I was thinking of calling this post “Queering monogamy”, but maybe that falls foul of a pr0n filter or something. But I certainly want to talk about “family values”. One thing that never seems to rise to the surface when we’re told how marriage is such a vital norm in our society, etc, etc, ad infinitum (and the opposition to same sex unions really does seem to prove the truth of the old tag about compulsory heterosexuality) is any discussion of the cross-cutting pressures on long term unions - of any nature. Of course the mystique and mythos of marriage needs to be segregated from any “threats” and indeed any real examination of whether it’s a particularly suitable institution for furthering human happiness (I’m assuming here that even culture warriors don’t marry just to serve the state and society through propping up an institution they consider vital). Hence discussion about divorce rates seems to get diverted down byways about whether people are more married than they were in teh bad old days of the liberal left sixties evil or whatever.
So, I found this post from Liz Conor rather interesting.
Firstly, because this is spot on:
Monogamy is a daft idea any which way you look at it. When you put it with capitalism, it collapses under the weight of our collective work-induced exhaustion.
Actually, that’s something the Jensen brothers might agree with - an odd meeting of extremes - where both conservatives and lefties bemoan the influence of the commodification of labour on the stability of relationships, though in different language. It’s not just the exhaustion, though, but the increased mobility of labour necessary in this deregulated world of ours - and not just for the young(ish) and skilled. But Conor advances another thesis. I’m not sure I agree with her, and in many ways, I think she gives too much of a free pass to traditional (and male-centric) explanations for infidelity for this feminist’s liking. But, you know, I reckon we do need to talk more about what marriage is good for. And perhaps provocation is what it takes.
But before I get started on how monogamy is an outmoded sexual regime designed purely to guarantee the agnatic bloodlines of property holding men, who thereby have never thought themselves as accountable to the Great Sexual Contract as women - here’s another great unspoken truth about monogamy. It isn’t women who breach the contract of sexual exclusivity by failing to fulfil their marital duties, night after night feigning headaches. It is men who are crap at monogamy, and not because they notoriously park themselves in other shade, but because they have no clue how to have decent sex long term with one beloved, most of them having porked themselves silly throughout their twenties and thirties and then rolled over and gone to sleep.
Go read the rest before you put finger to keyboard.
I am monogamist to myself,I really found Liz Conor boring,because well,you read so much like that.Certainly it may be true,but how she sees how men should be in relationships is bountifully negligent.There are simple processes,I am sure for keeping and sustaining relationships,wether propertied or not,and the highly publicised of such should be let go.I think it is a fundamental error,that many indulge in, that, make people generalise from the individual to the many,and this error is operating on the many sides of these type of debates.So if you are persuaded that there are failures in relationships because of couples spitting up, this can be counter weighted by the surprise that people are still forming relationships.Well it surprises me.And minding ones own business whilst still be surprised is an art and science in itself.Humanity only really needs the support of similar for moving into unknowns..there is so much about this subject now that it is tedious,and cannot be recommended.Whatever, view one may see as clear and worthy.Must people put work before relationships and vice versa? Can be contended by other questions and answers.
Miss Kim, the concluding sentence in the excellent article states:”…is why sex can’t be about both animalistic pleasure and spiritual love,…”
Do you know which animal she had in mind?
Top article with some painfully insightful comments; “most of them having porked themselves silly throughout their twenties and thirties and then rolled over and gone to sleep” could also be read as “gotten steadily more tired of the bullshit and games through their forties and walked away from the lot of it” Ahem..
The Polyamorous Misanthrope discusses the practicalities and pitfalls of one obvious direction http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/
[Sorry in advance for the length of the comment.]
I can remember saying to a roomful of students once that the single biggest lie being foisted on all of us was that sexual desire and social organisation had anything to do with each other, so I am with Liz.
That said, you still need to be able to answer the question ‘How shall I live?’ and not pass out with fear and apprehension at the answer, either way. Because the social pressure to hook up at the hip is still quite overwhelming and I don’t just mean one’s mates asking whether one has a bloke, I mean far more insidious things like events, institutions, invitations, laws and arrangements of furniture that assume the basic social unit of the couple.
But in the meantime different messages are being sent to men and women through every possible medium, from high and popular culture to one’s mum and dad: the message to women is ‘You must get a man — just the one — and keep him forever’ and the message to blokes is ‘You must get as many women as possible and keep the turnover high.’
