And, most bafflingly: why is Oscar Isaacs a little white French boy in that flashback? What happened there?

Also? Ending the movie with a quote from Lord Byron? That certainly was... a choice.

Genuinely, I like the guy, but at this point I think there should be a 30 yr moratorium on retellings.

And look, I'm pro-being horny, but Frankenstein is not a monsterfucker text. Making the Creature a beautiful innocent and Victor cartoonishly evil robs the original of its power and nuance. Why must something or someone be beautiful to be worthy of sympathy and compassion?

There are so, so many reasons why it didn't work for me, but the one I keep coming back to is the absolute waste of Mia Goth. Can't believe the man who wrote Pan's Labyrinth + Shape of Water did his one female character with more than two lines that dirty.

I'm so sorry. What a beautiful dog. Keeping you both in my thoughts today

Less enmeshed =/= no deep commitment. Where I'm disagreeing with you is the idea that in order to take care of each other and have community, you must follow the relationship escalator and live/share finances with a romantic partner. I understand your stance, I just think it's wrong.

I'm not sure you know what your points are, considering this is what you said a couple replies ago. Do you agree with that statement, or does solo polyamory mean no deep commitments (which is contradicted by the article you just provided)?

That doesn't really square with your assertion of "no deep commitment".

This is from the second paragraph of the VICE article: "This type of polyamory “is often mistaken to mean only casual relationships, however, people who practice solo poly may have very deep and committed relationships that are simply less enmeshed than is conventionally expected.”

I do. But you aren't providing your sources, and in my almost twenty years of practicing polyamory, that has never been a definition anyone I've met who is solo poly uses to describe themselves or their relationship style.

If your point was that everyone has internalized ableism because we live in a world with systemic barriers for disabled people, you didn't need a whole article to say that. Your argument doesn't make sense, and your rebuttals don't actually address anything anyone has said to refute them.

To be frank, all your arguments are structured on a very monogamous framework, so I'm not sure why you wrote that article - the arguments posed within are faulty at best and seem to stem entirely from you being upset that someone said you couldn't call yourself solo poly.

Why do you think interdependence requires living together and/or marriage? Do you think single people don't have community? Do you think solo poly people don't have deep, committed relationships? Commitment looks different to everybody. Not everyone wants a romantic relationship. Or to cohabitate.

1. Labels mean things. That is why we have them.
2. Living alone/with people other than a romantic partner =/= "being untethered". Why is a poly person saying you can't have real community unless your relationships look like mono ones.
3. Why are you relitigating an article you wrote in 2016?

Also has the distinction of being the first book in a long time to make me physically nauseous (complimentary).

Also, while we're gatekeeping, you can't be a relationship anarchist and be married - RA means you don't center any one relationship as more important than the others. Marriage is inherently hierarchical. Idk I just think we should know what labels mean before using them.

Solo polyamory is about not wanting to hit traditional entanglements with partners. You can have roommates and be solo poly. You can combine finances with a friend or family and be solo poly. Ironically, OP is centering mononormative ways of thinking in this article.

My favorite internet thing is when someone opens with "I can’t imagine a world where what I am about to say isn’t controversial, but" and proceeds to say something wildly out of left field. What are you talking about.