Struck by my own moral indeciency
Once again, Beckstrom, an opinion editor/writer for the Badger Herald, has found a way to get under my skin extraordinarily quickly. Her article is linked : "Open relationships have drawbacks" However, as we have seen before, her article headline, isn't always accurate. Her article is far better characterized by the front page blurb "Valentine's Day advice: monogamy the only healthy relationship."
I cannot contain any semblance of calm writing here because I can only ask, Who the hell does this bitch think she is? How does one get to the point where one thinks, "Well I'm just so damn right about everything all the time I should start telling everyone else what to do"
Same format as last Beckstrom article...
"Back in the day, we had a name for those who defied the definition of monogamy. They were called swingers. But today, it seems the rules have changed and the prevalence of open relationships has increased significantly."
As you can see from the article if you chose to read it yourself, there is no point made after this. I can only assume Beckstrom finds the word itself evil and immoral, "swinger," did it send a shiver down your spine? Me neither.
"But a better definition may be cheating without the guilt.
Over the past few years, the social stigma of engaging in polyamory has greatly subsided on college campuses — and this university is no exception. It is a common occurrence for someone to proclaim this so-called “relationship” status on Facebook or to engage in a sexual rendezvous with another person while in a supposed relationship."
Cheating, by definition, implies an other party be unaware of the situation, can it be cheating if the other party knows, or *gasp* is in the same room witnessing the cheating?! Beckstrom did get one thing right, "polyamory" as she so clinically puts it, has degraded from some weird social sigma to a common occurrence. And monogamy is declining, and why shouldn't it? Should we go back to the way it was "back in the day" as she says? Should we start hanging black people on a whim again? Take away women's right to vote? Burning wiccans, protestants and schizophrenics at a stake? Cultures don't move backwards, they evolve. It's possible to see resurgence of movements and ideas, but its never the same phenomenon again.
"Maybe the Kinsey Report was the start of this deviation from traditional values. But the prevalence of open relationships was precipitated by something more."
Or many shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire, or "The Bachelorette" have so eroded our concept of marriage and the social tradition of dating and relationships, that views like yours no longer apply to a post 1960s America.
"The back cover promises a book that will “introduce you to the open marriage concepts — trust, liking, role flexibility, individual freedom and growth, and love and sex without jealously — that can do wonders for your marriage.”
Somehow, I’m not buying it."
Who said you have to? Why do you think because you don't like something, we all have to follow suit? This is the crux of any argument I've ever had with conservative view points; why do you care what other people do so much?
"There are obvious health concerns for engaging in an open relationship for all participants involved. Having multiple sexual partners greatly increases the probability of contracting a sexually transmitted disease and becoming pregnant. But there are other problems for those who engage in this lifestyle."
Contraceptives and STD prevention is a fact of life in this country. Statistically for a couple to become pregnant while using a condom and some flavor of 'the pill" is near 0.12% I am not a betting man, but I'm positive I'll take those odds. The "other problems" mentioned here are never discussed, only mentioned to exists, kinda like Bush's WMDs.
"More importantly, how can one consider an open relationship to be, in fact, a relationship? Normally, a relationship requires a commitment between two people. If this doesn’t exist, then what differentiates an open relationship from mere dating — or friends with benefits? I’m drawing a big blank. Nonetheless, using the word “relationship” to define the aforementioned association diminishes the significance of a monogamous relationship between two people."
Languages, like culture, are ever evolving. Deal with it. However her definition is incorrect. An open relationship is one where two people share a deep connection as traditional relationship does, the "other people" are periphery, non-essential, unnecessary.
"Intimacy can only come when two people can engage in sex knowing there are not other sexual partners on the side. Sex is meant to be a bond that brings two people together — which is why waiting until marriage is the ideal situation."
I can't even decide where to begin with this last statement. Clearly even to the more conservative people, like Beckstrom, sex IS important. However it is impossibly dumb to get hitched and then find out if you enjoy having sex with your husband or wife. What if you can't stand it? What then? I guess I'll just not enjoy sex for the next 50 some odd years after waiting 20-30 years to have it? I don't fucking think so. I need no more evidence than can be found here here, and here. If you want an marriage to last, you better damn-well know if your compatible before you get married.
