A brief history of monogamy. lifted from the comment on this google answer.
I reposted it here because of its pertinence.
----
Subject: Re: Life-long Monogamy
From: tehuti-ga on 26 Nov 2003 04:32 PST
Hello curioussam,
At the risk of inciting a flood of "hatemail" comments :) I am daring
to say that the answer to your question is "none".
If we look at the matter from a "selfish gene" viewpoint, which is
about as unemotional as you can get, it is, from one point of view, in
a male's interest to have as many sexual encounters as possible to
reproduce his genes to the maximum. However, it is in a female's
interest to have a stable partnership, or other stable arrangement, so
that she is provided for while unable to do so for herself due to
pregnancy and the need to look after the children until they become
self-sufficient. However, in order to ensure the survival of his
genes, it is also in a male's interest to provide for at least some of
his offspring and ensure they receive the care they need. On the other
hand, it is not in the male's interest to expend time and energy to
ensure the survival of someone else's genes, and the only way he can
be (reasonably) sure of that is within an institution that does not
permit his sexual partner to have other liaisons.
This gives us a typical picture of Western society in earlier times: a
"sort-of" monogamous arrangement where blind eyes were turned to
sexual adventuring by married men, but heaven forbid a married woman
to be caught in adultery! Women, having little or no control over
their reproduction, were involved in childbearing and rearing for a
much longer period than now, and more likely to die in childbirth.
Also, the average human lifespan was generally shorter than today due
to disease. The typical monogamous relationship would therefore have
lasted a comparatively short time and not gone on very long, if at
all, past the duration of the reproductive abilities of the woman.
Moving nearer to today, the lifespan started to increase, due to
improvements in hygiene and medicine. Once a woman has brought her
children up to self-sufficiency and is no longer capable of
reproduction, she no longer has a genetic interest in staying with her
partner. However, the social structure enforced a division of labour,
so that women performed unpaid work in the home while men did paid
work outside the home. Thus, even when no longer genetically dependent
on their partners, women continued to be economically dependent, and
this was recognised and affirmed by the society, so that divorce,
where permitted was tied to heavy financial penalties on the male in
order to ensure a continued financing of the woman he left, since she
was deemed incapable of fending for herself.
Today, the remanants of this social structure still remain. On the
other hand, women in Western societies have a free choice on how much
to reproduce, if at all. Also, they have a free choice to develop
their own paid careers and thus become and remain economically
independent of males, except perhaps in a very short period just after
childbirth, although even then arrangements such as maternity benefits
and social security measures mean they do not have to be in a
partnership to survive (which also removes the genetic pressure on the
male to provide for his offspring). Add to this the fact of the
increased lifespan, which means that a typical couple entering into
marriage could expect to live for another 60+ years afterwards. Most
of this would be after childrearing has finished, although for much of
that excess time the male would still be able to reproduce his genes
by mating with other woman.
To all this, add also the non-emotional fact that people in today's
Western societies are more individualistic than ever before, and more
desirous of personal, including emotional, satisfaction and therefore
less willing to remain in a situation which has ceased to provide it
simply because this is what is demanded by tradition mores. Even if
they do stay in a partnership because of convenience, women are
increasingly catching up with men in looking for other avenues of
satisfaction. The concept of monogamy is daily being demolished in
practice, even while still being held up as an ideal by some sectors
of society.
Here are some estimates made by authors of books first published in the late 1980s:
"The various researchers arrive at a general consensus…suggesting that
above one-quarter to about one-half of married women have at least one
lover after they are married in any given marriage. Married men
probably still stray more often than married women—perhaps from 50
percent to 65 percent by the age of forty."
Annette Lawson, author of "Adultery," first published in 1989 by Basic Books.
"Most experts do consider the 'educated guess' that at the present
time some 50 to 65 percent of husbands and 45 to 55 percent of wives
become extramaritally involved by the age of 40 to be a relatively
sound and reasonable one."
Maggie Scarf, author of "Intimate Partners," first published in 1987
by Random House
"Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of
women will have an extramarital affair... If even half of the women
having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the
60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an
affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages."
Peggy Vaughan, author of "The Monogamy Myth," first published in 1989
by Newmarket Press
All these quoted by Peggy Vaugan in "Statistics about Affairs"
http://www.dearpeggy.com/statistics.html
Friday, December 28, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Masculism
I'm sick and tired of neo-feminists ranting about pay inequality and sex crime. I'm tired of being blamed for problems they cause! Women stopped being oppressed when it became illegal to discriminate based on gender. Period. The rest is a function of supply and demand. The treatment of women in this country is a direct result of the demand impact on sex monogamy has had, and the exploitation of the sexual and economic advantages that result from it.
Since women control breeding by definition, those problems can be laid squarely at their feet. Men are so oppressed that the term masculism is virtually unknown compared to feminism. And the one men's rights group that I know of gets near constant derision and flak when they aren't being ignore completely. And even this group is an adjunct of women, as it focuses on men who have been selected by women as good enough to breed. Those of us that refuse to play this slanted and humiliating game are totally ignored.
I have no doubt whatsoever that I'll be hassled and made fun of just for suggesting that men have it worse than those dear sweet innocent little victim princesses. Awww look at her pout, how can I be so mean to those poor sweet little girls.
Where do I even begin? Lets start off with a list of important facts.
1. Men die sooner than women. This is not genetic.
2. Men are the more common rape victim.
3. Men have to compete to breed.
4. Women choose who breeds and who doesn't.
5. Women choose if they want to work.
6. Women have the option of trading something fun for something useful.
7. Women have the power to destroy lives with accusations alone.
8. Women receive disproportionate protection.
9. Women have an overwhelming advantage in custody cases.
10. Women are socially allowed a greater degree of freedom with regard to emotional expression and fashion.
11. Women encourage maddeningly unrealistic expectations.
12. A single woman is called independent and powerful, a single man is called a loser.
I'll stop there for now.
Women complain about being objectified but they subsidize the behavior. Women make fun of male virgins as losers, but then attack men for being sex obsessed pigs. Women complain about equality and then call men cheap for wanting to split dinner. Women complain about men not helping to clean up, but would not tar a roof for anything.
On a more subtle note, why do we have to put down the toilet seat, why don't women put it up? Why do women get a row of stalls but men get urinals? I personally prefer to pee in a toilet without a guy standing next to me. But what I want doesn't matter.
I'm constantly called a loser because I don't have that ubiquitous modern parasite, a girlfriend. I'm sorry but I literally can't afford a girlfriend. My mind and my compassion and my self reliance are irrelevant unless they add up to me being a good little slave.
Every movie and every song with a relationship in it, has at some point or at all points a declaration of a few basic servility requirements.
1. Men must always put the needs of women ahead of their own.
2. Women must always be saved while men are expendable.
3. A man dieing for a cause is heroic, a woman dieing for a cause is tragic.
4. Men must always be the one to go the extra mile with regard to bridging a relationship gap.
5. If a woman makes an arbitrary demand no explanation is required.
6. A man's sole purpose in life is to please and then bed and breed with a woman.
I am not a sperm and cash donor. I am a thinking feeling human being.
I mean look at all the examples. Take "Meet Joe Black". Here we have a movie about death, the most powerful force in reality, actually having trouble pleasing a typical attractive affluent American woman.
