Skip to comments.Puritan view of adultery turns Brits into 'caged animals' says academic
Posted on 08/20/2012 10:49:36 AM PDT by a fool in paradise
An unforgiving, puritan Anglo-Saxon attitude to adultery is damaging married life in Britain, driving couples to divorce rather than strengthening the family, according to an outspoken French academic.
Dr Catherine Hakim, a sociologist and bestselling author, argues that a sour and rigid English view of infidelity is condemning millions of people to live frustrated celibate lives with their spouses.
In a book bound to provoke controversy, she likens faithful husbands and wives to caged animals and argues that they should be free to explore their wild side with lovers without the threat of divorce.
Meeting a secret lover for a casual encounter should be as routine as dining out at a restaurant instead of eating at home, she claims.
British couples should take their cue from French, who she claims are happier and have more stable home lives because of a permissive and philosophical approach to adultery...
Dr Hakim, a former London School of Economics social scientist who is now based at the think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies, provoked controversy last year with a book urging women to exploit their erotic capital to get on life.
In her latest book, The New Rules, she renames adulterous trysts as parallel relationships and playfairs while rebranding secret lovers as playmates.
She claims that there is such a thing as a successful affair in which both parties are happier but no one gets hurt...
Sex is no more a moral issue than eating a good meal, she writes...
She attacks traditional morality which has underpinned the family unit for centuries but also accuses relationship counsellors and therapists of trying to "pedal a secret agenda of enforced exclusive monogamy...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Moral Absolutes ping.
I’ve said it repeatedly, the goal of the sex positive agenda is to smash monogamy and end ALL moral judgments over ALL sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
The homosexual agenda is merely the battering ram for the whole hog.
I am senior citizen. Throughout my entire life, I have only seen infidelity cause pain, divorce, and complete unhappiness. This woman is pathetic and should have enough sense to keep her opinions to herself.
At least the Brits can win wars.
The average French intellectual is as worthless as the average French soldier.
Education with no wisdom. A successful marriage must ALWAYS be based on love, trust, integrity and commitment. Hanky panky, even with written permission, inevitably leads to insecurity, jealousy, hurt feelings, conflict and the loss of trust. Dr. Hakim is either a stooge or she is evil. . . nothing is in between in this case.
Wonder how Dr. Catherine Hakam would feel if her husband (big assumption there) was banging her sister, her neighbor’s wife, the PTA secretary, and some disease riddled crack Ho just for good measure?
Wonder how Dr. Catherine would feel if her children (2nd big assumption) wondered why they saw Dad out with another woman, kissing her? Or that Dad has fathered other kids from another woman?
Lastly, wonder how Dr. Cathering would feel at Church (3rd and largest assumption) if everyone knew she had an open marriage? That she and/or her husband were swingers, or at least advocated that others do so? Would she be proud of herself? How would her Pastor feel about it? How would her GOD feel about it?
Take your Madame Bovary attitude and shove it.
If true, then rape should be no more traumatic than being forced to eat a meal with a stranger.
“Hakim”...hmmmm, doesn’t sound like a typical British name, does it?
Free love isn’t free.
I wonder how she’d feel if her husband gave her HIV, genital warts, Herpes, or a whole slew of other STDs, and there are a lot of them.
I don't know what the solution is.
I do know that without family and children society is doomed and the future is a miserable place.
>> If true, then rape should be no more traumatic than being forced to eat a meal with a stranger.
What a disgusting fatbody. UNSAT!!! He needs P.T.
Vegans insist that meat is murder.
Greenie Weenies insist that the beef industry is killing the planet.
Michelle Obama and Nanny Bloomberg insist that fatty foods are a criminal enterprise.
Chick-Fil-A is called "hate chicken".
In this day and age, it safer to make moral arguments against foods than sexual perversions.
Good luck explaining this point of view to the Living God.
I guess the concepts of a wholesome family life and the welfare of children are incidental.
Because it is all about me, me, me. Screw (no pun intended, maybe) the rest of you. I have my feelings to think about.
Homosexuals, abortionists, STD professionals, pornographers, and educrats are pushing this worldview. Why is that?
Dr. Catherine Hakam would feel if her husband (big assumption there)
- - - - - - -
I would assume she is single.
Because we live in a fallen world.
Damn, she looks like she was fooling around with Ronald McDonald.
And yet ...
I find her absolutely, utterly, irredeemably UNattractive.
Beauty may well be only skin deep, but ugly really does go right to the core.
French farmer 'mows down love rival with tractor' A French farmer killed his wife's lover after chasing him across fields in his tractor and mowing him down.
I don’t like to share my toothbrush either!
It would be difficult.
There are men and women whose spouses have cut them off sexually...easy for people w/o that problem to say stick with it. I feel for these people.
Most think this is a men only problem but it is not...far from it. Marriage counselor friend of mine said that is one of the biggest complaints from women in unhappy marriages..their hubby neglects them physically, no intimacy and no affection from them. I can't imagine why a husband would do that but I guess it happens.
If I had a spouse that did who cut me off I would make every herculean effort to get her to change but if not divorce would be the best option. Life is too short to go through it celibate, frustrated and unhappy.
Can't imagine an "open marriage" myself but realize there are couples who do this.
“There are men and women whose spouses have cut them off sexually...easy for people w/o that problem to say stick with it. I feel for these people.” Very thoughtful opinion. To me, spouses that do that or use sex as a weapon to control or manipulate instead of for bonding, relief and the pursuit of happiness are guilty of an offense equivalent to adultery.
Marriage without physical affection and intimacy is just roommates with a tax deduction.
This is all part of what Liberalism is, biologically, which is the r-selected reproductive strategy in humans.
