It is my personal conviction that the human condition has three basic pillars on which all other aspects are built.
- A human being is free; he acknowledges no limit on its* will other than those this same will agrees to and holds as acceptable and necessary for the maintenance of this free state. This includes the acceptance, participation in and conservation of a societal framework in which legal and moral norms are established by a collective of humans for the purpose of guaranteeing the peaceful conduct of daily life and the maintenance of homeostasis.
- A human being is honorable; it conducts its life according to the principle of respecting the norms it has agreed to, upholding the contracts it enters into, and reciprocally acting “in good faith”, that is, with no hidden intention or intent to deceive or obtain an unfair advantage.
- A human being is worthy; this worthiness is achieved through words and actions that uphold the human’s commitment to its own liberty and honor, and maintain this status both in the human’s own appreciation and those of its peers. A worthy being does not allow itself to be presented with situations that would demean it by reducing or canceling freedom or endangering honor, nor does it allow courses of action by others that would infringe on those principles by deed or omission.
It is this last requirement that collides with a widespread notion I have encountered in conversations with women, arising from a situation where two separate statements are made:
On my part, the enunciation of four clear conditions on which to maintain a close relationship with a sexual component, as follows:
- I will not contemplate marriage, either religious or state-sanctioned;
- I will not attempt to enforce, nor accept enforcement, of monogamous sexual exclusivity;
- I will not reproduce, or assist in placing any human of any age in a parent-child relationship;
- I will not make the promise, either explicit or implicit, of a long-term relationship, either citing a time period or on the style of the open-ended “lifelong” pattern sought after by both monogamous and polyamorous women;
On the part of the above mentioned women, both polyamorous and monogamous, the enunciation of three clear and widely held conceptions, as follows:
- That every interaction with sexual content must have a long-term goal, that of a romantic relationship between the participants;
- That any action on the part of a male participant which could be interpreted as proof of acquiescence to this goal has no other possible meaning;
- That those men who declare their unwillingness to participate in such long-term relationship have the same moral standing as those men who promise this participation to receive sexual favors and then renege on that promise.
I find the last position unacceptable on grounds entirely unlinked from sex. From my point of view, the reprehensible nature of such men’s actions lies in their use of conscious lies to achieve an end, no matter its nature. This course of action is totally dishonorable, makes them unworthy and, in my particular opinion, endangers their humanity, and if repeated, cancels it. It is to be expected from such beings that they use lies and deceit to achieve most, if not all, their goals in life, because, as I have said above, the problem lies not in what they seek, but in the manner of obtaining it.
It would seem to me then that a clear enunciation of a position which does not involve deceit or ulterior motives is wrongly held to be on the same level with a false and entirely dishonest conduct only because it does not meet the requirements or aspirations of a majority of women. If this opinion is held because of a (hurried) mix of irrational and rational thoughts due to the overwhelming nature of this culturally-based requirement in the mindsets of many women, then I would definitely ask for a more level-headed reappraisal of my enunciation and the conduct that accompanies them; it is definitely disagreeable to be instantly consigned to a category which I (and a number of other men) have been avoiding in thought and deed for many years just because we don’t meet some real or imagined requirement which is entirely a matter of lifestyle choice for women. The concepts at stake here are not superficial, and, as I mentioned at the beginning, worthy of a carefully-worded but strong protest.
I have become fully convinced by the research showing that the feelings commonly spoken of as “love” are nothing more than the mental interpretation of the effects of oxytocin, vasopressin and sex hormones on the brain; my position was therefore reaffirmed on the grounds that I would neither demand from others nor accept that it be required of me to make binding decisions while under the influence of mind-altering substances of known potency, more so when said substances were not present in my brain as a result of my conscious will. I would then, definitely, accept the need to exert conscious control over the effects of such substances and to limit their influence (which I have done), but also that I would never accept being categorized as a dishonorable creature because my ideas do not fit a preconceived model based on what others have decided while under the influence of the very chemicals I seek to control.
Therefore, I object, on the grounds of honesty and congruence, to being classified in the same category as the defrauding, lying cowards who go around promising what these women want to hear and who usually end up reinforcing the stereotype and creating even more pain and suffering for people who do not deserve it. If women (or men) do not approve of my ideas, principles and actions, they have a right to say so, and expound on the reasons why they disapprove; however, I will not stand by and let my essential humanity be questioned because of opinions. Only fundamental statements of fact, and fundamental proof of conduct contrary to these principles, can be accepted as grounds for such generalized and grave condemnation.
As for the hate, the hate that every human can feel when it hears of the abuse and deceit used by those animals in human form, the cynical profiteers who take advantage of every stereotype and conventional indoctrination, the worthless beings who have willingly chosen to give up their status as humans and live out an existence enslaved to hormones… it does make me yearn for times where cold steel could cut these liars’ careers short. But it is a forlorn hope, as much as the hope that this rant will bend some ears which already damn me and others like me for opposing a system which brands and sells itself so well and derides its opponents as “irresponsible”, “cowardly”, “unmanly” scum, while gleefully breeding exactly that sort of scum in every generation of carefully mothered sons.
- I choose the neutral “it” to avoid the verbal gymnastics of political correctness. Much easier in German, where “der Mensch” is masculine although it designates humans of both sexes.
- A heartfelt thank you to Joseph Kohle for the title, if he reads this or if someone who knows him reads this, here’s to a very imaginative and very good writer.
|If Multiple Match creates genuine value for you and helps you to think differently, please consider donating a small amount. Being supported by my readers enables me to give my creative output (articles, interviews and newsletters) to the public domain, so it isn’t copyrighted. Please share it freely so that others may benefit from it.|