Every day chumps send me nutty articles extolling the virtues of cheating. Most of them seem to come from the Daily Mail, a tabloid, so consider the source. Or the Huffington Post, who survive on tasty click bait. But every now and then you get the pretentious cheater apologists with their Ph.D.s telling us monogamy isn’t natural and such.
Indulge me in a momentary tangent on how natural polyamory is — did you guys see the article that men’s faces evolved to be punched ? Seriously! There is scientific evidence by researchers at the University of Utah indicating that we’re such an aggressive species, that men’s facial structures evolved to be resilient to attack.
The faces of australopiths, especially the males, evolved to be very different from those of chimpanzees and gorillas – their jaws grew shorter and more robust, their molars got bigger, their cheek bones grew bigger and thicker, and so did the bones protecting their eyes, said Carrier, a biologist.
Anthropologists had previously suggested these changes may have been adaptations to changes in their diet, such as one that contained more nuts with shells that had to be crushed with hefty jaws and molars. However, Carrier and Morgan, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, used emergency room records as a starting point to explore a different possibility.
The hospital records show that when humans fight hand-to-hand, they usually strike and injure each other’s faces, Carrier said.
“The bones in face that break most frequently are the same bones that underwent the most increase in robusticity in australopiths,” Carrier said in a phone interview with CBC News.
He suggested that australopiths evolved thicker, sturdier bones in those places to protect themselves from blows to the face, which were likely becoming more powerful and dangerous at that point in their evolution.
So, I think the proper reply to Eric Anderson (Chief Science Officer at Ashley Madison) who tells us monogamy is unnatural is to punch him in the face. Because HEY! We EVOLVED to do that!
But back to pretentious cheater apologists — we have to add Alain du Botton to the douche list for giving us these two absurd articles on infidelity on his blog “The Philosopher’s Mail” — “The Pleasures of Adultery” and “The Stupidity and Folly of Adultery.” (Which goes on to say, really, it’s not folly at all. Marriage is folly.)
What is “The Philosopher’s Mail” you ask? It’s an offshoot of “The School of Life.” I know many of you are assuming that a place called “The School of Life” probably teaches essential life skills such as button sewing or small engine repair, but you’d be wrong. Those activities are actually useful. No, it’s a school to teach us “emotional intelligence.”
Why you’d need some snot-nosed Oxbridge prat like Alain du Botton to teach you “emotional intelligence,” I have no idea. Most of us manage quite well, but for those of you who need more bolstering in the EI department, consider the fine articles on his blog such as Cameron Diaz investigates the origins of happiness. (The secret is SPLASHING.)
What? You were expected Kirkegaard?
Hey! This is a FINE ESTABLISHMENT of LEARNING! Sign up now for a course on “How to Spend Time Alone.” It’s only 40 quid! Me? I’m a Jedi master at spending time alone — I go to diners alone, doctor’s appointments, movies. Hell, I’ve spent an entire year’s worth of Saturdays alone with nothing but mounds of laundry to fold as company. But you there, London jet setter — you need some help. Put down your sparkling social diary and go slumming with the proletariat. Try this… ALONE thing. It’s an essential life skill.
I was going to get around to the pleasures of adultery. Really, I was. It’s just that there is such a rich vein of things to ridicule on these sites. Beginning with the fact that whoever has written these edgy little articles on infidelity left their name off AND included no comment function.
So much for the free exchange of ideas, right? But hey, this stuff is spawned from the head of Zeus. Did you go to Cambridge? No. I didn’t think so. Sit down and shut up.
Infidelity is “wrong” sort of says The Philosopher’s Mail…
Yet no understanding will come from such a hasty refusal to acknowledge adultery’s full power over the human imagination. Before we can begin to call it ‘wrong’, we should concede that it must also, at some level, for a time at least, for some people (who cannot all be merely monsters) be profoundly enticing. What might a case for it go like?
For a start, simply how normal it is to contemplate. It would be deeply unusual to expect people to grow up in hedonistic liberated circles, experience the sweat and excitement of nightclubs and summer parks, be bathed in images of desire and songs of longing and ecstasy, and then one day, at the command of a certificate, renounce all further sexual discoveries in the name of no particular god and no higher commandment, just an unexplored supposition that it must all be very wrong.