Turn on the TV, Every commercial is about either something a woman can demand or something a man must provide. Everything the media broadcasts is either related to a product designed to make women hotter, give a man an edge in competition with other men, or maintain an existing relationship. It's all veiled prostitution on one end and role enforcement on the other.
"Every kiss begins with Kay." "Choosy moms choose Jiff."
I could go on and on.
I'm indirectly single by choice, because I refuse to buy spend or lie in an effort to form a sexual relationship with a woman. Plus I want one on equal terms, which makes me a sexist pig apparently. Go figure.
P.S. I'm totally willing to debate any of this.
Since women control breeding by definition, those problems can be laid squarely at their feet. Men are so oppressed that the term masculism is virtually unknown compared to feminism. And the one men's rights group that I know of gets near constant derision and flak when they aren't being ignore completely. And even this group is an adjunct of women, as it focuses on men who have been selected by women as good enough to breed. Those of us that refuse to play this slanted and humiliating game are totally ignored.
I have no doubt whatsoever that I'll be hassled and made fun of just for suggesting that men have it worse than those dear sweet innocent little victim princesses. Awww look at her pout, how can I be so mean to those poor sweet little girls.
Where do I even begin? Lets start off with a list of important facts.
1. Men die sooner than women. This is not genetic.
2. Men are the more common rape victim.
3. Men have to compete to breed.
4. Women choose who breeds and who doesn't.
5. Women choose if they want to work.
6. Women have the option of trading something fun for something useful.
7. Women have the power to destroy lives with accusations alone.
8. Women receive disproportionate protection.
9. Women have an overwhelming advantage in custody cases.
10. Women are socially allowed a greater degree of freedom with regard to emotional expression and fashion.
11. Women encourage maddeningly unrealistic expectations.
12. A single woman is called independent and powerful, a single man is called a loser.
I'll stop there for now.
Women complain about being objectified but they subsidize the behavior. Women make fun of male virgins as losers, but then attack men for being sex obsessed pigs. Women complain about equality and then call men cheap for wanting to split dinner. Women complain about men not helping to clean up, but would not tar a roof for anything.
On a more subtle note, why do we have to put down the toilet seat, why don't women put it up? Why do women get a row of stalls but men get urinals? I personally prefer to pee in a toilet without a guy standing next to me. But what I want doesn't matter.
I'm constantly called a loser because I don't have that ubiquitous modern parasite, a girlfriend. I'm sorry but I literally can't afford a girlfriend. My mind and my compassion and my self reliance are irrelevant unless they add up to me being a good little slave.
Every movie and every song with a relationship in it, has at some point or at all points a declaration of a few basic servility requirements.
1. Men must always put the needs of women ahead of their own.
2. Women must always be saved while men are expendable.
3. A man dieing for a cause is heroic, a woman dieing for a cause is tragic.
4. Men must always be the one to go the extra mile with regard to bridging a relationship gap.
5. If a woman makes an arbitrary demand no explanation is required.
6. A man's sole purpose in life is to please and then bed and breed with a woman.
I am not a sperm and cash donor. I am a thinking feeling human being.
I mean look at all the examples. Take "Meet Joe Black". Here we have a movie about death, the most powerful force in reality, actually having trouble pleasing a typical attractive affluent American woman.
Turn on the TV, Every commercial is about either something a woman can demand or something a man must provide. Everything the media broadcasts is either related to a product designed to make women hotter, give a man an edge in competition with other men, or maintain an existing relationship. It's all veiled prostitution on one end and role enforcement on the other.
"Every kiss begins with Kay." "Choosy moms choose Jiff."
I could go on and on.
I'm indirectly single by choice, because I refuse to buy spend or lie in an effort to form a sexual relationship with a woman. Plus I want one on equal terms, which makes me a sexist pig apparently. Go figure.
P.S. I'm totally willing to debate any of this.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Terroristic Monogamy.
Monogamy in a way represents our capitulation to a terrorist's demands. Allow me to explain.
Monogamy is at its core a submission to feelings of jealousy. A way to structure our lives in such a way that we tolerate and even encourage the indulgence of this rather harmful emotion, in a way we indulge no other negative emotion.
There is an excellent article on DrSpock.com for understanding and dealing with sibling (and general) jealousy. Which I think can be helpful in understanding what i mean. (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,3962,00.html)
As I was reading it I realized that from the first paragraph, everything in it could be seen as a pertinent to polygamy.
From the beginning it treats jealousy as not something which should be placated but something which should be understood, utilized, and overcome. Which is the exact same attitude I suggest we adopt with regard to monogamy and polygamy in the united sates and everywhere else.
Nowhere in this article will you see it suggest that since (sibling) jealousy is natural the only real workable solution is to not have more than one child. Which is precisely the solution one would be forced to arrive at if using the same logic applied to lovers.
To me both are reprehensible. You cannot tell me how many children I can have for the exact same reasons you cannot tell me who to love and when. If I love two women or more, so be it! I will not choose between them if they love me in return any more than I would choose a favorite child. Further, I would not ask a person who loved me to choose between me or another if I loved them.
It is quite ironic that very early on the article uses a polygamous situation as a metaphor for how a child feels when a new baby arrives because the article itself presents many valid points which could easily carry over into both a critique of, and solution set for, problems stemming from polygamy.
Some examples…
“There really is no reason for an older child to love the new baby at first. In time, the relationship may grow very close and loving, but at the start the new baby is at best a novelty, at worst, an interloper and enemy.”
This is exactly the type of emotions one can expect as a couple makes the jump from monogamous (in practice) to polygamous.
“Rivalrous feelings are often more intense in a firstborn child, because he has been used to the spotlight and has had no competition.”
…and again.
“Generally speaking, jealousy of the baby is strongest in the child under five years, because he is much more dependent on his parents and has fewer interests outside the family circle. The child of six or more is drawing away a little from his parents and building a position for himself among his friends and teachers. Being pushed out of the limelight at home doesn't hurt so much.”
This illustrates one of the real motivations for monogamy, attention greed and control. And again it offers a solution to what will be a common problem.
And finally we have the real gold of the article, a breakdown of why dealing with these emotions rationally is super useful. Hell, this is a rather convincing argument for encouraging both multiple children and multiple mates.
“Though jealousy can't be completely prevented, you can do a great deal to minimize it or even to convert it into positive feelings. If your child comes to realize that there is no reason to be so fearful of a rival, it strengthens his character so that he will be better able to cope with rivalry situations later in life, at work, and at home.”
“Parents can help a child to actually transform resentful feelings into cooperativeness and genuine altruism. The stresses and strains of coping with a new sibling can be transformed into new skills in conflict resolution, cooperation, and sharing.”
“These are lessons that are hard won. Learning to cope with the challenges of not being the only show in town may be the lesson that is most valuable of all to later success.”
Thank you very much Sitarih (http://sitarih.stumbleupon.com/) for sending me this article!
Monogamy is at its core a submission to feelings of jealousy. A way to structure our lives in such a way that we tolerate and even encourage the indulgence of this rather harmful emotion, in a way we indulge no other negative emotion.
There is an excellent article on DrSpock.com for understanding and dealing with sibling (and general) jealousy. Which I think can be helpful in understanding what i mean. (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,3962,00.html)
As I was reading it I realized that from the first paragraph, everything in it could be seen as a pertinent to polygamy.
From the beginning it treats jealousy as not something which should be placated but something which should be understood, utilized, and overcome. Which is the exact same attitude I suggest we adopt with regard to monogamy and polygamy in the united sates and everywhere else.
Nowhere in this article will you see it suggest that since (sibling) jealousy is natural the only real workable solution is to not have more than one child. Which is precisely the solution one would be forced to arrive at if using the same logic applied to lovers.
To me both are reprehensible. You cannot tell me how many children I can have for the exact same reasons you cannot tell me who to love and when. If I love two women or more, so be it! I will not choose between them if they love me in return any more than I would choose a favorite child. Further, I would not ask a person who loved me to choose between me or another if I loved them.
It is quite ironic that very early on the article uses a polygamous situation as a metaphor for how a child feels when a new baby arrives because the article itself presents many valid points which could easily carry over into both a critique of, and solution set for, problems stemming from polygamy.
Some examples…
“There really is no reason for an older child to love the new baby at first. In time, the relationship may grow very close and loving, but at the start the new baby is at best a novelty, at worst, an interloper and enemy.”
This is exactly the type of emotions one can expect as a couple makes the jump from monogamous (in practice) to polygamous.
“Rivalrous feelings are often more intense in a firstborn child, because he has been used to the spotlight and has had no competition.”
…and again.
“Generally speaking, jealousy of the baby is strongest in the child under five years, because he is much more dependent on his parents and has fewer interests outside the family circle. The child of six or more is drawing away a little from his parents and building a position for himself among his friends and teachers. Being pushed out of the limelight at home doesn't hurt so much.”
This illustrates one of the real motivations for monogamy, attention greed and control. And again it offers a solution to what will be a common problem.
And finally we have the real gold of the article, a breakdown of why dealing with these emotions rationally is super useful. Hell, this is a rather convincing argument for encouraging both multiple children and multiple mates.
“Though jealousy can't be completely prevented, you can do a great deal to minimize it or even to convert it into positive feelings. If your child comes to realize that there is no reason to be so fearful of a rival, it strengthens his character so that he will be better able to cope with rivalry situations later in life, at work, and at home.”
“Parents can help a child to actually transform resentful feelings into cooperativeness and genuine altruism. The stresses and strains of coping with a new sibling can be transformed into new skills in conflict resolution, cooperation, and sharing.”
“These are lessons that are hard won. Learning to cope with the challenges of not being the only show in town may be the lesson that is most valuable of all to later success.”
Thank you very much Sitarih (http://sitarih.stumbleupon.com/) for sending me this article!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Online dating.
(in reffrence to eharmony.com)
I am by no means taking the "online dating is for losers" approach, but this does seem to me unusually slanted. I myself am a polygamist, and a fetishist, and I am certain I would not be welcome there if they can't even handle something as normal as gay people.
But I feel the need to defend them a bit because the problem is not with matching people the problem is simple supply and demand associated with monogamy. The premise here is false. There is not someone for everyone because some people are perfect to many people. The solution is not a database, which at best will merely more effectively match existing options, the solution is to learn to share and to spread out your demands of a mate over many individuals.
It’s like this, a new way to search and drill for oil (hyper efficient databased monogamy) is not a real solution, renewable power (new mating paradigm) is.
We allow specialists into every other aspect of our lives. We don't demand that our car repair guy our plumber our gardener our dentist our doctor and our chef be the same person, because that would be absurd. You’d end up with 4 guys system wide that everyone wants and everyone else gets the shaft.
That is the situation today with mating. There is a small percentage of highly desirable men and women, but many of the traits we demand are in conflict. (like compassion and ambition)
Monogamy is a means of control. They want to keep us tense and unhappy.
I am by no means taking the "online dating is for losers" approach, but this does seem to me unusually slanted. I myself am a polygamist, and a fetishist, and I am certain I would not be welcome there if they can't even handle something as normal as gay people.
But I feel the need to defend them a bit because the problem is not with matching people the problem is simple supply and demand associated with monogamy. The premise here is false. There is not someone for everyone because some people are perfect to many people. The solution is not a database, which at best will merely more effectively match existing options, the solution is to learn to share and to spread out your demands of a mate over many individuals.
It’s like this, a new way to search and drill for oil (hyper efficient databased monogamy) is not a real solution, renewable power (new mating paradigm) is.
We allow specialists into every other aspect of our lives. We don't demand that our car repair guy our plumber our gardener our dentist our doctor and our chef be the same person, because that would be absurd. You’d end up with 4 guys system wide that everyone wants and everyone else gets the shaft.
That is the situation today with mating. There is a small percentage of highly desirable men and women, but many of the traits we demand are in conflict. (like compassion and ambition)
Monogamy is a means of control. They want to keep us tense and unhappy.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Mercenaries
It is astonishing how badly one can be made to feel without physical damage or death being involved.
Imagine you have an enemy, imagine this enemy was your friend. Imagine that you decide to take one for the team and patch things up despite your continuing to hurt mightily. Imagine that this enemy begins to speak to you one day, and you get excited, you think ‘hey maybe I’m not the only one trying for peace’, imagine they are so good at it that they just talk to you for like 3 minutes and you imagine for those three minutes a future without animosity. And then the person makes a request of you and it becomes clear that the whole conversation was a sham, a prelude to the request.
Suddenly you’re made to feel used and worthless, and worse you have no one to blame because it’s human nature. No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides. All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.
The lines between partner, victim, family, friend, lover, customer, are only drawn by the nature of those provisions, and the effort required to provide them, and how badly each service is needed. For example if a guy you know is really funny, and he doesn't even have to try, you will hang around him because laughing is fun, and now let’s say you have a really nice house, so he hangs around you for the comfort, this could be called a friendship. But deep down, it isn’t. Because if you lose the house and he stops being funny one will tire of the other.
How is one expected to deal with that? Why is it always on the victim to adapt?
Imagine you have an enemy, imagine this enemy was your friend. Imagine that you decide to take one for the team and patch things up despite your continuing to hurt mightily. Imagine that this enemy begins to speak to you one day, and you get excited, you think ‘hey maybe I’m not the only one trying for peace’, imagine they are so good at it that they just talk to you for like 3 minutes and you imagine for those three minutes a future without animosity. And then the person makes a request of you and it becomes clear that the whole conversation was a sham, a prelude to the request.
Suddenly you’re made to feel used and worthless, and worse you have no one to blame because it’s human nature. No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides. All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.
The lines between partner, victim, family, friend, lover, customer, are only drawn by the nature of those provisions, and the effort required to provide them, and how badly each service is needed. For example if a guy you know is really funny, and he doesn't even have to try, you will hang around him because laughing is fun, and now let’s say you have a really nice house, so he hangs around you for the comfort, this could be called a friendship. But deep down, it isn’t. Because if you lose the house and he stops being funny one will tire of the other.
How is one expected to deal with that? Why is it always on the victim to adapt?
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Founding Fathers.
