|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Party On
What Your Parents Forgot to Tell You | from smashingrrl - Wednesday, November 15, 2006
accessed 2595 times All the advice that would have saved me a lot of trouble.
From thestranger.com
So You’ve Decided to Break Your Abstinence Pledge
BY DAN SAVAGE
Take that fucking silver ring thing off your damn finger. You're in 18 now, cupcake, not high school, and virginity pledges—whether they've been honored or not—will impress precisely none of your new peers. Once you get rid of the silver ring, there are a few things you're going to need to get.
Get a clue. Even if you had decent sex education at your high school, odds are good that you don't know shit. The "best" sex ed out there is little more than moderately comprehensive reproductive biology. Whatever you learned about zygotes and fallopian tubes, spermatozoa and ova, isn't going to help you now. Reproduction is the easy part—there are over six billion people on the planet; how hard could fucking be? What they don't cover in sex ed is the useful stuff, the crucial stuff, like how to get your ass laid—that's the hard part. Since no one taught you how to talk people into sleeping with you, boys and girls, you may be fuzzy on exactly what consent is ("Yes, I'd love to sleep with you!") and is not ("Dude, she passed out!"). They expect you to learn that, my young charges, by trial and error. But screw up on consent and you can wind up in prison for the rest of your life. So, boys, err on the side of "Yes, I'd love to," and girls, err on the side of being assertive about saying yes or no.
Get birth control. Birth control is everyone's problem—just as much his responsibility as it is hers. Psych! Birth control is totally the woman's responsibility. It shouldn't be, of course, but it is. And why's that? Because women give birth and men don't. An unplanned pregnancy can certainly fuck up a dude's life, but nowhere near as much as it can fuck up a woman's life. To find the location of the nearest Planned Parenthood office—where you can get birth control, STD screenings, the morning-after pill, the new HPV vaccine, and so much more—go to www.plannedparenthood.org.
Get some condoms. Even if you're absolutely, positively sure you're not going to have sex until after you're married—just like Jesus would want, even though Jesus never actually said a word about premarital sex—get a few condoms, toss 'em in a drawer, and forget about 'em. Then, if you get carried away during one of those technical-virginity-preserving-oral-manual-and-anal-sex marathons, you'll have some birth control handy. And always remember: If he won't wear a condom, don't fuck him. If she isn't asking you to wear a condom, don't fuck her.
Get your shit together. Getting HIV will not necessarily end your life, but it will endlessly complicate your life. So get informed about safer sex (notice I wrote "safer sex," not "safe"), and practice it. Practice, practice, practice. And remember: Whatever you suffered in high school or your small town or in the sacristy at St. Jerome's is no excuse for becoming a messy meth addict, a sloppy drunk, or a tobacco smoker.
Get serious. Don't believe that people can consent to sex when they're drunk or high? Then don't drink or use drugs. And remember: If you're having sex when you're drunk or high, odds are good that you're having sex with other drunk or high people—which means that neither of you consented to the sex, so you raped each other, so you're even.
Get over yourself. You like what you like, and the sooner you stop worrying about what other people think, the happier you'll be. Are you a straight boy into vaginal intercourse with conventionally attractive women? Great, you'll never have to present a "special" request to a sex partner, nor will you have to worry about your friends finding out. But if you're a straight boy into, oh, being fucked in the ass by fat girls wearing strap-ons, well, don't waste your time having vaginal intercourse with conventionally attractive women just to make your friends think you're "normal." You're not; you never will be. Normal is overrated anyway. Do what you like with someone you like and don't worry about what other people think.
So You've Decided to Use Drugs
BY DOMINIC HOLDEN
Most of what you think you know about drugs is wrong. Your "information" most likely came from a biased source—either your school's DARE officers and the propaganda machine that spends millions on ads that depict stoners accidentally killing babies, or your high-school friend who studied High Times magazine like the Koran and whose proudest accomplishment was growing a pot plant in a trash can. Ignore them both.
Despite shreds of truth on both sides, drugs aren't inherently cool; nor are they inevitably harmful. Like chocolate cake, fast food, and sex with people you've just met, drugs can make for an experience that is fantastic or miserable. Only you can determine what you're getting, discern between the good stuff and the bad, decide if now is the right time to indulge, and choose to enjoy everything in moderation.
Whether the drug is mild as pot or intense as acid, if you're going to take it, make sure that you can enjoy your experience safely. This requires that you be informed about the drug and its effects, that you take a safe quantity, and that your frame of mind, environment, and future plan is conducive to having a good time, without hurting yourself or someone else.
These factors are your dosage, and your set and setting. "Set and setting"—coined by Timothy Leary, the patron saint of psychedelics—describes the context for drug experiences: your mindset and your physical setting. If these factors are ignored, drugs can get you too high, make you embarrass yourself, or leave you hung over, addicted, hospitalized, or dead. But you already knew that. If you play your cards right, however, drugs can make an already pleasant experience exhilarating and enlightening.
For instance, after years of enthusiastic pot smoking, I decided to cool off on the hippie lettuce. But when I fell off the Volkswagen, I was determined to make my future intermittent pot-smoking experiences worthwhile.
So when my dad invited me to join him for an evening of Macbeth I resisted the temptation to kick him and politely accepted. I don't have the patience to watch a 30-minute television show, let alone endure a three-act opera. How could this work?
