Fucked-Up Dad

Long Term Relationships [LTRs] mean we don’t have to call friends up all the time. LTRs mean that you can have month long conversations. LTRs mean that you don’t have to eat alone and store food in the refrigerator for weeks eating the same stuff again and again. LTRs mean the end of French Kissing and hot sex.

Yes, alas French Kissing is one of the first things to go in a LTR, then say good bye to massages, general tactile behaviour, oral sex, doggy style or any other peccadilloes that kept you both happy whilst you were courting.

The big leap forward into the abyss is moving in together. This can totally stifle any creative ambitions one or both partners may have. Sure, moving in can be fun, but soon good old fashioned Saturday morning horse fucks are replaced by shopping expeditions to boutiques to buy fabric for the apartment. The fact that you now know what your partner does after work and at weekends and that time is now yours, removes any tentative thoughts like: ‘what can I do to seduce this person into my life’.

I’m not sure if a particular gender is responsible in the backing away from such activity, but I would love to return to that behaviour pattern and never leave and I’m male. If a couple are currently enjoying frolic and fun in a LTR then more often than not, it’s the female who is content to be childless, but this can change pretty quickly!

Oddly enough, it is pretty much accepted that sex drops off in a LTR, but why? It even has me thinking that LTRs are not a ‘normal’ behaviour pattern for humans and are in fact unusual in themselves.

I suppose a LTR would be about 2 years, but is, in fact, measured by the attitude of the participants. I use the 24 month measure as personally it is my Honeymoon benchmark: the average time for the couple to meet, move in together, have a child and raise it to an age where one parent can do the caring.

If the LTR produces no children couples tend to fall into this way of thinking anyway, ie Mother Nature, realising that there is no offspring, locks down on sexual activity, presumably to facilitate one or both partners to look elsewhere.

What we don’t realise about LTRs is that one has to put more effort into a relationship the more it progresses, men particularly can neglect a relationship and then wonder what the bloody hell is going on, women do too, but don’t worry about it so much as sex plays less of a role in their ‘identity’!

We think that we need only pursue what we don’t possess, but in truth wives and lovers need to be wooed more not less!

So, how's your sex life these days?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/woman/story/0,,1887237,00.html

Mating in Captivity

http://www.estherperel.com/synopsis_read.html

1. Sex in a relationship?
2. What is feminism?
3. Lack of Fathers?
4. Masturbhation - how was it for you honey?

Culture has clearly increased the incidence of social monogamy. Many modern cultures have passed laws making social monogamy the only legal form of marriage. The passage of such laws in many cases reflects the spread of Christianity. However, in recent years international organisations such as the United Nations and the African Union have started to promote social monogamy as a way to give women and men equal rights in marriage.

The United Nations started to promote social monogamy in 1979 when the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [CEDAW], an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement. Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage.

Polygamy is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16 because it extends the right of multiple spouses to men but not to women. The protocol entered into force November 25, 2005.

Readers interested in the cultural evolution of monogamy may wish to visit the Wikipedia article on the history of human sexuality.

Gunshy

Because women can give birth instead of men, it goes that females are far more valuable than males. For example, if  I was the only man left on Earth, humankind could probably pull through, however if all but one female disappeared, it is doubtful humanity could ever recover.

For this reason, ‘group survival’ has generally dictated that the males be the ones to leave the ‘home’ and go out and be the ‘hunter gatherers’, whilst the females stayed in the safety of the home and took care of the offspring. Although, men have understood the concept of paternity, most likely from witnessing ‘animal husbandry’ in the surrounding habitat.

Even though in man’s early development there was no obvious relationship between sex and reproduction, due to the delay in the obvious signs of pregnancy, somewhere along the line males realised that:

• The more time spent with a single female maximised the chance that he would father her children.
• If he supervised those children there was a high probability he could protect his own offspring and the subsequent ‘blood line’.
• His young will be in the same geographical area and therefore easier to supervise.
  

However, none of these arguments can readily explain monogamous behaviour by females. Perhaps what was good for the goose was good for the gander?

This division has shaped many of the gender roles that survive to modern times. However, as humans have gained increased mastery of the environment, these divisions become less and less relevant, but change, while it is taking place, happens gradually.

Ironically, in the 'West', as man has increased his mastery of the environment he has also required more raw material and land and therefore mastered the destruction of other men, leaving the women to become adept at turning their hands to administration, heavy industry as well as politics and just about anything else. This also goes for teenagers who also saw a rise in autonomy during the latter part of the 20th Century.

Recent statistics say that never have so many lived alone. Is this because women have changed their views and have decided to reject men or is it that men do not need to adhere to the old paternal supervision? In truth it is probably a bit of both and the fact that, in general, we are having children much later in our lives when we demand independence?
Although having said that, some quarters of the community are upholding good medieval values and are bearing children in their early teens.

More Links:

http://www.palletmastersworkshop.com/women.html

I look at the dolls strew across the floor and I wonder if women really look like this; how come motor vehicles and weapons are to scale, but the human form is being distorted?

Roland Barthes was one of the first theorists to recognise that toys are pre-conditioning children to the gender roles that they will be expected to assume. In 'Mythologies' - 'Toys' he says that "All the toys one commonly sees are essentially a microcosm of the adult world" [1972] and that for instance, a girls doll is "meant to...'condition' her to her future role as mother".
I would also argue it also describes to the child some kind of ‘body image’ to which they can never aspire.

Do mum’s and dad’s really appreciate that their children are being manipulated by Mattel?

We have all seen Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man, go get a doll and see if it measures up to the following:

the length of a person's outspread arms is equal to his height
the distance from the hairline to the bottom of the chin is one-tenth of a person's height
the distance from the top of the head to the bottom of the chin is one-eighth of a person's height
the maximum width of the shoulders is a quarter of a person's height
the distance from the elbow to the tip of the hand is one-fifth of a person’s height
the distance from the elbow to the armpit is one-eighth of a person’s height
the length of the hand is one-tenth of a person’s height
the distance from the bottom of the chin to the nose is one-third of the length of the head
the distance from the hairline to the eyebrows is one-third of the length of the face
the length of the ear is one-third of the length of the face

Further Reading:
She's A Doll - Meaning Her Shape is of Inhuman Proportions
Lesson in Human Proportion

You will have to forgive the scant info to date. It's like I've just moved into a new flat and am just living out of boxes, for a man this can last a few years, so please be patient.

The reason I am here however, is in direct opposition to other blogs available across the www that promote how self righteous women feel about men in general and I just wanted to readdress the balance or to prove them right.

At this stage it’s hard to say which way it will go, but I'll be as honest as I can be, without revealing my identity because my 'better' half will leave me, or worse withhold sex!

One site a friend pointed out to me was http://poshmum.blogspot.com/index.html and this seems like a good place to start. Perhaps this blog could used to demonstrate to all teenaged girls that they should be careful what they wish for, they might actually get it!

To be honest I'm not sure a 'mum' wrote this at all, the amount of comments I get at home about how tiring everything is would seem to preclude any blogging, but I'm assuming this mum can afford staff?

I have to say that I think this person's wealth seems to define them, it is perhaps their unique selling point, but a study of personal wealth reported that the richest 1% of adults owned 40% of global assets and that in the year 2000 the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. Hardly something to aspire to?

If anyone can find others please send them to me.