.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Saturday, August 28, 2004


I was hanging out on a beach next to a massage booth that someone had set up. I heard the masseur making jokes with his friend about the awful job he has fondling naked women. Then this sexy young lady enters, motioning that she wants the treatment. As she was getting comfortable, he winked at his friend and gave solemn gratitude to God for his poor lot in life.

As he approached the near-naked girl, he put on his professional poker face and proceeded to slide his hands over her naked body, stretching her limbs and body in various compromising positions in order to make the poor lady feel better. Looking at her facial expressions, I can only assume she was thinking professional thoughts as well, as the professional hands did professional wonders to her body.

After he was done with her, she walked back to her husband who put his arm around her and kissed her intimately.

Now re-read the story, but replace the masseur with an acquaintance or ex-boyfriend. Sometimes I just don't understand humans.



Perhaps you draw the lines of fidelity differently from that girl and her husband. Fidelity isn't absolute. It depends on culture, norms, conventions, morality, religion, and even private understandings between the specific couple.

I know a woman who considers internet chatting as an act of infidelity. Not cybering. Just chatting. I know a guy who is unwilling to allow his wife to look at another man for more than 20 seconds. At the other end of the scale, I know a couple that regularly attends swinging parties, and still consider themselves very true to each other.

So by "not understanding humans", you actually don't understand why others don't agree with your ideas of what fidelity is.


August 30, 2004 1:37 am  

My point was not to question this specific couple's standards of fidelity. There are millions of couples who do similar things.

I was making fun of this attitude that a so-called 'professional' infidelity is somehow acceptable. That people can pretend everything is OK just because they never bothered to stop and think what's really happening.

But now that you brought it up, I personally don't accept any concept of fidelity except an absolute one. Just because some idiot feels chatting is unfaithful, that doesn't make common sense a relative term. I reject relativity when it comes to morality and if this makes people consider me old-fashioned and closed-minded then so be it.

If we got married and agreed that getting fondled by strangers is acceptable, what's stopping me from deciding a week later that having sex with strangers is acceptable as well? Our so-called agreement? Then I'll go find someone else who is more permissive or I won't bother telling you that I changed my mind. After all, as far as I'm concerned, I'm still being faithful.

Of course there may be some gray areas with tricky situations. But there is no gray area when a stranger is fondling some man's naked wife and obviously enjoying himself.

August 31, 2004 1:40 pm  

Is fidelity an absolute value?

The dictionary defines a faithful person as "firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty". Which promises? What duty? I'm not sure that all couples have the same sets of promises, or think of duty in the same way.

Before being able to talk about fidelity, I feel that it's crucial to discuss how vows and promises aren't anything too serious nowadays. People get together and promise each other nothing, or near to nothing. Anyone who would want more is "uptight" or "possessive". With such a watered down notion of promise, no wonder that fidelity became a sham.

October 06, 2004 8:08 pm  

First of all, there is a socially accepted duty of monogamy that is so widespread, anything outside of these parameters needs explicit agreement beforehand. Just because there was no explicit promise made, that does not make the moral contract invalid, just like there are some accepted legal obligations between an employer and employee even without a contract. (Of course, a moral relativist can say that even explicit promises are void in certain cases).

Secondly, if they explicitly agreed beforehand as to their especially permissive parameters of fidelity, then obviously I can't say anything except shake my head at their delusions that things will work out fine.

Thirdly, and most importantly, like I said before: My post was not meant to show that people cheat on each other. It laughs at the hypocrisy of people who accept things they wouldn't accept otherwise just because of an irrelevant technicality.

October 06, 2004 10:11 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home