Have I got a (INSERT HERE) for you!

 
At Home

The author at home on most nights when he’s not busy commenting on Ricochet.

Have you often looked at a guy surrounded by beautiful women and said to yourself, “Self, that’s not fair. He really should share the wealth.” Well, get aboard the Progressive Train, ladies and gentlemen. Oh, wait. Can’t say that. That’s too gender specific — and violent.

The theory, according to Josefin Hedlund, a PhD researcher at Kings College London, “If you are only attracted to able, ‘mentally well,’ successful (by society’s standards), cisgender, normatively beautiful, slim people, from class privileged backgrounds, then you are also upholding violent norms.” (Emphasis mine.) In a February article on opendemocracy.net, Hedlund — who demands not to be called a “she,” naturally –goes on to say that we need “to think about how to mitigate for society’s uneven distribution of power in our intimate relationships.”

You see, allowing people to marry for love, says, uh, “them,” is just as bad as having an arranged marriage. Ideally, you would revert to some feral state in which you had the uncontrollable desire to shag everyone equally, from the most beautiful film star to the flea-bitten homeless guy muttering to himself on the street corner.

Marriage has to be the worst. The marital contract is an “extreme expression” of the ideology of capitalism. “Most of the rules revolve around being obedient, suppressing immature and selfish desires, and working on the relationship.” Oooo. As bad as all that? No, worse. “This sounds awfully like how to be a good patriotic individual in a neoliberal capitalistic society.” Later, we learn that rejecting love as we know it allows us to “fight the tyranny of capitalism, the national social contract, and the work ethic.”

“Them” doesn’t quite say how we’re going to get to this state of nirvana and overturn millions of years of human evolution. And since “them” sees all voluntary love as bad as arranged marriage, then I guess we can expect a massive government bureaucracy to regulate the love lives of straight people. (Obviously if you’re already in a non-traditional relationship within the same sex or you’re really on the cutting edge inter-species wise, you get an exemption.)

Think of the joy you can experience when your 15-year old daughter comes home from her first visit to The Department of Intercourse and Relationships, introducing you to “Tommi,” a transgender with multiple personalities and an incurable skin condition. And if that’s not enough, your 13-year old son gets next dibs on him.

“That’s not only disgusting,” says you, “That’s unconstitutional!”

“Not according to the three justices appointed by President Hillary Clinton,” says I. “That’s a 7-2 majority opinion.”

Until we reach this Marxist Utopia, please allow me to indulge you with a couple of requests. Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful, and in the words of Josefin Hedlund, “Let’s see love for the revolutionary potential that it has.”

Tip of the fedora to Small Dead Animals.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Paul Erickson Member
    Paul Erickson
    @PaulErickson

    Wish I had your excuse for not commenting more.

    • #1
  2. Taras Bulbous Member
    Taras Bulbous
    @TarasBulbous

    Somehow Josefin Hedlund is NOT a morbidly obese cat-lady. She’s almost a “would.” I nearly fell out of my chair.

    The disparity in attractiveness and sexual access will never be mitigated. This is the ultimate hurdle for Marxism, and it’s a doozy of a hurdle.

    • #2
  3. Fred Hadra Podcaster
    Fred Hadra
    @FredHadra

    “Looks” is the last acceptable form of discrimination.

    • #3
  4. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Fred Hadra: “Looks” is the last acceptable form of discrimination

    Says the man with a platypus bill on his face.

    • #4
  5. Fred Hadra Podcaster
    Fred Hadra
    @FredHadra

    EJHill:

    Fred Hadra: “Looks” is the last acceptable form of discrimination

    Says the man with a platypus bill on his face.

    Says the man to blame for the platypus bill on my face.

    • #5
  6. skipsul Member
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    EJHill: Have you often looked at a guy surrounded by beautiful women and said to yourself, “Self, that’s not fair. He really should share the wealth.”

    Ricochet has many beautiful women, I consider myself blessed already.

    • #6
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    skipsul : Ricochet has many beautiful women, I consider myself blessed already.

    Been a moderator for less than 24 hours and already in the tank.

    • #7
  8. skipsul Member
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    EJHill:

    skipsul : Ricochet has many beautiful women, I consider myself blessed already.

    Been a moderator for less than 24 hours and already in the tank.

    Not really – so far none of them are schmoozing me, but @jasonrudert won’t stop schmoozing me.

    • #8
  9. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    skipsul Not really – so far none of them are schmoozing me, but @jasonrudert won’t stop schmoozing me.

    That’s alright. Under the principles outlined  in the original post you’ll make a lovely couple.

    • #9
  10. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Those chicks look kinda rapey.  I am sure ol’ bing was just traumatized.

    • #10
  11. Matt Upton Lincoln
    Matt Upton
    @MattUpton

    EJHill: “fight the tyranny of capitalism, the national social contract, and the work ethic.”

    So the “living like feral beasts” thing will apply to our economic conditions as well as our sexuality.

    • #11
  12. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life . . .

    • #12
  13. Pseudodionysius Member
    Pseudodionysius
    @Pseudodionysius

    That picture is 68 virgins short.

