When I was a kid, I was baffled by the big colorful advertisements that told us about wonderful free things. Come on in and get a toaster, free — kids eat free — or even a free toy at the bottom of the box. Free TV shows, free contests, free prizes.
Through some prodding by a parent and a little independent thinking, it soon dawned on me that none of these things were free. They were inducements, and I had to make a purchase or spend a whole bunch of time doing dumb stuff to get them. And even then, there was no guarantee.
Since then, I’ve thought a lot about “free.” Nothing occurs without a primary cause except perhaps the universe itself; every thing that you might give away free had to be created. As a result, there must be some kind of trade.
Often however you have to wait decades to see what the price is:
Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.
Well, there was a lot I didn’t know 10 years ago. The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices. – The Atlantic
Liberation is slavery if by being “free” you are being cut off from something you need, in exchange for something you do not. Sexual liberation benefited commerce, and the women and men who thought they got something “free” in fact simply switched obligations.
Instead of owing their time to family and a community, as “free” women they became products. Commerce thrived because suddenly the labor pool was twice as big, and lonely women spend long hours at the office. Because they are perpetually single, they also need grooming products and personal items for many more years than before.
In fact, everyone profits. The doctors get to capitalize on a new spate of sexual diseases. Psychologists get fat on the payments from lonely women. Twice as many apartments are rented, twice as many cars sold, twice as many tickets paid, more clothes and other items bought! It’s a free-for-all… for the sellers and employers.
For individuals, not so much. Instead of moving into comfortable families and having a sacred role, women view the family as slavery and so end up working office jobs their whole lives, never having a stable family, and if they do reproduce, creating alienated, distrustful and scornful children.
By abandoning our biological roles, which arose out of millions of years of evolution and are thus the products of more thought than all the people alive today can complete in a lifetime, we have “freed” ourselves from what we want, which is what is a sensible way to live.
Instead, we settle for the convenient and are worse off for it:
New research out of the U.K. says women who met their partners while on the pill are less sexually satisfied.
For the study – published in the Oct. 12 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B – researchers surveyed 2,500 heterosexual women with one child. The researchers asked the women about their relationship with their child’s biological father. About 1,000 of the women were taking the pill, while 1500 used no form of hormonal contraception.
The study found that women who took the pill were less sexually satisfied, found their partners less attractive, and were more likely to be the one to initiate an eventual separation. – CBS
Hormonally compromised women are “free” from biology, but they forget biology exists because it is logical, and that institutions like marriage have evolved over thousands of years to find the best possible way of dealing with the need to reproduce.
When we muck around with this, we produce people who are cut loose from purpose. That is the ultimate “free”dom; to have no purpose, and thus no “right” or “wrong.” Since there is no goal, you cannot fail to achieve the goal, and even more, you can get to a result and then claim that it was always the goal.
Freedom, or destruction of your purpose, resembles what a parasite does when it makes you ill or takes over your brain. It re-wires your purpose to its purpose, and then you do its bidding. You are now its slave, especially if it introduces slavery by calling it free, freedom or liberation.
People are easy to manipulate. First, you put an image into their heads and make it enticing. Start with: the struggles you engage in now and the losses you now take are not necessary. There is a way where you can have what you want without having to risk/work for it. Then tie your product to that.
In the case of sexual liberation, this required portraying marriage as miserable, men as awful, and child-rearing as a giant bother. Instead, be paranoid about death and in a panic, spend all of your life on yourself alone. But then the body and mind become a prison when you realize that without connection to something larger, such a life is meaningless.
Maybe marriage, fidelity, love, chastity and family-centric living had a purpose after all!
[It] seems like heterosexual monogamy really does form a much better basis for a functioning and equal society than soft polygamy or nullogamy, the system that ironically managed to stomp down the black America far worse than even the Klan ever could. This even for women, who the latter systems allow sexual access to alpha males, at least for a short time. However, these systems are simply not self-supporting, but require the generous welfare state that serves as a non-judgmental beta provider boyfriend for most women. And as everyone should know from the news, these days all welfare states are quickly running out of other people’s money. – The Fourth Checkraise
The end result of sexual liberation is that we turn marriage from being a safe harbor and comfort into an adversarial relationship. You know your spouse screwed around before you; you did the same. Why extend fidelity? It’s just a prison. That is, until it happens to you.
Yet if the French aren’t cheating more than others, they do seem more tolerant. 53 percent of those questioned by Gleeden said it was possible to cheat on your partner while still loving them, the highest rate for all countries.
“With his wife he has projects of bringing up children, buying a house, creating a life. With an attraction to another young woman it’s not the same thing.” – The Local
So, researchers… is that why all those marriages are ending in divorce? Is that way people are still manic for love, and not finding it? By the way, commerce is doing just fine. And even in the progressive-enlightened-Utopia of sexual liberation, all is not well:
Still, in France’s macho society there remains a big difference between what men and women can get away with.
“French culture is hard on women who cheat,” says Vaillant. “The husband of a woman who cheats is ridiculed, even today.”
There’s a common sense underlying marriage and fidelity which we cannot quite dispense with. Instead we straddle the fence, and our balls hurt.