Previous post
Next post
The cultural breakdown by liberals continues. This time, it’s Newsweek writer Jenny Block. For liberals, personal responsibility is an antequated concept. Personal gratification for them comes before just about anything else, particularly when it comes to sex. Their mantra is if it feels good, just do it, and deal with the consequences later. It’s outrageous to suggest that a liberal exert some willpower and actually attempt to control themselves, and so it’s no wonder that we have the following article attacking monogamy.
I’m not saying the cheating is OK. I’m saying it shouldn’t be a surprise. I was a cheater myself once. Three years into my marriage, I had an affair. She was blonde and freckled and made me blush. Yes, she was a girl—but that was beside the point; I’d been open about my bisexuality for years. My husband, meanwhile, was crushed when I told him—and I hated myself for not being strong enough to say no. I figured surely this must have meant I’d married Mr. Wrong: why else would I have the desire to step out?
As it turns out, desire is exactly what’s at issue here. Human beings desire variety. We desire multiple partners. It’s a simple fact that’s built into our biology. And while some choose monogamy simply because it feels right, I think many more of us choose it because we think it’s what we’re supposed to do. You don’t want to end up an old maid or a lonely bachelor, do you?
Monogamy just isn’t always realistic. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that. It simply doesn’t work for some. And just as people choose different religions, eating habits, and places to call home, I believe we should be able to choose different ways to live out our relationships.
Several years after my affair, my husband and I jointly decided that monogamy just wasn’t for us. We love each other and want to be together, but monogamy is not the cornerstone of our partnership—trust is. So we decided to open up our relationship to other people.
First we both dated the same woman. Then my husband dated her and I saw other people. And then they broke up and I dabbled until I met a woman who, like my husband, I cannot imagine being without. And so now it’s her and me and him and me, and we are all fabulous friends. Everyone gets their needs met. No one feels left out or guilty, and the only time any of us questions our lifestyle is when we let those Disney movies come creeping back into our heads.
Let me be very clear here: I have no problem with monogamy. I think conscious, honest, true monogamy can be a wonderful thing. What should not be tolerated is hypocrisy—and that’s where Tiger’s vow of marriage got him into trouble. If you want to be monogamous, great—but don’t think you can claim it while you sleep around. It’s not fair and, quite frankly, it’s exhausting.
It never occurs to Block that just because something comes natural to someone, it doesn’t mean they should just indulge themselves. Peeing comes naturally to me, too, but I don’t just let it loose whenever I feel the urge to go and wet my pants. Some may say that there’s a “difference” somehow, but when you lower sex to just another animal instinct, then what difference is there really? What Jenny Block, and liberals like her, are basically arguing is that people have the instinct to be with as many people as possible and therefore will cheat, whether you like it or not — and this is why polygamy is apparently the answer. So what’s the difference between screwing someone just because you want to… and taking a dump in the middle of the sidewalk, just because you want to? There is no real difference. This argument lowers humans to the level of animals.
Cheating is repugnant, of course, but saying that a couple should just be polygamous to solve the cheating issue is ridiculous. Of course, the idea of actually controlling oneself instead of just giving in to your every urge and whim could never work, could it? Just change your morality and whenever that doubt comes creeping into the back of your mind (as Block mentions with the Disney movies) just ignore it. Rather than actually put in the work to have a healthy, loving, strong marriage, just fake one. A real marriage, of course, takes work — and heaven forbid a liberal actually works for something. Just dabbling in polygamy because monogamy is too darn hard is not enlightened or something to brag about.
Yes, monogamy doesn’t come natural to humans. However, that doesn’t weaken it. That strengthens it. When it comes down to it, it all boils down to making a choice. Just having an open marriage means you get to avoid that choice. Convenient, isn’t it? Open marriages may be honest, but they require no strength, no sacrifice, and no real test of love. Everyone is free to choose to do whatever they want to do with their own lives, but what Jenny Block is advocating is certainly not healthy and it’s not something that should be recommended as a good thing.
Besides, if you’re going to have an open marriage, why even bother getting married at all?