With a neatly rolled joint tucked into my suit pocket, we strolled through the lobby and sipped on bubbly. Just as the five-minute bell rang, I slipped outside, fired up my joint, popped an Altoid, and rushed back to my seat. The lights went down and the curtain went up, and there was Lady Macbeth, holding a baby in her palm. In her other hand she clutched a dagger. As the music raced to a crescendo, she stabbed the baby once, twice, three times. Soon, the walls gushed blood, and... curtain. I applauded like a spastic monkey.
Whoa—how did this predictable story keep me riveted motionless for four hours? I give credit to the joint—and the right setting.
However, like alcohol, poor judgment can lead to a highly regrettable experience. As most folks know, drinking a glass (or several) of fine champagne on New Year's Eve makes for an enchanted evening with friends. But chugging a bottle of Cooks over a TV dinner while watching Schindler's List will give you nightmares and a migraine. Likewise, taking acid while hung over and dehydrated with annoying freshmen the day after getting dumped will probably catapult you into an eight-hour introspective tailspin.
While noteworthy drug experiences like this are rare, a walk down the Ave will quickly remind you that plenty of novice drug users—and alcohol drinkers—have ended up as desperate wrecks. Hundreds of pitfalls present themselves. If at any point you realize you're falling into one of them, there are places that offer treatment for chemical dependency on a sliding scale.
Despite their unique effects, all drugs come with one common guarantee: a hangover. Ranging from foggy and disoriented to totally incapacitated, after the high is over, your body and mind will reel, trying to stabilize basic functions. So before you chew out your mom for calling at the unthinkable hour of 11:00 a.m., remember that you are the one who's off kilter. The antidotes are lots of water, rest, food, and the heroic multivitamin.
The same drug can have radically different effects on different people. So while some stoners like Carl Sagan can smoke a joint and solve universal mysteries while showering, others like me can only sit slack jawed and bob their heads to overtures. If you are in the latter group, lay off the dummy pipe before the big soiree.
Looking beyond the morning after to the life ahead, some drugs are merely habit forming (such as pot) and others can turn you into a homeless psychopathic liar (such as meth). Not only is the latter more likely to make you an addicted tweaker, it can also slowly melt your brain. Remember, this is supposed to be the beginning of long path to a happy life, not a short, bumpy road to the detox clinic.
Mixing drugs is incredibly risky. You don't want to be a human guinea pig unless you also want to have an equally short life expectancy. Perhaps, though, the worst place drugs can lead is jail. Of the many ways to get busted for drugs, most of them involve being a loud-mouthed fool. Only break one law at a time and know the penalties. Although smoking a joint in most large cities is unlikely to give you a rap sheet, cocaine charges will likely result in spending time in the slammer.
Lastly, future graduate, since you've decided to pursue higher education and perhaps consume drugs, you've already concluded that responsible drug use doesn't inevitably ruin lives. But if you've read this far, it's because you know it comes with risks. It is now your responsibility to use your smarts and understanding to help reform drug policy—to one that gives people accurate information.
For more on what drugs do to you, check out www.erowid.org, a vault of information written by experts and peers. More information about drug laws comes from the Drug Policy Alliance at www.drugpolicy.org.
So You've Decided to Drink Alcoholic Beverages
(How to Do So Without Being an Asshole)
BY PAUL CONSTANT
Here's the thing: Drinking will make you more entertaining. It'll also embolden you in social situations and inspire other drunks to like you. Drinking will make you more popular. But like anything else worth doing—sex, Scrabble, cheese making—you can't just wander in a fresh-faced babe and expect to be good at it. You need practice, and you've got to have good advice, which is why you need me, a red-nosed hobo of an angel sitting on your shoulder.
The one important rule for drinking is the same as the one important rule for life: Don't be an asshole—everything else is a variation on this theme. To wit:
Don't drink at corporate and/or theme bars. If you're not old enough to get into bars at all, tuck this away and remember it when you're 21: Nobody gets plowed at the TGiFriday's except assholes and people who wear pleated pants. To the upperclassmen and the grad students and the possessors of great fake IDs I impart this wisdom: A perfect bar has good music, friendly staff, and patrons who are kind but not intrusive—places where you can fall in love, get in a screaming match, or be left alone, depending on your mood. Remember: If you can't afford to tip—at least a buck a beverage—drink at home until you can afford it. They're not serving you out of the kindness of their hearts or because they like you—they're working.
When you're at a bar, all evidence suggests that you are an adult. You should behave accordingly. Don't throw a fit if your $25 'Washinton State' fake ID gets confiscated—for that matter, don't ever pitch a hissy for any reason—just apologize and disappear. Nobody's ever won a philosophical disagreement with a bouncer. Don't order beverages with more than three ingredients—are you a drunk or a chemist? The martini or the Jack and Coke or the gin and tonic are classics for a reason, and their simplicity speaks volumes. Any drink whose construction involves a tool that plugs in—specifically, a blender—should be left at the Jamba Juice, except for the occasional solitary margarita, enjoyed in the sun, at lunch, with friends.
If you don't have a fake ID and you can convincingly pretend to care about art, gallery openings are a fountain of free wine. There will always be more alcohol at bad and/or corporate art events... if you find the art interesting, the gallery is probably too poor to provide much hooch. If you'd rather convincingly pretend to care about politics, you should volunteer for a political campaign that doesn't make your ideological skin crawl—unpaid volunteers are frequently thanked with beer. In addition to being big wetbrains year-round, politicians are sure to throw out all the stops on the first Tuesday in November: Nobody remembers where they ended up on Election Night, and that's as it should be. There are few better coming-out parties for the underage alcoholic aspirant than a local political scandal, and nothing greases the wheels of scandal like whiskey. For year-round free alcohol, if you have a bit of Ferris Bueller–style con artist in you, you should pretend to be a journalist, either by claiming to work for a local publication or by making up an arts-criticism blog. There are countless opening-night journalist-only functions where all the open-bar stops are pulled out, put on by a producer who hopes to get the media so blotto that they can't remember how truly awful their play/art show/new product line/political agenda really is. These people are begging to be taken advantage of.
