Today’s Suicidally Depressing Thought – UPDATED

These are the people to whom we have lost the culture war.

As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited…

Holy break-dancing Mohammed. We deserve everything we’re going to get.  Oh lord, how we deserve it.

UPDATE: Stacy McCain thinks this is a hoax.

If a story seems too good to be true, it’s probably not true, and I suspect “Sonmore” is a hoax designed to elicit reaction — particularly, sexist reactions from men — which will then be cited as proof of what misogynistic pigs men really are.

Well, mission accomplished, baby.  If being disgusted by that article makes me a misogynistic pig, then I wear the label proudly.  Oink oink.

McCain cites Iowahawk:

I’ve got 10 bucks that says this is a fantasy piece written by a 48 year old childless cat lady.

That seems plausible, too.  But really, doesn’t the fact that so many of us were taken in (if we were, in fact, taken in) say something in itself?  McCain cites this bit as the big tell:

Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control.

McCain says

OK, that’s the point at which I called “bullshit” on this story. Whose “sexual agency” is “controlled” by monogamy? Both partners are equally obligated to fidelity in marriage, but to suggest that this is “patriarchal oppression” driven by “a man’s fear” of “a woman he can’t control” is a psychological projection, a reversal of reality.

Far be it from me to contradict the guy who wrote Sex Trouble — and you should get at least the Silver Star for that act of heroism, buddy — but “a psychological projection, a reversal of reality” is a pretty good working definition of feminism.  “Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression” is exactly the kind of thing I hear in coffee shops every single day in my college town.  And not just from women — McCain says “this recitation of feminist jargon — “patriarchal oppression” and all that — is simply too perfect.”  I say it’s an A on a sophomore term paper, and I for one have no problem believing a “male feminist” would talk like this.

But whatever.  Time will tell, I suppose.

Loading Likes...

10 thoughts on “Today’s Suicidally Depressing Thought – UPDATED

  1. Gary

    At first I thought Where did they find this crap?, but then I saw it was from New York Magazine, not some dark, sub-basement of the internet. So this guy is out-and-proud, advertising his status as a eunuch cuckold on a major media outlet. Good for him. His essay is one long rationalization trying to convince himself that it’s OK to be a gelding doormat who consents to being walked on and humiliated.

    Reactionary Times had some fine commentary, but I’ll add some of my own:

    The point isn’t that all women should be sexual adventurers. … The point is that it should be women who choose, not men–even the men they’re married to. For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap.

    He’s learned his feminist lessons well. His wife’s only obligation is to “fulfill her desires,” even when doing so comes at the cost of abandoning responsibilities, reneging on promises or even sacred vows. His obligation is to sit quietly and take it. That’s what it means to be a male feminist.

    She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months–many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine–before I knew it, too.

    Keep drinking that wine, dude. Or better yet, try heroin. It’s much more powerful at dulling pain.

    He tries to paint a smiley face on this “arrangement,” but the truth just keep leaking out, as shown in the following 5 excerpts:

    1) There are of course moments of jealousy, resentment, and insecurity.

    The remaining time is filled with moments of insecurity, resentment and jealousy.

    2) The sex is the easy part, the fun part. It’s what the sex connects to, stands for, reveals that can be difficult. I don’t want her to fall in love with anyone else, and every time she goes on a date, I confront the possibility that she might. It happened at the beginning: The first person she dated after we opened up fell hard in love with her, and my wife, overwhelmed by his ardor, tried to love him back. Watching it happen, I was confused, angry, and terrified that she wanted to leave me.

    First time out, a winner! But he still doesn’t get it. He’s “confused” and just keeps coming back for more.

    3) My open marriage has made heavy demands on my ability to silence the voice of doubt in my head, that gnawing feeling of worthlessness.

    This one says it all. Maybe some heavy doses of heroin can temporarily silence that silly “voice of doubt” and the inexplicable “gnawing feeling of worthlessness.” Anyway, becoming a junkie bum would be a step up from his current position.

    4) But I find I can meet those demands, and that I am able to build my self-confidence out of nothing more than the basic dignity we all possess.

    Yeah, kinda like the “dignity” of a bug, the thing that makes me avoid stepping on it if I don’t have to.

    5) I’m grateful to my wife for pushing us to take this leap, and whatever happens to us in the future I would do it all again.

    You bet. His wife forced him into this and he didn’t have the balls to say no. Of course he’d “do it all again.” He’s a eunuch wimp whose purpose in life is to be stepped on and used by a woman. That’s “What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism.”

    Here we are, back at bootlickers again; this really is depressing.

    Originally, I wrote the following as an absurd joke on a prior thread, but maybe I need to rethink it in light of shit like the above:

    Maybe I missed something in the recent past. Has it become cool to be a bootlicker?

    Once again, lefty bullshit gallops far ahead of our ability to parody it.

      1. Severian

        So do I, but I bet they’re future stormtroopers. Remember John Walker Lindh? This is how he got that way.

