The Modern Secular Man

As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.

What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Culture, Society and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Modern Secular Man

  1. apollyon911 says:

    that’s just embarrassing…

  2. TFBW says:

    I never forget that my wife is a whole person unto herself, a complete and dynamic individual, and though we are together, we’re not one.

    “We’re not one” seems like an important distinction, relative to a Biblical view.

  3. advancedatheist says:

    How about the “modern secular man” who lives as an adult virgin, like all those sexually inexperienced and excluded men in secular Japan?

    Those atheist sexual utopians In the last century got it all wrong when they prophesied that removing restrictions on sexual expression would result in erotic joy for all. Instead this sexual revolution has allowed women to evict more and more men from having sexual relationships because these men don’t supply the excitement and drama offered by the minority of bad boys, jerks, cads and thugs, like the Paulo character above. Women’s sexual freedom has shown us the emotional immaturity and bad judgment about men that women display when you let them do what they want while shielding them from consequences and judgment.

  4. No Man's Land says:

    Price tags and pleasures…and we think this era is the height of freedom and reason, a generation devoted to the gratification of desire wholly. Alas, what an age.

  5. Ilion says:

    It’s almost impossible that that was written by a man: not only is it a perfect reflection of one of the feminist fantasy worlds (*), but what man gushes about talking over (lots of) glasses of wine.

    (*) there are two main ones: 1) the one where men are extinct but the human world goes on; 2) the one where women live like feminists imagine men live and men are under women’s thumbs.

  6. whiskeybucks says:

    “Never go full retard”- Hosea

  7. Kevin says:

    Anti theists were amusing to deal with for several years simply because it’s funny how the “people of science and reason” suck at understanding science and using reason. These modern day social justice feminists and racists and “celebrate everything gay and trans” people, they are a whole other thing. They are absolutely nuts, as this guy who gets excited about his wife with Paulo proves.

  8. Ratheist says:

    I think that is beautiful, I don’t understand why things can’t be that way, think of all the problems it would solve, with single parents, divorces, children who will never know their father or mother, all the people we can enjoy and have fun with before we die and never live again.

  9. Billy Squibs says:

    That’s a curious statement, Ratheist. What problems would open relationships solve, especially those experienced by single parents, divorces and children who will never know their father or mother? I can’t make sense of this statement in relation to the article.

    “You must first really, truly love yourself; it is the foundation upon which all the other love is built.”
    This article is an excellent demonstration of how our culture now values the feelings of the individual over-against the duty the individual traditionally felt to others. I hate to get all Helen Lovejoy but it’s the children who are most vulnerable here.

    The husband and wife knowingly engage in risky sexual behaviour and call this good. The reality is that they are increasing their risk of:
    * contracting STIs
    * unwanted pregnancy (and the inevitable abortion that would follow)
    * relationship breakup (according to the author in the course of one month he would have considered it a possibility that he had “lost” his wife on four occasions)
    * and what I assume is a general safety risk that comes from meeting largely anonymous people for sex (he seems to suggest that he considered the possibility that some violence had befallen his wife).

    And despite the author using words like “confused, angry, and terrified” all of this is supposed to be empowering for them? I don’t buy his defence one bit and (while this an impression I get from reading the article) I don’t think he does either.

  10. Crude says:

    This story sure is making the rounds, and it’s hilarious. Modern secular man, indeed.

    Slap a picture of Richard Carrier on there!

  11. Dhay says:

    Open relationships seem to be usual in some societies. Here’s a link to anthropologist Cris Campbell discussing some such:

    Among foragers, children are usually raised by large alloparenting groups in which the biological father may or may not play an important role. Thus, the identification and attribution of “father” is fluid, malleable, and often inconsistent with genetic parentage. Despite this variability, there is usually at least one person (or several) who will be identified and addressed as “father.”

    It is therefore surprising to learn that an ethnic group in China’s Himalayan region, the Mosuo, take this paternity-plasticity to another level: the Mosuo do not recognize “fathers” and do not even have a word for “father.” This remarkable fact is a product of “walking marriages” which give women the right to have overnight male visitors as they wish. These visits, which obviously may result in biological paternity, do not consequently lead to fatherhood: …

    http://genealogyreligion.net/dishonor-thy-father

    While large alloparenting groups may well — in some societies — work well, something tells me it is unlikely that this man(? — I agree with Ilion’s suspicions), his wife and her lovers, Richard Carrier likewise, are any of them interested in being part of a large alloparenting group.

  12. Billy Squibs says:

    This article popped up in the Guardian today – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/ashley-madison-sex-wife-love

    While the details of the story differ insofar as the article is written by a man revelling an a clandestine extramarital affair, you will note that the sexual desire of the individual is again at the forefront of the justifications for his actions.

    This may be the only time that the lyrics to a Sheryl Crow song has been anything other than unwelcome, but when I read stories like these the chorus “If it make you happy then it can’t be so bad” runs through my head.

    What can not be justified by the desires of the individual? These are strange times.

  13. Ratheist says:

    What problems would open relationships solve, especially those experienced by single parents, divorces and children who will never know their father or mother?

    This sentence is very difficult to read and I’m not sure I understand it. I meant that open relationships could potentionally put an end to divorces caused by people having “affairs”. The end of jealousy, and more fullfillment and happiness.

