Gregor Samsa, if You Only Knew!

 

Kitab_al-Bulhan_--_devilHow does a man feel about his wife making a life out of promiscuity? Well, this one is writing in New York Magazine, so he does not call it adultery: He says he’s a feminist.

That’s right folks, this guy is here to tell you, you men ain’t feminists until you approve of being traduced. If your wife isn’t climbing into bed with you to tell you about whomever she’s been busy with making the beast with two backs — you ain’t feminist, not really!

This is everything that gets conservatives to pull out all the stops and just scream about the coming polygamy and the madness of the lotophagi. Of course, this is not the first guy to take to the bottle after his wife betrays him. He has more reason, being that she’s so blatant about it all. But I bet when he says “oceans of red wine,” he means a bit of red wine. He does not strike me as a manly drinker — or a man, for that matter.

I read this to my young miss, so I relay to you her observations: She says, “I know women, married women — they would never stand for this. This guy acts more like a woman than all of them put together.” I nod an write it down. She says, “This must be a cri de coeur — somewhere deep down, sanity is speaking.” I paraphrase here. She says: “This guy is so deluded — and it took him six months of drinking to lie to himself about whats really happening here. I’m trying to imagine their first conversation … ‘Honey, I’m home!’ it wasn’t.”

Finally, I note that the guy remarks that this promiscuity and adultery carousel started after they had their two children. Surely, he’s already done the paternity tests. I note too that the man says he could not stand it if she loved anyone else. Apparently, this guy convinced himself of that old line — honey, she means nothing to me!

There are 154 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  1. Guruforhire Member

    Yes, this is what a feminist looks like.

    A weak feckless auto-cuckold.

    I am not going to watch read the article, because it would be like gawking at a mangled animal writhing in its own misery.

    A mercy killing may be in order.

    • #1
    • July 19, 2015, at 5:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Paul Erickson Member

    Guru, you made the right choice. It is pathetic.

    • #2
    • July 19, 2015, at 5:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    This guy will one day see dogs in the park & have a revelation!

    • #3
    • July 19, 2015, at 5:23 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Let me spice things up with a para:

    In this way, my masculine self-image was stretched but not broken. Diaper bag notwithstanding, I was still a Man. It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it and wanted to do more than kiss next time that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife –I paraphrase here– loved only me.

    • #4
    • July 19, 2015, at 5:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Martel Member

    This was the line that got me: “It does work both ways and, yes, I too enjoy sexual carte blanche. I just don’t use mine as much as my wife uses hers. What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.”

    Why do I have the feeling that not “as much as my wife uses hers” means that he never uses his? Could it be that he’s such an unmasculine squish that every woman he encounters finds the idea of sex with him downright revolting?

    I’m usually pretty glib at ripping into idiocy, but this guy is so far removed from reality that if I met him person I’d have no idea what to say. Describing what he’s doing wrong would be like trying to describe yellow to a blind deaf mute with no sense of taste or smell.

    • #5
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    I’d ask him, why is love different–why is her falling in love with other people off limits for him? What if his kids are not his own? Would that matter?

    • #6
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Misthiocracy secretly Member

    His train of logic is rather flawed:

    a) I’m an economically-dependent househusband.

    b) From this experience, I can understand how women could want more than just to be a housewife.

    c) Therefore, it is acceptable for my wife, who is not an economically-dependent housewife, to have sex with other men.

    I’m still trying to figure out how c follows from a and b.

    He seems to be unwittingly arguing for the acceptability of philandering by the primary breadwinner, a role usually taken up by men.

    • #7
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:11 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Misthiocracy secretly Member

    What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

    This goes against everything the Left stands for.

    • #8
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:12 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Misthiocracy:

    What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

    This goes against everything the Left stands for.

    Yeah, you have to give it to the guy–he thinks he’s making fun of evil right-wingers–he’s such a bad writer…

    Misthiocracy:His train of logic is rather flawed:

    a) I’m an economically-dependent househusband.

    b) From this experience, I can understand how women could want more than just to be a housewife.

    c) Therefore, it is acceptable for my wife, who is not an economically-depended housewife, to have sex with other men.

    I’m still trying to figure out how c follows from a and b.

    He seems to be unwittingly arguing for the acceptability of philandering by the primary breadwinner, a role usually taken up by men.