"Rather, sex is frequently used to either fulfill some mere physiological desire for both sexes or satisfy the lustful mind of an inebriated male after his beer goggles are firmly in place following a night out. It is disheartening to see so many people relegate sex to “it’s just sex.”"
Is she blaming men or finding another outlet for her anger against beer? I can't really tell, in case its the former, just remember, girls get beer-goggles too.
"A question I have, though, is if someone can’t be monogamous before marriage, who is to say they will practice monogamy within the bounds of matrimony? If people are accustomed to relationships without a commitment to remain faithful to one another (i.e. open relationships) during their dating years, why would marriage be any different?"
What makes you think that rational, sound decision making adults who are accustomed to open relationships WOULD NOT be ok with doing something they have done their whole adult lives? Clearly we've seen words change meaning, importance, connotations, and definitions all in this entry, so why would we keep a rigid definition of marriage here? Its a word. It can be changed, there used to be a point in time where a divorce was a shameful affair, that wasn't talked about, and embarrassing for all parties involved; now we televise "Divorce Court." Marriage is as special, scared, important as you make it.
"According to “The Monogamy Myth” by Peggy Vaughn, 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will break their marriage vows at some point during their lifetime — and these figures represent only those who admit to engaging in infidelity. The increasing prevalence of open relationships before marriage will not improve this statistic."
Neither will "Divorce Court."
Its my theory that open relationships evolved out of the influx of young adults going to college; specifically the students who were in relationships before leaving for higher education, and chose to go to different schools. I ask why not have an open relationship under such conditions if thats what two people want. Why not even a marriage, if two people can agree what a marriage should be, then that marriage is fine with me.
Next time you want to make yourself feel better about your high moral ground Beckstrom, keep it to yourself, especially if you want to try and ruin people's Valentine's Day.
One should note that this reactionary post does not, in fact, champion any relationship style, encourage any believe about other's values, or attempt to make people ashamed of what kind of relationship works for them. My only point is that different people find different ways to happiness and I'm glad for them, unlike Beckstrom who finds them morally remiss, sexually unhealthy, and advocate their reform to her standards.
I cannot contain any semblance of calm writing here because I can only ask, Who the hell does this bitch think she is? How does one get to the point where one thinks, "Well I'm just so damn right about everything all the time I should start telling everyone else what to do"
Same format as last Beckstrom article...
"Back in the day, we had a name for those who defied the definition of monogamy. They were called swingers. But today, it seems the rules have changed and the prevalence of open relationships has increased significantly."
As you can see from the article if you chose to read it yourself, there is no point made after this. I can only assume Beckstrom finds the word itself evil and immoral, "swinger," did it send a shiver down your spine? Me neither.
"But a better definition may be cheating without the guilt.
Over the past few years, the social stigma of engaging in polyamory has greatly subsided on college campuses — and this university is no exception. It is a common occurrence for someone to proclaim this so-called “relationship” status on Facebook or to engage in a sexual rendezvous with another person while in a supposed relationship."
Cheating, by definition, implies an other party be unaware of the situation, can it be cheating if the other party knows, or *gasp* is in the same room witnessing the cheating?! Beckstrom did get one thing right, "polyamory" as she so clinically puts it, has degraded from some weird social sigma to a common occurrence. And monogamy is declining, and why shouldn't it? Should we go back to the way it was "back in the day" as she says? Should we start hanging black people on a whim again? Take away women's right to vote? Burning wiccans, protestants and schizophrenics at a stake? Cultures don't move backwards, they evolve. It's possible to see resurgence of movements and ideas, but its never the same phenomenon again.
"Maybe the Kinsey Report was the start of this deviation from traditional values. But the prevalence of open relationships was precipitated by something more."
Or many shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire, or "The Bachelorette" have so eroded our concept of marriage and the social tradition of dating and relationships, that views like yours no longer apply to a post 1960s America.
"The back cover promises a book that will “introduce you to the open marriage concepts — trust, liking, role flexibility, individual freedom and growth, and love and sex without jealously — that can do wonders for your marriage.”