Drinking at all-ages shows is annoyingly difficult, but drinking at sporting events is incredibly easy; as long as you don't look like a stubby-limbed toddler. If you need a part-time job, consider working at a restaurant that serves liquor: the meager pay will be more than made up for with a crew of ready-made drinking buddies with a burning urge to steal from the boss—as a bonus, you'll probably get laid, too.
The best way for the ambitious juvenile drinker to get alcohol, though, will always be house parties—fridges packed with beer, tables heavy with bottles of amber-colored goodness.
So say you're at a party. Rivers of booze. What now? Don't drink things that are flavors of Kool-Aid. Which means cosmopolitans and lemon drops and other slutty drinks—including Southern Comfort, which exists solely to get 14-year-olds pregnant. (If you must do a shot of Hemorrhaging Sugar Pussy, you're on your own.) Ingrates at house parties are easy to spot—they get blind drunk as quickly as possible. Don't be an ingrate. Instead, help clean up spills, make the rounds and chat with people, and do everything you can to be a sparkling example of party greatness. Why? Because this will get you invited to a bunch more parties, which will keep you in alcohol until the state says you can buy it yourself. If being at the mercy of others' party schedules makes you squirm with impending DTs, buy a flask. Not only are flasks cool, you can fill up at a party and then sip all through the next day's lecture on Parmenides and the Objectification of the Unreal.
Hard-drinking time is not sex-having time. Drinking lubricates flirtation, and it assists in the getting-to-know-you process, but so many things can go wrong—from whiskey-dick to Serious Regret to pregnancy to STDs. There are exceptions; lifelong relationships have blossomed out of skanky drunken tosses. But you should operate under the assumption that it's not going to happen to you until it does.
Make yourself puke if you're too drunk. True, sticking a finger down your throat is momentarily... uncomfortable... but sometimes a little Karen Carpentry averts mountains of pain in the morning. It could even save your life. Don't forget to sleep face-down, and, if you're planning on getting so drunk that your brain goes numb from stem upward, it's best to have a friend with you—especially you ladies—to fend off predators.
If you wake up feeling like you should quit, you should definitely quit. I quit drinking for a year and a half after I blacked out on Capitol Hill—I vaguely recall arguing with a cop and weepily hugging a tree in the rain and waking up in the International District with no shoes. I realized that hard liquor isn't for me; now I mostly stick to dark beers like Guinness. There hasn't been a relapse of the Sobbing Shoeless Days in five years. If you don't learn from your mistakes and recognize problem patterns, you're not just an asshole—you're an idiot. Further, if you drink and drive, you deserve to live every minute of the rest of your gonorrheal life wondering if you unwittingly killed a pedestrian. (Who's that at the door? Is that the cops?)
Your hangovers will teach you that life is too short for cheap beer, and the Sharpie tattoos will teach you that only a bitch passes out first, and the alienated friends will teach you that you shouldn't tell secrets when you're drunk. Most of these rules are common-sense stuff, though, and none negate the fact that drinking is fun. Like everything—except for sex—too much of a good thing is bad, but these are your college days and you're freewheeling, experimental, and indestructible. For now, there's almost no such thing as too much.
So cheers to you, drunky. Make us proud.
So You've Decided to Get a Credit Card
BY ERICA C. BARNETT
In my first year of college, I got a MasterCard. There were a lot of good reasons to take on a little credit-card debt, or so I thought—my job at Barnes & Noble didn't pay enough to live on, and I figured I could pay back the balance as soon as I was making a little more money. Maybe when I was out of school and making a decent salary as, um, a journalist. Also, I figured that because the maximum balance was low (around $2,000) I would never go into so much debt that I couldn't pay it back. And everybody needs to build up credit, right?
But having a credit card felt like having free money. Pretty soon I was using it to pay for all sorts of things—furniture, clothes, eating out, gifts. Instead of budgeting, I charged; and within a few months the company raised my credit limit. To make an extremely long story short, I got into debt that I couldn't pay back (or haven't yet, anyway) and it's cost me a lot of things I would have liked to have. Frankly, even if you think you're good with money, a credit card can still trap you into thinking you can spend more than you earn (or talk your parents into giving you) and that just isn't true. Eventually, you have to pay all that money back—plus interest. And with interest rates as high as 29 percent (the rate may start low, but it jumps the second you miss a single payment), you'll be blowing a huge portion of your monthly payment on interest alone. (If you take on $5,000 in debt at 29 percent annual interest, it works out to $120 a month in interest alone.)
Here are some more statistics to think about before you fill out that application. The average undergraduate, as of 2003, left school with $18,900 in debt, up 66 percent from 1998, according to Nellie Mae. Between starting school and graduating, the average student doubles her debt and triples her number of credit cards. By the time college students reach their senior year, 78 percent of students have credit cards. The average student has a balance of around $2,500, and about 10 percent owe more than $7,000.