I was once appalled to hear the bloke in my life (himself a highly irregular arrangement), veteran of a number of all-male workplaces, say that in his experience the one thing all men agree on is that they must cover for each other’s sexual secret lives when confronted by angry, suspicious wives and girlfriends. I was reminded of this when I head an actor from The Jammed saying on the radio that in the course of her researches among the brothels of Burwood (Sydney not Melbourne) she had learned from the sex workers things that ‘men have a sort of secret life about sex’ (quotation approximate) and that the things she’d learned about it were things she desperately wished she could forget.
Kim, I agree with you about the ‘too much of a free pass’ comment. OTOH I’ve seen a number of marriages end unnecessarily over the decades because the wives were intolerant of experimentation, fantasy, porn-watching or any form of autoeroticism, which they saw as some weird kind of infidelity. This feminist has in those cases been very sympathetic to the bewildered husband. But one does truly despise the blokes who are terrified of living on their own and need the comfort and stability of domestic partnership, but aren’t prepared to help maintain said comfort and stability by keeping it in their pants. And they are always the ones who have breakdowns when the infidelity is discovered and the marriage ends.
Rob Windt, I read that link you provided. I found the following quote from it interesting. The article was written by Jenny Ford and the following is a description of her:
In her other life, she is a polyamorous, bisexual community-builder and relationships coach. She has husband, a girlfriend, a boyfriend, three children (though the teenager could count as three all on her own), and two cats.
Pyzo is going out into the paddock. He has a headache!
I’m single, and have been for years, straight, and find men distinctly unappealing sexually, and I really enjoy living by myself, and prefer not to have the distraction of a relationship and have never wanted the responsibility of children, my own or other peoples.From what I’ve observed, monogamy only works when a couple share a child, or are too old to stray.The stress of being in a relationship, and the other people you get to meet because of your partner you don’t want to meet, and frequently don’t even want to know, especially if you live according to the principle the more people you know the more trouble you get into, is just something I can’t be bothered with. And gurss what, I’m very happy with my life.
Fab piece - I’m always fascinated by our certainty that monomgamy, like so many of our other social institutions, have been & always will be the way. And the only way. I suspect that we can get a glimpse of how flimsy the premise is by glancing back at our social behaviours - both in 18th & 19th century Britain & Austral Felix, common law marriages of medium term duration were very very common. In the East End, christian missionaries, determined to save those poor souls, estimated that in 1880s, over 60% of “marriages” were common law - or de facto as we now seem to prefer.
Disease, & far more interesting ways of dying accidently account for a lot of the shortness of those marriages, common law or otherwise, but even a cursory reading of 19th century biographies reveal a very high turnover of partners. Particularly in settler societies - where social conventions were less fixed or enforced, moving in & out of relationships was much easier. Governors, officials, clergy, traders, ticket of leave all had, particularly in the first three decades of settlement an often bewildering array of partners - some legally married & many not. & nor is just the men leaving the women - Mary Reiby had numerous partners throughout her life. Relationships that read very much as having been terminated by her.
& lastly, Liz’s depiction of the everyready nymph is very interesting, but I wouldn’t negate the likelyhood that it also acts as an explicit threat to women - just remember ladies, there’s plenty of other willing consorts out there…what’s depressing is that we seem silly enough to believe it…
Marriage is for the protection of the male bloodline etc, but it’s also for the protection of women when we have children. A woman who has a baby is incredibly vulnerable financially and at least for a while, she needs someone else to pay the bills, unless she’s been very well paid and prepared beforehand. Whether that’s her husband, another woman, her parents or whatever doesn’t matter practically, but for most women in our culture it’s the father.
You can read that situation like a conservative and talk about how marriage protects women from financial ruin, or like a feminist and talk about how women take a huge financial risk to become mothers because it makes us dependent. I’m inclined to think that both are true for many women in different stages of their lives. Perhaps a bloke seems like a good risk when you’re 25 and pregnant, but when the kid’s 10 and you’ve been ‘mummy tracked’ or not working for money at all, the breakdown of the relationship has pretty far reaching consequences. Throwing your lot in together financially and then expecting that ‘investment’ to be delightful in the bedroom til the end of time seems rather stupid. Of course, how you deal with that lack of perpetual delightfulness is another matter.
Kudos to Liz Conor for discussing an important issue, but she’s mostly just guessing about men. This section, for instance, isn’t really a useful summary of the male experience:
A poster girl is just a poster girl. We don’t want to find out all about women, we want sex. We want sex from our wives. When our wives are warmly generous we associate them with sexual pleasure and fulfilment and we will most likely be content in our marriages. And whether or not a woman is sexy has little to do with how independent she is and more to do with how she looks and moves.
Robin Williams, the actor said that, “God gave all men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to run one at a time.”
Is this helpful?
