Suddenly we started talking about female desire and women were obliged to swap passivity for activity. This was liberation. When pleasure is compulsory, an awful amount of effort is required. Some people noticed at the time that a lot of this female activity was in fact for the benefit of men. When we were uptight and repressed we could refuse sex or refuse to do much about it; once we were free to get in touch with our inner selves, guess what — our inner selves had always wanted to dress as French maids!

Nowadays, the production and consumption of sexual energy has become a vast time and motion study. We are now obliged to have sex for the efficient functioning of our personalities. It is part of being a well-rounded person. Sex is soothing and uses up calories too. It has become a kind of emotional All Bran. Madonna is of course living proof that you can try too hard. She had made sex as sexy as aerobics, something that has to be slotted into an already tight schedule.

Idlers know the score here. They embrace all chemical impediments to sexual performance with almost tantric dedication. They understand the seduction of passivity and often find themselves not only too fucked up to fuck, but too fucked to give a fuck. This state of grace visits only the chosen few who truly know what it means to be bad in bed.

To be frank, I have never understood what was so wrong with lying back and thinking of England, apart, obviously, from contributing to the rise of nationalism. And I’m not the only one. When I expounded this theory to my omnisexual friend Paul, he said: ‘Darling, that’s all anyone ever wants — to lie there with a bottle of poppers jammed up one nostril while someone else does it to you.’ So why are we all so busy pretending that it’s otherwise? Why are we still so bothered? When sex becomes such major toil, a labor of love, let me tell you it is your revolutionary duty to phone in sick.

Suzanne Moore

Reprinted from The Idler, May/June 1995.

We didn’t believe it was the moral or ethical thing to do. We didn’t believe it would validate or sanctify our relationship in any way. We didn’t believe it would stick us together for longer.

We got married because our parents couldn’t make it work. We got married because we grew up thinking that marriage was an absurd, oppressive institution that inevitably went nuclear. We got married because we thought the very idea of marriage hinged on a skewed notion of the nature of men and women.

Not everyone will understand this, but in the face of these beliefs, getting married was the most wildly romantic gesture we could think of, an act of blind faith in the two of us and our ability to make it work. We didn’t think that the institution could bind us together; we thought that we could. I took Herbert’s name for the same reason (although he offered to take mine): I had chosen my own family unit, and I was proud of it.

It is fashionable to say that monogamy can’t possibly work. The good old adulterer’s excuse that men can’t help but sow their seed has now been enshrined in the new evolutionary discourse of which we are all suddenly so fond. On the other side of the fence, we find the religious right curiously agreeing, arguing that men require the structure and discipline of God to keep them on the straight and narrow path.

And who would want tired old monogamy anyway, when there are so many more juicy options out there?

Well, I do, but not because I think it’s any better than any other choice. Quite the contrary: particularly before the seductions started, I would often feel a stab of envy at the polyamorous exploits of single friends.

I’ve recently been devouring the literature on keeping long-term relationships alive, and so many of them open with a variation on the line, ‘Monogamy is best.’ I find this attitude infuriating and small-minded. There is no best way, even for any one individual. We must all make our own compact with our partner, if we want to have a partner at all. So long as both parties agree, anything goes. It’s, frankly, none of my business.

And in all choices there are benefits and drawbacks. The compact of monogamy requires a huge effort on both sides to keep it alive and well, especially over the scale of an adult lifetime. Everyone interprets it differently, but for us it has always meant a commitment to staying above reproach, and not even indulging in minor flirtations that might give others cause to suspect our fidelity. Clearly, it also means missing out on pursuing the attractions that arise from time to time; monogamy doesn’t make you immune from them. We old marrieds still yearn for the head-rush of risk and romance, the thrill of the chase, and to some extent we have to accept that we’ve done with all that.

And the benefits? Well, there’s the growing sense of trust and certainty, and the privilege of having someone all to yourself. But most of all, there’s a kind of freedom in having made that choice. Perhaps this is the freedom of submission; but perhaps it is also the freedom of choosing not to continually wonder if your partner is good enough, if you are good enough. So long as you’ve picked someone pretty good in the first place, you can keep working towards that elusive state of perfection.

My point is that monogamy isn’t just one, dead choice. It is a daily, hourly choice, that should be made in full acceptance of the other choices available. It should be a conscious choice made by two people, rather than a bland acceptance of ‘the done thing’. If we fall into monogamy by default and never question it again, it will die. The compact can be broken by secret infidelities, but it can equally be broken by withdrawing love and affection. Monogamy is a practice, an ongoing pursuit; monogamists could learn a great deal from BDSM practitioners about taking responsibility for each other’s safety and emotional wellbeing.

Taken in this way, monogamy is a radical choice among many rather than a bland following of convention. It is not for everyone, and no-one should imply otherwise. But for me, it’s just right.

By Betty www.52seductions.wordpress.com

The convention was a bust. The discussions were boring. And the PhD well known for the way her breasts precede her into a room didn’t attend

The hangover made him say unspeakable things. Grown men cried. Walls were punched. Careers ruined. But at least he could blame the hangover.

Jones came home bleeding from his nose and he sat on the couch and whimpered. She was reading the paper. Should I care this time? she asked.

