The Compleat Iconoclast |
...Vote For Your Favorite Wench... Friday, 11. August 2000
mld, August 11, 2000 at 5:53:00 PM CESTPart VII - Marine In college, I read a book. Imagine that. :-) "The Courtier" by Castiglione. I was introduced to the idea of a Renaissance Man, a warrior/poet/philosopher/artist/lover, a man who excelled in all things, the perfect combination of brains, brawn, and cultured sophistication. A worthy goal. After I'd dropped out for a year to make some money so that I could go back to school, (I am not from a wealthy family) I read another book. (In fact, I was reading lots of books, but this one is an important one.) Starship Troopers. Robert Heinlein. I remembered the warrior part of the Renaissance Man ideal. Two weeks later, I was in boot camp. It was one of the best decisions I ever made in my life. But that's a whole 'nother story... :-) ... Link (0 comments) ... Comment mld, August 11, 2000 at 5:50:00 PM CEST Part VI - The Lover's Cross This is from an email to a former love - I called her Sirena. Her words are maroon, mine in green. I want to say that although my experience has been limited (this you know) I am good friends with many people that have “open marriages”, and frankly, the man often seems much happier about it than the woman does. Men are by nature more promiscuous, but I believe this is largely because of cultural conditioning and biology. In many primitive cultures, the women are as rarin' to go as the men. Furthermore, in situations where the arrangement is common knowledge, the women get negative feedback from their more conventional peers, while men get, “Whoah, dude, how'dya pull that shit off?” Social pressure is the most difficult aspect of it all. The last sentence says it all. I have always wanted to believe that I will be so important to one special man that he will have very little desire to be with another woman, especially if he is well satisfied with me. I'll certainly enjoy your efforts,It's an instinctual desire hard-wired into the little reptile part of our brains just as closely as fear of heights and the “fight-or-flight” adrenaline response. Any man who tells you otherwise is either lying through his teeth, or one of those few individuals that can be considered “asexual” due to some hormonal or mental abnormality. Let me explain. The capacity for love in the human heart is not a finite quantity. We are all capable of loving as many people that we find lovable. I don't think when my brother, her number two child, was born, my mother all of the sudden loved me, her number one, half as much. However much love I could ever grow for you is not affected by how much I like or love someone else. So if I can grow to love you 768 units of love (we'll call 'em “amors”) the 768 units it is. And if I loved Dale (my ex) 568, or 968 amors, then that's how it was, and you didn't have a thing to do with it. If I love my daughter a googol amors, then you didn't have a thing to do with that either. OK, Sirena, there are things I find lovable about you. You, I'm sure, would love a detailed list of exactly what they are, but I don't have time to write a book right now, as you are eagerly awaiting this reply. So I'll just mention a few of the most crass and obvious ones: You're beautiful. You're artistic. You're intelligent. Now, you don't a monopoly on those qualities I find adorable in you. There are prettier girls, smarter girls, more creative girls. The odds of finding a girl like that with just those three qualities in a greater quantity or quality wouldn't be impossible, albeit difficult. Then there are the things I don't find attractive about you: You live far away from me. You have baggage. You can't find your pictures. :-) Conversely, there girls who live farther away, have more baggage, and lose their pictures longer. Those are just some of the thousands of different qualities that you have, in greater or lesser degrees, all mixed up like a smoothie, that make you a unique, never to be replicated again in the history of the universe, individual. The odds of finding a woman just like you, but even more so in the ways I find attractive, and less so in the ways I don't, are vanishingly small, but there might be a half dozen women on the planet that qualify. Now, suppose I met one of those girls, we'll call them Super-Xelas. She has just ten percent more of the qualities I love about you, and ten percent less of those I don't. She's you for dog's sake, just a little bit more the you I love than even you are. If I am truly attracted to, and love, you, how on Earth could I not be attracted to, and love, her also? Similarly, let's suppose I'm hiding a terrible secret from you. Did you know I have a twin brother? He's Super-Marcus. He's just like me, but a little taller, a bit more handsome, a little bit more witty, intelligent, funny and romantic. IF you love me for having the characteristics I have, for being the unique person I am, how could you truthfully say that you don't/couldn't love him, too? Just because you saw me first? Be real. You couldn't love me without loving him also. Love is not a dichotomy, a yes/no switch. It's a spectrum. I find lovable qualities, and some level of attraction, in nearly any woman I meet. This fiction that we have in our culture that there is One True Love out there for each of us, and only one, is positively ridiculous, and by the way, traceable back to one of my very unfavorite Greeks, Plato, but I'll leave that digression to another time. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of suitable lifemates out there for either of us, partners with whom we could be very happy. So, we travel through life, meeting these people. We decide how lovable we find them; how well they fit into that template each of us carries about in our head of our ideal mate. Anyone much past their teens will realize that this idealized person does not exist (Sorry, Plato) and that we have to compromise. Furthermore, each person we date or come to love helps us along the voyage of self-discovery to refine our ideas of that perfect mate, and that ideal we seek becomes a moving target as we grow more aware of ourselves, or as the circumstances of our lives change. At some point in life, most people meet that “special” someone. They decide that this certain person is as close as they are likely to get to their ideal mate, and will propose a life-long companionship. Where I think we run into problems is when we choose a partner, enter into a relationship, then, sometime later, run into a person we find attractive, on a level ranging from romp in the hay, to good friends, “bed-buddies,” I think you call them, to someone that you would like to love on a long-term basis. That's where our cruel cultural conditioning kicks in. We drink it in with mothers milk. We grow up immersed in this impossible fantasy of Romantic Love. Hollywood and the other media are as at fault as religion in this area. We are taught to see the attraction for the other person as an indication that there is something wrong with our present relationship. We are taught to feel guilty over the attraction. We come to resent our partner for keeping us from responding to the attraction. We lie about it, in the very least in the sense of not discussing it with our mate. We don't want to hurt their feelings. So we suppress it. We writhe in pain, nailed to the Lover's Cross. ... Link (0 comments) ... Comment mld, August 11, 2000 at 5:43:00 PM CEST V - Who's Your Daddy? “The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due, I believe, to their isolation from the larger family unit. No two people—no mere father and mother—as I have often said, are enough to provide emotional security for a child. He needs to feel himself one in a world of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond which he cannot break if he could, for nature has welded him into it before he was born.” —Pearl Buck I grew up in a sea of aunts and uncles and cousins and grandmas and they were my playmates and baby-sitters and role models and disciplinarians and teachers. Precocious as I was, I was always, as a young boy, running up to the tallest human around, book in hand, asking, “What's this word, Uncle Mike?” Ever wondered why black people to this very day tend to refer to other blacks as “Cuz,” or to my “Auntee,” or “Uncle?” In the pre Civil War South, when slave families were commonly torn apart by death and separation, black children were taught to address all of their elders in this manner, so that when/if Mom was sold off, the older adults present would feel some sort of kinship to the manufactured orphan, and adopt them into their family. (To be fair, it wasn't much better for Southern whites at the time either, so they did he same thing. The average marriage lasted, you guessed it, seven years, and the odds of a child growing to adulthood with both his birth parents were abysmally low.) But I digress, as I am wont to do. As the economies of the West have morphed from agriculturally based through the Industrial Revolution to the Information Age, families have morphed from extended to nuclear to subatomic. The safety net of economic security for the family is gravitating toward the state, and emotional security is largely just being ignored. I decided that there was no more obvious case of a totally dysfunctional human institution than that of lifetime monogamous marriage. Of course we don't really have that now, though we all pay lip service to it. We Have To. Everybody Else Does. What we in fact have in our culture today is serial polygamy, multiple spouses in succession. In this way, we can all pay homage to the whitened sepulcher of True Romantic Love. This has horrific consequences for the welfare of the children of the marriage. To summarize, since about the age of eighteen, I have not believed that our Western Judeo-Christian concepts of marriage and monogamy, as defined by having sex with only one partner your entire life, are conducive to either happiness, or mental health, or for the best interests of the offspring of the relationship. So, I resolved that I would live my life ethically, but healthily, and ruled by my own notion of ethics, as opposed to the dictates of those ideas in our culture that are clearly at odds with human nature. I've never since my early twenties, ever seriously dated a girl without discussing this at length. If they had a problem with it, well, oh well, not the girl for me. Of course, as it turns out, this is much easier said than done. ... Link (0 comments) ... Comment ... Next page
|
...up and running for 8291 days
last touched: 9/11/15, 7:48 AM ...login status...
hello, stranger.
i live for feedback. schmack me with your syllables... but first you have to login. it's free. ...search this site...
...menu...
...new posts and comments...
...bloggus amicus...
... beth
... capt. napalm ... craniac ... emdot ... genee ... gina ... kc ... macker ... rosalie ... sasha ... seajay ... spring dew ... stacia ... timothy ... wlofie ...antville amicae...
...obligatory blogrolling...
... steven den beste ... jack cluth ... susanna cornett ... cox & forkum ... kim du toit ... glenn frazier ... jane galt ... stephen green ... h-town blogs ... charles johnson ... james lileks ... robert prather ... bill quick ... glenn reynolds ... donald sensing ... rand simberg ... mike spensis ... andrew sullivan ... spinsanity ... bill whittle ... wretchard ...daily stops...
...headlines from space.com...
|