Friday, 15 August 2008

The Unhappy Monogamous Polygamous Happy Marriage

Mood: Uncertain-about-my-mood mood
[Toot!] Index: 1.2
Communism Bit: Off
Location: Entebbe


First a quick shout before we go on to the post. I've had the occassion to express enough of why I find evolution to be a stupid joke. It wasn't expected, but the comments on the last-post-but-one have provided a platform, and I don't believe I'll ever blog about this again, as I find it uncomfortable material. If you have any strong opinions on evolution, pitch in. And, in the same comments, I mention that I understand the logic behind the agnostic argument—and why it is, itself, the answer to the question it asks (related to the ontological argument for God's existence). Now, the post.


He says polygamy is the normal relational state of humans. That it is "really stupid" to expect that humans interact with multiple people for everything—everything—except who you're laying. Wrong. Even evil.
She, on the other hand, says polygamy is a thing humans do that, while undoubtedly-human, is worse than any alternative (monogamy, in this case). She says humans fight, humans commit genocide (and homicide and suicide and infanticide and other *cides), humans lie, humans betray, humans do stupid things all over. That says absolutely nothing about whether they should be doing these things.
Welcome to our debate. This is Jude, and this is Ange. The argument is about polygamy. Thank you for joining us.

Jude goes like polygamy, okay, is only appealing to girls, not guys. You can ask some honest people. Girls like it. Guys not so much. At which point Ange quips that, The Judeo-Christian marriage vows are strongly-monogamous—and they were crafted by male hands, not girl hands. And isn't it indicative of men's liking for monogamy, Ange says, that they get murderously-angry in the case of unfaithfulness (except their own)? There.

The fact that monogamy has survived vigorously through millenia, where much of the related human urge and behaviour calls for its quick and gruesome death, implies that we are wired for monogamy, in the same way that we are wired for peace, love, kindness, et cetera (which have suffered roughly the same fate: sanity calls for the loss of hope in peace, human goodwill, and even hope).

Just when you're sad (or happy) that Ange has won, Jude raises a finger.
Mothers want their sons to have many girls. How do you explain that?
Ange says, Mothers also want their sons-in-law to be strictly-monogamous. Draw.

Jude is quick to point Westward. The West, he says, is anti-polygamy. And see, he says, how short-lived the marriages there are. There are no chances for Wife n to help Wife n-1 (where n is greater than or equal to 2). The result is that the pressure of this crazy institution—mental institution, I believe—of marriage is applied to only two participants. Only one woman. There is no chance she'll survive it. Just like a pin's point against the skin versus the pinhead against the skin. The solitary wife gets damaged by the pressure, with nobody to share the load with.
Even worse, this monogamy in the West, Jude adds, is only an illusion. In reality, them Westerners are all polygamous. They are very unfaithful to their spouses. Maybe polygamy could help, but we'll never know. They segregate against polygamy over there. The real, safe form of polygamy, that is. Not this surreptitious, unhealthy kind that the entire Westerners do from when they are out of diapers.

Ange counters it, saying that Jude's argument is flawed for assuming that there should even be such undue pressure in a marriage. There should only enough pressure in a marriage, she says, as there is in a close friendship. She has no love for men who have bar friendships that last across decades and regimes, but marriages that are better-measured in hours. These men take caution not to apply undue pressure on their friends, but take no such measures for their wife [sic]. They create this pressure that Jude says justifes the next wife. The men should change, not monogamy.
And on how monogamy doesn't really exist, Ange says Jude is wrong. You see, she says, in polygamous societies, the concept of faithfulness in marriage (by the party that is allowed another spouse) doesn't exist. Because, you know, to get another spouse requires you to have that "wandering eye". By definition, polygamous societies are pro-unfaithfulness. So, the argument is flawed from the very start. If you think unfaithfulness is bad, you are looking for monogamy, not polygamy. Fix the issues with monogamy: that is the only place you have a shot at faithfulness.

At this point, Jude goes and slaps Ange on the shoulder. And I manage to pull him away before Ange cries. He says, Why does she call my argument flawed?
Maybe because it is flawed? How about we stick to supporting our points and leave the tantrums alone?
And Ange goes on about the beauty of the one-and-only concept. That, It is good to lie gathered in arms that you know are yours, and yours alone. Nobody is entitled to this; it is mine, and mine alone. The breath that hits you, the slight snore you hear, the incoherent groans in the dead of the night, when the moonlight has kept pouring into the room through open windows and towelled the two of you off. When the light perspiration on the two lovers and their beddings doesn't know who it came from originally. In a time like that, you want to know this is yours and yours alone. It is beautiful like that, not when you know someone else will take it away tomorrow and treat it like you had never even existed there before. Not ...

Jude cuts Ange short, and says we should keep it in tangible logic here. This bullshit about what is beautiful should not be allowed in a sensible debate, man. And if it were me saying these things, you'd reduce my score points as punishment. But when it is Ange, you allow her to talk ...

I cut Jude short. We should end this. For today, it will end here. This debate is old. Every now and then, we revisit it and it is clear that these two won't agree on anything soon. It entertains me to mediate in their many debates. I hope you liked it. In this marriage stuff, these two nearly never agree on anything. Except, of course, that marriages are never happy. (The say marriages are incapable of being anything like happy or unhappy. Marriages don't care. There are only happy people or unhappy people in marriages. Marriages are, themselves, neutral. The people change; the marriages never do.) Okay. That will be all for tonight. Thank you for joining us.

3 comments:

DeTamble said...

*Zooms in like a rabbit on a rocket!!(read that as a rabbit on heat)*

SOCKS!!!

dannycrane said...

Men this is tight shit for me every where they are on top of me.
zoom in hump heaty rabbit and scrap!!!!
great piece brotha!!peace out!!

Spartakuss said...

Ok this is official, being impressive from a far and far impressive all of a sudden seem to come together to describe the confusion in this post... but like in the old days...still good.