For some bizarre reason, it seems not everyone gets the point of this blog.
It seems I'm not blatant enough.
I actually thought I wore my heart on my sleeve, but apparently not.
OK, the society we live in sucks.
It's the tail end of a dying system.
We are experiencing capitalism in its final collapse, and we all need to be planning for the future.
Planning for a better way of life.
Goodbye to much of the nastiness.
I think I spell out what I'd like to see in this post.
I believe one day we WILL all have to fight for it, maybe us, maybe our children, maybe our children's children- because the alternative is INGSOC, pure and simple.
And that just leads to a dead end.
The future IS that stark.
And yes, its about learning LOVE.
A NEW love.
Time to tear down the narrow frameworks of our past conceptions. States, Money, Private Property, Marriage, Family, we've outlived them- they only serve to support the power matrix.
This to me, is crucial. I see these as ideals which hold us back.
And the last two of the points listed, I want an end to as much as the rest.
Time for a new love, built on love AND affection for all.
This is almost the most important bit of the change.
Because Marriage and Family are just extended selfishness.
I love you because you're MINE.
NO.
I love you because you're human.
One of my views that not everyone agrees with, is my belief that monogamy really is bad, not something we should cherish.
Monogamy is a truly evil ideal, I'll state that now, TRULY evil.
It means depriving every other person of the person you purport to love.
You promise to love them ONLY if you get to OWN them.
Religion demanded monogamy, because in a world where people think they own things- and men think they own women- it works.
Well, I don't want to love a possession.
I don't WANT her 'fidelity'- that imposes a burden on me, that of fulfilling her.
I don't want that burden.
I want her to be happy and fulfilled,to get the most out of her life.
And she is NOT going to get that through being 'faithful' to me.
Not if she's any woman worth having.
What I do want, is her intelligence, her support, her nurturing, her sympathy, her understanding of what it is that drives my life.
To be first among her lovers, not her sole lover. Or her best.
I want her to be there when I need her, but understanding that I cannot give her my whole attention. Most of it is required elsewhere.
Do I expect her only to carry my children?
Of course not. That would be selfish. A waste of her genetic potential as a female.
Yes, I do believe in love. I want to love a woman way beyond the bargaining system that we have become used to.
Not a love based on conditions.
But on the fact that you feel at peace when they hold your head in their arms.
And we could BOTH be free in love.
This ideal is pretty much as far from casual sex as you can get.
And CERTAINLY respects women more than monogamy.
It just kisses goodbye to a bit of MALE dignity.
I'd rather have real love, thanks.
+copy.jpg){kind=small}
18 comments:
First half, couldn't agree more about the current situation and the fact that if we don't choose to change, less pleasant change will be foisted on us.
I am naturally monogamous. I can't help it (although I've been told that it's just laziness). But I wouldn't be telling other people what to do with their rude bits. Each to their own (singular or plural).
And she is NOT going to get that through being 'faithful' to me.
Not if she's any woman worth having.
What if you are enough for her?
I think that you have certainly stated all this before in one post or another but this is your life philosophy and most of us simply don't agree with it in part or in the whole.
I'll leave the social order part but as far as the love part, I think you would find very few women to agree with you. This is very much a male point of view.
Women who are responsible for the children they bear need stability to raise them and that is best provided for by two people working together in some kind of committed relationship, hopefully based on love. Yes single people have reared children but it is not easy to do it alone.
The moment you bring children into the kind of society you envisage you have problems. Human offspring are dependent for a very long time on their parents, in contrast to nature. So stable long term relationships make sense for humans.
In your argument against monogamy you state:
It means depriving every other person of the person you purport to love.
Not at all because that person has many different roles and love is involved in all of them. For example, using a female: wife, mother, aunt, daughter, mother-in-law, grandmother, sister, friend. All of these relationships involve love in a different way, for there are many kinds of love.
If you mean depriving other people of the one you love sexually, then that is true. Most women want it that way, to be sexually exclusive to one man and if they don't then they probably no longer truly love the one they are supposedly with.
If you find a female who thinks just like you I will be surprised but even if you do I guarantee she will not continue to do so, for jealousy is a very powerful force which even you might find yourself feeling.
Paul- I think in my case, I don't want to tell the person I purport to love what to do with theirs.
Oestrebunny- Trust me, I wouldn't be.
It's a catch 22 situation, isn't it?
If I was enough for her, she probably wouldn't be enough for me.
It is a paradox, I guess.
jmb- For me this line is the point;
'Most women want it that way, to be sexually exclusive to one man'
That's actually a burden. It makes you as a man solely responsible for their fulfillment in that field.
It turns it into a chore.
