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.”
Wish I had your excuse for not commenting more.
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.
“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.
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.
That’s alright. Under the principles outlined in the original post you’ll make a lovely couple.
Those chicks look kinda rapey. I am sure ol’ bing was just traumatized.
So the “living like feral beasts” thing will apply to our economic conditions as well as our sexuality.
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life . . .
That picture is 68 virgins short.
Where is Trump when we need him for a killer comment?
My guess is it’s 72 short.
.. Oh, and you have to pay for all this, as well, because they live with at home.
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”.
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!
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.
Well, no, because a genuine progressive doesn’t think of romantic partners as property.
What animal shags indiscriminately? There is always a selection process of some sort.
More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.
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.
If my husband or I (or both of us) are overweight do we get an exemption?
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.
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.
[snip]
I deleted this post. It was is poor taste, even for me.
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).
a) The law of the jungle doesn’t apply to
enslaveddomesticated animals.b) Maybe the dog was smart enough to know that human legs don’t produce puppies. Was the dog named Onan?
It takes some effort to read the New Testament that way.