Posts Tagged ‘human’

Open Relationships & Heteronormative Hate?

June 16, 2011 2 comments

Being the delightful young homosexual that I am, I have a particular taste for topics that are relevant to the gay community. The male gay community, if I am to be precise. Amongst my more ‘pro queer’ friends, (keeping in mind that queer is used to describe a cacophony of divergent sexual orientations) there is a particular contempt held for the heteronormative. This is naturally understandable, as the nuclear family with approximately 2.3 children does not seem particular appealing. There is also the view of the detrimental impact of the heterosexual influence within the lives of those that consider themselves to be queer. As a response to this notion it has be theorised that queer people should celebrate their divergent sexual practices and not to allow the heteronormative to influence our sex lives and even our relationships. The rejection of monogamy and the acceptance of open relationships being the pervading result in a good chunk of male homosexual interaction. In this quasi-intellectual article, I cherish the opportunity to deal with these notions and perhaps relate them to secular and logical morality.

It was once said in my social circles, that to have an open relationship, one is just asking for trouble, and in all honesty I simply must agree. Inviting other parties into a relationship, whilst an honour for the outside party, is calling for division within the original bond. Humanity is a jealous species; this is reflected in the pervading social taboo against cheating on partners.

Open relationships remove the idea of jealousy, and is most commonly justified with the ideology that sex and love, or perhaps not even love, sex and emotion are separated for the purposes of ensuring the longevity of this particular kind of relationship. To put it in colloquial terms, you can fuck whoever you want, so long as it remains, sex and only sex, and you remain emotionally ‘loyal,’ to your partner. Does this or not raise a few eyebrows, or is it justified?

Those in favour of open relationships might suggest that in committed monogamous situations there is a subconscious or conscious objectification of humanity. That is, a mentality of one partner to the other that they are indeed their property and in sexual terms no one else is allowed to ‘play’ with them. But this is simply not apt. Commitment being a two way street implies a form of equality, or perhaps mutual objectification that is agreed upon with the consent (albeit subconscious) of both parties. This would naturally mean that partners in committed relationships are afforded the same freedoms and responsibilities as the other. Naturally my own sense of devil advocacy says that this would mean that people in committed relationships are lesser people than their single counterparts. Why? – As they are not provided the same freedoms, surely there must be some price for an emotionally stable, healthy relationship…and let’s not forget the guarantee of sex.

Power is also a massive element of each relationship, it even has made its way into the social vernacular with the ‘reacher,’ and ‘settler’ complex. The power play evident within any relationship, keeps the bond interesting, constantly evolving. Allowing the freedom, of both partners to sleep with whoever they wish, immediately brings this power relationship into disrepute. Whilst this might seem positive, to ‘break the bonds’ of some ridiculous power struggle, it merely allows it to move into the wider community. Power then becomes about the amount of men or perhaps the sexual appeal of those that a partner will sleep with. I would ask, does this appear beneficial in the long run? In my opinion it speaks as a lack of respect for our partners as individuals not to mention the additional sexual partners who are merely being used as some form of leverage in order to gain the respect of, or to spark interest by a partner.

Moving to a matter of personal development, I wanted to speak briefly of the role of sex in a relationship. Every heterosexual relationship evident on television some-how manages to always display the long running joke of one partner (usually the female) withholding sex from the other in order to achieve what they desire. In reality, there is a distinct lack, except for perhaps the usual jibe at the idea of withholding sex for a particular purpose. The usual reason behind a lack of sexual activity is a combination of lifestyle factors and emotional issues between the partners. To place the ability to achieve sexual gratification outside a relationship is to advocate for laziness in a relationship. It is to allow sexual pleasure to be provided to a partner that may require a certain period of introspection in order to better themselves as a person. Additionally this also means that a partner has no beneficial action of working on developing (or perhaps repairing) their relationship as sexual gratification can be found elsewhere.

As a way of attacking the heteronormative, I find open relationships the most trivial and ridiculous manner in which to do so. A scattered, unorganised, string of private relationships hardly creates any notoriety against the dominant heteronormative.

I always have found it ridiculous those who always desire to attack the heterosexual dominance of society, or perhaps view its pervading nature as an attack on our right to be different. Honestly, honestly? How absurd a statement! At last glance majority of these people were created from the heteronormative, I cannot understand rationally why so many people desire to bite the hand that feeds them! Like it or not, the heteronormative has numerous institutions that will assure its longevity long into the future and if some queer people lack the capacity to understand this, then they, by all means deserve to be screaming and constantly frustrated for the rest of their lives. The fact of the matter is that heterosexual dominance in society is sound, but this does not mean that there necessary need be homophobic hate speech flung around on the streets.

