Almost every guy I know has had the back and forth conversation with himself and his male friends had in this article. The conclusion is a little disappointing and the author really, really wants to rationalize infidelity. He may be giving himself away too much . . . But the quick conversation with his wife near the end of it, that's the kicker.
One issue I don't think he explores very honestly is that all the sexual "arrangements" of the past were largely predicated on the lack of opportunities women had for fulfillment and excitement. Perhaps fewer situations catering to men's desires are inevitable in a post-feminist world . . . If such a world can last!
I will say that lust places strange pressures on men. Just read the article to get the idea . . .
About Me
- fondfire
- I live in the "countryside" with my lovely wife and read as much as time allows. I drive a hybrid car. I like green. What more could anybody want.
Folks I dig . . .
Thought-provoking Links
- Access to Insight
- AFSCME
- BBC News
- Chomsky.info
- CNBC
- Democracy Now!
- DistroWatch Weekly
- Edge
- Epicurus.info
- GL Corps
- GNU philosophy
- Humanist Network News
- Nader Page
- Nature
- NPR News
- Open Source Initiative
- Real News Network
- Science
- Secular Web
- Skeptic
- Slashdot
- This American Life
- Uncle Jay Explains
- WikiLeaks
- Z Magazine
- Ár nDraíocht Féin reads
3 comments:
I didn't quite finish the thought I was having above . . . The lack of fulfillment and excitement is only part of it. I think the profusion of mistresses and such in the past was because women were even more likely than now to be subject to extreme economic dangers. Sex could be a way to stave off starvation. In a world where women are much more likely to be self-sufficient, such dependencies are much more rare. Will men now find ways to tame their desires in a world of rightfully independent women? If so, how? Back to the thoughtspace of the article . . .
I haven't read the whole article yet, but keep your above comment in mind if I don't seem to have ever pinned myself down with terminology (e.g. am I polyamorous or asexual? Should I just be monogamous?). I'm placed in an historically unusual position, i.e. I'm a self-sustaining female. So what the hell am I supposed to do? ;-)
I would like to hear more about women's viewpoint, but then the article is entitled The Affairs of Men. But since you made that comment of women history, it made the author's use of the term "mistress" stand out. I've effectively had the opportunity to be in such a position a couple of times - and I realized that, no, I don't want to be secondary and I don't have to be (i.e. there's no economic reason for being so).
I'm generally sick of the uses that other people would have of me.
By the way, I have the DVD Blood Oranges (the author mentions the story). It's a good movie and what that the author of the article said isn't correct, i.e. one of the characters does not commit suicide. He dies, but he doesn't kill himself because of the open relationship.
Post a Comment