“the brothels of Burwood (Sydney not Melbourne)”
I work in Burwood, Melbourne, PC, and Im glad you added the geographical rider, or I would have been very puzzled.
I can assure readers that Burwood (Melbourne) is one of the dullest, least saucy suburbs in all Christendom. Cripes, you cant even get a drink!
Sorry for the useless contribution. May think of somehting sentient to say later in the day.
I can’t agree with that at all. Work induced exhaustion? Find some other way to live, a different job. Find somewhere cheaper to live. You don’t need to be a piece of commodified labour if you don’t fall for the dumber traps of materialism.
The rest of Conor’s piece reads like someone who bought the Hollywood picture of marriage and sexuality and is very disappointed with the reality. Yep, people stray in marriages (although at least half the finger pointing should be at women who knowingly sleep with married men). Sex isn’t always fabuluous. Sometimes, married couples fight about stuff. What’s new or even insightful about that?
I’m not sure that’s so, David, and I think that’s what Kim was alluding to in the post. Consider for a moment the removal of the conditions for continued receipt of the dole that a job be within 90 minutes’ travelling time and then all the sticks that go with “welfare reform”.
although at least half the finger pointing should be at women who knowingly sleep with married men
Actually I don’t think there should be any finger pointing, just a fearless quest for truth as always. But in the situation you describe, David, said women — unlike the married men — are not the ones breaking promises or violating vows. Naturally the same is true when the genders are reversed. Sorry, but if we’re finger-pointing then I think most of the fingers go to the people who’ve gone outside their own relationships.
The degree of blame-laying also depends on who pursued whom and whether the married men pursued said women from the outset, sometimes lying or deliberately misrepresenting their situations (’My wife doesn’t understand me’ / ‘We don’t have sex any more’ / ‘We’re separated’, ‘The marriage is practically over’ etc etc — hands up any woman over 20 who’s never heard at least one of these, and then you can go back to the convent) until the woman was already in it up to her neck. So to speak.
Liz’s observation that independence in women is an aphrodisiac for men who don’t have it is something I’ve seen demonstrated many times, and it often results in the independent woman finding herself outed as the Other Woman. In this situation it is the Other Woman who then gets the blame from both the straying man and the incandescent wife, because of course if she blamed her husband then it wouldn’t be very bearable to choose to go on living with him.
Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Mark Richardson on this point. Conor demonstrates a naive misunderstanding of male psychology.
Note that Conor pictures her hypothetical independent woman as sexually attractive.
If this independent woman were ugly enough to stop a clock, no amount of independence enjoyed by her would serve any male aphrodesiacal function. Sad, but true.
The independent variable is sexual attractiveness, not independence.
The independent variable is sexual attractiveness, not independence.
Goodness, Katz, you talk as though ’sexual attractiveness’ were some measurable commodity on whose qualities we could all agree. And as though sexual attractiveness and independence were somehow mutually exclusive, whereas (again speaking anecdotally and from observation, though I don’t see how it could be otherwise) the independence is, in those situations, precisely one of the aspects of the sexual attractiveness. That was my, and I think Liz Conor’s, whole point.
And as for being ‘ugly enough to stop a clock’ (an epithet I trust you would apply equally to blokes who merit it), my experience has been that if time stands still then it’s usually for quite the opposite reason.
Pavlov’s cat wrote:
and the women who use sex within marriage as a reward/punishment system rather than as a mutual display of affection aren’t also breaking a vow? Didn’t they break the vow first?
Those are some strange men. Equally you could blame boredom, drunkenness, bed-post knotching (like Pokemon, gotta catch ‘em all) or on a more fundamental level another way of reaching for a lost connection. Men aren’t just stupid f*ck machines, and some women will do very odd things to break up stable relationships in equal proportion to men. Have a look at David Buss here.
Mark wrote:
I’m sure this is important for a small percentage of married couples, but how many marriages end up on the rocks simply due to arguments about debt? About that big house in the right suburb? About private schooling or hundreds of other things that require two-income families and the time pressures that flow from that?
Not everyone who gets married is middle class, or aspirational, David. Have a look a the income distribution by household stats from the ABS.
And if I may return the compliment, you speak as if independence had a similar objective quality. I’m sure you didn’t mean to.
Yes, we all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But we also all know that the canon of sexual attractiveness is consistent and cross-cultural.
If “independence” means that the object of potential desire does not seem to be impeded with a significant other, then yes that availablity augments attractiveness. Men are inclined not to want to have unpleasant scenes over such matters. Although, sometimes they do.
But if there is no attractiveness to augment, then regrettably the seeds of independence have been cast upon barren ground.