So what can you do? The first thing is, if you're going to get a card, make sure it has a low credit limit—no higher than $500 or $1,000. Then set this limit as a maximum with the credit-card company, which will ensure that your limit won't increase automatically. Try to find a card with the lowest interest rate possible, no fees, and a 25-day grace period for late payments (fees add up quickly). Work out a monthly budget, writing down what you spend (on bills, going out, everything else) and compare it to what you need to spend. Debt advisers recommend keeping your monthly debt at no more than 10 percent of your monthly income.
Finally, don't pay for school expenses with credit cards. Students who use cards to help pay for books and tuition end up with far more debt when they graduate. Student loans are a much better deal than credit-card debt, and you don't have to start paying them back until after you're out of school. Credit-card debt is a lifelong burden, and trust me, you don't want it.
So You've Decided to Plaster Yourself All Over the Internet
BY CIENNA MADRID
You're new to the scene and you crave friends—an obscene number of friends—the most friends possible with the least amount of effort. So instead of bopping around and meeting people the old-fashioned way, you decide to plaster yourself all over MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, XTube, PornoTube—wherever.
Before you succumb to the sucking maw of cyberspace and its promise of the coolest friends you've never met, allow me to question your decision-making skills.
You see, an online profile is like having your very own soapbox on Second Avenue and Pike Street. Only instead of broadcasting your business to crack addicts and chubby office workers, your page on a site like MySpace reaches 17 million shut-ins per month. Don't stress out. These shut-ins aren't interested in your witty self-analysis; they simply want to make you the target of their masturbatory fantasies. Draw a bull's eye on your ass, look lusty and accessible, and—voilà!—you've got friends!
Now, in its user agreement MySpace warns that "your profile may not include... photographs containing nudity or obscene, lewd, excessively violent, harassing, sexually explicit, or otherwise objectionable subject matter." Facebook similarly cautions that users cannot "make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable." But who's going to report you? Certainly not your new friends—their hands are busy—so snap some photos of your perky nipples and new tattoos.
To pump up the class, use your camera phone.
Shut-ins will find your page, linger over your abs, masturbate furiously, and add you as a friend. Their existing friends will notice and follow suit. Congratulations! You're popular!
Paradoxically, while the internet can make you popular if you massage it right, it cannot get you laid. Only beer can do that. So if you rank popularity based on a high volume of one-night stands, your best bet is to abandon the internet and start fucking strangers at college parties (use protection!) just like your parents before you.
A final consideration: future employment. Your splashy entry in the working world must seem a lifetime away. But you're going to need a job someday, and your quest for fame and friendship on the internet could complicate your ability to land one.
In recent years, incidences of job applicants being turned down, to say nothing of employees being fired, based on content on personal webpages have become more common. Once you've plastered yourself all over MySpace, and perhaps posted a little friendship porn to XTube and PornoTube, it's nearly impossible to pull those pictures and videos back.
Perhaps you feel you wouldn't want to work for a company that couldn't appreciate the innocent spirit in which you made and posted that eight-minute-long video of your boyfriend tit-fucking you—or maybe you should be more discreet about what you do with your breasts. You're an adult now—exercise some responsibility. Use your breasts to feed the hungry, or donate them to cancer research, and you will discover that you don't need to try so hard to meet new friends. They'll find you.
So You've Decided to Attend Rock Shows
BY HANNAH LEVIN
Ten Commandments of Club Life:
1) Save yourself some heartache and always check show start times on the club's website. Set times vary and there's nothing worse than walking into a club to see a band you're excited about and hearing the lead singer shout, "Thank you, good night!"
2) Don't act surprised or offended when you're carded, even if you've "been there sooooo many times." You're not that memorable. Also, if you use a fake ID and it gets confiscated, don't throw a tantrum. You're busted; accept defeat and walk away.
3) Don't complain to the doorperson about the ticket price or cover charge. They didn't decide what to charge you (a booking agent, club owner, or outside promoter did). Bitching about it only paints you as an amateur asshole.
4) Don't bring a flask into the club and don't consume drugs in the club. By all means, augment your evening with supplementary whiskey or the mind-altering substance of your choice, but either leave it in your car or keep it very carefully concealed on your person. Use bathroom stalls for their intended purpose—to make out with strangers—not to do lines off the toilet seat or smoke pot. With very few exceptions, you will get caught and tossed.
5) Observe basic bar manners: Don't order complicated drinks at busy, crowded shows (the bartender and the people behind you in line will hate you), know what you want to order before you approach the bar, and move your ass out of the way once you've paid for your drink.
6) Share cabs or take public transportation whenever possible; you'll save yourself money and a potential trip to jail for a DWI.
7) Be aware of your surroundings and have some manners. If you're tall, stand in the back. If you're on your way to the bar from the showroom, keep moving—don't be the source of a bottleneck. If a band is trying to load their gear in or out of the club, get the hell out of the way—that bass cabinet is heavy.
8) There's nothing wrong with socializing at a show, but have some respect for the poor guy busting his ass onstage and the people in the audience who are focused on the music. If you're at a quiet acoustic show, talk to your casual-sex prospect at the back of the room, not in front of the stage.
9) If you've enjoyed the band and you can spare the cash, buy their CD or T-shirt at their merch stand. The band pockets a greater share of the profits than they do when you shop at a record store and touring bands count on merch sales to fill their gas tanks.
10) Don't loiter while security staff is trying to close the club at the end of the night; they're tired and want to go home.
So You've Decided to Be Gay
BY ADRIAN RYAN
This is it, fruitcake! SWEET FREEDOM! The moment you and your twisted libido have been slavering for since the day you popped that first bobbing boner in the eighth-grade gym showers (or something queerly similar) and realized, "Holy handballing ass hamsters! I'm a turd pounder!" (or something queerly similar). Your twenties! Age of sweet reckless privilege! This is your big chance to wax as vivid and ripe as the fresh fruity fruit that you are. And, of course, to drink. And drink. And, most importantly, to drink. And to sodomize your freaking brains out. Splendid!
