Two weeks ago, Triple J’s Hack program offered my views on plural relations in light of the debate on this issue in the UK. I have since composed three articles backed by research. My approach to this debate has to the best of my ability been rational, reasoned and relied on fact and logic.
Rather than scientifically refuting the facts, the opposing views that I have read have on the main been emotive, retrograde and derisive of my person.
Ironically, Muslims in the West have consistently faced allegations of being irrationally traditionalist or blindly dogmatic. In the debate about the modern realities of relationships in the West, the naysayers have only produced personal attacks in their failed attempts to refute my argument.
Where is the clinically proven scientific reason that we tout?
Over the past week or so, all that I experienced from the opponents of my views are attempts at censorship through public derision and unrelated questions that offer nothing to the debate. In newmatilda.com, Irfan Yusuf commented on my "large belly and hips" and on my representative capacity, as if this somehow refutes or deals directly with any aspect of my argument.
Some of these published flights-of-fancy (by those who ask why my opinion is being discussed, while offering little of relevant credential for themselves) show a state of denial about modern social trends. By attempting to silence debate, they are depriving society of the opportunity to find solutions to its own pressing issues. Thus far, I have written three articles on the topic and thus far, little has been offered from the other side as a solution to our social realities other than "moral" indignation.
Man is not a monogamous species and never has been (with the exception of Adam and Eve)! For those who believe in the Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel story: who could have married Abel’s sister after Cain killed Abel so that he could keep his own sister? This was the first killing that created an imbalance in the genders of our species.
We have long romanticised the idea of monogamy, but this has not stopped people from infidelity or from seeking plural unions. Interestingly, even Mills and Boon now cater for different genres of relationships.
With a rich Roman history of prolific extra-marital sexual relations, sixth century Roman Emperor Justinian decided to criminalise all relations that were not monogamous male/female. This Roman influence repressed the emerging Christian and Western society through imposing an unnatural restriction that created a sense of guilt among men and women who were drawn to each other in a plural relationship.
It seems that the only eventual change to the Roman marriage tradition was the acceptance of the right to divorce. Today marriage does not bring with it a right to sex or to exclusivity. Today, this guilt only has an effect on the careers of politicians and some – but not all – public figures. It has little impact on anyone else.
A plethora of men and women in Western society have rejected the notion of monogamy through their actions. People are engaging in secret relations, we have legalised prostitution, we have a prevalence of pickups and "one-encounter" relationships. One research suggests that 60 per cent of men have had affairs and another suggests that 60 per cent have had flings and only 37 per cent have had long term affairs.
Many young people these days have no interest in the secular ideas of marriage, they are happy to gratify themselves with "loveless" diverse relations without commitment.
Love can only develop after getting to know a person and it increases with the sacrifices we make for each other. In today’s encounters, the certainty of love may only come after numerous encounters over many years, if it comes at all. Love at first sight is a myth, there is only lust at first sight which is triggered by strong urges or captivating beauty.
Our contemporary human trends compel women to accept gratification as the only recompense for sex. Women are denied their right to a full commitment from the man under some unrealistic understanding of what equality of the sexes should mean when it comes to sexual relations. This notion of equality demands that everything should be equal even though only the woman can fall pregnant, only the woman can breastfeed, only the woman can go through morning pains and only the woman menstruates.
The wonderful physiological difference between men and women dictates that in order to treat women equally we males should take responsibility to compensate them for all they go through to maintain the human species. We men have to take responsibility for the needs of women when they are menstruating, pregnant or breastfeeding. This will only partially compensate them for what they go through. The token maternity leave is not enough, particularly as these days there is strong debate for maternity leave to be shared with the man, the selfish man who will not even allow woman a full term of maternity leave!
In this debate, the projections of victimhood by some Muslims are an insult to Australian society and its open-mindedness and are a clear indication that "Muslims" who do so, whether they are part of an organisation or not, are milking victimisation to the last pitiful drop. The same can be said of the morally indignant "politicians" whose only fallback is on sixth century Justinian traditions, ignoring the secret relations of many of their peers and the relations of their own constituencies and perhaps even their own children.
Emotiveness aside, one wonders the relevance of such "political" views and the level of disconnect between these politicians and present social practices.
In this debate on plural relations, there has been much paraphrasing of my views. My interview with Triple J’s more light-hearted Hack program was copied by the serious AM news program, with both adding their own twist about my "desire".
The prevalent media sales pitch is that we as a society need to remain in denial, thinking that our relationships are still what we pretended they were in the 1950s, ignoring the magnitude of the same-gender movement and ignoring the realities of the club scene and the fluidity of sexual activity throughout society.
I recall an article recently where three prominent sporting figures were alleged to have engaged in fluid relations, the male was alleged to have cheated on his girlfriend while the female, after allegedly mating with this male in the very unromantic setting of a toilet cubicle was allegedly spotted kissing and dancing with another male shortly thereafter. Her story would not have been published if she had not been a sporting personality, because such fluid sexual activities are no longer taboo in our society.
When I reflect on the club life, my mind is boggled trying to understand what would motivate young people on a working day to remain standing in a queue for hours outside a nightclub waiting for their turn to go in, and then waiting to find a willing short term flinger to talk to and then going through the process of convincing that person for an issueless mating ritual and then, several hours later, getting home late to get some rest before the next working day!
I come into this debate offering a natural solution, inviting openness and honesty in human relations and for those who choose to hear me out, I have a tried and tested solution that makes the men, in particular, accountable for their actions.