Do we? I don’t.
I think she is laying the blame on blokes a bit thick. Add children, fatigue, stress, housework etc to the mix and it becomes clear that it’s not just men who are dropping the ball sex wise. I also think there are a good number of men who wait patiently, help with the kids, housework etc and don’t have relations outside the marriage/partnership. It seems to me to be more a ‘this is what I do and I want it to be normalised’ attack on monogamy than anything else. No reason why it can’t co exist with monogamy, as long as it’s not my husband you are doing it with.
To pick up on Robwindt’s point about polyamory as an alternative, I have known quite a few women who strove to maintain so-called ‘open’ relationships (horrible term) and they have been extraordinarily difficult to sustain long term. ‘Serial monogomist’ seems to be a bit of an insult these days, but in my opinion, numerous relationships of varying lengths and degrees of overlap is a natural state over which we’ve imposed this daft expectation of longevity for all of the reasons Conor states. It was the church who declared marriage indissoluble until death, but in pre-christian times divorce was often quite easy (easier for the man of course but that is another discussion). This imposition has been transformed into a completely unreasonable expectation that relationships have no natural lifespan of their own but must conform to the life-span of the participants. And so when relationships show signs of age before the partners do, one or both goes looking for a reason within the behaviour or form of the other. Bernice’s point about how modern life-expectancies have changed the marriage landscape is a really important one. I think also that the expectation of fidelity within marriage was very fluid at times in the past, going through periods of relaxation and stricture depending upon the religious climate of the time.
Happy to help Mark. Wikipedia on the “Universal correlates of beauty” is a reasonable place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
I never said they didn’t, and it’s a completely different question — although FWIW I do think anyone, male or female, who regards (much less uses) sex as a commodity deserves everything s/he gets.
Excellent point. Taken.
No, it doesn’t; I was referring to a quality of mind rather than material circumstances. ‘Self-sufficiency’ or ’self-containment’ might be closer to what I meant.
No, Mark, neither do I, and I think the idea of a ‘canon of sexual attractiveness’ is in itself a bit bizarre, much less a consistent one. Personally I find that an irresistibly witty or endearing remark is what does it, and that by definition means they’re all different.
Unless you’re Tex Perkins, in which case all bets are off.
I wonder if that’s what Conor meant.
I doubt it.
And I was arguing with Conor, not PC.
However, I’d venture to add that “‘Self-sufficiency’ or ’self-containment’” are even more difficult to nail down and measure than “independence”.
Well, to state some obvious, and perhaps useless points : it seems clear that many cultures have rather lower expectations of fidelity in marriage than our Anglo-Celtic (or whatever it is ) one.
Which suggests a/ cultural variability and probably b/ status of women as one key variable.
Though the French seems to confound that with relatively empowered female infidelity - or so the impression goes.
Shorter Kim: “QUEERING monogamy?”
Kim
Oops. I see you did that in the first sentence!
Monogamy only works when both parties are as ugly as a hat full of arseholes. But even then, there is American Express; it will do nicrly, thank you. Let me loosen up your co-llar. Do you wanna see me do the shimmy again?
Liz Conor is talking clueless shite, like ALL academics who work with “Gender Studies” with no scientific training.
Shorter Culti/Gender Studies Shtick. Men are just failed women, but we little Maoist minxes can elevate them by internment in a Compulsory Deconstruction camp, where they will be force-fed Lucy Irigaray, Judith Butler, blah.
Girfriends! Get ye to some neuroscience courses before you go anywhere near the frenchie bloviators.
Greenfield wrote:
(I know, don’t feed the trolls, but…)
How would you know? Got a life time of experience to draw on?
Re JG.
I don’t think this is troll feeding. I hope not. The tenor of your comment re gender studies etc, suggests the social sciences are not qualified to study male/female etc., and presumably human relationships. Quite a few years ago there was quite a vigorous academic debate, and for all I know, there still is, about whether the humanities were entirely ot entirely science, eg (and this is only an example and not meant as a point to debate) is history science? If one was to take your position, JG, you would exclude the social sciences from the study of the bulk of human activity.Whatever the right wing troglydite culture warriors think, gender studies is a valid social study area - indeed, I can’t think of anything more satisfying to study except war and politics (which does not, incidentally exclude women.) As one of the earliest posts argued,attitudes to monogamy have changed over time and within cultures, and, even at present can’t be precisely pinned down, which is why it makes such a good debating topic.I’m not sure where your current pre-occupation with post-modern schtick fits in.