The notion of transvaluation provides us with a solid resolution to the issue at hand. In order to gain what we desire, what the long speculated ‘gay agenda,’ states, i.e. equality, then a process of putting a new slant on old ideas and traditions is necessary. Furthermore it is simply not possible for this to occur if all the queer community does is shout at the top of its lungs at the woeful inequality still evident in our society. It is not necessary to distance ourselves from our heterosexual brothers and sisters, stooping our souls in bitter brine over the taunts received in high school. The value of this lesson lies in human connection. People lack the capacity to fear something they are informed of; perhaps the best way to achieve equality is to spread ourselves amongst the ‘straight,’ community. To move away from the gossiping cliques and inconsequential drama of the ‘queer,’ community and stand amongst every member of our society allowing them to view us, exactly for what we are, human.



June 13, 2011 Leave a comment

In all honesty, I despise being politically correct. Something within my own being manages to provoke it. Thus, I am left constantly frustrated by my own sense of conscience, ridiculousness or perhaps morality. As if it were important for one’s closest friends to realise that I were a liberal humanist, and let me stress liberal with the lower case ‘l.’ What possible value could this internal notion have upon anything exterior, except perhaps for a solemn espousal of a belief in equality?

Truth is I am weary of harping on and on about personal, objective or religious morality. But the fact of the matter is, it has, at the very least, a small impact on the physical world. Personal belief, influencing our actions and dealings with other people then would naturally have to have some social impact. Our concept of political correctness then becomes far more essential than it was once thought. But how much of an impact justifies a tightening of our own social behaviour comparative to that of an uptight television code of practice executive?

To delve a little further into this question, in essence, what I am examining is the manner in which humanity treats one and other. Equality, bigotry, racism, are all mere terms to describe rather simple interaction between people. But to over intellectualise and politicise behaviour takes away our capacity for empathy. If we are to understand sexism on an intellectual level does that not lessen our capacity for understanding the pain of such an act?

Humanity is a peculiar species, with as many idiosyncrasies as there are grains of sand on the earth, but one thing I have been constantly reminded of in recent months is, quite simply, how terribly we interact. How disjointed, violent and bigoted we treat our brothers and sisters. The fact that I even use these over politicised words speaks wonders for the way in which a social mentality deals with trauma. Perhaps it would be easier to reduce it to two irreducible components of the issue:




What is it that causes people to turn on other people with such force and brutality that virtually all remnants of conscience are completely erased?

Readers, I want to share something with you, it can be viewed as a vulnerability, strength or just simply an attribute. My capacity for emotion when experiencing a form of empathy is, quite frankly ridiculous. I become the most pathetic blubbering mess, crying for something I seemingly cannot do a thing about. All I manage to blurt out is “Why are people so terrible to each other?” It is disgusting how many situations that statement is applicable to. I cannot fathom what break down of basic human decency leads to such indiscriminate suffering across the world.

It seems a staple in any news broadcast to see a middle-eastern nation having suffered some form of attack, and a distraught woman screaming about lost loved ones. But this does not tend to effect people past the point of a brief conversation stating that it is terrible, but there is nothing we can do. Perhaps it is not viable to empathetically connect with that human for fear the pain would elicit too powerful a reaction. The numbing of hearts is a sad practice, whatever its cause. At what point of absolute decimation of human life is necessary before these events elicit a true emotional reaction amongst the Western world?

Forgive me for being naïve, however I thought a mother screaming, “My child, my child,” stooped over the body of her mangled son would be enough for a significant few to shed a single tear.

But I shouldn’t restrict this only to those living within a warzone. Perhaps the alleged rape of an eleven year old girl, by at least eighteen other boys and men in Texas, would speak for the inept manner we treat the species. The Aboriginal Intervention evident in Australia, where the law is being applied to a group in such a particular way it might as well steal their once held rights from right under their nose.

But it doesn’t even need to be such horrific and heart shattering events such as those aforementioned to evidence the insane manner we are treating our own kind. That is, discrimination, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, bigotry and all the over intellectualisations to distract us from the greater truth, that majority of our interaction is morally inept. To smirk at the failure of an enemy, to celebrate the death of Al-Qaida leader, to rejoice in our success knowing it is built on the crushed spirits of those beneath us. Therefore I must reiterate, people are terrible to each other.

That personal feeling of isolation and helplessness when confronted with a distant tragedy need not exist. The world ripples, it is covered with water, thus an act of kindness, a forgoing of a politically incorrect statement or the proud espousal of equality eventually creates waves. Idealistic, I know. But here is the crux of the argument. I set out to answer the simple question, whether it is worth monitoring our own behaviour even amongst friends. I say it is necessary, to espouse disdain, leads to dislike, leads to discrimination, which is not just. Fast forward twenty years and you have a mass grave of deceased for seemingly no purpose. But history will tell us that.

I leave you beautiful people, with the solemn hope for you to simply soften your hearts of stone. To look upon your human counterparts accomplices not adversaries’.


%d bloggers like this: