A recent article on Alternet, For Many, Marriage is Sexless, Boring, and Oppressive:Time to Rethink the Institution? by Amanda Marcotte, asks the question:
Formalized marriage and monogamy began for practical reasons, unrelated to any religious notions of "sanctity". Once ancient hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies and ideas of private property and inheritance came about, socially sanctioned monogamous marriage began as a way to control women's sexuality so men would know which children were actually theirs. Polygynous marriage existed for the very rich, but the women in such marriages were still monogamous, though men were not. It is because of this original reason that women are punished more severely for infidelity than are men, as men couldn't be sure of who their children were unless women's sexuality was tightly controlled.
Religious insistence on monogamy was soon added, as it gave the force of law to a practical idea in societies where religious leaders were the law. "God said it" leaves no room for debate.
People did not marry primarily for love until around the 18th century. It was strictly a practical arrangement, a vehicle for joining powerful families for the rich, along with inheritance reasons, and to have a socially sanctioned partner to have children with and work together for survival for the poor. Love, if it happened, was icing on the cake, not the reason to get married in the first place.
People lived shorter lives then, so "until death do us part", did not include decades of the "empty-nest syndrome". Most people were lucky to live long enough to see the youngest child to adulthood. Life itself was harder and more survival oriented, thus people did not worry overmuch about love or personal fulfillment then.
Still, infidelity occurred all throughout history for both sexes, despite sanctions against it, as it's very difficult to overcome basic human nature. It's always been a big scandal for women, but not so much for men until the 19th century or so. The feminist movement no doubt influenced the increasing disapproval of male infidelity, rather than freeing women to male norms.
Today, we marry for love, life isn't strictly about survival, DNA tests prove paternity, overpopulation discourages large families, we live longer lives, women can support themselves, and the abolishment of legal distictions between marital and nonmarital children have removed much of the valid reasons for legal marriage and monogamy. Thus, marriage as it's currently understood has become maladaptive for modern needs. It's no wonder we're seeing what we're seeing.
In light of this, marriage needs to be redefined if it is to survive in
a workable form(s) and adjusted to reflect the realities of modern life
and human nature. One of the first steps would be to cease mandating
monogamy.
I've not picked on the advertising industry in awhile, so here goes.
I've been hearing different ads lately that talk about "that guy". "That guy" is usually a bumbling, figure of universal scorn; someone who isn't quite all man, somehow. Naturally, use of the product being advertised will save the men from the shame of being "that guy".
For instance, there's a radio spot for STP oil treatment with Richard Petty telling us not to be "that guy". In this instance, "that guy" doesn't know a thing about cars, barely knows how to raise the hood of the car, calls parts of the engine "doohickeys" and "thingamajigs", and so on. You get the picture.
The next buzz word I'm hearing, though not limited exclusively to the realm of actual commercials is "rebrand". From what I can gather from context, "rebrand" means to change one's image, usually used in the context of changing a corporate image.
The mental images I take away from this, however, are skittish already-branded cows running awy from psychotic cowboys holding red-hot branding irons who want to brand them again.
Another trend I've noticed is a fascination with Tuscany region of Italy. Restaurants all over have popped up with Tuscan style dishes of various kinds, I see travel agency ads promoting trips there, I see ads promoting Tuscan style home decorating, and so on.
What's the sudden appeal of Tuscany, I wonder? Twenty years ago, I never saw references to this part of Italy. I imagine it's a temporary thing until the next foreign flavor of the month takes its place, as Tuscany has apparently supplanted the chipotle mania of a few years ago.
/rant over
What's your favorite Michael Jackson song? Bonus points if you share the video.
I'd have to say Billie Jean, with the strong bass line in it. I've never been a rabid Michael Jackson fan in general, but I always liked this song.
The other day I was having a conversation with someone and we were discussing whether or not it was likely that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford would resign his office. The other person -- a Republican -- took the attitude "why should he resign -- Bill Clinton didn't!"
Yes, both men strayed from the monogamous straight and narrow, but the difference is that Bill Clinton ran his job while doing so instead of going AWOL for a week like Sanford did.
I think he should resign, but it's not because he had an extramarital affair. That is a private matter between him, his wife, and the other woman involved and I wouldn't give a flying fuck who he screws as long as he ran his job.
Rather, I think he should resign because the man disappeared without anyone, including the Lieutenant Governor, knowing where he'd really gone and was incommunicado for that week. He wasn't running the job he'd been elected to do. That is the real scandal.
Thoughts?
...or I will laugh at them, lol.