But given its playful and provocative nature, the way it bulges with stereotypes and essentialisations, its rueful hectoring full of the perceived failings of men and women, do you not also read in it a yearning for a return to that imaginative realm, a still held longing for the promised completeness of that moment? When one believed that, it, sex, love would complete one, as performed beautifully by her friend the ex nun who has married a younger man after living in a convent for 20 years and is alive with the pleasures of monogomous sex? Beneath its analysis of why monogomy fails I read an elegy for the desirous state of monogomy itself. Even in the consciousness of its disappointments she raises up its continuing seductions in the sexual and emotionaly satiated body of her friend.
“As one of the earliest posts argued,attitudes to monogamy have changed over time and within cultures, and, even at present can’t be precisely pinned down, which is why it makes such a good debating topic”
I’d agree with that,could I add that studies in gender sciences should/include Zoology,because as you know the male of the two genders will root a dog on a rusty chain,and after in depth studies at some of the finer finer drinking establishments,I have woken up in bed with the odd pig.
And John Greenfeild your comment ugly as a hat full of arse holes I found a bit offensive.I have never gone to bed with an ugly women,but I have managed to wake up with a few..
After 1200 words of foreplay, Liz comes across with the goods:
[As Jerry Seinfeld told Andrew Denton recently, marriage is an untenable situation people volunteer for.
But why do we? Because trust really is the basis of love, which is why we ‘couple’: for the love, not the sex. And in the end we love what’s going on inside each others’ heads, not each others’ pants. Sex is grouse and everyone knows it doesn’t have to be about love. But it’s also true that when sex is about love, it’s better than sex. The thing I’m asking, is why sex can’t be about both animalistic pleasure and spiritual love, in which case do we still need to be monogamous?]
In response to Liz’s last question, I suggest that it’s entirely about the relationship parameters/committments that any two individuals forge between themselves, regardless of pressure from parents or peers or state or church or corporation; just “the two of us”. Where there is trust and love between partners, there are an infinite number of solutions.
Beats the hell out of a living the life of a hypocrite.
Mark wrote:
Just when I need the link, I can’t find it, but (at least in the US) both getting married and getting divorced are predominantly middle class occupations. The poor have an increasing tendency to co-habit. Here’s a bit but it’s not the article I’m thinking of, as it largely refers to income inequality between blacks and whites in the US, not marriage or income specifically.
I still think Kim’s commentary almost entirely misses the point of long term relationships. Kim asks the question “what is marriage good for” in an almost rhetorical manner. For those people suited to marriage and long term monogamy, it’s just plain good emotionally and financially. For those who (for example) need to keep the chocolates in the top cupboard instead of on the bench, it offers a reasonable strait-jacket for the raising of kids. For some people, it’s a major mistake but who can blame them for trying?
Love can only be measured by loss, if someone is unwilling to commit, perhaps they’re also unwilling to give all of themselves.
Of course generalising about men’s or women’s sexual behaviour, preferences or motivations never works because there is infinite variation in all these at the individual level.
Nevertheless, there’re common, widely held cultural views too - if often diametically opposed.
Gaz’s, Katz’s, John Greenfield’s views about female ugliness, however each defines it, and its relation to sexual attractiveness are held and quite shamelessly voiced by many men, and not just from the safety and anonymity of the web.
But then there are many other men, of diverse cultural views and beliefs, who find such ways of speaking about women, in principle - in any context - upsetting, disgusting and abhorrent to them and would strongly disagree with the views underlying them.
In theory, I don’t feel judgemental, if that’s the right word, about men who have secret extra-marital sex, for I agree that monogamy is problematic, for all the stated reasons. And sexual possessiveness is surely a feature (whether innate or not) of passionate sexual relationships, at least for the time these last - even if for some that might amount to the length of a single sexual encounter. But the possessiveness too can outlast the personal desire for the other, which has its own complications and meanings.
And I’m sure, from personal observation and experience, there’re just as many men as women who willingly resign themselves to a marriage that is sexually unsatisfying, or not so passionately exciting as it once was - because they prioritise other important things, such as the feelings of their partner, their feelings towards them, and who view their marriages as nevertheless and otherwise happy - as there are those who seek other sexual partners as a matter of simple entitlement and undeniable need, regardless of the personal cost or dangers.
I do wonder too though, as have others, why we invest so much in “sexual happiness” in the narrow way that this has come to mean and is expressed.
Carson McCullers in “The Ballad of the Sad Cafe” told the story of the inexplicable love of Miss Amelia for her hunchback dwarf cousin, Lymon Willis, and in one of the most exquisite and true riffs on love, including sexual love said, and I would agree wholeheartedly, that ANYONE “can be the object of a [sexual] love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp.”