But wait! There are some crucial points you must grasp before you dive headfirst into the cesspool of undergrad same-sex sodomy, and not all of them are the emergency 24-hour STD hotline number. Pay attention!
You, the bound queers of Y2K06, stand at the terrible threshold of great gay change. Much is demanded of you. Not long ago, I simply would have advised you to dance, drink, fuck, wear condoms, wear condoms, wear condoms, and wear condoms. But this is no longer sufficient. If a thing is to survive, it must adapt, evolve, and reapply its lipstick occasionally, and that goes quadruple for godless queerdom. But luckily, godless queers are genetically progressive and biologically cutting edge, so the process should be an effeminate triple snap, snap, snap! Right?
WRONG! Change is inevitable, but evolution isn't. The spirit of the liberal gay '90s is now a lachrymose ghost. Many nascent homos are wandering mapless through this Bush-wrecked world of vaguely antagonistic straight men who pluck their fucking eyebrows and/or smashed "straight" girls always cunning each other's linguses. The smart, engaged, politically vigilant, meth-free homosexual seems a fossilized beast from an ancient era: a remnant of a Bushless past. Don't let this happen to you!
Wise and terrible evolutionary forces conspired for untold eons to make you queer. You hold a unique position in the evolutionary process! The transformative powers of the homosexual are unparalleled, and this is THE quintessential time for you to grasp this power with both gay hands and aim it like a laser cannon at the forces that would subdue you! It's up to YOU, young faggot, young dyke, and nobody else! YOU must be smarter, prettier, feistier, more creative, more incisive, more gloriously depraved, more intolerant of George W. Bushes of every sort, more focused, more united, and more politically vigilant than any queers in history have ever been! Your responsibility is no less than to save the fucking world—with a three-day hangover, a boner, finals pending, and flair. It's just the card you drew.
Welcome to the world outside the closet, faggot! We have faith in you! Wear condoms. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Ne Oublie
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 16:13
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Alright, I decided that the first article here provided a good enough opportunity for me to state my views on sex and marriage - a proposal was getting full enough as is.
The way I see it, marriage was designed to perform two functions. The first is to provide the foundation on which to build a family, it is the religious and legal framework by which parents can share the responsibility of caring for their offspring, as well as taking measures to provide for their future.
The second, and somewhat related function is to limit non-reproductive sex. Most developed societies have some sort of stigma against 'recreational' - or non-reproductive - sex, and as such limiting sexual relations to within the bounds of marriage served both to protect the purity of the 'family line' and to focus attention on its reproductive purpose.
It is based on the above that I consider same-sex relationships to be incompatible with the premise of marriage. Neither of the above are about, 'love', a 'romantic attraction' or even the ability to adopt children, it is a contract focusing on the perpetuation of a shared 'family line' and the restriction of sexual relations outside of that coupling.
I don't claim that heterosexual marriage today necessarily follows these principles, but that doesn't mean we need to chuck the whole thing in. As far as the legal (and in particular tax) benefits enjoyed by married couples - which have, in part at least, prompted same-sex couples desire to marry - I would challenge any which are currently applied to marriage that do specifically pertain to the first function above (the second function being the condition on which the benefits are to be afforded).
I think that same-sex couples - as well as a number of heterosexual couples - are entirely entitled to a recognition of their love and devotion to each other, I just don't think that 'marriage' is the appropriate institution. In my mind it is rather like a Catholic attempting to be admitted into the KKK, or a white person to the Black Panthers - the very essence of the institution is diametrically opposed to their inclusion.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 24, 2006, 15:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
If they were indeed a 'white' version of the Black Panthers, then they would be an example of what I think ought to be done with marriage - if you don't like what's on offer, then offer an alternative! However, that is not the case, and as such I can only assume that the White Panthers has no relevance to this discussion.
The reason why marriage is different from a vehicle is that while a car may possess any or all of the intangible properties you describe, its value is primarily attributable to its tangible properties.
Marriage, on the other hand, has no tangible value, and as such its worth is entirely perceived. As AnnaH said below, "it's really a matter of tradition and societal perceptions of the family." The surest way to devalue an intangible - and even more so a tradition - is to start messing with its properties.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Saturday, November 25, 2006, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
If it has no tangible value, then why do you wish to protect it's intended purpose; I mean, what's the point? What is sacred about marriage, other than the mutual pledge accorded by two people to each other. Outside of those two people, It has no sanctity for the rest of society - bar people who want to meddle in other people's business. I really don't think it's demonstable or fair to assert that the circumstances of a matrimonial union can categorically impair an individuals ability to be a good parent.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 24, 2006, 17:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well perhaps I'm lucky not to be faced with gold-diggers on a regular basis.
The value of marriage is indeed an intangible - the benefits you describe are due to the perception of marriage, and not something which marriage itself delivers. Many of those rights are - again as I've already said - available through other means. Although divorce is pretty specific to marriage.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 01:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie, I swear I don't stalk your comments to contradict them, in fact I like a lot of what you say and I admire your brain. But once again I find myself disagreeing.
I think the reason both gay and straight couples want to marry is because they want to officially be family. They want to commit to each other for life.
(As Marge Simpson just said on the TV behind me: "Excuse me, reverend, if two people love eachother, I don't think God cares if they have the same hoo-hoo or ha-ha."