    • #13
  14. Marion Evans Member
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    Where is Trump when we need him for a killer comment?

    • #14
  15. Marion Evans Member
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    Pseudodionysius:That picture is 68 virgins short.

    My guess is it’s 72 short.

    • #15
  16. JimGoneWild Coolidge
    JimGoneWild
    @JimGoneWild

    EJHill: Think of the joy you can experience when your 15-year old daughter comes home from her first visit to The Department of Intercourse and Relationships, introducing you to “Tommi,” a transgender with multiple personalities and an incurable skin condition. And if that’s not enough, your 13-year old son gets next dibs on him

    .. Oh, and you have to pay for all this, as well, because they live with at home.

    • #16
  17. Tenacious D Member
    Tenacious D
    @TenaciousD

    EJHill: The Department of Intercourse and Relationships

    Surely it should be the Department of Intercourse and Relationship Equality.

    Editted to add: The departmental seal would bear an image of Quasimodo and the motto “To Each According To Their Needs”.

    • #17
  18. PsychLynne Member
    PsychLynne
    @PsychLynne

    Marion Evans:

    Pseudodionysius:That picture is 68 virgins short.

    My guess is it’s 72 short.

    I read this about 5 minutes ago and my kids came in the office asking what was so funny?  I told them it was a work email.  Thanks for the big laugh, Marion!

    • #18
  19. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
    – Robertson Davies

    We are in the grip of many mad notions. Presumably, Prof. Hedlund would be OK with the mad woman. Not sure how she’d feel about that mad dog.

    • #19
  20. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    EJHill: Have you often looked at a guy surrounded by beautiful women and said to yourself, “Self, that’s not fair. He really should share the wealth.”

    Well, no, because a genuine progressive doesn’t think of romantic partners as property.

    • #20
  21. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    EJHill: Ideally, you would revert to some feral state in which you had the uncontrollable desire to shag everyone equally, from the most beautiful film star to the flea-bitten homeless guy muttering to himself on the street corner.

    What animal shags indiscriminately? There is always a selection process of some sort.

    • #21
  22. Mike LaRoche Member
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

    • #22
  23. La Tapada Member
    La Tapada
    @LaTapada

    Feral beasts probably have differing levels of attraction based on something else. Female animals probably have differing levels of pheromones, making some more alluring than others.

    • #23
  24. La Tapada Member
    La Tapada
    @LaTapada

    If my husband or I (or both of us) are overweight do we get an exemption?

    • #24
  25. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Misthiocracy: What animal shags indiscriminately? There is always a selection process of some sort.

    I don’t know. I once had a dog that never saw a human leg he didn’t like.

    As to Hedlund’s way of thinking, Pretty Woman would be the ultimate chick flick if only the hooker had been played by Rosie O’Donnell – or maybe Ru Paul.

    I don’t know how you retrain that sense of aesthetics.

    • #25
  26. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Misthiocracy:

    EJHill: Have you often looked at a guy surrounded by beautiful women and said to yourself, “Self, that’s not fair. He really should share the wealth.”

    Well, no, because a genuine progressive doesn’t think of romantic partners as property.

    Aren’t the many social injunctions against polygamy nothing more than nookie communism?

    Hell, there is no new testament disavowal of the practice of concubinage.  So getting yourself a concubine is bible approved.  Now to tell the missus…. should go over well.

    • #26
  27. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    [snip]

    I deleted this post. It was is poor taste, even for me.

    • #27
  28. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Guruforhire:

    Misthiocracy:

    EJHill: Have you often looked at a guy surrounded by beautiful women and said to yourself, “Self, that’s not fair. He really should share the wealth.”

    Well, no, because a genuine progressive doesn’t think of romantic partners as property.

    Aren’t the many social injunctions against polygamy nothing more than nookie communism?

    Hell, there is no new testament disavowal of the practice of concubinage. So getting yourself a concubine is bible approved. Now to tell the missus…. should go over well.

    Strictly-speaking, concubines aren’t illegal. If you wanna have a live-in girlfriend in addition to your wife, and your wife doesn’t object, and the girlfriend agrees, then I don’t believe there’s any law saying you can’t do it. Not even in Utah (anymore).

    • #28
  29. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    EJHill:

    Misthiocracy: What animal shags indiscriminately? There is always a selection process of some sort.

    I don’t know. I once had a dog that never saw a human leg he didn’t like.

    a) The law of the jungle doesn’t apply to enslaved domesticated animals.

    b) Maybe the dog was smart enough to know that human legs don’t produce puppies. Was the dog named Onan?

    • #29
  30. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Guruforhire:

    Misthiocracy:

    EJHill: Have you often looked at a guy surrounded by beautiful women and said to yourself, “Self, that’s not fair. He really should share the wealth.”

    Well, no, because a genuine progressive doesn’t think of romantic partners as property.

    Aren’t the many social injunctions against polygamy nothing more than nookie communism?

    Hell, there is no new testament disavowal of the practice of concubinage. So getting yourself a concubine is bible approved. Now to tell the missus…. should go over well.

    It takes some effort to read the New Testament that way.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.