A short younger (5'6", 32) fella looking for a non-dramatic monogamous partner. If his mug matches his frame, you'd think guys'd be lined up. Probably not.
Monogamy is not something gay men are talented at. Or men in general. Or a lot of women, either. After all, when married men cheat, they are usually cheating with women. And are we to believe that all those girls think their new guy is single? Come on.
If God had to prioritize Ten of his many Mosaic commandments (600+), it is no accident that no-adultery was one of them.
I watched a BBC series from the late 70's on the famous actress Lillie Langtry, who was also Edward VII's mistress --and known to be so by everyone, his wife included, and honored for it. She had a lot of other fellas, too. As did he. In the upper classes of that time, the French rule seems to have applied. Private glee and public probity.
Alpha males largely become alpha males for wider access to women, and beta males wish they were alphas for precisely that reason.
And gay males, being males, function in a sexual economy lacking the reticence and hesitation-cum-wealth-assessment that females bring to the basic dynamics of heterosexuality. As I have opined before, gay men are promiscuous not because of some internal structure, but because they are not pursuing resistant women, but horny men like themselves.
Practically every male couple I have ever known has had an open relationship at some point. For some, it becomes the standard. At least for a time. For others, it just does not work. And for a number, it does not work well but they do it anyway.
One of the reasons I do not favor gay marriage is that marriage is not an institution designed for men, but for men-with-women-as-mothers. Of course there are exceptions, but were it not for the needs of child-bearing and child-rearing there would never have been the need of such a universal institution. Women need to know that they and their children will be provided for and protected by the father. The father needs to know that he is working for his own progeny and not some other guy's (and that his woman is not ruining his honor by adultery).
For gay men, who do not make children with each other, the need for monogamy is largely driven by a certain kind of emotional connection. There are indeed naturally monogamous men (see above). But for most, falling in love is its own value and that does not --eventually-- preclude sexual play (and that is what it often is) with others.
In the American context, regardless of practice, marriage precludes adultery. How many marriages break up because of it? So for gay men to marry and then carry on as they do seems to me not a good fit.
But of course the gay marriage drive is about social status and egalitarianism. And that, in our culture, trumps everything else.
The funny thing about the egalitarian compulsion is that it is a very deeply human but twisted obsession with status.
If God had to prioritize Ten of his many Mosaic commandments (600+), it is no accident that no-adultery was one of them.
I watched a BBC series from the late 70's on the famous actress Lillie Langtry, who was also Edward VII's mistress --and known to be so by everyone, his wife included, and honored for it. She had a lot of other fellas, too. As did he. In the upper classes of that time, the French rule seems to have applied. Private glee and public probity.
Alpha males largely become alpha males for wider access to women, and beta males wish they were alphas for precisely that reason.
And gay males, being males, function in a sexual economy lacking the reticence and hesitation-cum-wealth-assessment that females bring to the basic dynamics of heterosexuality. As I have opined before, gay men are promiscuous not because of some internal structure, but because they are not pursuing resistant women, but horny men like themselves.
Practically every male couple I have ever known has had an open relationship at some point. For some, it becomes the standard. At least for a time. For others, it just does not work. And for a number, it does not work well but they do it anyway.
One of the reasons I do not favor gay marriage is that marriage is not an institution designed for men, but for men-with-women-as-mothers. Of course there are exceptions, but were it not for the needs of child-bearing and child-rearing there would never have been the need of such a universal institution. Women need to know that they and their children will be provided for and protected by the father. The father needs to know that he is working for his own progeny and not some other guy's (and that his woman is not ruining his honor by adultery).
For gay men, who do not make children with each other, the need for monogamy is largely driven by a certain kind of emotional connection. There are indeed naturally monogamous men (see above). But for most, falling in love is its own value and that does not --eventually-- preclude sexual play (and that is what it often is) with others.
In the American context, regardless of practice, marriage precludes adultery. How many marriages break up because of it? So for gay men to marry and then carry on as they do seems to me not a good fit.
But of course the gay marriage drive is about social status and egalitarianism. And that, in our culture, trumps everything else.
The funny thing about the egalitarian compulsion is that it is a very deeply human but twisted obsession with status.
2 comments:
In re »Edward VII's mistress --and known to be so by everyone, his wife included, and honored for it. She had a lot of other fellas, too.« occurs to me to ask whether really the necessity of preserving lineage and thus "controlling women" has really been seen as so necessary. I mean, if it isn't all that important in royal lineage, where is it important?
If the landed gentry and even the peers of the realm and the royals have been nonchalant about these things -- the lord rather shrugs off whether his heir by his lady really is of his blood or not -- are we to believe the traditionalist tribalists that obviously preserving lineage by controlling women is simply ferociously necessary and rational.
When the stereotypical guy flips out into murderous rage to discover his wife in bed with another man, is he considering at all the threat to his lineage?
Of course Darwinians will interpret this behaviour as determined by patterns of rage that have happen'd to promote lineage (in order to shut off the Bible, we are obligated to research for evidence that guys without a rage problem are more likely to be cuckolded than normal guys; and any research isn't helpful to the Darwinian vindication of teleological randomness must go in the bin along with climate evidence that isn't Sett-led science).
But any Darwinian causes of conscious motives etc must be absent from consciousness: that's the whole point. They can be noticed only via research led by Darsplaining theory that postulates randomness in environment and sexual-selection survival patterns in descent variation.
The conscious motives etc that are accessible to conscious psychology do not suggest a primary concern with lineage when a guy flips out in rage against his cheatin' wife. Is the insult he feels to his work effort that goes into supporting genetic material that isn't his? or is the insult he feels to his own sense of needing to not be insulted?
In any case, the neo-Islam of Qutb et al supports western technology (though definitely not scientia, strictly consider'd: Plato ought not to have exposed the line of karmic causation or chain of being, from first for us to first in itself and vice versa), and paternity testing is a ready way of determining lineage.
Accordingly we needn't hand our family systems over to the rageaholics of the honour culture that mandates severe restrictions upon women and girls supposedly in order to secure paternal lineage.
But what about ordinary interpersonal respect? Doesn't simple decentness to husbands and future husbands require girls and women (even women far beyond child-bearing age) to accept purdah? But this rule emphasizes that the men and boys of such family systems are totally unloveable.
Honour culture proclaims that the men and boys of these cultures are so unloveable and the women and girls so immoral and promiscuous that morals are useless.
Strauss, Tocqueville, et al, emphasize that a dissolute societies can be ruled only by despots. Evidently dissolute family systems can be ruled only by honour culture rules (death to any girl or woman who speaks to an unrelated guy).
"Our women and girls are wholly incapable of love, and our men and boys do not inspire love! If it weren't for a total clampdown on the movements of our women and girls, none of us would have the least clue who are real fathers are!"
That's what I say. .. But Darwinians are ready to say that research proves honour culture clampdown on women and girls 'makes sense' -- although, being scientific research theorists, they can't offer a value judgement on whether honour culture is good or bad, or indeed whether Darwinian research and journalistic mediators should continue to receive funding from the system. Value judgements can occur only outside the rational, that is to say, in the irrational. And Traditionalists are ready to offer ample irrationalnesses for the sake of shutting down all this desublimation.
Honour culture violent rationality back'd up by Traditionalist irrationalness: an super combo for a great new era of greatness in the olam free from the Bible and Plato and Nietzsche!
Darwinian descriptions of the new era will foreground note that random survival of successful stuff and the ceasing of unsuccessful stuff are occurring.
Post a Comment