    As far as the rest of your post goes, I think you are confusing “open relationships” with the swinging lifestyle. Swinging can be dangerous, especially if like moronic Christians you think using condoms is wrong, but it isn’t the same.

  14. advancedatheist says:

    Speaking of Richard Carrier, he seems to have gone out of his way lately to tell people about his virility. A sexually secure man wouldn’t go around saying that he needs to have multiple sex partners for his self-actualization.

  15. whiskeybucks says:

    “The end of jealousy”

    And I get accused of magical thinking.

  16. The original Mr. X says:

    Crude:

    Slap a picture of Richard Carrier on there!

    Nah, this one would be much better:

  17. Billy Squibs says:

    This sentence is very difficult to read and I’m not sure I understand it.

    I merely repeated what you wrote in the form of a question, Ratheist. Do you not understand your own words?

    I meant that open relationships could potentionally put an end to divorces caused by people having “affairs”. The end of jealousy, and more fullfillment and happiness.

    Yes, you could argue that this is the case. But I’d like to see some evidence of it being true.

    Going back to the actual article – rather than your fantasy land – the author uses nouns like “terrified” when describing his reaction to the thoughts that his wife was going to leave him. He also wondered how he could adequately explain to the police the whereabouts of his wife. This scenario occurred to him presumably because he considered it a possibility that some violence had befallen his wife on one of her assignations with men he didn’t know much about. That is not what I would call “the end of jealousy, and more fulfilment and happiness”. But I’m crazy like that.

    As far as the rest of your post goes, I think you are confusing “open relationships” with the swinging lifestyle. Swinging can be dangerous, especially if like moronic Christians you think using condoms is wrong, but it isn’t the same.

    You will have to explain to me the difference, Ratheist. You can then go on to show how my apparent blunder is relevant to the points I was making. I specifically pinpointed risks that go hand in hand with their sexual conduct as outline in the article. I then suggested that if something goes wrong (such as contraction of a very destructive STI) it not just the parents left picking up the pieces, the children will be damaged too.

    I’ll not respond to the condoms comment beyond pointing out that it’s clearly a lame attempt a red herring.

  18. Ilion says:

    I meant that open relationships could potentionally put an end to divorces caused by people having “affairs”. The end of jealousy, and more fullfillment and happiness.

    Hmmm. So, redefining “marriage” such that bumping uglies with someone who is not one’s “partner” is an acceptable component of “marriage” might “potentionally put an end to [the dissolutions of marriages] caused by people [bumping uglies with someone who is not their “partner”]”?

    I dare say it might.

    But then, redefining “murder” such that the act is not a crime might go a great way toward reducing the crime rate.

  19. advancedatheist says:

    Funny how these atheist sexual utopians (ASU’s) don’t want to discuss Japan’s male virginity crisis. I thought if you secularized sexual relationships, you would create erotic joy for all.

    Instead we have gotten to a situation where women can reveal the true extent of the emotional immaturity and bad judgment regarding sex, even laugh about it like in Amy Schumer’s new film “Trainwreck.”

    At the same time women have tended to reject more and more of the male population from consideration for sexual relationships because these men don’t meet women’s foolish standards for drama and excitement, unlike the minority of jerks, bad boys, thugs and cads women prefer for their early sexual experiences. Women turn to the nerds they rejected earlier for boyfriends and husband prospects, reluctantly and without enthusiasm, because the math doesn’t work out for the kinds of cool boys they really want. Hence all the sexless marriages, female infidelity, cuckoldry and high divorce rates we see in developed countries.

    This trend has advanced so far in Japan that reportedly a quarter of unmarried Japanese men in their 30’s have stayed virgins. So why don’t the ASU’s want to address this phenomenon?

    One, you can’t blame it on religion. If you heard a similar story about high male virginity in a country like, say, Egypt, you could attribute it to Islamic polygamy, the resulting shortage of marriageable women and restrictions on extramarital sexual relationships. But Japan has become a secular, developed country, where the Abrahamic religions never got much of a foothold in the first place.

    Two, Japan’s male virginity crisis makes claims of a similar trend in Western countries more plausible, but the ASU’s don’t want to get anywhere near that subject because it blows up the pretensions of their ideology. Japan has a funny way of living “20 minutes into the future,” where what happens there first could happen in other developed or modernizing countries because of the operation of similar social forces. The male virginity trend has reached a level that it threatens the demographic future of the country, so Japanese sexologist have had to acknowledge and study it. Western sexologists, by contrast, don’t give a crap about male virgins because their field has become politicized to promote feminism and normalize deviancy. The few studies I have seen about male virgins indicate the neglect of the phenomenon, and I would call that wilful neglect. Sexologists just find perverts more interesting to study, especially because gay men have organized politically to get their way and propagandize the rest of us that they have nothing wrong with them.

    Three, ASU’s can’t mock these Japanese male virgins as “losers” and make it stick. Not at those numbers, and not for many of them who have college educations and good jobs, for example as architects. Ironically these Japanese male virgins also have some shielding as nonwhite people. ASU’s carefully want to avoid criticizing anyone which might subject them to accusations of “racism.”

    So as a result, ASU’s just ignore the male virginity crisis in Japan, while throwing similar male virgins closer to home to the wolves.

    And yet these guys promised us that nothing of the sort would happen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s