I think saying that "it is rather like a Catholic attempting to be admitted into the KKK, or a white person to the Black Panthers" is like saying that gay couples are not capable of the same feelings of traditional love and commitment as straight couples. And many gay couples do want to marry and provide a stable environment for future children, they want the white picket fence too. I don't see why they can't have it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Friday, November 24, 2006, 00:03
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Ne oublie has a brain with a lot of potential. I look forward to the day when he has cultivated it. I say this as someone who grew up with the same limitations in intellectual development. The question is, will he pursue intellectual development (or be content with earning decent finance-guy money base on the skills he got as a honcho on a cult front business)?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 24, 2006, 01:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yet another patronising comment from an anonymous poster! Regardless of my choice of career, I most certainly am 'pursuing intellectual development' - I do not, however, consider that to necessarily entail academic studies, which in my view does more to direct intellectual development than cultivate it. And while I most certainly gained experience as you described, the skills were, and ar, all mine!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Saturday, November 25, 2006, 19:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, it's really more than you need to know...but who cares? I spent years with an alcoholic (and he never touched any other drug) who had regular raving hallucinations. He would fight or cower from imaginary people, soldiers, all sorts of things. I took him into hospital on several occasions. (Because when we would try to go without alcohol he would go into seizures) all the doctors told me (after extensive tests) that his hallucinations were caused soley by the alcohol. He's been dry nearly two years now, and has not had a seizure or hallucination in this time.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Monday, December 04, 2006, 07:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rain, your countrymen are a constant sourse of entertainment for me here in the sandbox. Aussies make up the majority of soldiers on our base other than us. I usually eat with them as their table conversation is a helluva lot more fun than my boring ass company. They seem to be the only ones with a sense of humor (at least one that matches mine). They are also the ones who the US soldiers run to when in need of contraband. All around good guys. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Monday, December 04, 2006, 04:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, now I get it. Well, in that event, what seperates Aussie blokes from most other guys? Yeah, I know I'm making a sweeping statement, but it does happen far too much these days. The only thing I've noticed about Australians is that the ones I've talked to are rather hard to understand. I can understand a British accent, but not an Australian. I don't know why. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, December 04, 2006, 08:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
What separates Aussie blokes from most other who? Americans? Britons? Japanese? Chinese?
Generalization =
American men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Australian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
New Zealander men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
British men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Canadian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Israeli men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Japanese men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Chinese men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Filipino men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Indonesian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Malaysian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Singaporean men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
South African men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Romanian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Russian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Peruvian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Brazilian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Mexican men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
French men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
Indian men are horny, love alcohol, machines, and competition.
I don't see much of a difference..... (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 02:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rain, if anything I am flattered when someone pays enough attention to what I post to offer a considered counter-argument! (But that doesn't mean I'll back down easily :D)
Where I see the significant distinction is (genetically) shared offspring - that is clearly the only unique purpose which 'marriage' can fill. Islam, for example, prohibits adoption as we would recognise it, focusing instead on preserving the family name, and by extension heritage, into which a child was born. Considering the way in which so many adopted teenagers, and even adults, so earnestly seek out their 'birth parents', I think there is an argument in favour of this, and it's not like the majority of adoptees don't at some point or another have to face reality, so why not instead focus on doing it right from the beginning?
As I said above, marriage is a contract - historically it has often had more in common with a business transaction than any of the romantic feelings which have come to define it in recent times. It is the recognition that two people wish to create a family together - and that does require complementary parts - which affords a marriage the special status which it enjoys in society.
If your closing paragraph is your interpretation of my comments, then you have misunderstood them - although not entirely unexpectedly. The reason why same-sex relationships are incompatible with marriage has nothing to do with the feelings they can and do experience, it is because of the second function of marriage as I mentioned in my original post - to restrict non-reproductive sex. A gay relationship - as with a significant number of heterosexual relationships, to be fair - is exclusively about non-reproductive sex and the accompanying emotions as such it is the antithesis of what marriage was designed to promote, and is therefore incompatible with the institution of marriage.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 12:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
It just occurred to me, Ne Oubs, that we're taking opposite sides from what we took in the "chivalry" debate. Then I was trying to explain the history of chivalry and why it is tied up in chauvinism, while you were protesting the good intentions of the modern man. Now You're trying to explain the historical reasons for marriage while I'm trying to describe the modern reasons for wanting to marry. This is why our arguments are never resolved... we just come at it from our own point of view and that's it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 13:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, I would have defended the historic properties of chivalry just as much - I guess I just didn't get around to it. In both cases, I think that the difference is that we have chosen to accept a different version of what the essence of these concepts are. Clearly I like to think that I'm right, but at the end of the day, perception is a major part of reality, and as such in the end we are probably both 'right' in some way.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 01:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I do agree that particularly in "Hollywood" many perceptions of marriage have changed, I do not think that 'evolved' is an accurate description. As I was reading the paper on my way to work this morning, I noticed an article which said that in a recent survey 85% of young women thought that marriage "should mean one partner for life". It is not the essence of marriage that has changed, just some of the peripheral assumptions - and even those, may not be as widespread as the media would have us believe. (I'll comment some other time about my view of "Hollywood" and the media's depictions of society and history.)