In evolutionary biology, r/K selection theory basically says organisms tend to adopt one of two psychologies, which guide their behavior. These two psychologies are identical to Conservatism and Liberalism, and indeed, you can look at other more primitive species, and see the more primitive forms of our ideologies in them.
The K-selected psychology is designed for an environment of limited resources, where one must compete to acquire resources, and where those who fail to compete die. One example would be the wolf. This produces individuals who are individually competitive, monogamous, prone to high-investment, two parent parenting, prone to wait until fully mature to mate, and who exhibit loyalty to a competitive in-group. The reason for monogamy with a carefully selected mate, two parent rearing, and offspring waiting until maximally mature before taking a mate, is to maximize the offspring’s fitness, since they need to be able to outcompete peers for food. Mating with just anyone produces less fit offspring, as does inferior rearing strategies, or trying to mate before mature. K-selected males tend to be big, aggressive, and take the role of protecting offspring, while females tend to be feminine, by our K-selected standards, and take the role of nurturing offspring, and guiding them away from danger.
The r-selected psychology is designed for an environment of resource abundance, where one doesn’t need to compete for any of the over-abundant resources, and where competing is actually a needless danger, which Darwin selects against. An example of this is the rabbit, which lies in a field of grass it could never possibly eat. Since there is no competition, every offspring will survive, and there is no reason to focus on carefully producing a few, highly fit offspring. Instead, any offspring, no matter how stupid, can survive.
This produces a population which is averse to competition, and which flees from any danger, and which maximizes offspring numbers through promiscuity, single parenting, and mating as early as possible (without any care for offspring fitness. Since there is no competition, they will also not have any loyalty to in-group (the very notion of in-group would be foreign to them).
r-selected organisms see the females become big and manly, by our K-selected standards, since they raise offspring alone and need to be strong enough to provision and protect them. Ever see some of these man-jawed, muscle-bound, hyper-ambitious feminist chicks? r-selected males tend to be designed solely for fleeing and fornicating, and will become diminutive, cowardly, and focused on superficial flash over competitive substance. Think Gavin Newsom, or any other metrosexual manboob, aka Rush Limbaugh’s Castrati.
Every aspect of Liberalism relates to the r-strategy, as that is what a Liberal is- a human r-strategist. Even the sexual dimorphism matches.
You can’t understand politics, or the bizarre things Liberals do without understanding r/K Selection Theory, and how every aspect of their ideology is an adaptation to the r-selective environment.
Check out my website and my blog, if this interests you (there’s a book for sale on the site, but you’ll have more than enough to read just on the website and blog, and it will explain this plenty well). Later this week, I role out a pretty cool blog post discussing neurological correlates between Homosexuals and Liberals, how homosexuality is probably just an extreme form of the r-selected reproductive strategy, and how studies of the balancing selection hypothesis of Homosexuality supports this perfectly. (In other words, there is scientific evidence which supports the hypothesis that Liberals are just moderated Homosexuals, and homosexuals are just nature periodically overshooting the r-type Liberal mark.) Plus there is other interesting stuff on brain function, psychology, and ideology in the blog.
Also a pretty long, technical look at what ideologies are about, and how they emerge from the brain here in pdf form:
Tell your friends!
is it really “caged animals”, or is it “civilized animals”
Amazing that in Judeo-Christian dominant nations, the anti-sexual-fiedlity researchers always blame “puritanical” values arizing from that Judeo-Christain heritage, while the same values are, and have been, dominant in “heathen” China, Korea and India, and arose there without a Judeo-Christian dominant culture. A reality the anti-sexual-fidelity researchers can never explain.
Sex: the only matter on which the Left advocates laissez faire (cause the Tyrant of Heaven can't boss us around no more, you understand).
Been there. I’d rather be alone then wish I was. I had a lot of time to think about it.
Been there. I’d rather be alone then wish I was. I had a lot of time to think about it.
It isn’t a “whatever happens, happens” policy, the Left openly ADVOCATES for random sexual experimentation at every age with no discussion of consequence (pregnancy, disease, mental anguish, declining morals).
Free love ain’t free.
We have a quick and easy online tour through the most important topics for teens who are sexually active now or just thinking about having sex. It's called "Just Say Yes" (en español: "¡Di Que Sí!") because we're tired of people telling us what we can and can't do. There's no preaching. No moralizing. Just the facts.
Just Say Yes is about having a positive attitude towards sexuality -- gay, straight,bisexual or whatever. It's about saying "yes" to sex you do want, and "no" to sex you don't. It says there's nothing wrong with you if you decide to have sex, and nothing wrong with you if you decide not to.
You have the right to make your own choices, and to have people respect them.
Sex is enjoyable when everyone involved is into it, and when everyone has the information they need to take care of themselves and each other.
Globally (and nationally) taxpayer dollars fund this agenda (through public hospitals, medical clinics, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and other groups.
There, Fixed it...
Notice how she says “both parties are happier”
She doesn’t get that an extramarital affair involves at least three people and many times four ... and those are just the spouses, not the kids who might exist and be impacted.
She’s really just promoting selfishness.
Someone needs to clue this stupid woman in on the fact that she’s at least 40 years late with her message.
They keep pushing religion out of the culture and this feminist/socialist crud into academia and medicine.
Their goal is to smash monogamy and end the institution of marriage. Same sex marriage, group marriage, open marriage, whatever it takes to eradicate support for the institution.
British national, born in Britain, resident in Britain, educated in Britain, employed in Britain.
IMO France has never recovered from the wholesale destruction of the Huguenots which comprised the middle class of French society and economy. No country which loses its middle class will prosper.
Sloppy seconds, thirds, fourth, fifth, etc..., with your spouse, no thanks.
Interesting read, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.