Psychologist Christopher Ryan is out to defeat an archetypal figure in the mythology of monogamy. No, not prince charming; he's after the widespread belief in a prehistoric hunter who would slay an antelope on the plains and heroically haul it back to his nuclear family.
You might wonder what this has to do with monogamy. Well, Ryan argues that in actuality the meat would have been shared with the entire tribe, because pre-agricultural societies shared everything -- including sex. This is a key point he and co-author/wife Cacilda Jethá make in "Sex at Dawn," which was released last year in hardcover and this month in paperback. Our hunting and gathering ancestors were nonmonogamous, they argue -- the implication being that, biologically speaking, sexual exclusivity is unnatural.
The book challenges much of the previously accepted wisdom about the sex lives of our ancestors, although the authors admit they haven't exactly proved their case. Regardless, they have gained praise and admiration from sexual radicals like sex columnist Dan Savage. (Tracy Clark-Flory, “Is monogomy like vegetarianism?, Salon, 30 July 2011)
What's with these articles, anyway?
I wasn't aware that there was either a massive polygamous movement or a massive backlash against a polygamous movement, one or the other of which would be necessary to explain Salon's recent fascination with the subject. It's like seeing a week of arguments about debating the benefits of locomotion by somersault, or making homemade cheese, or something else unusual -- one article is mildly interesting, two might be justified in the interests of balance, but unless someone really missed a chance to clinch their argument, three or more articles suggests an editor with a fixation, rather than a strong interest among the public. (The Vicar)
@Vicar: what's with these articles? LOL!
Well, it's this, Vicar. Salon (and other lefty publications) are on a major, BIG push to destroy traditional marriage. Gay marriage is the biggest, but not the only, weapon in their arsenal.
They intend to first legalize gay marriages, which effectively redefines marriage COMPLETELY into a "super duper best friends with benefits" relationship. As most gays do not practice sexual fidelity (not all, of course, but most), that pretty much takes a big chunk of the CONCEPT of sexual fidelity being at least a GOAL of marriage and drop kicks it.
Then promptly after redefining marriage, they legalize polygamy (see: Canada, The Netherlands) and then incest marriage (see: Germany, Switzerland). I'm sure there is some barking about legalizing bestiality marriage somewhere too. And NAMBLA must be gloating and rubbing their hands together with glee. Consent laws? they just keep LOVING PEOPLE apart, like Mary Kay Le Tourneau and her 8th grade boyfriend.
The reason for the timing of this series is A. the recent blackmailing and coercion of New York State legislators to "legalize" gay marriage against the will of the voters in that state and B. the big interview with sex columnist Dan Savage in the New York Times, which promoted his idea of being "monogamish" -- committed to one partner, raising children with that partner but in no way sexually faithful to that partner.
It's the ultimate in New Age urban-hipster memes -- change marriage, because a small group of lefty liberals don't like marriage the way it is. Boo hoo hoo.
And yes, Tracy has a fixation. She has two overwhelming emotional issues, right now. One is her poor mother is very ill; a terrible thing for which I have great sympathy (but one which brings up all kinds of memories of your childhood, your upbringing, your parents when young, your parents marriage).
The other is she is growing up -- about 26 or 27 I think -- and wants to get married (having your mom be so ill is a powerful driving emotion to have your own child), and there is no suitable guy around. Or there IS a suitable guy, but he's an S.F. urban hipster, and he likes Tracy well enough, but not enough to promise her sexual fidelity. Should she accept him on his own terms? Maybe if there is some meme or paradigm, some book or trend! one that tells you that monogamish marriages work, or that polyamory is right, or that monogamy is silly and stupid anyways, and bonobos aren't monogamous -- right? then you can justify what you want to do anyways.
SO that's why we've had this (pretty useless) series. (_bigguns)
@Laurel...
Well, it's this, Vicar. Salon (and other lefty publications) are on a major, BIG push to destroy traditional marriage. Gay marriage is the biggest, but not the only, weapon in their arsenal.
It has nothing to do with "destroying traditional marriage", whatever that means. Pushing for gay marriage has more to do with fairness. It's unfair that gay people don't have the same right to be married just as straight people do. And WHO CARES that the some laws may need to be changed, the marriage law has already been changed dozens of times in the last 100 years. This is just another one of the changes. Get used to it. Less and less people are having any problem with gay marriage these days.
But as long as you can keep your fantasy that this has anything to do with "destroying" something (how very constructive of you), then you can feel noble and good about your intentions, as if you're the "protector" of something sacred, and that "they" are your sworn "enemies" and "they" need to be "defeated", as if this has anything to do with triumph and defeat, or winning and losing.
Then promptly after redefining marriage, they legalize polygamy (see: Canada, The Netherlands) and then incest marriage (see: Germany, Switzerland). I'm sure there is some barking about legalizing bestiality marriage somewhere too.
Except that animals can't give consent. Face palm. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it's wrong. If you do, then you should at least state LEGITIMATE reasons why. (Astronomy)
@Astronomy
Of course it does. Redefining marriage is a big step towards destroying it. (Undoubtedly legal polygamy, incest marriage and bestiality will finish up the job.)
