Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Have I got a (INSERT HERE) for you!
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.”
With that many women in the house, it’d take some effort to carve out a little quiet time to read the New Testament at all.
72. Just sayin’
Dang – I should have read the rest of the comments before making the obvious response
Like Venezuela, but with more sex.
Well once these totalitarians control things guess who gets all the beautiful girls? That’s gender specific because the guys who run things will get there by being the meanest most ruthless people around. It won’t be run by the delicate flowers who say these insanities.