Somehow, I’m not buying it."
Who said you have to? Why do you think because you don't like something, we all have to follow suit? This is the crux of any argument I've ever had with conservative view points; why do you care what other people do so much?
"There are obvious health concerns for engaging in an open relationship for all participants involved. Having multiple sexual partners greatly increases the probability of contracting a sexually transmitted disease and becoming pregnant. But there are other problems for those who engage in this lifestyle."
Contraceptives and STD prevention is a fact of life in this country. Statistically for a couple to become pregnant while using a condom and some flavor of 'the pill" is near 0.12% I am not a betting man, but I'm positive I'll take those odds. The "other problems" mentioned here are never discussed, only mentioned to exists, kinda like Bush's WMDs.
"More importantly, how can one consider an open relationship to be, in fact, a relationship? Normally, a relationship requires a commitment between two people. If this doesn’t exist, then what differentiates an open relationship from mere dating — or friends with benefits? I’m drawing a big blank. Nonetheless, using the word “relationship” to define the aforementioned association diminishes the significance of a monogamous relationship between two people."
Languages, like culture, are ever evolving. Deal with it. However her definition is incorrect. An open relationship is one where two people share a deep connection as traditional relationship does, the "other people" are periphery, non-essential, unnecessary.
"Intimacy can only come when two people can engage in sex knowing there are not other sexual partners on the side. Sex is meant to be a bond that brings two people together — which is why waiting until marriage is the ideal situation."
I can't even decide where to begin with this last statement. Clearly even to the more conservative people, like Beckstrom, sex IS important. However it is impossibly dumb to get hitched and then find out if you enjoy having sex with your husband or wife. What if you can't stand it? What then? I guess I'll just not enjoy sex for the next 50 some odd years after waiting 20-30 years to have it? I don't fucking think so. I need no more evidence than can be found here here, and here. If you want an marriage to last, you better damn-well know if your compatible before you get married.
"Rather, sex is frequently used to either fulfill some mere physiological desire for both sexes or satisfy the lustful mind of an inebriated male after his beer goggles are firmly in place following a night out. It is disheartening to see so many people relegate sex to “it’s just sex.”"
Is she blaming men or finding another outlet for her anger against beer? I can't really tell, in case its the former, just remember, girls get beer-goggles too.
"A question I have, though, is if someone can’t be monogamous before marriage, who is to say they will practice monogamy within the bounds of matrimony? If people are accustomed to relationships without a commitment to remain faithful to one another (i.e. open relationships) during their dating years, why would marriage be any different?"
What makes you think that rational, sound decision making adults who are accustomed to open relationships WOULD NOT be ok with doing something they have done their whole adult lives? Clearly we've seen words change meaning, importance, connotations, and definitions all in this entry, so why would we keep a rigid definition of marriage here? Its a word. It can be changed, there used to be a point in time where a divorce was a shameful affair, that wasn't talked about, and embarrassing for all parties involved; now we televise "Divorce Court." Marriage is as special, scared, important as you make it.
"According to “The Monogamy Myth” by Peggy Vaughn, 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will break their marriage vows at some point during their lifetime — and these figures represent only those who admit to engaging in infidelity. The increasing prevalence of open relationships before marriage will not improve this statistic."
Neither will "Divorce Court."
Its my theory that open relationships evolved out of the influx of young adults going to college; specifically the students who were in relationships before leaving for higher education, and chose to go to different schools. I ask why not have an open relationship under such conditions if thats what two people want. Why not even a marriage, if two people can agree what a marriage should be, then that marriage is fine with me.
Next time you want to make yourself feel better about your high moral ground Beckstrom, keep it to yourself, especially if you want to try and ruin people's Valentine's Day.
One should note that this reactionary post does not, in fact, champion any relationship style, encourage any believe about other's values, or attempt to make people ashamed of what kind of relationship works for them. My only point is that different people find different ways to happiness and I'm glad for them, unlike Beckstrom who finds them morally remiss, sexually unhealthy, and advocate their reform to her standards.
posted by Marc at
12:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home