An independent woman makes for a happy "man"

The feminist movement has always sought to give equal rights to women and free them from oppressive stereotypes. In the outset of the new millennium, the civilized world has witnessed the balance of sex in the workforce. Women have taken on jobs and become competitors to men. This liberation from the stereotypical stay-at-home woman could have various positive aspects for men which are often downplayed. Firstly, men in a relationship with working women have dual incomes, which enhance their financial standards. Furthermore, the more accomplished women are, the happier and more stable the relationship with one of them is. Last but not least, living in a civilized democratic society leaves no room for servitude, otherwise it would build up a skewed image of democracy.

The 21th century has seen an emergence of convenient relationships called DINKs. Double Income No Kids partners comprise these new generation couples who enjoy higher life standards. Life for them is obviously more material-oriented because of a considerate aggregated revenue but still it gives men the opportunity to enjoy it in more luxurious ways than in a stereotypical relationship. Instead of a bleak vision of coming home late from work totally exhausted and longing for a home meal just before going to sleep, men can afford both energetically and financially eating out with their partner and later enjoy the rest of the evening. In other words, men are no longer the only provider for the family, so they do not feel compelled to overburden themselves with additional late hours which according to Hunter impoverished their lives.

Moreover, having a working woman in a relationship works for the benefit of both sexes. Women can chase their professional careers and become accomplished in the way men have done throughout the centuries. Of course, as everything requires equilibrium in order to work properly, so does their career dedication. Having had work-home environments balanced though, men achieve a peaceful and healthy relationship. By co-operating with other people during the day, both partners have an outlet to their emotions and frustrations without concentrating it on each other. In consequence, it means that women’s enfranchisement works well for the spiritual and psychical well-being of men.

Apart from that, the civilized democratic society cries out for freedom in every aspect, otherwise it is not democratic. One of their postulates is saying no to servitude. Since the feminist movement denounced traditional household jobs as women’s everyday duty, moreover calling it servitude, there has been no room for it in the democratic society. Evidence is provided by Hunter who states that “[n]owadays, women constitute almost fifty per cent of the workforce.” However vague the benefits, which this assumption yields for men, are, the answer to this is more philosophical rather than a straightforward one. What if men were suppressed and confined to menial household chores and activities alike, which would restrain them from professional expansion and personal development? Certainly, that would not be fair, and so were restrictions on women’s freedom in the previous centuries.

In light of the above, men derive lots of benefits from the feminist movement’s assumptions. Apart from enjoying a more lavishly material life in a balanced relationship, they have a chance to develop spiritual serenity and peace of mind averting quarrels and squabbles. All thanks to the fact that women contribute to the professional life and workforce. Having parity among sexes, men have another advantage they can take pride in, e.i. they need not fear (compelling fiction) career adversities for themselves in terms of social prejudices. The rest of stereotypically slanted men who think otherwise are advised to drop their egoistic blinders, because it is the 21st century and women finally want to enjoy some freedom.

No glove, no love – protect yourself!

1 December is World Aids Day. It has been 30 years since the official report of hitherto unknown disease was issued publicly from the Centre for Disease Control in the US. The contagious human virus itself, however, is claimed to have its origins in the early 20^th century in Africa. No wonder it has nowadays turned out a plague of that continent, moreover, becoming a pandemic. In short, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is transmitted into a human body through blood, semen, vaginal fluids, or breast milk. Later, if not diagnosed early enough, it can develop acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which is a deadly disease. Although it is costly, HIV can be treated efficiently but never be cured, only put into remission. This is the best contemporary medicine can offer at the moment. Beyond that, only self-protection can prevent a person from infection. However, despite that very evident knowledge, there are still people who neglect to take precautions. They often claim that HIV is the problem of Africa or gay people and drug addicts. Yes, they are correct but it is bigotry to narrow the global problem only to these aspects. Therefore, 1 December is a day which aims at reminding people that HIV is a prevalent concern regardless of sexual orientation. “Aids won’t happen to me” is the most common fallacy which people fell prey to, especially in Eastern Europe where attitude towards the problem is lax.