“The foundations of this country are based on religion”
I always see this come up when they ask some ignorant theist’s opinion on some topic. I say ignorant because its provably true not to be petulant or insulting. But that debate has been well covered elsewhere. Ultimately it is an argument from authority.
What I’d like to talk about however is the alternate answer. Which could be stated as follows..
“Ok, so let’s assume you’re right and the founding fathers did want this to be a religious nation… so what?”
I mean really, so what?! Sure the constitution is an astonishing document, and despite its problems I do see America as a wonderful nation, since a nation is at its core an idea and I think America is a good idea. But the point here is that just because America was a good idea doesn't mean everything the founders of America thought was a good idea. In fact I think it can easily be argued that they were aware of this distinction and that's why the included provision for the evolution of the document in the first place.
I mean seriously just run down a partial list of things these guys thought were a good idea as well, and you tell me if they need to be defended solely on that basis.
1. Only whites should vote.
2. Only landowners should vote.
3. Slavery is a good plan.
4. Only men should vote.
5. Women need to be smacked around on occasion.
6. ...So do children, prisoners, and soldiers.
The bottom line is obviously that we need to not let dead men make our decisions for us. History is there to remind us what happened when we tried certain things so that we can craft for ourselves a more perfect future, it is not there for us to emulate till the end of time.
So please, if you are or ever were, a minority, a woman, a solider a prisoner, a non-land owner, or a child, try to refrain from using the founding fathers’ intention as an argument.
I always see this come up when they ask some ignorant theist’s opinion on some topic. I say ignorant because its provably true not to be petulant or insulting. But that debate has been well covered elsewhere. Ultimately it is an argument from authority.
What I’d like to talk about however is the alternate answer. Which could be stated as follows..
“Ok, so let’s assume you’re right and the founding fathers did want this to be a religious nation… so what?”
I mean really, so what?! Sure the constitution is an astonishing document, and despite its problems I do see America as a wonderful nation, since a nation is at its core an idea and I think America is a good idea. But the point here is that just because America was a good idea doesn't mean everything the founders of America thought was a good idea. In fact I think it can easily be argued that they were aware of this distinction and that's why the included provision for the evolution of the document in the first place.
I mean seriously just run down a partial list of things these guys thought were a good idea as well, and you tell me if they need to be defended solely on that basis.
1. Only whites should vote.
2. Only landowners should vote.
3. Slavery is a good plan.
4. Only men should vote.
5. Women need to be smacked around on occasion.
6. ...So do children, prisoners, and soldiers.
The bottom line is obviously that we need to not let dead men make our decisions for us. History is there to remind us what happened when we tried certain things so that we can craft for ourselves a more perfect future, it is not there for us to emulate till the end of time.
So please, if you are or ever were, a minority, a woman, a solider a prisoner, a non-land owner, or a child, try to refrain from using the founding fathers’ intention as an argument.
I did not write this but I want to know who did.
Anyone have any idea who wrote this?
Example:
This bloke comes over and wants to shag your partner (from the traditional male point of view). He thinks he is the better gene strain, though he may not be aware this is an accurate expression of his motive, and he wants to shag everything in order to best ensure the perpetuation of that gene strain. She knows, if all her girlie-bits are in working order, she will perpetuate her gene strain regardless and should attempt impregnation by the best she can find to improve the chances of her offspring surviving to breed in their own turn.
Man against man, not for personal survival but for sureness in mind. He wants to shag her. What are you going to do about it? All or nothing, dependent upon on the life expectancy in conflict with the challenger. Win some, lose some. Better to survive with genitals attached and to shag someone less dangerous/sought after than to die without having bred. Violent competition is not unnatural to a man. Unfortunately.
The "civilisation" of modern society has done much to cloud this simplicity by imposing rules and inventing structures for relationships. Though less clear in the cold light of day, the dull of evening and the effects of alcohol or similar drugs, in removing the conditioned reflex of modern inhibitions, can find this primal survival instinct showing itself quite readily. Many a fight begins with the words "What (are) you looking at?"
So, to recap, man cannot naturally be certain he has bred, that the child a woman carries and bears is actually his. The woman can know. Only in circumstances of exceptional promiscuity will a woman have any doubt about who the father was. Man knows woman has this edge. It is something he can never take away. Unable to equally compete with woman, man used his physical strength advantage to change the rules and thus bias the game heavily in his favour.
Marriage.
The state of marriage, in primitive survival terms, is of no use to a woman. To man, however, to create an artificial allegiance, and to justify it by clever combination of the two old standards of oppression, religion and restriction of education, is to create an image of supremacy, an image of control. If, by moral and religious engineering, man can instil guilt within and have society ostracise any woman who dares to respond to her natural instinct to perpetuate her gene strain to greatest effect he assumes a very real, if fragile, control. Ever sub-conscious of this fragility, modern man is nervous.
Education.
By restricting women's access to education and rendering them an underclass, man took on all the responsibility of providing. This took time. To provide adequately could take a lot of time. Spending all this time making the outside world their exclusive domain and burdening themselves with the commitment to work, each individual man found they had less power over their own partner precisely because this contracted separation gave the womenfolk more time to be themselves.
Machines.
The advent of the machine age backfired somewhat for man. The single area where man had had a genuine advantage over woman was in physical strength. Machines that made man's work less strenuous rendered it within the capability of woman. Revolution had become possible. The religious and moral engineers were urgently called upon to enhance the oppression and it became absolutely crucial women remained unable to gain access to education and the proof of man's deception.
War.
Mechanisation of war was the single most profound error on man's part. Men fought. Women didn't. It was the man's rule. Oops. Whereas prior to the age of machines each warrior could kill only a very few of the enemy before being overcome, if only by tiredness, and individual battles only lasted a day, now it was possible for even small people to kill hundreds of the enemy and barely break into a sweat. The quality of the warrior became second to the quality of his equipment. In the 1914-1918 war in Europe all sides were pretty evenly matched. An unprecedented and previously incomprehensible number of men died.
Peace.
While all the men were off being manly and killed, the women had been encouraged through necessity to carry out tasks and to take on duties that they had been raised to believe were beyond their capabilities. This period of emergency emancipation during the conflict, and the concurrent significant reduction in the male population, marked the end of the total patriarchy that had been the way since the dawn of "modern civilisation".
The country not having completely fallen apart in the four or five years they had been preoccupied with slaughtering each other for the sake of a redrawn map, males of a nation saying to males of other nations collectively "What (are) you looking at?" before mechanically beating each other up, it simply wasn't possible to pretend women were less than capable.
Whilst it was impossible, under these new circumstances, to deny the vote to women, it was deemed prudent to only allow the vote to women over thirty years of age. Any women with the vote, therefore, will have been raised in the pre-war oppression and will be less likely to play seriously with the status quo. Whilst this was a magnanimous gesture, the odds remained in the male favour with the simultaneous granting of the vote to all males over twenty-one. This imbalance held for ten years.
War again.
Much of the same but with more modern, advanced and efficient killing machines. More men die. A few more women die, too, especially thanks to the aeroplane. But the overall effect is the same. The differences between male and female roles blur further still.