    As to his logic, you are perfectly right–this guy does not seem to understand that if he wants to say, hardship justifies outrage against laws, then women who raise kids owe no one any loyalty; if it’s providing, then men or whoever makes money does not owe loyalty. The insanity is the notion that you want to get away from people for whom you provide or for whom you care. Then again, he’s right that anyone who thinks of himself primarily as an autonomous individual is not going to think too much of others…

    • #9
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Martel Member

    Misthiocracy:His train of logic is rather flawed:

    a) I’m an economically-dependent househusband.

    b) From this experience, I can understand how women could want more than just to be a housewife.

    c) Therefore, it is acceptable for my wife, who is not an economically-depended housewife, to have sex with other men.

    I’m still trying to figure out how c follows from a and b.

    He seems to be unwittingly arguing for the acceptability of philandering by the primary breadwinner, a role usually taken up by men.

    You fail to recognize the logic that supersedes nearly all others, that of the hierarchy of oppression.

    You see, he is a man and therefore an oppressor. She is a woman and therefore victim.

    It matters not if the rich black kid has never suffered an inconvenience his entire life, when it works to his advantage he’s a victim of racism. Likewise, even if his wife isn’t an actual housewife, if she were a housewife (and other women actually are housewives) she would want something more out of life. Therefore, she deserves to get whatever she wants out of life, including the lusts of other men.

    Don’t worry, if you don’t understand it actually speaks well of you.

    • #10
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Misthiocracy secretly Member

    Titus Techera:

    Misthiocracy:

    What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

    This goes against everything the Left stands for.

    Yeah, you have to give it to the guy–he thinks he’s making fun of evil right-wingers–he’s such a bad writer…

    Indeed, my biggest takeaway from this article is that conservatives should give this guy an award for doing their work for them. His arguments in favour of his lifestyle are so bad that it’s easy to imagine they will convince more people that this lifestyle choice results in emotional poverty rather than emotional empowerment.

    • #11
    • July 19, 2015, at 6:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Martel Member

    Misthiocracy:

    Titus Techera:

    Misthiocracy:

    What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

    This goes against everything the Left stands for.

    Yeah, you have to give it to the guy–he thinks he’s making fun of evil right-wingers–he’s such a bad writer…

    Indeed, my biggest takeaway from this article is that conservatives should give this guy an award for doing their work for them. His arguments in favour of his lifestyle are so bad that it’s easy to imagine they will convince more people that this lifestyle choice results in emotional poverty rather than emotional empowerment.

    Agreed. I can’t see how promoting the idea that you’re not a real feminist unless your wife can sleep around on you is going to inspire many men want to become feminists.

    Well, it might inspire a few, but they were already lost anyway.

    • #12
    • July 19, 2015, at 7:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Yeah, I think this guy fits all our caricatures. It’s an amazing in its way. Most conservative arguments & objections admit of exceptions or are only partial. But this guy–Mr. Limbaugh could not make him up, but he’d get a knowing chuckle out of him…

    So I think this suggests our caricatures have a kind of clarifying power.

    Also, they show–we need a sense of shame to be who we are–making fun of these people only works so long as they are able to think they should not be laughable. If they can convince themselves, the more conservatives dislike you, the better you are, then there is no more community, in a way. I think the reverse is true as well–we can take pride in being as contrarian as we can be. I’m not sure how we can keep within the bounds where we realize being laughable is not by default a badge of pride, but examples like this suggest to me, it is a needful thing to find those boundaries.

    • #13
    • July 19, 2015, at 7:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Jason Rudert Member

    It’s all fun and games until the spirochetes move into your urinary tract.

    • #14
    • July 19, 2015, at 7:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Boss Mongo Member

    “Feminist.”

    I do not think this word means what he thinks it means.

    • #15
    • July 19, 2015, at 7:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Martel Member

    Boss Mongo:“Feminist.”

    I do not think this word means what he thinks it means.

    Sadly, I think it does.

    • #16
    • July 19, 2015, at 7:53 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Jamal Rudert:It’s all fun and games until the spirochetes move into your urinary tract.

    Rudie’s in the house–everyone get out!

    • #17
    • July 19, 2015, at 8:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. PsychLynne Inactive

    There is certainly a wealth of…let’s say, therapeutic material in that piece. Didn’t someone say on one of the week’s podcast that men aren’t rational being, rather rationalizing ones?

    • #18
    • July 19, 2015, at 8:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    I have no doubt that this man is “brave” and probably deserves an award for “bravery” from ESPN or some such thing.

    • #19
    • July 19, 2015, at 8:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    One wonders, does this guy work at fitting the audience of NYmag, most of whom do not & would not do as he does, or is it just a happy coincidence–except, possibly, for the kids?