Aids is a global issue, thus the problem is not concentrated only in Africa, despite staggering statistics. According to avert.org, there were 33.3 million people diagnosed with HIV positive by the end of 2009. 22.5 million were in Africa alone. Bigots are misled by these overwhelming figures and tend to believe that the problem exists far away. Instead, the truth is that the rest 1/3 of the infected are dispersed around the world, including 1.4 million people in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. To make matters worse, the number has nearly tripled since year 2000, which implies a steady growth. Alarming as the figures are, they are but a symptom of ignorance. Unless there is a change in people’s consciousness, the figures will remain unabated due to high costs of treatment and lack of funds.

Gay minorities and drug addicts were thought to be the putative disease propellers. Although many years has passed since this assumption was toppled, some obstinate ignorames still maintain position that men’s debauchery is a key cause. Again, they are correct but only to a certain extent. The very high risk of virus transmission is through blood, hence sharing-a-needle drug addicts are the target. Anal sex is just another issue of increased attention due to abundant presence of capillaries in rectum.  Because naturally men do not become pregnant, they do not experience second thoughts on unprotected sex, which is ignorance. This ignorance led to condemnation and (correct?) assumptions that gay men were “swirling in a cesspool of their own making” to quote James Anderton, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in Margaret Thatcher era. Nevertheless, HIV spread is not confined to homosexuals or intravenous drug users solely. Heterosexuals are as much at risk as other groups. Anal and vaginal sex are both rated at high risk of infection probability whereas oral sex is classified as lower risk. Still, though, it can be insidious and lethal in consequence. A woman infected with HIV has a perfect certainty of passing down the virus to her child if she gets pregnant. Therefore, had one been reckless before or been taken advantage of after alcohol or raped, they should check in for medical diagnosis to prevent further damage in society (and in some cases for the sake of the future generations: their unborn children).

Attitudes in Eastern Europe towards HIV is lax, because too little has been done to raise awareness. Some people still believe gullibly that HIV / Aids are as conspicuous as other common infections / diseases. The prevailing excuse claims “he / she looked pretty healthy when we met.” The problem is that HIV is not flu. It cannot be estimated with a glimpse. Infection takes up about 25 days to force human organism into producing antibodies which then can be diagnosed in a laboratory. However, there is no accuracy until the period of three months after exposure, therefore if the test turns negative it should be redone after the period of three months and even later to obtain reliable results.

Aids awareness, however, shall not be raised only on World Aids Day. It is an everyday normal guy (1:48) struggle of every day – though he actually mentioned he was like STD; by the way, another contagious sexual infection. Back to the point. People were told many times and there is still constant need to rant more about the pernicious effects of sexual recklessness and ‘unprotected’ promiscuity. Or just about an accidental one off – HIV may happen even to an aloof angel embodiment.  The public opinion, however, has to be influenced so that the belief “Aids won’t happen to me” no longer be heard of. In this case everyone should be told to start taking responsibility for themselves as much as for the partner whom they have sex with. In other words, let’s start to take care for the world around us, for the present and future generations. Having unprotected sex may risk not only your own life but, if you are infected and unaware of that, the life of your partner too. Do tests regularly. It does not cost you anything but time. Be aware of random sexual intercourses. Especially, the incoming Euro 2012 summer is a great opportunity to catch some gratuitous morbidness due to influx of tourists willing to shag, drink and shag, sponsor and shag, and so on not necessarily taking protection into account. Life is for you as much as it is for others. Enjoy it responsibly. As the old eponymous slogan said “no glove, no love”, so protect yourself!

Just a threesome or yet it’s treason?

Polyandry is a kind of polygamy in which men cluster around one woman.  Although the relationship is free and unbounded by any formal institution like marriage, polyandrists are devoted to each other or at least men are devoted to a woman. Hence, the only bond that holds them together is, reportedly, love. Can this really be a true love then? Are men free in a polyandrous relationship? Or maybe they are emotionally retarded individuals, subdued by a tantalizing and sexually insatiate seductress?