Peace (ish)
A better educated and post-war-cynical populace naturally diminished the power of the Churches. The efficiency of killing technology had become so great no country would exist if they started a fight and lost. Automation in the workplace left very few tasks the preserve of the physically strong. Man had no advantage. The establishment would remain until its own rules, created under an assumption only men would have a say in what transpired, ate at its fabric enough for it to crumble to dust.
The contraceptive pill.
If a woman didn't want a baby she didn't have to have one. Note how the Roman Catholic Church still refuses to permit contraception. Note a patriarchal regime still insistent nobody at all shagged Mary. Note how likely that is. Consider how likely it is a woman made it up. A woman would have had a girl child. But then again, a woman wouldn't have needed to make it up at all.
The Present.
Information is everywhere. Men can't pretend anymore. They are back kicking their heels and showing off to each other. And it isn't going to get any better for them. Your average 1996 man is flailing wildly in a changing world. The values his ancestors held and taught are seen to be bollocks. To some, the inherent advantages of such sociological distortion outweigh the callousness of the oppression, but they would, whatever. To others, it sits as an uncomfortable heritage, an embarrassment and sometimes a guilt. The average is a total uncertainty. It will take a long time for the average man to accept this uncertainty is beyond his control.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Neo Damsels
"I've always depended on the kindness of strangers." uttered Blanche DuBois, in “A Streetcar Named Desire”. A line once so antiquated and indicative of a long dead era -and irresponsibility- is slowly and insidiously making a comeback, that is, if it ever really left. It seems to me that the women’s liberation movement is making a tremendous backslide in American culture as a result of two major factors. The first being movies and television making it a male’s duty to cater to a woman’s needs if she is attractive, or should I say, sexually alluring, enough. And the second being women who are eager to exploit this opportunity to sell their bodies, and their dignity, for an easy ride without being honest about the nature of the sale. In fact, these days, shaking your ass for preferential treatment isn’t so much an attack on dignity, as it is accepted commerce. Strippers make more money than many socially vital positions. Which is fine because they are honest about it, my problem is with those who are every bit as much sex dealers, but without the sand to be honest about it.
I say we repeal sexual harassment laws entirely. If women don’t want to be called toots they shouldn’t wear jeans 2 sizes too small and spend more money annually on makeup than they do on healthcare.
In today’s environment when so many jobs are based on the strength of your resume, and that being in part based on your GPA, and that in turn being a result of your scholastic ability, attractive women have an extremely unfair advantage, even over equally attractive men. And yet still they are underrepresented in most colleges and income brackets. I’m sure some will say that turnabout is fair play, commenting on the years of male dominance, but I’m with Gandhi on that one, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Further-more I’m not so sure dominance through sexual appeal is a form of true power anyway, since at best it is an ability to influence those with what I would call real power. Sexual selection is the only real power in this context. It could even be viewed as a form of parasitism, but then again oratorical skill is just a way to influence others as well, so in a way it is power. Anyway..
I worked in a computer lab at a college for 3 years, and during that time I consistently saw brilliant young men "helping" attractive young women with their assignments, sometimes bordering on plagiarism. I, as a hard working studying college student, resented the fact that attractive young ladies have a virtually inexhaustible supply of private tutors available to them for free, simply because they behaviorally and physically match the television’s description of what beauty is. I also resent that fact that media makes it obligatory that males help without the ability to acceptably demand a sexual return for their work, despite that being precisely the arrangement that is implied by the woman, via her behavior and choices. How many times has something like the following been uttered at the end of these little session? “Oh you expected affection of some type? I thought you were just being nice, you’re a pig.” Head for lobster just isn’t socially accepted these days, despite the request for lobster being delivered from within a slinky red dress, using a tone of voice usually reserved for phone sex, and a physical proximity that would earn a male a harassment suit.
And that’s only the beginning; I’m not even going to seriously consider the free meals, free rides, and discounts that inevitably will result from these study sessions. Services that someone eventually has to pay for. Imagine the math major sitting doing little tiffany’s online test, only to be interrupted by a pout, “I’m hungry.” We all know where this would go. I’ll bet I could maintain a 4.0 also if I had a squad of people to do my work for me, feed me, and drive me around, all for an investment of clothing and tone.
These girls will sail through the system buoyed on the work of others, and they will leave a trail of resentment and fraudulence in their wake. Not to mention lower male GPAs as a result of time lost trying to acquire that object that screams success in our culture, the young trophy wife.
Can one really overestimate the potential damage of this trend? The very concept of a college graduate will begin to lose value. Isn’t it already? ‘Educated’ will mean less and less, emotion will begin to triumph over logic. And history has shown the consequences of that. People will become more religious as science blunders again and again as a result of giving money and power to attractive idiots who circumvented the system. People will die of medical neglect more often because attractive nurses pass more easily than skilled ones. In all professionally moderated arenas skill will suffer replaced by style and sex. Is this really good for us?
I don’t think this was what was intended by the matriarchs of the woman’s civil liberties movement. I don’t think women fought to enter college alongside men so they could giggle and dress their way through it. Women advance themselves sexually in every other walk of life and nature allows that, so be it, sexual selection is destroying humanity from both sides anyway so I’ll let that slide, but in an abstract setting like academia it presents an unfair and correctable advantage.
The only real solution is gender divided schooling. Equal rights don’t have to be the same location. We have separate bathrooms don’t we? If we’re so equal, and sex isn’t a factor, then why do we have separate bathrooms anyway? Why have gender specific scholarships? Why ask gender on admission papers? Or race for that matter. If it truly doesn’t matter, why ask at all?
About bathrooms, why not institute one person at a time unisex bathrooms? After all, I don’t like peeing for an audience no matter what their gender. Why do I have to have a urinal? Why can’t the guys have a row of stalls? Because girls are more important now, they are society’s carrot, that's one reason gay marriage is even an issue. In any case true merit should warrant advantage, and sexual attractiveness isn’t a true merit because it’s presence is subjective.
Assault.
According to this report.... a 21 year old man was charged with throwing a snowball at a woman who was waiting for the bus. There was a mistrial, then a new trial was set, and then the crages were dismissed.
The consensus of netizens everywhere is that this lady is a cry baby and that this case is frivolous.
This may shock my regular readers but I for one don't think so, and am proud of her for a few reasons.
1. She had to anticipate this reaction, and yet she went ahead. That's courage. Some women are too afraid to report rape for fear of local ridicule, this woman risked global ridicule over simple assault and perhaps even principal.
2. Assault is assault. Either we are allowed to hit the people that annoy us or we aren't. This position smacks more of integrity to me than pettiness. of course I don't know the woman.
3. I've been nailed with a chunk of ice before and I'm pretty sure that was my first broken rib.
4. She was with her boyfriend and did not brow beat him into physically beating the other man, and he did not rush to do it himself, so she seems to have chosen well I think with regard to her mate, something very rare among females. (every woman has a parade of idiot ex boyfriends in their past they are more than happy to tell you about if you just ask... so don't think I'm just bitching because women hate me :P )
5. She could have played the sex card by saying he threw it at her butt or something but she decided to be honest.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm as much a hater of typical damsels in distress as anyone, thats what my next post will be. And people do need to whine less about some things(and more about others, like say income tax, and the federal reserve), but if someone nails me in the back with an ice ball I would report them as well.
