get into a religious debate, but just because someone acts in the “name of” does not mean they are “of” or “are”.
Contrary to popular American Christian belief, America has NEVER been a Christian nation no more than the Roman Empire had been a Christian nation. Both have used Christianity to justify evil. However, many have done great works in the name of Jesus, like build hospitals, shelters, orphanages and genuine missions. But many have done evil in the name of Jesus.
But back to plurality in relationships, I honestly do not see how it could bring happiness and joy to all parties involved. People are selfish, possessive and are never satisfied and relationships like this would only amplify these traits. I would like to see an example how a culture behaves that totally embraces plurality. Its hard to use any American polygamist societies as an example because there are a lot of “secret” issues – such as child molestation and incest – that would cause people to question how legally they can practice their “religious” beliefs.
Anyway, I think this is an interesting topic and I would definitely like see other opinions as well. But I warn of this…There are a lot of males that would say “heck yeah!!” to this on a purely physical basis, so therefore, some opinions expressed by said males might not be truly accurate.
Have a great day!!
Franklin,
Once again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.
Please note that throughout the post, I made mention of two mechanisms necessary in order for plural relationships to be righteous: ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY. While it may go without saying, I will – for the record – note that SPIRITUALITY and CULTURE are VERY IMPORTANT components, and that NO RIGHTEOUS plural situation can exist WITHOUT them.
Without getting too much into another conversation, I have to point out that there’s a DIFFERENCE between a MAN and a MALE. I’ll go even further by stating that there is ALSO a DIFFERENCE between a GOOD MAN, and an EVIL MAN.
But, since we’re speaking of Accountability and Responsibility, we’ll keep it at “Good” Man (men start out as males, yet in order for them to become MEN, they have to SUBMIT themselves to a RIGHT OF PASSAGE) vs. Male: OF COURSE there will be males lined up around the block to voice their solidarity with me in regard to this subject; that’s not a surprise.
In fact, that’s to be EXPECTED.
If you filled the Superdome with Black males, and told them ALL that they could EACH have as many females as they desired, they’d be happier than pigs in mud.
However, that’s NOT where the conversation ends.
If you ALSO told those SAME males that in order for them to have as many females as they’d like, they’d have to be ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE – to the females they’re involved with, to any children that could possibly result from the unions, and that they’d ALSO have to help each female maintain their own separate dwelling, in ADDITION to guiding them on a RIGHTEOUS, CREATOR-DRIVEN agenda – those same guys who were all in favor of having multiple chicks will suddenly find themselves to be not quite so willing.
These same guys, once they’ve been told that the CREATOR WILL BE their STANDARD, will now SELF-SELECT.
The point? Simple: If you’re not willing to be RESPONSIBLE for MANY, you’re not willing to be RESPONSIBLE for ONE.
And, if you’re UNWILLING to be RESPONSIBLE, then you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to be with ANYONE, AT ALL.
If Sisters would only elevate their mindset, a lot of the misfortune that befalls them wouldn’t. When a guy sees that a Sister means what she says about not putting him above the Creator – no matter his wealth, looks, status, etc. – HE WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO DO ONE OF TWO THINGS: ELEVATE or DISAPPEAR.
If a Nation can only rise as high as its woman, then Sisters need to STOP giving UNWORTHY SAVAGES the most precious aspect of themselves by allowing guys into their space who either CANNOT or WILL NOT tell them the TRUTH.
The ONLY way for us to be protected is by HAVING THE CONVERSATION.
I was in the same situation I’ve just described; I told the male in question that I had NO ISSUE with his being with other Sisters, as long as he understood that he would be ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE, and that he’d engage ONLY from a SPIRITUAL and CULTURAL perspective, or NOT AT ALL.
He FLAT-OUT told me that he didn’t think he could do it. In fact, his words were, “I’m a LAZY BASTARD, and I don’t want to work that hard.”
AND THIS WAS AFTER I TOLD HIM ABOUT MY PERSPECTIVE ON PLURALITY.
I told him that if he couldn’t do it, then he couldn’t do it. I also told him that I understood that SPIRITUALITY is a DIFFICULT PATH for A LOT of people (which is why SO MANY opt out of doing it), and that I didn’t judge him for being where he was in his (lack of) Spiritual growth.
BUT I ALSO TOLD HIM THAT WE NEEDN’T HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT US AS A COUPLE; I told him that I WOULD NOT, UNDER NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, COMPROMISE MY SPIRITUALITY in order to be in a relationship with him.
