Sunday, July 03, 2011

National Organization for Missionary Style

NOM just can't seem to stop calling everybody else's relationships wrong:

The segment of Dan Savage's interview that has them just going all kinds of "OMFG TEH GAYS ARE GONNA FUCK EVERYTHING THAT MOVES" is this:

Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.
... “The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”
... There is one subculture in America that practices nonmonogamy and equality between partners: the sizable group of gay men in open, or semiopen, long-term partnerships. (A study published in 2010 found 50 percent of gay male couples in the Bay Area had sexual relationships outside their union, with their partner’s knowledge and approval.)

So he stands for honesty. You know, instead of preaching monogamy and then "walking the Appalachian trail" or "having a wide stance" in public bathrooms. They stand for dishonesty because they want you to lie about yourself to yourself and marry something you're not attracted to. My reply to them:


If you've never read the 19th Chapter of Judges, you should. The man who cuts up his concubine is not heralded as a bad person at all for what he did. But that's okay... there's lots of people on NOM's blog who are pretty much reprimanding them for this enigmatic post. Here's some actual responses:

  • I don't understand the message of this post. Is this just another shining example you people shoving your synthetic and hypocritical morals off on other people? What do you care about someone else's private business? And who are you to judge?
  • Dan's viewpoint is not as widely shared among "the gays" as some would have it. While not exactly a strawman, it's not really as great a case for NOM as NOM would like to believe; you will find tons of gay folks who disagree with him, so he will not be credibly held up as a spokesman for Gay America on this point.
  • I don't see the issue with open relationships - they work for some people, and not for others. Simple as that. This is not a gay issue, but because gays are outside of the social norms - or at least, have been in the past - they often (but certainly not always) feel more comfortable with less conventional relationships. I mean, this is not something that the bible has an issue with, and it's very natural, so your usual arguments won't work here.
  • While I personally prescribe to monogamy in my marriage, I'm 29, I do know others who are older that never were told it's ok to be gay and I feel that messed with them at some level where they might feel monogamy was not for them, they aren't good enough for marriage, I believe it stems from you nombies telling them they're not worthy of loving relationships just empty marriages with opposite sex partners [NOMBIES! I love that... emphasis added]
  • Savage only draws conclusions on direct observations of human behavior. How many "so-called family values" leaders have been caught in extramarital affairs, with individuals of either or both sexes. The only difference with others caught in the same circumstances, has been the hypocrisy. In a nutshell, he simply states the obvious... in marriage as in anything else, there is no "one size fits all".

Exactly. No one size fits all. Missionary-only after-married-according-to-their-rules sex education is a joke. There is, however, one post that made me laugh out loud, making me wonder if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman wrote it:

"Never expected to be monogamous" by *whom*? It sure wouldn't be the God of the bible who created only 1 woman for Adam. If "men were never expected to be monogamous" by the God of the bible, He would have created more women than just Eve for Adam.

Because you know when the devil tried to get Adam to eat the apple Paul Revere came out there and warned the serpent and all his kind not to mess with us or take our guns away, and shot the apple right off of Eve's head, you betcha!. Amen.