The idiot wisdom on this is that I should just throw one back or 'be a man and kick some ass' but I don't subscribe to the fight-for-face culture. Fighting should be attempted murder, if should be that serious and that much avoided. If I'm fighting someone it's because they are trying to kill me and I will try to kill them. In my opinion there should be no crime classification 'assault'. It should be assumed that if you were attacking someone you wanted them dead.
Fighting without lethal intent is worthless antler bashing and I won't do it. Which means my only other option is the legal system. Every time I've ever been in a fight I was trying to kill the other person. I haven't fought in my adult life because I don't fight unless I'm prepared to kill, and if I'm going to have to kill, I'm going to have a good, and very likely legal, reason to do it, hence my concealed weapons permit.
This case and the cultural reaction to it is a prime example of whats wrong with our school system and our child rearing laws. All the idiots who don't understand why this woman called the cops, or think she's weak for doing so are simply angry because at some point in their lives they were assaulted, either by their parents, a teacher, or a fellow student like this, but were too scared to stand up legally for themselves. They were told that their demand for justice and fair play and personal space was a sign of weakness. ('walk it off boy' 'don't be a pussy' etc.) and they either internalized this edict (if you cant beat'em, join'em.) or they don't want her to see justice because they saw none.
Now, I've been in that situation, I know it sucks to get hurt and not be able to do anything about it. But I'm not going to let that corrupt my idea of ethics. Here is the foundation of all ethics, you do not act in a fashion which causes a net drop in human happiness. Now some long term happiness requires an investment of short term happiness, such as building a deck, or saving your money, but thats not a drop so much as a lack of rise, which is a whole other essay.
I have a series of questions for those who thinks this woman is weak. Would a hand full of talcum powder be any better? How about a hand full of change? At what density does it become assault?
The point is, legally, we've drawn the line at intentional contact. You're not supposed to strike another person against their will. If you don't like it, bitch at the law, not this woman.
The consensus of netizens everywhere is that this lady is a cry baby and that this case is frivolous.
This may shock my regular readers but I for one don't think so, and am proud of her for a few reasons.
1. She had to anticipate this reaction, and yet she went ahead. That's courage. Some women are too afraid to report rape for fear of local ridicule, this woman risked global ridicule over simple assault and perhaps even principal.
2. Assault is assault. Either we are allowed to hit the people that annoy us or we aren't. This position smacks more of integrity to me than pettiness. of course I don't know the woman.
3. I've been nailed with a chunk of ice before and I'm pretty sure that was my first broken rib.
4. She was with her boyfriend and did not brow beat him into physically beating the other man, and he did not rush to do it himself, so she seems to have chosen well I think with regard to her mate, something very rare among females. (every woman has a parade of idiot ex boyfriends in their past they are more than happy to tell you about if you just ask... so don't think I'm just bitching because women hate me :P )
5. She could have played the sex card by saying he threw it at her butt or something but she decided to be honest.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm as much a hater of typical damsels in distress as anyone, thats what my next post will be. And people do need to whine less about some things(and more about others, like say income tax, and the federal reserve), but if someone nails me in the back with an ice ball I would report them as well.
The idiot wisdom on this is that I should just throw one back or 'be a man and kick some ass' but I don't subscribe to the fight-for-face culture. Fighting should be attempted murder, if should be that serious and that much avoided. If I'm fighting someone it's because they are trying to kill me and I will try to kill them. In my opinion there should be no crime classification 'assault'. It should be assumed that if you were attacking someone you wanted them dead.
Fighting without lethal intent is worthless antler bashing and I won't do it. Which means my only other option is the legal system. Every time I've ever been in a fight I was trying to kill the other person. I haven't fought in my adult life because I don't fight unless I'm prepared to kill, and if I'm going to have to kill, I'm going to have a good, and very likely legal, reason to do it, hence my concealed weapons permit.
This case and the cultural reaction to it is a prime example of whats wrong with our school system and our child rearing laws. All the idiots who don't understand why this woman called the cops, or think she's weak for doing so are simply angry because at some point in their lives they were assaulted, either by their parents, a teacher, or a fellow student like this, but were too scared to stand up legally for themselves. They were told that their demand for justice and fair play and personal space was a sign of weakness. ('walk it off boy' 'don't be a pussy' etc.) and they either internalized this edict (if you cant beat'em, join'em.) or they don't want her to see justice because they saw none.
Now, I've been in that situation, I know it sucks to get hurt and not be able to do anything about it. But I'm not going to let that corrupt my idea of ethics. Here is the foundation of all ethics, you do not act in a fashion which causes a net drop in human happiness. Now some long term happiness requires an investment of short term happiness, such as building a deck, or saving your money, but thats not a drop so much as a lack of rise, which is a whole other essay.
I have a series of questions for those who thinks this woman is weak. Would a hand full of talcum powder be any better? How about a hand full of change? At what density does it become assault?
The point is, legally, we've drawn the line at intentional contact. You're not supposed to strike another person against their will. If you don't like it, bitch at the law, not this woman.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Perspective and Suicide.
I’m nearly suicidal just now. Nearly. I’d never kill myself willingly, for the record.
I’m a healthy, well fed, non-homeless, American, white, male, with no real enemies, no rent, and no mortgage. I don’t even have a car payment, since I don’t have a car. And yet if it were not for my parents I’d totally 12 gauge myself, I wouldn’t even have to use my toes. (I’m 6’5” long arms.)
Now I recently lost my best friend. Not to cancer or a car wreck, but just a stupid girl. Why does this bother me so much? No one died. It’s not the end of the world, hell as far as things go it’s not even really a thing at all. I found out that I really didn’t know him. And he apparently really didn’t know me. Other than my parents I spent more time with this person than I did with any other human. And still no real lasting connection was made. What does this say about us as a species?
The reason this bothers me so much, so deeply and fundamentally is that it did not occur in a vacuum. This was not ‘our’ fault exclusively. This event and my emotional reaction to it are both indicative severe external social problems. One being monogamy, which I won’t get into here because that's a whole other paper. But generally things like pride, fear, insecurity, ignorance, oblivity.
There are two types of reasons for suicide. Intellectual and emotional.
My intellectual problem is this. I've spent my whole life trying to be kind. I've always had a deep desire to please. And on the whole society’s reaction to me has been poor. Every time I've gotten angry or greedy and acted impulsively because of it, I've prospered. Every time I've been kind and gentle or compassionate I've been harmed. My recent problem stems directly from two acts of kindness. I’m not here to talk smack so I won’t provide details. I would just like to comment on the commonalty here. We all know the phrase no good deed goes un punished, usually uttered as an ironic refrain. But really, what if that actually is the case?
What if reality doesn’t want us to be good to each other? Or at least has manifested in such a way that doing good results in a net drop in global pleasure. Strictly speaking part of what defines a good act is cost, so at least technically speaking, good acts are all punished instantly at least once. I’m beginning to think it is this way universally and here we have the root of my intellectual reasons for wanting to non-exist. If my choice is to be a torturous bastard, or to be a miserable one, I’d rather not play the game. It’s that simple.