You are 100% right, marriages such as Britney's that you just described should not be allowed. However, there is still one major difference between those and same-sex relationships - no matter how committed - in that while the former may or may not conform to the marriage model I've described so far, the latter is by nature incompatible with that model, and so could never conform to it. Again, this is not about how much people love each other, or how committed they are to each other, or even about their desire to adopt children - these are all only associated properties of marriage - the core is (even if not always fully iterated), and always has been, the framework within which to bring up shared offspring.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Friday, November 24, 2006, 09:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Alright, so the Britney Spears example was a bit hackneyed, but my point still stands. I don't agree that marriage is only a framework within which to raise children. I believe it has more to do with taking a relationship to the furthest level of commitment, and telling the world, both public and private, that this is your partner with whom you share everything and....whatever other vows they care to take. I think that recognition of the validity of one's relationship is the driving point behind nearly all marriages, whether for religious or public reasons. You could argue that civil unions (and I think you are) are just as effective for this commitment, but even those don't carry the weight that marriage does. Among people who value the sanctity of marriage, they're really kind of a joke, as if you're not willing to commit fully or not allowed to.
Now that we've heard your point of view on marriage, what is your proposition? Should a couple who doesn't wish to raise children not be allowed to marry? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 24, 2006, 10:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think your example was 'hackneyed', I think it epitomises all that is wrong with the modern perception of marriage.
I also didn't say that raising children was the only purpose, primary perhaps, but I also mentioned the limiting of sex to procreational purposes. See, when you deconstruct the whole thing, what difference does it really make to society who individuals have sex with, or why, so long as there is no risk of repercussions (children) - I mean, why don't you see food, music or anything else, really, being regulated to that extent? It was therefore in recognition of that responsibility that society imposed the restriction of marriage - and of course that fit perfectly with the religious premise of restricting anything that could be described as 'fun' or 'enjoyable', particularly something with such a significant potential outcome. As such, sex was tolerated as being essential to the perpetuation of humanity - but just so long as it was ONLY for that purpose - and marriage was the instrument to enforce it.
As far as my proposal, as always, LESS governmental involvement is my starting point. In recognition of the role played in providing the family framework, I agree that it is still beneficial, but that each aspect of it should be revaluated in that context. Declarations of undying love - which seem to be particularly short-lived these days - and the like, would then be left to other non-regulated means, the legal and tax benefits no longer being relevant to any but child-raising families.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Friday, November 24, 2006, 12:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
What you're saying does have some validity and you may be right, but I think your real problem is that your main argument for the redefinition of marriage is on the basis that marriage was traditionally for raising a child, or limiting procreational sex. Arguments for modern society that are bedded in history are only worth so much. Our society today is not theirs, so the child-raising issue is a little irrelevant now. You're trying to co-opt the past to fix a modern crisis of marriage. That's just not going to work. Society's norms and values have changed drastically, and marriage has changed with it.
Marriage is, and should be, what you make of it.
To be fair, no one really needs marriage to raise a family, biological children or not. If they are committed to each other and their family than that's what really matters. They can do just fine on their own and as you said most of things people seek in a marriage can be accomplished without it. It's really a matter of tradition and societal perceptions of the family. I agree with you that sanctity of marriage has become perverted to the sense where hardly anyone takes it seriously anymore. I just don't think the answer is to emphasize the child-rearing aspect of it.
There will always be idiots like Britney Spears to take advantage of whatever right or privilege they are given, but I don't think that means we should take away the rights of people who really want it, who give it meaning and take it to be a serious commitment. And if they are sincere, then no homosexual, bible thumper, or celebrity can take that away from them.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Friday, November 24, 2006, 15:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
NeO is actually very right on his opinions about mariage. When you look at the history of marriage, it originated as a way for influential families to extend their influence/riches.
Marriages were arranged, usually by the fathers and the father of the groom paid a large dowry for the right to have his son marry and in exchange, the bride's family was forever entwined with the groom's, making them richer and often more powerful.
Marriage among poor families followed similar paths, only their reasons for arranging marriages weren't quite for wealth but breeding. They wanted strong offspring to survive the harsh lifestyle, as well as to better their chances at the offspring produced to have a shot at social ladder climbing. Love was seldom, if ever, a factor.
Even in the Bible's stories about Abraham and others, marriages were financial arrangements and the union of titles and lands, not the mutual love of the marrying parties.
If you wanted recreational sex as a man, you saw a prostitute. Sex with the wife was for child-baring purposes, to extend the name/legacy of the father, and to ensure the wife's survival if her son became heir. Once again, love had no baring on the union. This was the case for as long as their has ben marriage until recently. The royal families of Europe arranged marriages to ally their kingdoms and ensure 'royal blood' offspring to inherit thrones, titles, riches etc.
The institution of marriage today is a pact that religion has exploited to exlcude groups of non-believers, foreigners, and now gays. The king of England started a whole new religion so that his views on marriage (and ending them) would be accepted. Love is the supposed reason for marriage today, and look at the divorce rates out there. Love is fickle and so are the feelings that lead to marriage in our modern society. If people would ignore religious indoctrination, the issue of same sex marriages would not exist. If two men or two women wanted a contract that bound their homes, families, and legacies, then who is society to say that it should not be, by using their views of moral sanctity to determine that?(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Friday, November 24, 2006, 16:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm aware of the history of marriage and didn't say N'oublie was wrong about that. Indeed, he is completely right about that. I said he was wrong about trying to use the example of the past to fix what he believes to be a modern problem.