The entire quote here:
http://mmsilverman.blogspot.com/2007/11/carson-mccullers-ballad-of-sad-cafe.html
Does it come as a surprise that to state a position is not to endorse a position.
“Gaz’s, Katz’s, John Greenfield’s views about female ugliness, however each defines it, and its relation to sexual attractiveness are held and quite shamelessly voiced by many men, and not just from the safety and anonymity of the web.
Hey it’s a joke Joyce get over your self!You obviously have’t been among a mob of cackling women who take great delight in discussing the size of the office cleaners penis.
The only person who has even come close to a grasp on this subject IN MY OPINION is Enemy Combatant.
Monogomy is what seperates us from the other beasts,marriage is a message to the other wandering philanderers to keep their mits off, USUALLY the Mother of my kids.
Not only is it a license to give financial protection to women,it will also keep you off the end of the rope when you catch your wife rooting some other bastard.Because believe it or not I wouldn’t go after the male in any breech of infidelity, cos I know being some what of a realist,men will fuck goats if they think nobody’s looking, it would be my missus,whom in my case I have been happily married to for nearly forty years.Some of you people should get out of your local brain washing tertiary instatutions and find out how real people live.
Oh by the way I don’t voice my opinions from the anonymity of the web,I have no problem getting on a bar stool and shouting it out,I like a good fight,cos I’m so working class.
The reason men are more likely to stray is not, as Robin Williams suggests, that we dont have enough blood to fuel our pricks and our brains at the same time but simply because men are allowed more freedom in nuclear families than women. We have more opportunities for “one thing leading to another”. Women in couples who achieve a level of independence also allow one thing to lead to another.
It is very dangerous ground to suggest that men are more sexually motivated than women. The suggestion that men cant keep it in our pants but women can is a notion that de-sexualises women. The reason women dont do it so much is because they are more contained by the nuclear family, not because they have a weaker libido.
I don’t think it is enough to “query monogamy”. To get to the core of the issue we need to query the nuclear family.
Agreed, John. Biological fact is that women are capable of much more sexual pleasure, longer, more intense, more frequent orgasms than men, within a specific time frame and over an extended period - at all ages. We were made for multiple lovers.
And, yes, monogamy is pretty much a precondition for the successful functioning of the patriarchal family, for varying reasons, during its historical incarnations within class society, including in its latest manifestation. Except, of course, that it creates many problems and dilemmas that cause human suffering and unhappiness, and the need to choose, as we are discussing.
Gaz, I’ve been part of groups of all sorts of women and girls, and I’m far from being a prude, but they almost never, in my experience, sit around cackling or even talking about the size of men’s penises. You completely misunderstand women if you think that is the case.
And you’re not the only working class person here with varied experience, including sexual, of a wide variety of peoples and cultures.
I read the comments first, then Conor. Seems to be a simple proposition - Men don’t understand it, Women do understand it. But if that was the case why are we where we are. If it is about agency, the ability to act, I believe that women and men are agents. If women do not understand it (differently from how men fail to understand it) then maybe we come to an impasse. Telling men they are wrong at many levels will probably not help them change.
Word, John Tracey. The idea that children are best raised within a nuclear family for example ignores the situation that exists already where child rearing is something which is shared not just between parents but with extended family, friends, family day carers, etc. Frequently the burdens of work will mean that one or both parents are involved less than some of the other carers. Why then do we insist that both parents must be bound together as a cohabiting unit in order for childrearing to be successful ? Children do need a certain amount of stability and predictability especially early on but a nuclear family does not guarantee that and it is also quite possible to provide those things through other forms of family structure.
A weird concept for y’all.
We once thought it would be kinda quirky to get divorced and not tell anyone, least of all the kids, just so we could have the fun of secretly ‘living in sin’.
(I think it was after a bottle or two of red.)
On exploring this avenue a little, found out its it nigh on impossible to legally get divorced if you’re still sleeping together (and you don;t want to lie about it.)
Weird huh.
Yep ,de facto heterosexual arrangement = marriage, sublime cowboy, whichever way you come at it.
Why conservatives with an economic rationalist bent would not be jumping to allow gay couples into the monogamist marriage pit escapes me. It would be win, win.
Still, they would be left without the high moral ground and the fantasy world of extraordinary promiscuity that they know they are up too.
Something to tut-tut about is worth masses of quids.
Katz, that Wikipedia article is abominable. The claim is referenced to “Langlois et al 1990″ and there’s no bibliographical details to enable the study to be read. Though if it’s the Langlois I think it probably is, well, yay for psych experiments. The only “variable” cited is “healthy looking skin” - well, I’ve found people with acne attractive! Then when it gets down and dirty, we get non sequiturs like:
Oh really?