Emotionally my problem is this. I’m suffering and I shouldn’t. Not as in I don’t deserve it (which I don’t) but like I explained in the first part of this essay my life is awesome, especially compared to the average inhabitant of this little dirtball. If all that doesn’t make me happy, what will? Sure I could go the Buddhist route and try to eliminate want, but that's not really a solution is it, that's like cutting your hands off to avoid arthritis. I mean isn’t merely not suffering the same as being dead? If I’m gunna end up dead I don't need to waste a couple decades praying first.
The meat is flawed. I have many things that brought me great pleasure when I acquired them but that pleasure faded with time. However I also have many memories which hurt me, and some are over 15 years old, and they still hurt me as much as they did. This is not right. If we don’t open ourselves up to the responsibility of physically changing our brains so that this is not the case, it’s going to become abundantly clear that there is no point in even trying to exist.
Either that or we should all live like Mongol invaders and really embrace Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
I wish someone could give me hope beyond a distant transhumanist future. But if my best friends won’t why would any of you?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Science vs Religion: The Needless War.
People who have actually read some of my work may find me repeating myself on certain topics, but thats only because I can't remember where i put every little concept.
So here's some crap that may or may not be new.
Basically my point here is that while religion discovered early the power of hiding facts, science kind of stepped over it in smug oblivity. - And yes, I'm aware thats 'not a word', yet. don't complain, you're lucky I even attempt to use your spelling. -
Like most of the horrors of religion, I don't think it's so much a willful thing as tradition and stagnation of psychological inertia. But the end result is the same, the modern scientific community has way too much in common with the early church.
Here's what I had to say in my essay "The Lab Coat Effect"
One reason for this similarity is deceptively simple. Science is beginning to try and answer religion's question, and vice versa.
Science answers how, and religion answers why. If someone can give me an example of "how" and "why" being asked about the same thing and both giving the same answer, I really wanna hear it.
The two should never overlap. But they are both fundamentally important. the problem is merely execution. They recognize each others power and are baffled by each other, and thus they fear each other. And if there is anything we primates know about it's fear. I really think that this is pretty much what he was talking about when he said...
If they could just grasp that How and Why are both necessary, and stick to each side there would be no need to fight. And in fact maybe they could help each other. I'll add more to this later I think.
So here's some crap that may or may not be new.
Basically my point here is that while religion discovered early the power of hiding facts, science kind of stepped over it in smug oblivity. - And yes, I'm aware thats 'not a word', yet. don't complain, you're lucky I even attempt to use your spelling. -
Like most of the horrors of religion, I don't think it's so much a willful thing as tradition and stagnation of psychological inertia. But the end result is the same, the modern scientific community has way too much in common with the early church.
Here's what I had to say in my essay "The Lab Coat Effect"
It's a startling fact that science today has many similarities with the early church. Allow me to elaborate. Let’s compare a modern day orthodox scientist and a priest of the early church. They both have a body of text that is incomprehensible to the layman, both texts are unreadable without special linguistic training, both profess to understand what's in that body of text better than the layman could, both profess that the text is extremely important and reveals the nature of reality to one degree or another, both throw up barriers to the acquisition or translation of the text for lay examination, both are caustic of any work not approved by their orthodox ruling bodies and councils, and perhaps most importantly people take their word on things because of title without having to see evidence, seeing a pattern here?
Using Latin and lingo in an era of instant translation is simply to keep the layman out more than anything.
One reason for this similarity is deceptively simple. Science is beginning to try and answer religion's question, and vice versa.
Science answers how, and religion answers why. If someone can give me an example of "how" and "why" being asked about the same thing and both giving the same answer, I really wanna hear it.
The two should never overlap. But they are both fundamentally important. the problem is merely execution. They recognize each others power and are baffled by each other, and thus they fear each other. And if there is anything we primates know about it's fear. I really think that this is pretty much what he was talking about when he said...
- Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
If they could just grasp that How and Why are both necessary, and stick to each side there would be no need to fight. And in fact maybe they could help each other. I'll add more to this later I think.
Monogamy in the human and animal world.
A friend of mine raised some common and valid counterpoints to my previous essay located here...
http://innomen.blogspot.com/2007/12/materials-economy-and-monogamy.html
I run across these arguments and variations of them frequently. So many in fact that rather than reply in a second comment I felt it deserved its own post.
"I think that monogamy and the "traditional" small family unit consisting of two parents and their offspring is older than corporations or the church…"
Well yes, in the strictest technical sense, but as far as societies go we’ve generally been small tribal units since before we were even homosapien. Besides you’re mixing topics. The nuclear family is monogamous traditionally, but that does not mean all monogamists are in a nuclear family. For example, a monogamous pair can also live with grandparents and grand children, thus making them monogamous but non-nuclear. But I’ll try to muddle through.
“… and yes while both of those institutions may try to benefit from the drive that some people have to pursue that life, it's not as if they invented it or have to brainwash people to sustain it.”
Actually, yea they do. First of all the nuclear family is in the minority. The term wasn’t even invented until 1947. The links below suggest otherwise. The picture painted for us is that monogamy is normal. If normal is the majority, then it isn’t.
According to http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-421619/nuclear-family
The emergence of the human nuclear family has been a particularly knotty problem for Western evolutionary theorists. Like bonobos and chimpanzees, people probably are fundamentally promiscuous, though such mating behaviour is heavily proscribed by the cultures into which individuals are born and reside…
And then there is… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Monogamy
Zoologists and biologists now have solid evidence that monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offspring regularly engage in sexual activities with extra-pair partners[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This includes previous exemplars such as swans and (depending upon circumstances) wolves. Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with an extra-pair male partner.[4][5][17][18] These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:
And then there is… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Animals
Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of birds engaging in social monogamy but only 3 percent of mammals engaging in social monogamy. The incidence of sexual monogamy appears quite rare in the animal kingdom. It is becoming clear that even animals that are socially monogamous engage in extra-pair copulations.[1]
So the argument can easily be made that monogamy is not natural for other animals.
According to… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family
“Generally, the trend to shift from extended to nuclear family structures has been supported by the spread of western values.”
The impact of monogamy on the formation of the psyche was not anticipated, but was later exploited. The origins of monogamy were quite simply and directly related to control. Men wanting to own women without the hassle of having to beat off competitors daily. It’s a complex collusion between the class specialists born as a result of agriculture. The warrior, the priest, the farmer.
While we are programmed to share to an extent we are also programmed to survive, and in times of actual sexual scarcity (not the artificial one we live in today) it made evolutionary sense to try and lock down a single mate for a variety of reasons, all of which were practical.
Those reasons today have all been obviated by advanced industry, agriculture, and medical technologies.
I mean come on, the word ‘obey’ is part of traditional marriage vows for women, doesn’t that tell you something?
“Just look to the animal kingdom for proof that the monogamous lifestyle is not a sinister invention of evil men; while the whole of the animal kingdom is sparse on species that practice it, it is there...”
As stated above no species is truly monogamous. So rather than trying to justify the practice by looking at all other species, which include such grand examples as fish which latch on, and the black widow, let’s look at humans. Humans are quasi monogamous at best, I’ll grant that much. But, I think you can agree that just because you can find an example of something in nature does not mean it’s a good idea. Rape is natural for example and a big part of our evolutionary past, but that’s not to say it’s a good thing.
