Wildbear,
Because those behind this site don't approve of gay people.

Wildbear, I value gay people as I value straight people. We approve of people, we just don't approve of sexual perversion. Please understand that loving someone does not mean you condone their actions- indeed, it often means you encourage them to change.

We know romance is between one man and one woman because, even though a small minority pursue the same sex, most people do not. Most people desire a lifelong relationship with a member of the opposite sex, even when they accept homosexual behavior.

Third, the idea that men defining the relationship makes women "chattel" is incoherent. Indeed, in a chattel slavery arrangement, there is no relationship, because the owner does not take the slave's desires into account. The man who makes a contract, however, extends his proposal to someone, and that person either accepts it or rejects it. Hey- that's a lot like marriage! Except in marriage, both parties vow to each other. But even though the vows are mostly mutual, the man proposes. It's funny when the woman proposes, because it's awkward and unnatural.

Your response, comparing a man's leadership to chattel slavery, is the very point we need to reject, for the sanity of all involved. That's why men are afraid to ask women out, and why anxious women sleep with them, seeking commitment. Everyone gets hurt because even though men are hesitant to ask, women still want them to do it. We need to stop attacking historical evils and start solving the problems confronting us, or misery will continue to increase in the world.

Well that was an interesting read. You made several great points towards the beginning; however, I would hesitate to exaggerate the “hook up culture” of the United States. I think most people regardless of whether or not they “hook up” with someone else on occasion value a lasting relationship based mostly on friendship instead of lust. I also think most people, again regardless if they have “hooked up” with someone, value a more relaxed atmosphere to develop that friendship instead of a long series of nightclubs. If you want proof then talk to people outside your religious organization who actually do engage in the behavior you’re writing about. That sounds flippant but, I mean, am I wrong?


There are people who are in open relationships and there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing that. But I would argue that it is in their nature to be that way. Just because the majority of people are “different” does not mean their nature is right for everyone. Frankly, it is more likely that a person’s propensity to monogamy could be measured on a continuum. For example: I am very flirtatious by nature and I get along better with women than I do with men but am still strictly monogamous. I have a married friend who is not flirtatious at all, probably does not even know the meaning and, well, outside of his wife could not talk to a woman to save his life. So, though, I value monogamy and would never cheat on a woman or be comfortable in an “open” relationship my level of monogamy is arguably less so than his. Our natures are different. Everyone’s natures are different. The reason why there seems to be an uptick in “open relationships” is that our society is more open to that possibility. People’s natures are not changing; they are just more comfortable expressing who they actually are. That is much healthier than trying to be monogamous, failing, and ending up with a broken household. Or trying to be heterosexual and doing the same thing. People need to express and be comfortable with who they are otherwise they will never be happy and will cause all sorts of hardship for the people around them. I think that’s the same misery you talked about in your response to Wildbear’s comment.


This also addresses your ridged gender roles. Guess what? The world does not work in absolutes. Your conception of what a “man” is comes not from nature but from society. Each man is who he is and each woman is who she is and they are all different from each other. I will never find happiness following your advice because it is not my nature to “lead” a relationship. It is my nature to forge a partnership. Shakespeare was a poet, not the ultimate authority on dating for the 21st century. Stop making people into what they are not.


Feminism only removes confidence when men do not respect women. Women are people and they want what they want. You cannot make some crazy generalization that they want to be “led” or whatever because, well, that’s going to get a lot of guys into trouble. If I told my girlfriend I was the leader in the relationship she would “punch me in the face” (her words). And that is what works for us. Furthermore and finally, you cannot extrapolate anything from us adhering to the tradition of the man asking the woman to marry him other than that we adhere to that tradition. It’s cute. We like it. I guess I could sum everything up by saying stop telling people who they are.

... but was this published in the late 1950's? Seems like it would fit right in.