Ho hum. The universal attributes of beauty turn out to be variable!
And this sort of tosh just illustrates why I find this kind of writing so repulsive:
Aarrgghhh!!!
Then the woman pictured appears to be your stock standard Hollywood cutie. Beauty Myth, anyone?
hmmm. the elements of the discussion here which are about the different difficulties that men and women have with marriage (and/or monogamy) are all based on the assumption of heterosexuality. lesbian and gay people do get married (even if that marriage isn’t socially or legally sanctioned, a number still consider themselves married). are they more or less likely to be able to ‘do’ monogamy until death do they part?
i ask this because some of the comments seem to suggest that marriage doesn’t work because men and women have different expectations of it, or they have different approaches to sex, or something along those lines - the main point being the difference between the two based on their gender.
but i would argue that this can’t be the main reason why there is something wrong with marriage, since same-sex marriage is just as ridiculous and same-sex married couples i assume are as likely to find it difficult to continue to have a good sex life, or perhaps to answer conor’s question “why sex can’t be about both animalistic pleasure and spiritual love, in which case do we still need to be monogamous?”
sorry if i’ve misinterpreted comments. i guess my main point is how same-sex marriage (legal or otherwise) fits into your analysis…
Wolfe’s comment about Miss Amelia and her cousin reminded my of Turgenev and Pauline Garcia-Viardot, a woman of unconventional looks and along completely different lines, Simon Callow’s love of a much older woman whose name escapes me, but I recall he described it as a passionately intense, spiritual but asexual love.
JOe, I’m a gal, but if you need me to be a boy….;)
SC, lying to the authorities is a matter of creative survival in certain circumstances. Your “quirk” is a perfectly valid one. Do they send anyone around to check where personal objects are kept at home after you’ve popped into the registry to sign divorce papers? Don’t think so. Besides, they lie to us without blinking all the time.
Anyway, if some nosey parker g-persons come sniffing around your home after your “divorce”, tell ‘em you and your partner changed your minds and decided to re-shack-up again and what the hell business is it of theirs anyway! Whip out your hand-held and start filming them. Explain that you’re making a doco about abuse of authority by departmental functionaries and demand the name and contact details of their supervisor.
Ham it up! Use your mobile to call “The Editor” of the Courier Mail and complain animatedly to “The Editor” that this abuse of taxpayers’ money is an absolute disgrace and that it’s the Courier Mail’s duty to inform the public about it pronto! Promise you’ll try to keep the “government inspectors” occupied till the TV crew can get here.
After that, the bastards’ll drop-off faster than last year’s underwear. And you’ll celebrate the rausing with primo plonk every anniversary.
To be honest, if I gaze into my heart of hearts, I have a lot less problem with someone transgressing sexually than I do with telling lies about it afterward. Dishonesty, on major matters anyway, kinda makes me feel like pukeing.
And thats normally what has occured to me in the very occasional time of temptation, while touring Portuguese forts in Asia. What a complete arsebag Id feel like having to lie to my one true love.
Jeez, its not as if Ms LE hasnt got enough to put up with!
I imagine she feels the same. Blimey, I hope she finds others attractive. We’re not completely dead yet, despite being parents, are we?
“JOe, I’m a gal, but if you need me to be a boy….;)”
Comment noted by Office of the Conroy.
EC: Could you be be bottled? Like dew or the scent of lemon-gums after rain? I know, ’tis a heinous, stupid thought. I take it back.
Chappie, the dynamics are very similar for same sex couples.
Mark, I only skimmed the wiki article but at the mention of the healthy looking skin criterion I immediately thought of Andrew McGahan’s “Praise” and the hot sex with the girlfriend (forget name of character) with the severe acne, an “afflcition” which few understanding readers ever questioned or marvelled at; but rather noted, then discounted, given the larger scheme of things.
“Gaz, I’ve been part of groups of all sorts of women and girls, and I’m far from being a prude, but they almost never, in my experience, sit around cackling or even talking about the size of men’s penises. You completely misunderstand women if you think that is the case.”
That is a load of twaddle,I will assume you are about sixteen,and have lived in an monastery all your life.Please spare me what is common knowledge in the real world.Women are no different to men, and I am not going to change my nearly sixty years of experience on this planet,having been among many women,in many country’s and cultures.I may be getting a little blind and deaf in my dotage,and I may indeed look like a cabbage but I am not green.
