Saturday, March 15, 2008

Free love?

If you're a morally deficient, emotionally crippled loser, polyamory may be the answer!

Although I should know better, I continue to find myself amazed at the steaming bullshit that The Metro paper deems acceptable for print.
This newspaper has a weekly section entitled "Metro Sexual" in which they discuss—as you would imagine­—some truly stomach-turning subjects: Women who don boxer shorts and fake moustaches to "spice up" their bedroom activities (no mention, of course, of men who might like to don brassiers and stockings in quest of the same). Women who find men the size of a hillock attractive. People who love horses in more ways than one, in honor of the London showing of the play Equus ... and now, polyamory.
Polyamory, according to the Metro Sexual article, is wrongly compared to swinging. It's actually, don'tcha know, "more about romance and domesticity." And the cutline underneath the picture of several men and women holding hands announces, "if you find yourself torn between two partners, polyamory could be the answer."
An answer to what? Immaturity? A desire to have one's cake and eat it too? A way of life that assumes very little responsibility?
This is just the latest low blow from a society that expects to have any way of life validated. Now I realize that I'm biased, happy married man that I am. But what bothers me is the brazen way this trash is presented, as if it's a viable option that, quite simply, no-one has considered.
Of course, morality doesn't often come into play where seuxal deviancy is concerned. It's understandable why The Metro published an exposé on polyamory considering that London is a city where almost everyone seems in serious need of love. Any article that seeks to legitimize having multiple lovers of both sexes entitled "The more, the merrier" seems tailor-made for the sort of losers who live in a city as large as this one, feeling detached as a result, and who would be only too happy to consider such an abomination seriously.
At one juncture, the article laments that "[t]he biggest downside [to polyamory] is time: sometimes there just aren't enough hours in a day to give all your love to lots of other people." Ah, golly gee, what a shame. The thought of actually concentrating all your love on just one person is such a cause for regret, an emotional disaster. I mean, that sounds a little too uncomfortably close to commitment!
And who the hell needs that nowadays? Most of these nitwits live on fast food, why not have fast love? Why spend three hours of your evening with a one-and-only when you can divide that time equally in three different people's rooms?
Are we so neurotic now that loving one person seems passé? Are some people so emotionally deficient that they must make their housemates their fuck buddies as well? Hey, if you can all sit around the kitchen table drinking coffee in a state of total nudity and feel comfortable with it, then life must surely be worth living!
If polyamory is the answer, then I can only assume the question is, what is the surest sign that society has dipped to even greater depths?

2 comments:

kristen said...

"[t]he biggest downside [to polyamory] is time"? Um, what about STDs? What about immorality? What about the fact that you're willing to trade your virtue, chastity, and self-respect to fill your lives with a dark, empty, and disgusting past-time. These 'metro sexuals' need to reevaluate their lives, and perhaps have their tubes tied.

Sick, sick, and more sick.

We're living in a time of the greatest immorality.

Nightdragon said...

Unfortunately, there's no end of sickos who would defend this degenerate lifestyle.
It's so icky and just plain wrong that I wouldn't touch a polyamorist with a ten-foot pole.