The Challenge

Jesus Christ I wish I'd get a new response once in awhile. You know where they got the idea to ban cloning? From all the damn clones.

Time and again I get the same attacking argument-free responses, to virtually everything.

But the most verbose, homogeneous, and hateful are those from a particular group.

Women who are so accustomed to be worshiped for the perceived pleasurability of their various orifices, that they post advertisements of them in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Women who are quite obviously to me attempting to auction themselves off to the highest bidder or to secure the future of their thus acquired contracts.

Women for whom honesty is not an option because of the doublethink implicit in their vitriolic attack on what they perceive to be a lower class.

You see, I tell a woman she's trying to profit off of her breasts, and she thinks I'm calling her a whore.

Far from it. I respect whores. Whores are honest and direct and obey the will of the market. No, I see both whores and sluts as sacred almost, doubly so because of the society in which they grew. Whores are usually from poverty, which means the know the truth about society eve if they may not be able to articulate it or exploit it effectively.

And sluts are generous, or at least honest with themselves and unashamed to take what they want when they can get it regardless of social finger waggling. If nothing else, if a woman is a slut and that is her chief "problem" then she's caused more happiness than the average person. And in my view, all it takes to be a good person is causing more happiness than you destroy.

So no I'm not calling you a whore, you don't deserve such a compliment.

Let me run down the usual list of bullshit I get.

For my audacity I am called the follow, or the following claims are made about me. I'm going to answer each one, so that i can post this link as a response to the canned responses I regularly get. I wish I had thought of this approach before but a form letter just didn't seem needed. Looking back, it clearly was. I've spent hours of my life, maybe even days or weeks solid when added up, responding to the human intellectual equivalent of mayflies.

Homosexual: Besides being totally irrelevant, I'm straight. I can't offer proof of this, but then again nor do I feel the need to. I haven't been offended by attacks on my sexuality since 7th grade.

Male chauvinist: Actually I'm closer to a feminist. Men by and large are addled by constant testosterone overdose, and they are unquestionably the most violent gender, this in my view makes them weak. Although I do blame women for this generally in the modern world because of the constant preference for cavemen. It is a biological fact that speciation is a power that rests squarely in the hands of the females. Sexual selection is fueled by the chooser gender and by definition, that is the female of the species. No, if I were a male chauvinist I'd swallow the party line of innocent victim princess mommys that need to be protected and obeyed and sheltered and catered to for all time, and I would ask them to be responsible or accountable for their choices as a group, as men are clearly expected to be. I ask of them what is asked of me because I see them as AT LEAST equal.

Pitiful: Heh, I think you mean pitiable. Anyway, maybe. That's really not up to me. I have pain as much as the next human. to me pity is something reserved for a victim, so if you honestly pity me then it's not my fault anyway. I don't pity myself, I see my life thus far in many way as absurdly lucky, almost ideal in both what I have experienced and what I haven't.

Pathetic: Impossible to rationally counter, too subjective.

Ugly: Impossible to rationally counter, too subjective.

Fat: I'm 6'5" and I weigh 245. I ride my bike twice a day, weather permitting. you call.

Stupid: Not according to my most recent psych evaluation.

Narrow minded: Read my whole blog.

Hateful: Read my Whole blog.

Judgmental: Uhhh, yea, I'm a conscious human, I make judgments constantly. I balance them with being open minded. If people would actually try to argue these point maybe I'd have a different opinion, but calling me names isn't going to persuade me or anyone else. If that's even the point.

Rude: Yea, and so was bring up women's suffrage. Social convention matters to me about as much as a gram of navel lint.

Insane: That's a matter of numbers, and therefor depends on how you look at it. Sure I may be insane by today's standards but if I'm far enough ahead of my time, I'll be vindicated later.

Petty: In anything I'm a lofty minded narcissist. I see everyone else as being petty specially if they can't see past their own genitals.

Troll: I believe every word I say, I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone, I'd prefer universal agreement, but I wont pander to get it either. I don't care if I piss you off, one way or the other, at least not enough to do much about it.

Belittling: See Troll.

Insecure: I advocate polyamory, I post my real face and name online, I posted my psych evaluation. I think of myself as a modern Buddha. If anything I'm an ego maniac. I have one secret that I don't post because of its embarrassing nature, and that's all. I assure you it has nothing to do with these matters anyway.

Friendless: Ironically, As I write this I'm pressed for time due to a social function. I'll admit I don't have many friends, but since everyone is so fond of cliches, I'll repeat one, its not about quantity, its about quality. Besides my circle would be much larger if the Company hadn't set upon them like a pack of velociraptors.

Uneducated: In that I have no degree, sure. However you'll be hard pressed to find a subject of scientific importance that I cannot intelligently discuss. I may not be able to rattle off names and dates without Google's help, but I've got the concepts down. Besides, Bush graduated from Yale, nuff said.

Causeless: HA! Wow. Saving humanity from an Orwellian future isn't a worthwhile cause? I'm trying to show you the one tool which they most use to control you.

Which brings us to The Challenge for my detractors. My supports can do this easily.

If you can answer this question with any degree of insight, you'll have my respect.

The question is this: Why is it advantageous for any of the following, to suppress polyamory and/or support monogamy? Religion/Government/Commerce

You may choose one or all. The only rule is you must not use a self referencing defense. For example you may not say that religion supports monogamy because adultery is a sin, or that government supports monogamy because polygamy is illegal, or that commerce supports monogamy because it is profitable, you must tell me WHY these things are.

It must at least pretend logical rigor and objectivity.

Your move.

Prostitution, and Taco Bell

A friend of mine inspired an explanation that I'd like to make public.

"I'm not ready to throw away romantic notions of a perfect companion."

Me either, I just know it can't be human. Humans can not act selflessly. It's like asking a wasp to be non-violent. It's a genetic impossibility. Selfish gene, breeds a selfish organism.

I want a mate that wants me happy first and foremost. We all do, as is evidenced by all the absurd claims of selfless love made in romantic comedies, shows, dramas, and songs, but if that were really the case, why would monogamy exist?

Because its a lie meant to assuage insecurity. They want you to think they're selfless for you, but if they really were they'd share you at times. From the male perspective an example is easy to find.

Picture this.

Couple in bed, guy wants sex, girl does not. Now normally the guy just has to jerk off or go without. I envision a world where the guy says, “Well, I'm going down to the love hotel, cool? (I love the Japanese) and the girl is like, “Right on just be quiet when you come back I gotta get up early.”

In the future his option instead of the hotel will be his sex bot.

Now before you think that's outlandish, here's a similar situation with a different animal need.

Same couple in bed, guy wants food, girl doesn't feel like cooking. Now the guy has to get food himself or go without. We live in a world where the guy's like, “Well, I'm going down to the Taco Bell, cool? (I love beef and potato burritos, no red sauce, grilled) and the girl is like, “Right on just be quiet when you come back I gotta get up early.”

Now don't tell me monogamy is about avoiding contagion, because eating out is just the same. Regulate it if you must, make it safe, sure, but saying prostitution should be illegal because it spreads disease is the same as saying eating out should be illegal because of e-coli and salmonella.

Now I am sure there are female equivalents. I won't speak to them because I'm not female.

But honestly, making it so you can only have sex with one person or you don't 'love' them is as stupid as saying you can only eat one person's cooking, and making a sandwich for yourself means you're a loser. Sex is hunger without the need for other life forms. Defending monogamy by saying you won't die from lack of sex, is like saying “Well a person can live on rice water and vitamins, so lets make all other kinds of food illegal.”

It's not about living, its about the enjoyment of life. It's about the freedom to choose what love is, and how to seek it. It's about Freedom. And no argument to my mind attacking freedom can stand in this context.