as i wrote the post about lovers & friends, a thought came to mind. somewhere, i have read and/ or heard this before - if couples were to have sex and change partners, and not respect the sanctity of values and morals, aren't they no different from animals?
well, for a short moment, i sat and wondered. one word came to mind - hypocritical. weren't such values and morals are defined largely by straight people for reasons that serve their `normal' functioning of their society? perhaps it is a front. a false front that serves to give couples the confidence of (often false) commitment; that serves to satisfy the insecurities of people. and reality tells me that people, regardless of sexuality, do engage in sex with multiple partners at some point in their lives, if not consistently. and even when married, many engage in extra-marital sex (just don't get caught). for human nature itself is polygamous. monogamy is a fallacy!
also, such values and morals are defined largely in the context of marriage. and when one discusses about marriage, there is a strong cultural context - as framed by the modern western world. a useless piece of paper that serve as a contract. a contract between two individuals. and it can be rather sad if this piece of paper is the only thing that binds two persons together if their partnership develops to a point where the coexistence of the partnership is actually more damaging to both individuals than if they were to live apart.
ok, not sure if i sounded coherent in my post above. just typing aloud (as in thinking aloud) without too much synthesizing of my thoughts. enough of useless reflections for this lazy sunday afternoon... think i'll go grab a bite with bee bee liao!
:-)
well, for a short moment, i sat and wondered. one word came to mind - hypocritical. weren't such values and morals are defined largely by straight people for reasons that serve their `normal' functioning of their society? perhaps it is a front. a false front that serves to give couples the confidence of (often false) commitment; that serves to satisfy the insecurities of people. and reality tells me that people, regardless of sexuality, do engage in sex with multiple partners at some point in their lives, if not consistently. and even when married, many engage in extra-marital sex (just don't get caught). for human nature itself is polygamous. monogamy is a fallacy!
also, such values and morals are defined largely in the context of marriage. and when one discusses about marriage, there is a strong cultural context - as framed by the modern western world. a useless piece of paper that serve as a contract. a contract between two individuals. and it can be rather sad if this piece of paper is the only thing that binds two persons together if their partnership develops to a point where the coexistence of the partnership is actually more damaging to both individuals than if they were to live apart.
ok, not sure if i sounded coherent in my post above. just typing aloud (as in thinking aloud) without too much synthesizing of my thoughts. enough of useless reflections for this lazy sunday afternoon... think i'll go grab a bite with bee bee liao!
:-)
No comments:
Post a Comment