And, HE stopped calling ME; he didn’t want to be told that I would NOT SUBMIT to a person who WOULD NOT SUBMIT TO THE CREATOR, FIRST.
‘NUFF SAID.
This is a very tough post to comment on without. Marriage is tough, I honestly do not think that it is really possible to assess what causes of a divorce until after the fact. I believe it is only in hindsight that we are able to make a proper assessment. One of the biggest reasons is that people are quite different during the dating process then they are after receiving legal documents of marriage and begin to share life in a much different context. The reasons are partly because the boundaries are completely different. Legal context often alters how one person perceives the other. I’m married to a Ph.D in counseling who teaches at the graduate level at Ohio University and at Methodist Theological School so my insight is taken from a variety of studies on marriage and divorce. Divorces are case by case situations. Some women will keep a man who has been caught in multiple affairs and they move on to live happily ever after and some women will divorce her man for simply sharing of a naughty text. These things are too hard to figure out. It pulls others into making judgment statements about the relationship of others without at least being a fly on the wall.
I so agree with the fact that humans are not created to be attracted to just one person. I’ve seen men break down and cry at men’s group ministries because they have not the power to control the strong desire for other women. This is a creation issue which a variety of cultures express in a myriad of ways. What I mean is that some parts of the world live healthy lives in polygamy and other forms of relationships. This isn’t a cookie cutter world and neither is it a world where the Bible holds the answer for everyone. Life is difficult and creation has fixed us in a particular way that forces us down paths we fight not to go down and causes us to make decisions that work to destroy ourselves. The suicidal rate of homosexual teens sheds some light on the crookedness of creation.
Ecclesiastes 7:13 “Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?”
Edward,
As always, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to our posts.
Allow me to say that the core of what I’m getting at is pretty simple: (1) WHO marries? Is it the Creator who is supposed to provide us a RIGHTEOUS mate, or is that something that we humans believe we have the right to do, even as we have been proven to lack the consciousness necessary to make the proper selection of one? (2) Males and females are hard wired differently, so their need for companionship and procreation will be different. A male is NOT a female, nor is a female a male. To expect one group to do what the other cannot, with that basis being from the perspective of the female is an unrighteous concept.
The Creator would not have allowed Abraham, Solomon, etc. to have multiple wives were that NOT something HE was okay with. I get that some females believe that to be “unfair”,but the fact there is a greater number of females than there are males PROVES that a one-on-one situation IS NOT part of the Creator’s design. What sense would it make to punish a male for being “unfaithful”, when the ratio of males to females isn’t equal?
For illustrative purposes ONLY, let’s look at Steve Harvey: He has built “publishing” empire based on selling Sisters a false bill of goods, one that he KNOWS they desperately want to believe in, just so he can sell more books. Were Sisters more rational than emotional in their decision making, they’d ask themselves this question: “How is Steve Harvey able to say that there’s a guy for EACH of us, when most of us have YET to be married, but he’s already on wife number three?
Unfortunately, white supremacy has brainwashed so many of our people – males and females alike – into accepting this definition of monogamy as a “successful” relationship, when monogamy is NOT a part of our cultural paradigm.
Are there some males who are monogamous? Sure. However, if you were to look into their backgrounds, you’d see that many of them are monogamous NOT by choice, but by circumstance (i.e., a guy who has typically not been selected by females isn’t ABOUT to push his luck by trying to get more than one; he’ll be so happy to get what he has that he’d rather chop his arm off than risk losing what he never thought he’d get in the first place).
I didn’t make the rules; I just accept that in His wisdom, the Creator knows WAY BETTER than I do, so it makes little sense for me to question, argue, or resist.
I’m not saying that people have to agree with me; in fact, I know that many people will try to find ways to make what I’ve said wrong. And that’s okay.
Not liking what I’ve said doesn’t make what I’ve said untrue.
Seems like you just want to argue with everyone that comments on your writing. You wish for everyone to respect your opinion yet you do not extend the same courtesy. Why even address their comments? Your opinion was made known in the original writing. Your site says you invite discussion, when in reality you want everyone to think like you and will argue to no end until they either do or just give up.
Randall,
I guess I’m a little confused by your comment. On the one hand, you complain about my responding to visitors who leave their comments on particular articles, yet in the same breath, you also mentioned that Asis Chronicle invites discussion.
Last I checked, a conversation was a two-way street, and as such, requires everyone’s participation. If our visitors choose to leave comments (which isn’t mandatory, by the way), then they are agreeing to participate in a DISCUSSION in which ideas can be FREELY EXCHANGED.