    • #20
    • July 19, 2015, at 9:19 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. The Dowager Jojo Member

    What I really want to hear, is some same sex marriage supporter explain why this open interpretation of marriage is not fine and dandy. Because this is an agreed-upon arrangement between two adults as to what they need to do to have a happy relationship. No one else is in a position to judge….right? Freedom, Liberty?

    • #21
    • July 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    By the by–about this open marriage–it is the same as not being married. The guy says, well, the vows, you know, don’t think about them–that’s a false choice. Then you might as well not have it.

    • #22
    • July 19, 2015, at 9:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    An open marriage still has all the legal ties, benefits, requirements of marriage. In the end, in today’s modern age that is all that matters. The spiritual side of marriage,the union before God no longer matters and does not have a place in modern America. SCOTUS has told us that.

    • #23
    • July 19, 2015, at 9:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. The Dowager Jojo Member

    Titus Techera:By the by–about this open marriage–it is the same as not being married. The guy says, well, the vows, you know, don’t think about them–that’s a false choice. Then you might as well not have it.

    Legally it’s a marriage.

    • #24
    • July 19, 2015, at 10:26 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Sure, it is legally a marriage–but what does that mean to, well, progressives? Staying within the laws is not their advertisement-

    • #25
    • July 19, 2015, at 10:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. The Dowager Jojo Member

    Titus Techera:Sure, it is legally a marriage–but what does that mean to, well, progressives? Staying within the laws is not their advertisement-

    Not sure of your point, but access to legal marriage for same sex couples was very important to progressives.

    It means by the only common objective standard we have, their marriage is as important and valid as anyone else’s. Unapologetic, “brave” publicity for this kind of marriage means it’s not a failure or shameful, but just a choice some couples make. The fact that no coherent idea of marriage remains is not a problem to progressives.

    • #26
    • July 19, 2015, at 11:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. The Dowager Jojo Member

    Titus Techera:By the by–about this open marriage–it is the same as not being married. The guy says, well, the vows, you know, don’t think about them–that’s a false choice. Then you might as well not have it.

    To play devil’s advocate, they made the vows and they can certainly renegotiate them. Marriage is not just about sex, you know. In fact it needn’t be about sex at all. In fact, what is it about? Ah. Love. There you have it! If this is how they show their love, that is up to them. Right?

    • #27
    • July 19, 2015, at 11:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Jojo:

    Titus Techera:Sure, it is legally a marriage–but what does that mean to, well, progressives? Staying within the laws is not their advertisement-

    Not sure of your point, but access to legal marriage for same sex couples was very important to progressives.

    It means by the only common objective standard we have, their marriage is as important & valid as anyone else’s. Unapologetic, “brave” publicity for this kind of marriage means it’s not a failure or shameful, but just a choice some couples make. The fact that no coherent idea of marriage remains is not a problem to progressives.

    My point was–for this guy & for people like him–as opposed to culture warriors of the left–why get married?

    This open marriage is the same as not being married. The guy says, well, the vows, you know, don’t think about them–that’s a false choice. Then why have it?

    To play devil’s advocate, they made the vows & they can certainly renegotiate them. Marriage is not just about sex, you know. In fact it needn’t be about sex at all. In fact, what is it about? Ah. Love. There you have it! If this is how they show their love, that is up to them. Right?

    I take your point: But I remind you: If the man is ok with the woman having sex with whatever she wants: Why is he obsessed that he alone be loved? That’s an full individual autonomy…

    • #28
    • July 19, 2015, at 11:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Misthiocracy secretly Member

    Titus Techera:By the by–about this open marriage–it is the same as not being married. The guy says, well, the vows, you know, don’t think about them–that’s a false choice. Then you might as well not have it.

    a) They feel like the kinda couple who woulda written their own vows.

    b) It’s not like marriage vows are legally binding.

    • #29
    • July 19, 2015, at 11:23 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera Post author

    Misthiocracy:

    Titus Techera:By the by–about this open marriage–it is the same as not being married. The guy says, well, the vows, you know, don’t think about them–that’s a false choice. Then you might as well not have it.

    a) They feel like the kinda couple who woulda written their own vows.

    b) It’s not like marriage vows are legally binding.

    Sure, but why do it? Do you see–they do not seem like the kind of people who got into marriage knowing how it would turn out for them! I think it’s a serious question–knowing what they think they know now–would they do it again? These people who end up enlightened–do not they enlighten themselves out of obsolescent institutions like marriage?

    • #30
    • July 19, 2015, at 11:26 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6