http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/19/catherine-hakim-interview?intcmp=239
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 ...
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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9488012/French-farmer-mows-down-love-rival-with-tractor.html
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.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/
Also a pretty long, technical look at what ideologies are about, and how they emerge from the brain here in pdf form:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/modern.pdf
Tell your friends!
LOL
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.
http://www.positive.org/JustSayYes/index.html
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.
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.