        I do wonder, though, if this isn’t a “teachable moment” for those of us who want to understand the Left. Might not this be one possible origin for their word fetish? Dad says he’s fine with Mom getting porked by some wog on the regular; Dad is obviously not fine with it; yet Dad doubles down and insists in a very public forum that he is.

        To avoid cognitive dissonance, the kids go all-in on the idea that yes, Dad is super-duper-fine with this, because he says he is. Words are reality. And thus another Daily Kos reader is made.

        Cognitive Dissonance Czar, can we have a ruling here?

        1. Gary

          Looks to me like dad would have the most virulent case of CD, but he’d probably pass it on to his kids, and then it would work out as you describe. Though quite often kids are smart enough to see right through the BS, in which case they’ll realize that dad’s just a worm getting squashed under mom’s shoe–an ugly situation that creates its own problems, likely even worse than the dreaded CD.

          It needn’t be as dramatic as this sad case. Could be just your ordinary, henpecked husband who’s constantly pushed around and scolded by his shrew-wife. For boys, this spectacle is painful to watch and leaves them with nothing but the worst example of “manhood” to follow.

          I’ve known a few women who grew up in this kind of household with a domineering mother. While they didn’t emulate their mothers, I noticed they had a visceral, unforgiving hatred of weakness in men, which I suspect grew out of an intense disappointment at their wimpy dads, and his failure to protect them from their shrew-mother, whose nastiness falls on the kids, too.

          BTW, I vaguely recall something seriously messed up with Jihad Johnny’s family. I seem to remember that his parents were like dumb hippie burnouts who provided zero moral guidance, feeling it was best for Johnny to figure such things out for himself–which he did, in the worst way. Was there also something like the above cuckold tale involved in this blue-ribbon family?

  2. philmon

    Who’s this “we”?

    Didn’t God, like, come in and spare the righteous before he smote cities?

    Here’s my question. Why get married? What’s the point, if that’s the way he looks at it? What does he get out of it? Sex stories?

    1. Severian

      Here’s my question. Why get married?

      He says somewhere in that mess that he’s an unemployed house husband. I’d bet the GDP of Uganda that marriage wasn’t his idea — wifey wanted a legally-obligated kitchen bitch, and he knuckled under. Surely you don’t think Paulo is going to change the kids’ didies while she’s off eat-pray-loving?

  3. nightfly

    Even as a possible hoax – and I confess that I had that reaction when I read this article from the ladies’ perspective, when it was on the Federalist and the guest author (not from the same couple) was talking about how wonderful this was for her marriage – it’s got some reveals. The big one to me is, it shows feministas as just as double-standardized as the old male chauvinists. A guy who behaved this way was often roundly scorned; we’re supposed to celebrate when it’s a lady, though.

    The other thing, of course, is that Leftists don’t understand love, sex, or human nature. AT ALL.

    1. Gary

      The other thing, of course, is that Leftists don’t understand love, sex, or human nature. AT ALL.

      Now that the possibility of a hoax has been pointed out to me, I’ll admit the story doesn’t smell quite right. But then again, any non-trivial story written by a leftist about his/her marriage is going to sound hinky and unreal because it’ll be based on Leftist premises, which bear little resemblance to actual “love, sex, or human nature.”*

      I have a lot of respect for McCain, and this could be a hoax, but I read his entire argument and it’s a surprisingly poor one.

      The big one to me is, it shows feministas as just as double-standardized as the old male chauvinists. A guy who behaved this way was often roundly scorned; we’re supposed to celebrate when it’s a lady, though.


      McCain’s argument boils down to four elements in the story he thinks are bogus because they’re “too perfect” or nonsensical, which leads him to this conclusion:

      I suspect “Sonmore” is a hoax designed to elicit reaction–particularly, sexist reactions from men–which will then be cited as proof of what misogynistic pigs men really are.

      IMHO, this shows how far off his sense of this thing is. Almost all the criticism I’ve seen (or made) is directed at “Sonmore,” not his wife. This tale will generate some comments calling the wife a slut, whore and such, but I think that would be small potatoes compared to the abuse directed at the stupid husband.

      If this thing is a hoax, IMHO it’s not designed to elicit “sexist reactions,” thus proving “what misogynistic pigs men really are.” My guess would be the intent is to advance their double standard of how wonderful it is for women to “express their sexuality” with anyone, anytime, even if they’re married–and even (or especially) if it does horrible damage to the man and the marriage.

      I’ve noticed how so much of feminism, regardless of what it seems to be about, has the end result of pushing men and women apart and making relations and/or marriage as difficult as possible. If established, this double standard certainly would have such an effect.

      * They’re going to twist things around and stack the deck to construct a fable in which the left’s principles are shown to work really well. This process in which a story and its conclusion are driven by the need to portray a set of principles favorably leads to a forced, stilted narrative filled with unnatural, “too perfect” elements that doesn’t sound real, especially when the principles are as foolish as those of the left.

  4. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Common People (William Shatner ST:TOS Video Remix) : The Other McCain

Comments are closed.