Hat Tip: Newsbusters
I think conscious, honest, true monogamy can be a wonderful thing. What should not be tolerated is hypocrisy…
Doing whatever you want is a wonderful thing as long as it’s conscious, honest and true. What should not be tolerated is growing a pair and telling people they shouldn’t be doing stuff.
Funny thing about liberals and the “H” word. They use it as a catch-all to describe those un-fun people trying to tell them not to do stuff. The inherent contradiction that is supposed to be a vital ingredient to real hypocrisy, has nothing to do with it. It’s fun to ask these cultural-libs if it’s possible for anyone to tell them not to do stuff, without being a hypocrite. It isn’t; so real “hypocrisy” is not what they mean. They’re re-defining the term.
They’re just people who’ve never been told “No” about anything, until after they came-of-age and figured they aren’t supposed to be told no about anything.
Steve says: Real strong faithful marriage is about sevral things
1. Creating a safe, stable, private place to express yourself in those ways you cannot to the wider population, sexual or otherwise
2. Contract Obligation:
Liberals will destroy this country by making all contracts worth exactly nothing. Walk away from any contract at any time.
3. Liberals have attempted to make Divorce an excuse to behave like vindictive spoiled children. Just watch how most divorces play out
4. Compromise is the most important lesson of marriage and many liberals especially radical feminists want none of it. They want to speak of it and pretend they do it but not actually follow through
CaptDMO says: “Besides, if you’re going to have an open marriage, why even bother getting married at all?”
Or at LEAST start it with an iron-clad custody/Pre-nup . Lest the whole point of marriage be further eroded into what imagined “RIGHTS” are bestowed in “family” court, and how much a lawyer can glean from a prompted “contention”.
No sign? No wine, no dine, no blood line!
Capt,
Even strong pre-nups can be overturned in court. People have turned marriage these days into such a joke that I seriously wonder at times if we’ll ever get back to normal (yes, I did use the “n” word).
Stephen J. says: “Funny thing about liberals and the “H” word. They use it as a catch-all to describe those un-fun people trying to tell them not to do stuff.”
In all fairness, what they’re really objecting to is not un-fun people who tell them what not to do. It’s the un-fun people who tell them what not to do and then turn around and do that thing themselves. Which is a problem.
That said, I do find it ironic that people can think “I can trust you not to sleep with anyone else” is an unrealistic demand, but yet somehow think “I can trust you not to fall for any of your other sexual partners” is a perfectly reasonable one. The same people who blithely admit, “The heart wants what it wants,” are always the ones most bitterly crushed when a heart turns out to want someone else more than them. I’d be interested to see how many “open” marriages fall apart when one partner decides they do want fidelity after all — just not with the person they first married.
I also can’t help but notice that Block doesn’t talk about children at all. If people can’t be expected to handle the commitment of monogamy, what the heck does that say about our ability to be parents?
JC says: La Rochefoucauld: “Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue”.
One can only be accused of hypocrisy if one has standards. Those without standards feel free to accuse those of us (sinners all) who fall short of perfection of hypocrisy.
Therefore, the amoral are morally superior to the moral, as hypocrisy is the supreme vice.
(‘Splodey head)
This post is one giant straw man. You’re attacking a position which never existed. Try re-reading the article: the author does not propose that people should be polygamous simply because they want to have sex with other people. Sometimes monogamy does not work; if everyone involved is satisfied with the polygamous relationship, then there is nothing wrong with it.
“So what’s the difference between screwing someone just because you want to… and taking a dump in the middle of the sidewalk, just because you want to?”
There is a huge difference. Well, first of all, it’s not about screwing someone just because you want to. It’s about two people who are not married to each other and both want to have sex, and have the consent of their spouses. Everyone involved accepts it. (If everyone involved does not accept it, then yes, it is wrong. But that’s not what the author was talking about.) When you take a dump in the middle of the sidewalk, though, not everyone is happy with that. People have to walk past it. It makes people feel uncomfortable. And these people were not willingly involved — they are being forced to tolerate your disrespect of their wishes, namely the wish for there not to be crap on the sidewalk.
One situation is one in which all participating parties are satisfied. The other is one where one person is satisfied at the expense of everyone else. I do hope that you can see the difference.
7 Comments