Beyond the well-fitted disguise of the relationship’s raison d’etre such as love and dedication, the naked truth of envy and jealousy lurks in the hardcore of the matter. In polyandry a woman is a driving force but that does not necessarily mean that she provides for the family. On the contrary, she takes the lead thanks to her innate charm and conspicuous sex appeal. Therefore, a woman is capable of finding such men who can satiate her desired fantasies, letting her, in consequence, expand in a frivolous way, detached from pressure and financial expectations of the outside world. Comfortable as this situation is for a woman, the relationship may not be as easy for her men, as they have to cope with each other on a regular basis. According to great thinkers, philosophers, artists who are impossible to be enumerated, love is free, unconditioned, unbounded to any institution or law. It is doubtful, however, whether this phenomenon exists in a polyandrous liaison in a non-hypocritical way. Upon the Details.com example of Jon, Ian, Jaiya it is overt that the men, Jon and Ian, are connected with each other only through Jaiya or her (and Ian’s) son, Eamon; otherwise they don’t hang out and barely make eye-contact. Their dedication is superfluous but only towards Jaiya and Eamon. They all share responsibilities and expectations but corrupt feelings make their way through as their relationship is not immaculately reciprocal. Since none of the men can have Jaiya exclusively, they have joined forces as a compromise to stay close to her. Hypothetically, they could actually co-operate much better if they were all bisexual and unanimously conducted coitus in promiscuity resembling, for instance,  Markiz De Sade plots. This could hopefully devoid them of any family feelings, identity, and thus, jealousy about their partner. Bearing in mind, however,  the rules governing their relationship, providing for the family and responsibilities for fostering a child, polyandrists, like Ian or Jon, cannot break free from the earthly desire of a pre-emptive right to possess a lover, hence jealousy and envy remain.

The polyandrous relationship is often composed of egalitarian polyamorous individuals who believe in existence of chains of relatively stable partners. This implies freedom of relations between its members and the other people who accept this lifestyle and are willing to commit to the expansion of “the family.” It almost sounds as Cosa Nostra, except for the fact that the members do not necessarily earn a living through criminal activities. Despite that, they are closely linked to each other pledging allegiance to the family. As women in such relationships tend to be more easily enchanted by the outside men they meet, they often prompt the family expansion. Men, on the other hand, remain docile about bringing in more male representatives to the clan for fear of losing the beloved female. Obviously, most of them are allowed to go out hunting the opposite sex, the others are restraint by the harsh rules of “no fluid exchange” but the crux of the issue lies somewhere else. Most of them don’t want to see their woman get entangled with the other men but when it happens they take this opportunity to have something out of their life too, in a form of consensual agreement. They are not swingers though, or at least such is the assumption. As a result of this depravation, men fell prey to their woman by firstly falling in love with her and eventually being downplayed in favor of the other man. Some deny this stance by positing that in this way they actually try to overcome the mundane vices like jealousy. Good luck to them.

Men's lack of opposition to such circumstances evokes his weakness. Instead of cutting the corrosive cord off, men, of originally monogamous relationship, let the relationship develop into a triad or other forms. The pain of breaking up is a side-effect and evidence of a strong feeling such as love. Hence, splitting up seems rather uncomfortable. Simultaneously, being jerked around in a triad is not cozy neither. Fatuous dedication is the underpinning of the inability to move on. It is caused by foolishness and naivety of a infatuated man. The more besotted a man is the more desperately he seems to catch at a straw. His once ostentatious courage yields to the prospects of the loss of the beloved. This leads up to the emotional enslavement which unravels man's weakness of attachment to a woman. Nevertheless, it takes two to tango or at least it once did. The indomitable force of woman’s sexuality led to the expulsion from paradise according the old adage. This time her tantalizing wits counter man’s necessity to leave the drowning ship. At the end of the day, a man finds himself in captivity of a subduing, devious seductress, a succubus embodiment.

Taking the above into consideration, it is worth remembering that life is a trajectory of decisions in which morality plays a role. Along with the differences in the mind-set of individuals, morality becomes a subjective matter. On the other hand, living in jealousy only festers depravation. Self-denial aggravates hurt feelings, which bring about serious consequences and casualties such as suicides. Therefore, qualms rise over the issues of whether a woman in need of more action from other men is worth having a relationship with or if it is just the man’s inability to say no to her. By the way, what has happened to the traditional values and does this mean that to tango you need three or more now? One has to answer these questions themselves and ponder on whether being a polyandrist is the right choice of compromise or yet the transgression of a moral code.