“Yes, there probably are many more benefits to living in a commune, but i don't think that means that monogamy is evil, a means to slavery, or should be abolished. “
False dichotomy, a commune is not the opposite of monogamy. I’m not suggesting life in a commune, or even free love, as a commune is socialist in nature. I’m an anarchist. I would like to see infrastructure itself dissolve. I don’t want to live as an ant in a colony I want to live as a free thinking independent organism that has the option (but not the requirement) of interacting with others who are equally free and independent. I'm not saying everyone should have access to anyone they please, I'm simply saying that the option should be there should all parties be in agreement. Saying that "ok then well I don't want my wife to sleep with other people" is circular as that is the ownership attitude that does so much of the harm relating too and encouraged by monogamy. A more valid disagreement would be something along the lines of "I don't trust that guy, he might have a condition and be lying about it."
Secondly I’m not suggesting that monogamy be outlawed I’m suggesting that alternatives be legalized both officially and socially. Polygamy is so misunderstood that modern rational practitioners had to develop a new word (polyamory). Polygamy should not instantly mean David Koresh or psychotic pedophile Mormons or Moonies. It should not mean perversion. It should not be assumed that if I want to share my mate, or share someone else’s mate I’m a loser who can’t get one on his own or a freak. Maybe spending my life with one person is just as depressing for me as spending it alone. At least alone I have a greater degree of freedom.
“It's merely another lifestyle choice…”
But, as above, if the choice is between solitude, ridicule, or monogamy, is that really a choice?
“..we got in this monogamous society because it works for people, not all people, granted, but most of us do want to share our lives and ourselves with one person on a more intimate level than a large family group can sustain. “
Another false dichotomy, intimacy is not linked to exclusivity(or sexuality for that matter). I suppose you can’t be truly close with 40 people for purely logistical reasons, but any good parent with multiple children will tell you that extreme closeness and intimacy are possible with more than one person.
“I guess all I'm saying is, it's not as evil as you think it is...yeah it's been exploited, yes ads and churches try to cash in on it, but only because it's THE biggest demographic on the planet.”
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygamy_worldwide...
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[5]
Controlling people with sexual tension is very effective, but it never lasts, eventually we discover that we don’t need anyone’s permission. This is the lesson I try to teach. The state should not be involved with who I love and who loves me.
“In closing, monogamy is not a perfect system, with plenty of downsides for sure, but from my perspective it's not an ultimate evil that needs to be done away with.”
Again I’m not saying outlaw it, that’s absurd. I’m saying truly allow alternatives, and the market will take care of the rest.
For the record, the legislative changes I would suggest are as follows…
1. Allow people to marry anyone who will say yes, or remove marriage.
2. Allow the sale of sex between persons just as we allow the sale of back massages.
3. Annihilate all tax or insurance impact of marriage.
If you really love your spouse you don’t need a bribe, and conversely I should not be punished because I choose not to engage in a system which is effectively against my religion.
It is the ultimate evil in the sense that efforts to force us to choose monogamy and the resulting social changes stemming from successes in that area can be shown to be the root of most American social problems.
In fact I’ll make a general claim now that monogamy can be traced back as at least contributory to most any social problem.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Materials Economy and Monogamy.
Many of the people that speak with me often or read my work, know how I feel about monogamy.
In my view monogamy is one of the most atrocious civil systems ever devised. And I'm on a passive crusade to eliminate it. Now, I don't go around spotting couples and yelling at them, or try to break up marriages.
I go with the flow. I try to make people realize just what it is they are signing up for and the damage it can do. I try to empower both men and women so that they can be happy with each other as equals, and thus fail to need state and corporate reassurance that their mate actually loves them.
Single people working as close friends, are the political and economic equivalent of a polyamorist society. So basically my approach is to discourage people from joining relationships. This does not mean the life of a monk, it merely means life without regard for what the state the church or the government has to say about the status of your intimate relationships, and a whole sale rejection of the idea that in order that one be valuable, he or she must have a single 'mate'. This does not mean do not have children, it just means that there is nothing wrong with being a single parent with a lot of friends.
I seek to empower people.
Monogamy at its core is the idea that a relationship between one human and another must be regulated and sanctioned by both the state and the corporation, and neither of these groups will ever sanction third party or more family units. Now, the state's involvement is pretty obvious, they issue marriage licenses, they issue tax breaks, they handle divorce proceedings and impose limits on when and how a person can get married, always to only one person.
But it doesn’t come close to ending there. The corporation gets in on the action by using the media to tell everyone things like “if your husband loved you he’d buy a diamond” or “if your girlfriend loved you, she’d cook with Kraft cheese”. And they are getting ever more invasive. Think of the insidious nature of “choosy moms choose Jiff” the implication being that if you buy Skippy, you’re a lousy mother.
What does this have to do with monogamy and the materials economy? Well, all of these advertisements have background. Very rarely is a commercial these days merely a notice of product on a plain background. Typically they present the product in some sort of context, and as any student of logic knows, context alters meaning. The context most commonly chosen to hock a product, is the nuclear family context. Because that is the most profitable for outside parties.
Now, I ask you, if you were a corporation, a non human immortal entity with no ability to feel pain or compassion, and the function of your existence was to take money, and you had the ability to control how Americans perceive what a family is, would you? The smart answer is another question. Does the structure of family have an impact on how much money I will spend? Yes, yes it does. And here we get into the meat of this post. The most profitable type of family unit, is a monogamous one. I’ll bet you had never even considered other types. That’s not surprising. Corporations, government, and religion have conspired for centuries to convince you of one simple idea, monogamy is the only way. But the fact is, many cultures enjoy extended families, and do so for economic reasons as well as emotional and cultural ones.
The economic reasons are the focus of this essay. A corporation wants to sell as many products per person as they can. So I ask you, which group would buy more toasters, 10 people living together, or ten people living in units of two? I lived with 6 people once, and we only had the one toaster. It worked out fine. Why? Because we shared it. Also, when it came time to buy new appliances we could have all chipped in, and ended up with the best of the best. This is bad for corporations as they do best selling tons of cheap fragile products, compared to selling one durable product.
This is why the corporations want monogamy around. Because so long as we pair off, we’ll buy more, buy cheaply, and complain less. Pooling resources means more power. Corporations have known this since birth. In fact a company is based on this idea. The simple non-zero sum game where by two people working together produce more than three people working separately, is the very foundation of tribalism. It is a the human expression of a fundamental fact of nature, so much so that multi cellular life is the result. Two cells working together produce more than three working apart.
They want us separate, they want us alone, so that they can exploit us, and continue to exploit the planet.
And their chief tool is monogamy.
First Post
This is my first post on what I would consider a pure blog.
I will try to limit my content here to things of sociopolitical and philosophical interest, content published with the goal of publishing it in written form in the next revision of The Book.
This blog in intended to be a reference point for my positions. And a public outlet for my writing.
I may post the individual chapters from my book here.
I am the first and only Cryptarian.
I hope I can help.
I will try to limit my content here to things of sociopolitical and philosophical interest, content published with the goal of publishing it in written form in the next revision of The Book.
This blog in intended to be a reference point for my positions. And a public outlet for my writing.
I may post the individual chapters from my book here.
I am the first and only Cryptarian.
I hope I can help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)