Yes, I used to be VERY jealous once, until I realised that actually what I was most worried about would ACTUALLY make relationships more pleasant and actually workable, by removing a huge responsibility from me.
I understand what you are saying and I think it stems from not being fulfilled - - not by a woman, but by yourself, your own ideals, purpose, life, etc.
I believe in my heart of hearts that if you found a woman who you truly loved that you would want her to be totally dedicated to you - - and only you. That's was love does. It gives us the permission to possess its essence as it is embodied in another Soul.
Don't you want that without having to anchor your heart on as many shores as possible? It's so beautiful to find that one shore where you can stay a while. The shore that makes you glad you exist.
Join the revolution fall inlove! Very well said! I guess we have the same ideals... though my blog is written in Tagalog, but i get your point! Keep it up more thought crimes!
Well as you know Mr Ingsoc I have always agreed with you and strongly advocate free sex, pornoes, etc. It has been suggested that I do so for selfish ends!! No I am a true reformer.. ;-))
I do wonder if you guys do take it all a bit too seriously myself- after all its only shagging and tits..
One for the OP...
Real love but without the monogamy?Then how can you love more than one person? Or if you did just love one person, but were not monogamous, then you obviously can't love that person enough, because you're not being faithful to them.
And what does INGSOC mean anyway? lol.
That's actually a burden. It makes you as a man solely responsible for their fulfillment in that field.
It turns it into a chore.
That's how you choose to view it.
True love means to give of yourself with no expectation of a return. If you feel that sexual fulfillment of the other person is a chore, then I would say you no longer love them.
Ok, firstly, this HAS to be the WORST post I ever wrote...
Alexys- It takes a fair bit to fulfill me, I'm one of those perpetually restless types.
My main problem in relationships is partners taking up too much of my time, whilst they tend to think they don't get enough of mine.
Samadhi- Well, the revolution will be global! :)
I don't really see how we can truly liberate women without fre love.
To me the final phase of the sexual revolution is ALSO the final phase of the feminist one.
Mutley- Human development is working against sexual taboos. They are becoming a destructive force rather than the force for social cohesion they were in earlier times.
SS- You should love everybody. Even Saleem.
Ok, maybe not Saleem.
But love of the pair bond variety doesn't have to be tied to sexual fidelity. Or even be confined to one person- everyone could have a number of pair bonds, like they now hav friendships.
In fact people do that anyway. I was taking to a girl on Friday who lived in an open relationship.
jmb- Well it is a chore, because you keep worrying about it, if you love her.
You don't know if she is fulfilled, or just putting up.
You can make love every day (no problem with that myself, but it not fulfill her).
Constant sexual fulfillment of another person is a chore...oh... is this why I have been divorced twice??
maybe you should just tell people you're into open relationships and polyamory then, and not into, and will never be into, monogamy, just so they know, and wont get hurt. and also point out that they cannot change you or your views on the subject, like so many have tried.
we can talk more about this on saturday anyway lol.
snap, and im only 33, but i still want monogamy and a relationship with a sole partner. i cant do what crushed does. its just not in me.
AND WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT INGSOC MEANS
I'm not sure there is any unconditional love apart from parental love. As for monogamy, Dorothy Parker has some great lines on it which I can't remember at this time of night. "I want her intellectual support, nurturing... etc.." - Isn't that what we all want, from a lover? "I want to be first among her lovers and not her sole lover" - well, believe that as you may, Crushed, but the "green-eyed monster" will raise its ugly head at some point! I think I've mentioned S de Beauvoir and "L'Invitée" to you before and my take is that if an "open relationship" couldn't work for de Beauvoir and Sartre, who were, despite their left-wing politics, more equipped financially to be able to ignore society's strictures than most people, then there is precious little hope for the rest of us! However intellectually "free" we think we are, we all need security in a relationship, Crushed.
Mutley- I just don't really think that most women want the SAME guy all the time. In my experience they just cover these things better than we do.
SS- I think I have pointed this out over and over. OK, obviously not always with outstanding success.
Still, I think I've calmed down quite a bit.
INGSOC- scroll down, watch the clip at the bottom. From 1984.
Welshcakes- Even parents don't love unconditionally, in fact often it can be very conditional.
The fact is sometimes to Love someone, you have to set them free.
I don't want some poor girl sitting alone living her life for the few moments I can spare her.
It doesn't seem fair.
Crushed, I very much doubt that you would ever get "some poor girl sitting alone living her life for the few moments" you can spare her. If you did, she wouldn't be worth having.
Liz- This is my point. Because I just have too busy a schedule to be able to devote the time and attention that a woman worth having deserves.
well, i guess i also advocate free love! Sexual Liberation is what most woman are seeking for, and that includes being "free to love" more than one person without condemnation. Love is unconditional you know...
Post a Comment