He cooked hoping to impress her. He chopped wood. He played the guitar. No matter what he did though, he would look like her father forever.

Ladies: When you see me in my wheelchair, remember -

I’m not just a human being, I’m a piece of meat too.

(Edit: 90% of the ladies, 10% of the gentlemen)

By Steve Sparshott

http://readgetwellsoon.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mk-k0c5kso&feature=related

—————————

A common belief these days is that the days of student political activism are over. Students these days are too concerned about clubbing and, er, exams, right?

This was certainly my impression until this morning, anyway, when I found out that my university’s  Socialist Workers Party (SWP) have taken some direct action and have started a sit-in in one of the main lecture theatres in support of the Palestinians in Gaza.

I think it’s supposed to be a clever mirror of what Israel are doing to the Palestinians. They even have a secret entrance for smuggling supplies, though rather than a tunnel, it’s a fire escape, and I’m assuming that the protesters are not shooting at university staff and using civilians as human shields.

Though I’m certainly no fan of the war in Gaza, I’m struggling to get behind the sit-in because I struggle to see how it will actually be effective.

“Mr Olmert, President Obama is on the phone and wants to speak to you”

“Tell him I’ll call back later – I’m having second thoughts about this military action because a fringe political group in a moderately well known London University have suggested that we stop!”

As I’ve previously outlined, I’m horrendously uncomfortable with the left cosying up to Hamas, and find it bewildering that any rational person can take one side or the other in this conflict. If the SWP were campaigning for “PEACE” or “HUMAN RIGHTS IN GENERAL”, I could totally get on board with their message, but by taking sides they’re being completely irrational, and are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how the international system actually works.

I’ve heard people label Israel a “terrorist state” today, and claim that Israel shouldn’t actually exist. Whilst the former is a great attention grabbing headline, the latter actually positions someone with that opinion as more extreme than Hamas.

Israel is not a “terrorist state”, whatever that means. Like it or not, but from Israel’s perspective, the action it is taking in Gaza is completely rational and highlights a fascinating international relations paradigm – that of the role of ethics. The one goal of a state is to survive and maintain its national security and defend its interests. Look at what’s going on from Israel’s perspective – their security is being threatened by Hamas firing rockets at them, so to protect their state, they feel obliged to respond.

Of course, as has been depressingly demonstrated, this has led to stacks of awful human rights abuses, blowing up schools and killing people – all sorts of nasty shit. But unfortunately this doesn’t matter – ethics in international relations are a relatively new invention and hotly debated by IR scholars – but in the end don’t really enter into calculations of national security. (I could write thousands of words on this to justify this point, but I won’t bore you.)

Why is the state so important? Because it gives legitimacy. If a group, be it an ethnic group, a national group or whatever have a state – a homeland – they get all of the trappings that come with such an honour: recognition, legitimacy, and most importantly, it makes it essentially illegal for other states to meddle in the affairs of the group under established international law dating back the 17th century and the peace at Westphalia. Its one of the reasons the Jews were given a homeland after that whole “centuries of persecution culminating in the holocaust” thing. It’s why persecuted groups in other countries are so keen to get a state of their own – groups like the Kurds, the Chechens… and the Palestinians. So Israel’s desire to hang on to its statehood is entirely reasonable – they just happen to be wankers about it.

It’s international law which leads me to conclude that people who suggest Israel should cease to exist are idiots. Not because I’ve any great desire to fulfill prophecy and have a Jewish homeland that Christ can return to like it says in revelations, but because to condemn the existence of Israel is to basically condemn the existence of every single other country.

To cut a long story short, there is no written book of international law – there is no great overseeing arbiter of the international system who governs relations – international law is predicated entirely on a set of norms and precedents, and to try and justify the existence of a state is stupid. States an inherrently silly construct – but we’ve decided that’s how best to organise the international system, so we’re stuck with them. If the “logic” that Israel shouldn’t be allowed to exist because it’s only a relatively new creation, then really we may as well be arguing that the whole Meditteranean basin and most of Europe is ceded back to Rome, as it used to be part of the Roman Empire.

The international system works on the basis of “Look who’s here… now get over it”, and these are the circumstances in which settlements should be negotiated. The only real difference between the establishment of America and the establishment of Israel is that we probably have video footage of the latter.

Basically my reaction to people vehemently taking either side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is, to borrow Ben Goldacre’s catchphrase, “I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that”.

Things I might expand on in the future/if challenged

• Human rights in the context of the international system
• The legitimacy of the state in a post-globalisation world
• Why I’m writing about moderately academic topics on my silly blog rather than in essays for university

Franz Kafka was my Brother
he used to think he’d become a bug
Hunter Thompson was my mad uncle
he’d run a mile on any drug
Van Gough was my cousin
He liked to paint flowers
Lynda Carter  was my Niece
She thought she had super powers

Family parties were such fun

My cousin would cut off his ear
and my Brother was always in a state of fear
My Sister looked at her big nose
and Grampa was high regarding his toes

Dada would counter revolutionise
Whilst Uncle contemplated suicide
Mother tried to hit on all the girls
And my niece just twirled and twirled and twirled.

by Simonsh

Twitter: @simonsh

By Quiet Riot Girl

By Prymface