I'm confused to whose side you're taking. You say N'oublie is right in his opinions of marriage, yet you are for same-sex marriages? You also say that religion in recent years has exploited marriage. Hasn't marriage always been a religious institution? If anything we are turning away from that. Marriage is no longer about religious beliefs, at least not for everyone. Asking religion to accept homosexuals is one thing, asking the government to accept them by providing equal rights is completely different. I don't care who's getting into heaven, I just want their rights protected on earth. (reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Friday, November 24, 2006, 22:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
So this is about sides? I guess I didn't realize that. I was under the impression that we were discussing marriage's role in the traditional sense and how it relates (or rather how it doesn't relate) today.
I'm not married and have no plans to do so, but I feel that if gay couples want the right to marry, they should be allowed to do so. The reason I got into this discussion is because I think that the modern institution of marriage, which is being so adamantly defended by anti-gay (usually) religious activists, is not related in any way shape or form to what the original contract of marriage entailed.
Yes, there are tax incentives to marriages today which is in a conflict of interest (in my opinion) with the values of love that many people claim as the ulterior criterion for marriage.
I could care less about those issues, and personally I don't see why gay individuals shouldn't be allowed to legally marry if that's their wish and if they 'love' eachother etc. I just don't think that marriage is such a sacred institution as to be 'violated' by gay marriage.
The history of marriage, and the modern establishment of the same name share little in the way of rights, circumstances, pomp, importance, whatever, etc. Therefore, if gays want to marry, who cares? Marriage is trivial today anyways. Right?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Friday, November 24, 2006, 16:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think there should be any criteria. It's up to the people getting married to decide what they want out of a marriage, not for us to define it. I happen to think arguing what marriage should do is rather pointless, as many people have different opinions of that. That's why it's a decision left up to them, and for the government to keep it's nose out of.
Like you and I have mentioned before, a lot of the benefits of marriage can be achieved outside of said institution. There's really no modern need for marriage except for security. Women typically invest more in and give up more for marriage. If her husband should throw her by the wayside, I would like to think that she can be at least financially compensated for her hardships. Although, some states are adopting laws that give spouses those benefits, even if they are married or not.
I don't know what kind of tax benefits people receive for being married, but I'd be willing to concede that only married couples with children should receive those. I see no reason why a couple who decides to get married should receive tax breaks. But children incur more expenses so they should be recompensated. However, then why wouldn't you give tax breaks to any couple raising children, regardless of whether they are married? So, let's just give tax breaks to anyone with children. Or tax breaks should only be given if one spouse is the sole provider and the other is essentially a dependent of the other. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Friday, November 24, 2006, 17:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excellent question. I think the value of marriage is dying out. With the 50% percent divorce rate people are starting to realize how meaningless it is to get married. It's just a huge hassle and a large expensive ceremony, for what? To prove to the world that you're fulfilling your social and filial duty?
That said, there is still a great number of people who put the utmost importance on marriage and as much as we see less people marrying and more divorcing, we are still subject to their criticism. I think part of us really knows that we don't have to be married, that we could live with one partner forever or not and still be alright, but there is still this lingering feeling that it's just what you do.
I think the word marriage carries connotations of commitment, duty, family, love, security, tradition, religion, and moral values that I don't think most people would think of when they hear the world "civil union" or "life partner." Have you ever been introduced to your friend's girlfriend or boyfriend and wonder when they'll break up? How many times do you think that when you're introduced to someone's husband or wife? Being married is like being part of club really and since they know it's dying they're trying their best to restrict it and protect it and exclude people they don't feel fit those values I mentioned. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Friday, November 24, 2006, 21:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Exactly right Anna, that's what I was trying to say when I wanted to explain why gay couples would like to marry. They want to be just as committed and bona-fide and recognised as every other married couple. I think it is good to have marriage, not for legal or biological reasons, But so a couple can have something to do so that they now feel they truly belong together and are committed...they've created a new family. It's choosing a person to be your closest living relative, your 'next of kin' for the rest of your life. You wear eachother's rings, and it's a choice you make to define who you are by tying your identity in with the other person. Not that it's for everyone, and that's fine, but in my opinion that is what marriage is for, and should be an option to gay and straight couples, childbearing or childless.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Friday, November 24, 2006, 15:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
And of course, in Greek and Roman times, recreational sex for men was with other men. The women also had lovers who were often slaves that the husband knew about and as long as no child was the result, it was allowed to continue. Freedom to fuck others was never an issue in the ancient tradition of marriage, although sex before marriage for a women damged her chances at a suitable husband. Of course today, where sex is so prevalent (and yet still so taboo) the act of 'cheating' ends so many marriages and yet, they want you to believe it's still a 'sacred' right of men and women.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 02:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
But parents of adopted children...still share those children. That's still a family. They still want to share a surname and have a family tree. They still want family albums and family traditions. Even couples who do not plan to have children want that. If a gay couple cannot marry, then if one of the parents dies, the child does not automatically go to the other. Why do you think marriage is only about biology?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 02:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Simple! If it wasn't, then we wouldn't need to prohibit incest! Most of the things you describe could be just as effectively achieved without 'marriage': most governments have processes to legally change ones' name to whatever one wants; Power of Attorney is another way that care for a child can be passed on to whomever one specifies; family albums and traditions have nothing to do with whether the parents are 'married', and as such are irrelevant to the discussion.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Rain Child
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 02:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is fantastic. I wanted to share it with a friend without showing them the moving on site...got a link?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 01:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I somehow thought everybody here knew this shit, but recently, I'm understanding that's apparantly not the case, so goodonya for postin it.
I forget I've been out for 9 years. Common sense seems to have replaced family sense in many areas. Whooohoo.
P.S The last time I had a conversation with a TF dude, he still believed in double rubber.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]