IF a particular point of view makes sense to me, I can accept it, WITHOUT CONFLICT. With that being said, I SHALL NOT yield to any position that is UNRIGHTEOUS.
Even when I agree, I still have the right – as the EDITOR of Asis Chronicle – to respond to the people who leave comments on MY website, in whatever way I deem appropriate.
You don’t make the rules here; I DO.
It is quite clear on the “About Us” page that we advocate for the social advocacy and public policy needs of African Americans. Anyone who has a problem with African Americans who advocate for other African Americans will more than likely find fault with EVERY SINGLE WORD THAT’S ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE.
Simply put, your attitude isn’t all that surprising; in fact, it’s quite predictable.
If a person who desires to leave comments doesn’t have the INTELLECTUAL FORTITUDE to support and defend his position, and is of such a MENTALLY LAZY sort that he’d rather attempt to PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATE me into silence because he doesn’t appreciate being told the TRUTH about himself, well…that’s not my issue.
White supremacy is real, and has done almost irreparable damage to my people, and it’s about time someone STOOD UP to fight for what’s RIGHT.
This is a battle between GOOD and EVIL, and TRUST ME when I say that I know what side of the line YOU’RE on.
You get to be EVIL…And I get to fight against EVIL, and EVERYTHING it represents.
It is what it is.
Be careful, your WHITE HOOD is showing.
Sincerely,
Kameko
“required of his wife was that she READ and STUDY (The Mis-Education of The Negro, The Destruction of Black Civilization), WORK with him in the community, and ELEVATE her MIND so that she could LIVE IN HER PURPOSE, and be of SERVICE TO OTHERS”
Wikepedia defines require/requirement as-
“a requirement is a singular documented physical and functional need that a particular product or process must be able to perform.”
Required of his wife? What did he own her, have complete say over what she did?
Is today’s Black Civilization based on an idea that education is White Man’s way of a control mechanism. Perhaps you are saying that black woman should not want to or are to stupid to educate themselves or be part of a community. WOW I’m sure you did ruffle some feathers with that.
Looks like the take away from this article is that black women should not be educated and black men should not be monogamous.
Following that logic would see the black race without community, morality, or children without a father.
Are using this line of thinking to legitimize deadbeat dads?
Devil’s Advocate,
Thank you for visiting our site.
In response to your comment, I must point out that I am a bit curious as to what your issue would be with a BLACK MAN wanting his QUEEN to be the person the CREATOR had always meant for her to be, which is the person she undoubtedly WOULD have been, had it not been for slavery, Willie Lynch, Jim Crow, and other forms of White Supremacy. I also question if you even understood what I said, because I honestly don’t see how wanting a person to elevate her mindset is tantamount to oppression. In most – if not all – instances, an elevated mindset is the LAST thing a person who is trying to control or otherwise oppress his mate would WANT her to have.
Not only that, what kind of person has an issue with a husband wanting his wife to live in her PURPOSE? If they are a TEAM, wouldn’t he want the SAME things for her that he wants for himself? Or is it only acceptable for white males to want the best for their wives?
We were not put on this Earth to be accountants, actors, lawyers, doctors, business executives, etc. While those occupations give us a degree of visibility with which we can do other things, a person’s occupation and his PURPOSE are NOT the same thing. And, yes, part of one’s PURPOSE would involve service to others. The only people who’d take issue with that are the more selfish among us who ALWAYS manage to TAKE way more than they’ve ever given.
With regard to the monogamy issue, I am also confused by your lack of comprehension of my words. NOT ONCE did I say that I advocate irresponsible sexual practices of Black males/Black men. I also provided a DETAILED map showing the human sex ratio of the ENTIRE PLANET, which shows that most of Planet Earth has a GREATER female-to-male ratio.
Though I get tired of repeating myself, especially when I have made my points more than a little bit obvious, I will say – for the umpteenth time – that were it the Creator’s intent for each female to have a male exclusively to herself, there would obviously be an EQUAL NUMBER of males and females, and there isn’t. While the Unconscious among us take issue with that reality, it doesn’t change it. The only point I was making was that it has to be done responsibly: If a male isn’t willing to be responsible AND accountable for multiple mates, then he doesn’t deserve to have ANY mate, at all, thereby eliminating a lot of the societal ills you claim to be concerned with.
I appreciate your visiting our website; however, I would caution you to make sure that you actually understand what’s been written, stop jumping to conclusions, and stop hurling accusations. I wasn’t unclear with anything I said, so you either really didn’t understand it, or you intentionally tried not to.
- Kameko