masterpdg
Posts: 50
Joined: 5/20/2010
Status: offline
|
I shall try again since it seems I’ve been missed and people are even saying they wish I would respond to certain comments (this young lady will deny missing me as she denied being angry, but that is okay and is even kind of cute).
As I am employed and have a wonderful wife and highly demanding twelve week old Labrador, so I think it only fair to expect that I really cannot keep this up in perpetuity. Nevertheless, I shall at least attempt to address some of the more recent comments that my humble opinions on monogamy stirred up.
Most of you have missed my true sin and to some extent the true sin of polygamy although some came close. The name I should be called is ‘elitist’ (Someone actually called me a redneck early on, a redneck, I mean really I have a terminal degree, have studied Greek and Latin, have thought three different subjects at the college level, attend theater, am an atheist, am basically socialist, can make a bow tie, eaten at Taillevant, (before it lost its third star), am married to a professor, I cook, am writing a play…etc, I mean really, redneck…..calling me gay would at least be understandable as I can dress myself and have no problem decorating a room without professional help) . Polygamous societies generally share this sin and result in the most desirable men having multiple wives and the less so going without. For this reason I am completely against polygamy replacing monogamy as the dominant cultural paradigm. Completely!
As to elitism I plead guilty although in truth I view it as a virtue more than vice (although it has elements of both). Perceptive readers understand that I am referring to this lifestyle as practiced at the most profound levels where ownership becomes real, trust absolute and love overwhelming. I do not think everyone should do things my way; indeed, I can not think of a worse idea. One young lady wrote that I think all men are capable of running a poly household. I don’t think 1% of men are capable of that. I don’t think most (or even more that 10%) men are capable of owning one woman. Much as I would love to be a male supremacist, the empirical evidence is most uncooperative (I shall comment more on this in regard to the demographic argument although the philosopher in me enjoys more the theoretical discussion). So yes, I do think that a relationship without any limits is superior in the amount of love, trust, eroticism and pleasure it generates when done well and that a woman who serves her man without conditions has a purer service. I do not know why this opinion generates so much venom, but I think I have a right to it and I think when thought about seriously, it becomes apparent that the lack of limits must generate a greater amount of trust.
The significant numbers of women who think that because there are more opinions against me than for me somehow decides an argument are just silly although silly in an instructive way. Most Americans do not believe that humans evolved from primates, but I am fairly sure that has little to do with whether we did. Democracy has its limits. This, of course, is the second most common logical error on this site; the first is the idea a specific example disproves a general rule (but this is rampant everywhere). I hope you all understand that monogamy has been the hegemonic cultural paradigm of the West in matters of sexual relationships for over a millennium; I fully expected to be outnumbered. Although I was a bit surprised by the venom, but that is often a resort of those without arguments and this idea has been drilled into women’s (and men’s) heads from the first fairly tale to the most recent popular culture.
Most surprising to me personally is the desire for a lack on honesty as to men’s (and some women’s) natures regarding this subject and the undercurrent that seems to indicate woman would rather their men cheat in the vulgar manner than be open about their nature (yes, I know women would mostly rather men not desire other women at all, but that really does not work well, in most cases). In a lifestyle based upon trust, I cannot hold any virtue higher than honesty and most men have always believed and been told sweet lies are more effective than truth, I can not live that way especially in this lifestyle as I think it dangerous.
I wish to address the demographic argument a bit because as the careful reader is picking up it is connected to this elitist analysis. I am surprised jamie that you were so blithely dismissive of the demographic argument as it contains at least some truth an augers poorly for the future of these types of relationships in our nation. I mentioned that men single in their late thirties or forties may have achieved that status through at least some fault of their own (no idea why that is controversial) and some indicated that they rather be single than settle. I do operate from the assumption that most people on here would rather not be alone and I think most people would rather that. So while that is a very brave statement, it is often an unexamined one. (I will not even get into the irony inherent in the site’s name, an object that signifies de jure slavery or animal ownership). Even in vanilla dating circles, it is extremely difficult for professional or academic women who are single in middle age to find men who interest them and desire them (and some of these girls are quite good looking). Men are easily intimated by intelligent women and I see this trend getting worse. I mentioned before that the empirical evidence makes it impossible to be a male supremacist. In fact, in the generation following mine, I would say (it is a generalization people), that the women are usually smarter, more put together, eloquent and generally more component (I think those of us who teach young adults see this daily). Thus a submissive women, who generally looks for a man ‘above’ her has an even more difficult time. The generation of American men following mine will be less educated and financially stable than the preceding generations and women will have an even harder time and for submissive women that difficulty will be augmented.
I must thank lockit for writing me a story; that was sweet. Of course, arguments through metaphors are difficult to respond to. Nevertheless since you wrote eloquently of the fillies destroying me, I will close with another story of cultural frenzy. Perhaps you know of Penthius in Euripides’ Bacchae. Yes my admitted arrogance may have resulted in the frenzy of tearing me apart, but you may find at the conclusion that you have destroyed that which you hold most dear.
Although, I feel strangely fine and enjoyed this.
My best to all for all we have is solidarity,
Patrick
P.S.
Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the national disgrace that followed. Please remember these people and do not forget that this is an ongoing crisis to one of our truly great cities.
On a happier note yesterday was the Emmy awards. If you get the chance to see Lea Michele on Broadway (after Glee who knows), do so. I thought she was great as little girl in Fiddler and was so impressed by her in Spring Awakening, where she was fucked, whipped, heartbroken, and killed in a non-professional abortion, but still slighted by the Tony committee.
|
RE: Monogamy Agonistes - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread