Skip to main content

a problem for our times

I clicked on one of those videos that pops up on your YouTube homepage.

It was a TED talk on how to cope in a sexless marriage; what happens when one doesn't have the same libido as the other partner and how to deal with the frustration and hurt feelings that inevitably follow. It reminded me how intrinsically complicated human relationships are.

In fact I don’t believe there is anything more steeped in mystery than a couple trying to wade through life with a coherent vision that allows for their marital longevity. At least I cannot claim any personal understanding.

This woman, who professed a certain expertise in dealing with marriages that were faltering saw her parents' disintegrate after 23 years of never fighting; her mother surprised the family one day by saying she wasn't happy and wanted a divorce. The TED talk audience was told that this had helped her decide her life calling where she could deal with these marital problems of communication and had a certain success rate with these entanglements of emotion. However, as I listened I remained skeptical throughout.

I continue to think these problems are false modern day creations about how people expect life to go.

Even without the emotions and irrationality that are an inherent part of humanity, life is complicated enough on its own. We are thrown curve balls of illness, job loss, natural disasters which threaten to overthrow our sanity at times. To that we add expectation about what a partner should be doing for us and our demands for love and attention.

Except we enter relationships already damaged by our infancy and the things we have witnessed. We have been coloured by our familial experience and then we meet another who has lived a different set of circumstances and expect that they will understand us. If one reflects on it that way it is almost comical.

The concept of a soulmate is a false creation of late 20th century middle-class existence from people who had stopped worrying about how to struggle to put food on the table to feed their children. It was only exacerbated as we moved into the more narcissistic society that we live in today where our attention spans shrivel away and personal wants take a back seat to very little else.

Those couples from a bygone era had more basic needs which necessitated convergence borne out of their shared challenge. They had more important things to think about than how many times a month one had sex. It's not that intercourse is bad, far from it, it's just that it's focus became disproportionate in our modern culture as a gauge for marital health and a measure of grounds for its dissolution.

Those people also likely found a grounding in a shared faith in a God who they hoped would provide answers to the prayers they mouthed silently as they drifted off to sleep.

As I reflected on this I found I could not continue to watch the rest of the video.


Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…