To be provocative: what if there was something wrong in not being tempted, in not realising just how short a time one had been allotted on this earth and therefore with what urgent curiosity one might want to explore the unique fleshly individuality of more than one of one’s contemporaries? To moralise too swiftly against adultery is to deny the seductive powers of a dramatic amount: another person’s laugh or well-timed irony, a first kiss, a new nakedness – each of these a sensory high point in its own way as worthy of reverence as more socially prestigious attractions, like the tiles of the Alhambra or Bach’s Mass in B Minor. Isn’t the blanket rejection of such temptations a little too neat, an infidelity towards the chaotic richness of life itself? Could one trust anyone who would not, under certain circumstances, show any interest in being untrustworthy?
I know, my head hurts too reading this shit. And consider that I spent years as a think tank editor wading through such pompous academic waffle. My dreck muscles are conditioned. Dear God, the run-on sentences! Let’s start with:
at the command of a certificate, renounce all further sexual discoveries in the name of no particular god and no higher commandment, just an unexplored supposition that it must all be very wrong.
Right. You don’t with free will sign a certificate. No, that thing COMMANDS you to “renounce all further sexual discoveries.” (It’s all the certificate’s fault! Waah!)
Actually, you just commit. It’s a really simple concept, du Botton. Like being alone. I’ll pass over no particular god — okay, you’re an atheist, how very hip. (Yawn.) I’ll pounce instead on “an unexplored supposition that [infidelity] must all be very wrong.”
Well, it’s NOT unexplored. Chances are you’ve probably fucked around a bit before you get married, and you decide to commit to this person you love. So, you explored the options, love this person exclusively, and want them to love you exclusively. If you don’t want to love each other exclusively, you don’t sign the certificate. You don’t get married.
And, douchebag infidelity IS wrong. That’s not unexplored. You want to explore it? Go spend some time on my site, or other infidelity boards and read what newly minted chumps are writing — about puking their guts out, and their traumatized kids, and their missing savings accounts, and their PTSD. Someone willfully did this to them for a little strange. It’s not “an unexplored supposition” you trustafarian wanker — it’s an unassailable truth. Infidelity HURTS people. It’s abuse.
I’m sorry. It’s not abuse. It’s a “sensory high point” like a Bach Mass in B Minor.
Why should you deny yourself! You’d be cheating yourself! Or as you put it: “an infidelity towards the chaotic richness of life itself?” (God I love it when you mindfuck all pretentious like that.) Yes! Missing the sensory high points is the REAL CRIME here!
Some people (lesser people), they’re contented with their Bach Masses — but other people like to fuck bareback with people they meet on Craigslist. Who are we to critique the rich multifacetedness of the human condition? Don’t let CERTIFICATES and nameless Gods tell you what to do — grab all the sensory high points you can, people!
The adulterer is meant to feel ashamed; the betrayed party is encouraged to be furious – with every right to an apology. And yet, from another perspective, shouldn’t the latter sometimes be the one to apologise to the former? Adultery may be the lightning conductor of modern indignation, but are there not other, subtler ways of betraying a person than by sleeping with someone outside the couple; by omitting to listen, by forgetting to evolve and enchant, or more generally and blamelessly, by simply being one’s own limited self? Rather than forcing their ‘betrayers’ to say they were so sorry, the ‘betrayed’ might begin by apologising themselves, apologise for forcing their partners to lie by setting the bar of truthfulness so forbiddingly high – out of no higher creed than a jealous insecurity masquerading as a moral standard.
Anger against adultery evades a basic, tragic truth: no one can be everything to another person. It is only a child who can believe this (wrongly) of a parent. Yet rather than accept the ghastly thought with dignified grace and melancholy, betrayed spouses are encouraged to accuse their ‘betrayers’ of sin. However, there may be only one cardinal wrong: the ethos of modern marriage, with its peculiar brittle insistence that one person must embody the complete sexual and emotional solution to another’s every need.
Yes, that’s why you were cheated on, chumps. You “failed to enchant.” And isn’t that a crime equivalent to finding your 401K spent on prostitutes? You didn’t sparkle sufficiently and now you have herpes. Shouldn’t you apologize to the cheater who gave it to you? I think you should.
You set the “bar of truthfulness so forbiddingly high”! And this is coming from a PHILOSOPHER, okay? Dude knows about TRUTH. There’s truth, like keeping your word, and there is truthiness — the sort of truth. Maybe some of you less enlightened individuals call that sort of thing “lies.” That’s so ugly. Say you’re sorry.
We can’t be all things to all people! The real problem is marriage!
So Alain — bro, don’t get married. Don’t make promises you can’t keep. Consider it a life skill. That’ll be 40 quid.