Pushing for gay marriage has everything to do with the "lefty liberal paradigm" plus a HUGE grab for power, in the face of increasing right wing power (Tea Party, etc.). Instead of fighting for single payer health care, or a public option, or protesting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the left has chosen instead to throw its entire weight, its control of media outlets and its money (much of it, interestingly, from WALL STREET -- guess the Kochs are just fine when they back your paradigm!) into legalizing gay marriage.
Marriage laws vary wildly from culture to culture, but they are ALWAYS about male & female. Actually, for all the mystique gays assume about marriage, the big "secret", the whole underlying structure is "male & female". That's it. The whole enchilada. Without that, it's nothing but "super duper friendship with benefits" Or even without benefits. I mean, who cares if two gay people don't have sex? They can't procreate anyways.
I think it is a huge mistake on your part (and that of Salon in general) to ASSUME that people "don't have a problem with gay marriage". I'd say they have a HUGE problem with it and the way it continues to be forced on states WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE by left social engineering courts and/or legislatures rife with corruption, blackmail and Wall Street money.
If you TRULY BELIEVE ONE WORD YOU HAVE WRITTEN HERE, then you'd be happy -- overjoyed -- to allow Americans to vote on this, in their own states, and PROVE that they "don't care if gay people get married".
I also never called anyone "my sworn enemy" and that's pure nonsense. I speak out against corruption of the legislatures of this country, against bribery and blackmail, against Wall Street money corrupting the legislative process and against "outing" people against their will. I speak out for the voters who are betrayed by the legislators they elected to carry out THEIR WILL, which is what an elected official is sworn to do -- not to re-engineer society in the image of lefty ideology.
And as far as consent: since you are such a brainiac about the history of marriage, you'd know that before the mid-19th century, CONSENT wasn't even commonplace. Many if not most marriages were ARRANGED, sometimes between CHILDREN. (But they were still legally valid, because they consisted of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.) Even today, arranged marriages are NORM between the Orthodox Jews, in Amish society, in Muslim and Indian/Hindu nations.
So the idea that consent is an absolute is pure nonsense. And frankly, I have met nutty pet lovers who would LOVE to marry their dog or cat. (Do ya think anyone might have married Leona Helmsley's dog, the one that inherited $12 million????)
It's not a matter of what "I agree with". It's a matter of what Americans want in America, which means "not what lefty judges and ideologues and bribed corrupt legislatures" want to do to us and our social customs, without a vote.
So here is my legitimate reason: I believe that marriage is a relationship between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, and that any other relationship, no matter how sincere or loving, is SOMETHING ELSE. And I don't want to be downgraded in my marriage to a "Partner A or B". And I -- and many millions of other people in 45 states -- will fight this battle for as long as it takes, to get a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. And yes, sad it has to come to that, but it is only way to render all these bogus "marriages" illegal, and permanently, so we don't have to fight this nonsense for another decade. (_bigguns)
@Astronomy
What do you exactly suppose that is supposed to be "destroyed"? You can still get married and remain married, and nothing will be changed on your part. You will still be married just as you were before.
Laurel is arguing that they can't get married anymore, because "marriage," all marriages, has/have been redefined by permitting gays to marry, as what they do is more along the lines of best friends with benefits. According to her, one of the points of marrying is to submit yourself to the power of a longstanding tradition/higher ideal that will help you remain fidelitous, true to your one partner; this, to her, no longer exists, and we can expect marriage now to be less effective in keeping married couples loyal to one another.
It's not an assumption. According to a recent Gallup poll, for the first time more than 50% of the Americans favor gay marriage. Kids these days grow up looking up to people like Lady Gaga, who is bisexual. More and more people are having less problem with homosexuality ITSELF, much less gay marriage. The times they are a-changing. I would give it another decade or so until homosexuality is completely accepted by society.
People saying they're for gay marriage may be them saying they're for easy-reach enlightenment, one more stay from focussing on un-dealt-with personal issues. That is, they may be for gay marriage in the way they are for a greener America and a black, well-spoken President: mostly because it demonstrates more that they've all got it on than that they're pretty close to falling apart. Once the Tea Partiers are dealt with, confirmed by all as public waste, and more regressive postures can be undertaken by the holy majority without making them seem akin to them -- that is, base, neanderthalic, defined by the overwhelming inner psychoses that have determined their mongoloid outward forms, and rather in an old school but encouraged way, which I think Laurel actually mostly represents -- I think all this current celebration will probably work against homosexuals. It will likely help cement them as those who danced as the bulwark of civilized society -- the moral values (ostensibly) our grandparents bound themselves to and thereby made sure to keep intact -- breaks apart. We'll see.
I am for gay marriage, btw, and a true friend of those who hope marriage gets redefined in allowing gays to marry. Only this bit about the likes of Laurel being cast permanently in shadow can be sustained in my judgment only for a short while. Obama will ultimately prove no real friend to the gay community.
Comments
Post a Comment