“And you’re not the only working class person here with varied experience, including sexual, of a wide variety of peoples and cultures.”
That is so patronising I really shouldn’t reply.Suffice to say this.Because I said get out of your tertiary institutions into the real world you presume what.That I make my living digging holes?You insolent patronising squeezer .
But I will leave the best to last.Now do I have this right.You said “We were made for multiple partners” Says who, you eh?What are you some sort of postmodern Charles Darwin are you? Have you a thesis for this gem,Ah fucking Vey and my wife wants to know why I drink.
Re Praise, wasn’t it eczema?
All this solemn po-faced stuff about what constitutes ‘attractiveness’ is enough to bring a feminist out in hives herself. Attraction is a reaction ascribable to the subject, not some innate quality ascribable to the object. Or, as I used to say to my students: The problem, Narelle, is not that it is “boring”, but that you are bored.
“Have you a thesis for this gem?”
So you are a cultural cringer, after all, Gaz!
Oh ye of little faith.
There are many ways of acquiring knowledge, most far better than university study, which I have never, thankfully, experienced.
“There are many ways of acquiring knowledge, most far better than university study, which I have never, thankfully, experienced.”
Ah something we can agree on.On Kerry Stokes desk”Never let a university degree get in the way of an education” Amen to that.
Heh, Gaz, you’ve got a great mouth.
I hope you are keeping a diary at least.
Wolfe, yes, good point about Praise, and Dr Cat, yep it was eczema.
Sorry to ask the obvious, but I can’t help myself: if you’ve never experienced it, how on earth would you know?
And it’s a very good question! Particularly as that stuff they don’t teach in teh academy is presumably known through “experience”.
Know what, PC?
EC - nice call and all that, but i couldn’t sign a sworn statement that i knew was incorrect. Marcus Einfield and all that.
Joe2, Chappie - not sure why the vehement opposition to gay marriage.
Till-death-do-us-part relationships would seem to me to be something the society/state would encourage for a myriad of reasons (economic, social stability, long term emotional health and wellbeing) even if the ideal struggles to survive in reality.
Gaz - Over the years i’ve been privy to numerous conversations where penises have come up as a topic - usually around encounters at extreme ends of the spectrum.
Its not unusual, or taboo amongst gals. Quite interesting actually.
“Gaz - Over the years i’ve been privy to numerous conversations where penises have come up as a topic - usually around encounters at extreme ends of the spectrum.
Its not unusual, or taboo amongst gals. Quite interesting actually.”
Well the size of mine is at the extreme end of the spectrum! In as much, if I cut off a half inch of mine I would have a hole in my stomach.
Wolfe, PC is asking how you know your experiences are better than one you haven’t experienced. Or how you know you should be thankful you haven’t.
Seems a reasonable question.
Silly author, the cite for that is clearly Gregory Perkins, Praise, (1998).
Precisely, PC. there are no such things as “beauty rays”.
Attraction is a text that the attracted reads in the object of her gaze. And just like any text it has a vocabulary and a grammar, ill-defined and irregular though it might be.
I think university education can help many people with some things, which are admirable and have their uses, but I think its limitations and drawbacks are vast and for many, perhaps most (how can one compute this?) it doesn’t seem to transmit what I personally consider important. I’ve come to this view both from what many others have said, observed and written about and from my own observation of the cultural, cognitive and intellectual level of people I have interacted with in my life - both those who have university degrees and those who don’t.
I must say I did have one year at university at St Lucia campus in Brisbane, but I dropped out. Bored to tears, and mightily distracted at age 17, mes amis, I am afraid.
And I don’t think I would think the way I do today, which I am quite proud of, if I had completed tertiary study. But I have studied all my life too, in an unstructured and untrammelled way and rely very much too on the work of academics, and other specialists, for my sustenance, and these people hire me too, and are my bosses, so that’s good.
As a gay male , Ive been intrigued by the statement that…”Men give love in order to get sex, and women give sex in order to get love”…is this true?
Wolfe, I admire the successfully autodidactic, but there is a certain energy in universities that I have never found elsewhere, and that in its apprehension has given me something that I greatly appreciate and value. Thus I cannot see that the drawbacks and limitations, which you don’t specify anyway, are so great as to render the experience as dismissable as you seem to think it is. Of course, I cannot dismiss your feelings on the matter, only that they are generalised in such an arrogant fashion.
No.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUTyYpPmEHzLP5a_rDsPDkGv8aXA
But monkeys do.
We’re in danger of straying off topic, I fear, if we weigh autodidacticism and university education in the balance.
Interesting post and discussion. At the end of Liz Conor’s piece she said this: