Now then; at this most festive of times the news has been pretty well dominated by war and murder. I don't really want to touch too much on the video of Bin Laden laughing and joking about the WTC atrocity except to say that A: The man is pig excrement given human form, and B: how long do you think it will be before some of the more extreme conspiracy kooks start saying that they know for a fact that the video was digitally created by the US Government in order to frame Bin Laden. Hey, if Hitler burned the Reichstag then Dubya must have been behind the WTC, right? Mm...
However the story that has set my mind racing has to be the shabby, sordid, and tragic death of Sarah Payne at the hands of Roy Whiting. It has emerged that Mr. Whiting had a previous conviction for kidnapping and indecently assaulting a young girl. He served 2 and half years for that and was released despite the grave misgivings of his parole officer. None of this was brought up at the trial. There is now a groundswell of public opinion behind a change in the law that would allow details of the accused's previous convictions to be given during a trial. There is also a strong body of support for Sarah's Law. Sarah's Law would be the British equivalent of Megan's Law in the US. In both cases, a young girl was abducted, raped, and murdered by a man with previous convictions for paedophilia that lived in the vicinity. No one in the area knew that the men were paedophiles. Megan's Law made the sex offender's register available for public inspection so that parents would know if a paedophile was moving into their area.
I've written before about the grotesque drama that is repeated year in year out whenever a child is abducted, and this is yet another breathtaking performance of that Danse Macabre. Yet it seems that perhaps we are not going to sit and accept it any more. There does seems to be a very real desire to do something concrete in order to put a stop to this. By the same token, there is an equal amount of opposition to some of the measures being called for. Why would anyone want to oppose something that could save lives and protect children from predatory throwbacks like Whiting? Well, they would oppose it for some very good reasons. Although they may not be enough to convince you that the 2 proposed changes to the law are a bad idea they are certainly enough to make one stop and think.
So firstly we must look at the proposed change to the laws of evidence; to allow details of previous convictions to be brought up at trial. Supporters of this measure say that there are numerous cases where someone has been acquitted by the jury who are then aghast to learn that the accused has a string of convictions for some remarkably similar offenses. "If the previous crimes are sufficiently similar to the ones they currently stand accused of" say supporters of this idea "then surely this is evidence that the person would commit the same crime again? A judge should have the discretion to allow these previous convictions and any relevant evidence from those cases to be presented to the jury in this case". This is a lucid and quite correct argument that falls down on only one small detail; we already have a law that allows this. The statute in question dates from 1898 and allows the use of "Similar Fact Evidence". The law states that if a previous crime or event bears a close similarity to the crime that the accused is currently charged with, then details of that previous crime or event can be put before the jury. Crucially, it is down to the judge's discretion whether or not to allow similar fact evidence (usually there is a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not something is Similar Fact Evidence or just hearsay).
So if we already have the law, why has it never been used? Well, it has been used on a few fairly famous occasions. The Brides in the Bath case of the early 1900's saw George Smith accused of drowning his new bride in the bath of their honeymoon suite. Mr. Smith contended that his wife must have fallen asleep in the bath or suffered some other tragic mishap. 2 pieces of evidence secured his conviction; firstly there was a demonstration in the courtroom of just how Mr. Smith could have drowned his wife in the bath (the demonstration itself almost led to the death of the WPC sitting in the bath for the demonstration; the method Smith used, to hook one arm under her legs and another round her back and then whip her legs away from her so that she was flat on her back in the bath with her head underwater, was quite stunningly effective the rather embarrassed prosecution barrister explained as the semi conscious and spluttering WPC was carried from the court). The second was the admission of Similar Fact Evidence. The similar facts being that he had married twice before in the previous 2 years and both of his wives had drowned in the bath not long after their wedding.
There have been other cases where Similar fact evidence has been introduced (Rosemary West's trial for example), so if we have this law then why don't we make more use of it? I think partly because the judge has to rule on whether or not to allow the evidence to be admitted. Whilst it is extremely tempting to call them a bunch of bewigged and senile old farts who have a stuffy insistence on sticking to the letter of the law rather than to it's spirit, I don't think it's entirely their fault. Their hands are tied to a large extent by the law itself, which is very restrictive in what it will and will not allow as Similar Fact Evidence. And in all honesty, I really don't think that this is the best case to use as a justification for a change in the law. In the case of Roy Whiting I honestly don't think that I would have allowed his previous conviction to be raised had I been in the same position as the trial judge. Whilst it pointed to the undeniable fact that he is a vile and unpleasant pervert, it did not therefore prove that he was a murderer. The facts of the case did that.
Then of course we have the issue of Sarah's Law. I think everyone's gut feeling about this is pretty much the same; we have a right to know if there is a person in the area who could be a danger to our loved ones. You'll not get much of an argument out of me about the principle involved here. What you will get me arguing about is just how this law would be enacted. The worst case scenario is that we end up with the same level of frontier justice that reared it's ugly head when the News of the World ran their Paedophile naming and shaming campaign. A man who had the same name as one of the named paedophiles was hounded and threatened by his neighbours, a Welsh Paediatrician was driven from her home, and a man named Peter Phile was assaulted and set on fire by a group of residents (scarily enough, only one of those three examples was made up for the Brass Eye program satirising public and media reaction to paedophiles). The best case is that the public will not be whipped up into a frenzy by papers looking to boost their circulation and so access to the list will not lead to lynch mobs being formed.
Opponents of the law say that it will drive paedophiles underground and make it more difficult to track them. Why not just electronically tag them for the same length of time as they're on the sex offender’s register then? That way the authorities will know where they are at all times and a register can be lodged at police stations for inspection upon request. I suppose that Civil Libertarians will object to the principle, but I can't see them being able to sustain any call for the rights of a group of people than evoke such a strong reaction as paedophiles and sex offenders. Also, how come Roy Whiting was allowed to refuse any help or treatment to confront and perhaps help exorcise whatever demons drove him to kidnap and sexually assault that first young girl? Why wasn't it compulsory for him? And why do we release people who step forth into freedom still clinging to the notion that the child they abused was a willing partner? Surely it would be better for all concerned if sentencing for such crimes took the form of being sentenced to be detained at her majesty's pleasure (i.e. until a panel of psychiatrists, police officers, and members of the public are satisfied that he is no longer a danger)? I don't pretend that it will stop these crimes altogether but I think it would cut them down to a certain extent.
It seems to me that the media are portraying people who have any misgivings about the suggested changes in the law as loony lefties who put the rights of sex beasts above the rights of our children (if you have seen the episode of the Simpsons where the Reverend's wife repeatedly interjects with "But what about our children?!" in suitably distraught tones then you'll know what I'm driving at). This is toss. I would suggest that they are worried at the potential for people being convicted for a crime that they are innocent of purely on the basis that they had done something similar once before. They are also worried about people having their lives placed in danger because they are wrongly believed to be a paedophile. If those worries can be assuaged however then you'll find me cheering loudly as new laws to stop the never-ending stream of needless, meaningless deaths are introduced.
Friday 14 December 2001
Tuesday 11 December 2001
How goes the battle?
Even when the Afghanistan war was going well (remember those days?), there was a strong undercurrent of unease about what the US and UK were doing, and where they would stop.
Now then, the War Against Terror (trademark of the US Government); what's going on with that particular package of fun at the moment? The news when last I checked was rather good from a western point of view; the Taliban have effectively ceased to exist, every city (such as they are) in Afghanistan is under Non-Taliban control, an interim government had been agreed, food aid is starting to arrive in the capital, and the search for that nice Mr. Bin Laden has begun in earnest. So it would appear that everything is going swimmingly, correct? Well...
One can usually rely on the American government to take a silk purse and from it construct a pig's scrotum and the war in Afghanistan is no different. Before going on, I will give credit where credit is due; despite all that was said about the tactics used, from a battlefield perspective they worked. The enemy government is not in control any more and is scattered to the four winds. Coalition troops have freedom of movement on the ground. And it was all achieved before the onset of the worst of the Afghan winter. So here's a huzzah to the coalition for the good news.
Now let's start to have a look at the less welcome events of the last couple of weeks. I suppose we could start with that old favourite of the US air force; friendly fire. That's a lovely phrase isn't it? It sounds almost like an all-American cartoon character ("Casper the Friendly Ghost? Meet George the Friendly Fire.") Admittedly, cock ups in the field resulting in the deaths of one's own troops is nothing new in warfare but the American army seemed to have taken it to new heights of ineptitude. Consider, for example, the incident last week, which saw the American military give it's opinion of the interim Afghan P.M. Hamid Karzai as well as demonstrating some of the methods of effectively prosecuting a modern conflict. Or, to put it another way they dropped a bomb on their own troops (killing three of them; the Taliban have so far failed to kill a single soldier in the Coalition military and have had to limit themselves to a few journalists and a member of the CIA) and also managed to injure the most important Afghan in the world at the moment. Mm, nice work boys. Maybe next we'll see the US army help to quell the Marxist rebellion in Nepal by bombing the royal palace. Perhaps they'll even start gunning down more of their own troops to show the Taliban how it's done...
Of course, we are a cynical generation and one that was probably half expecting more wacky friendly fire mishaps and so this is not a subject on which one can dwell for long before it becomes boring. Something which is altogether more interesting (interesting = scary) is the US and it's determination to extend the War Against Terror. Over the last week there ever louder voices from the US in favour of some sort of punitive action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been promoted up the hierarchy of world evil by an American government that would seem to have had its appetite for warfare whetted quite nicely by the war thus far. He has gone from being the beaten but still irritating thorn in the side of the West to a super villain masterminding the manufacture of more and better weaponry regardless of the consequences to world peace. He is the despotic head of an unrepresentative government that came to power by dubious means who has no interest in anyone's opinion but his own. He uses terrorism to further his own aims and is unapologetic about doing so. We have been warned that we leave him undisturbed at our peril, for he will surely pay no heed to the UN or any other organisation that may seek to limit his mischief.
I'm not going to try and become Hussein's cheerleader at this point. I have no doubts that the man is an evil and bloated old swine and I look forward to reading his obituary in the papers one day. I'm not even going to disagree with the fact that his removal would be a fundamentally good thing; Paul Wolfowitz (American Deputy Defence Secretary and renowned warmonger) wrote a paper in the late 70's calling for the removal of Hussein and stating that he was a menace to Western security. Whilst I'm not in any position to question Mr. Wolfowitz's academic credentials (which in any case are impeccable; Wolfowitz is respected throughout the political world for his foresight and acumen if not for his ideologies) I am rather concerned at the sight of a powerful man using his position to try and fulfil what is to all intents and purposes a prophecy from a school project. I mean, dear lord, I confidently predicted a nuclear holocaust that would wipe out mankind when I was 14 but I'm pretty damn sure that you wouldn't find me beavering away to bring that to fruition.
The main thing I take issue with however is the implication that the US government is going to simply do whatever the hell it wants and consequence be damned. There was some pretty intense negotiation to secure the, well not the support but the non-interference of the Islamic World in the Afghan war. Even then, there have been waves to rock the boat; Rudolph Giulianni refused a $6 million donation from the Saudi Crown Prince because he dared to hint obliquely that the US government was less than even handed in it's dealings with the Middle east and that may have contributed to the Sept 11th disaster. The fact that this is true doesn't seem to have troubled Rudi's conscience in refusing the money. And whilst the various Moslem governments have given their approval there remain several doubts as to whether they represent the views of the majority of their people. All this occurred to the backdrop of an horrific and unjustified attack which saw the sympathies of the world with America. So one can foresee trouble ahead if the US decides to trample all over the delicate and volatile political situation in the Middle East in order to rectify their mistake in failing to remove the tyrant at the first time of asking (if nothing else they'll be less well informed about the Iraqi military capacity seeing as America doesn't sell them weapons anymore...).
That said the Pakistan based opposition to this war was vociferous in its denunciation of American aggression yet it has failed thus far to destabilise and topple the military government of Pervez Musharraf (in fact the only real trouble he is currently facing stems from the dispute with India in Kashmir). Admittedly this is because he has access to all of the guns and has the support of the army, but then that is the story across a large portion of the Islamic world. Is the American government about to gamble the stability of the governments of the Middle East against removing a threat that, though it exists, is currently held in check?
As a parting shot, I'd like to go back to my earlier description of Hussein and see if it holds true elsewhere. The US government has at it's head a man who came to power by dubious means (thanks to his good old brother Jeb in Florida), who is developing more and better weaponry no matter what the consequences to world peace (the Son of Star Wars missile system continues to roll on despite the fact that it doesn't work and is annoying the hell out of China, Russia, Europe etc), and who has no interest in anyone's opinion but his own (Kyoto is the tip of the iceberg as far as agreements that he has reneged on go). He supports right wing anti-government terrorists in Central America in order to promote his own agenda (because Uncle Sam doesn't want any nasty left wing governments on his own doorstep, no sir-ee!). He hasn't even deigned to make reference to the UN other than to berate other nations for not doing as he told them. If America wants another Boogeyman to frighten it's children with then it would do well to start looking a little closer to home.
Now then, the War Against Terror (trademark of the US Government); what's going on with that particular package of fun at the moment? The news when last I checked was rather good from a western point of view; the Taliban have effectively ceased to exist, every city (such as they are) in Afghanistan is under Non-Taliban control, an interim government had been agreed, food aid is starting to arrive in the capital, and the search for that nice Mr. Bin Laden has begun in earnest. So it would appear that everything is going swimmingly, correct? Well...
One can usually rely on the American government to take a silk purse and from it construct a pig's scrotum and the war in Afghanistan is no different. Before going on, I will give credit where credit is due; despite all that was said about the tactics used, from a battlefield perspective they worked. The enemy government is not in control any more and is scattered to the four winds. Coalition troops have freedom of movement on the ground. And it was all achieved before the onset of the worst of the Afghan winter. So here's a huzzah to the coalition for the good news.
Now let's start to have a look at the less welcome events of the last couple of weeks. I suppose we could start with that old favourite of the US air force; friendly fire. That's a lovely phrase isn't it? It sounds almost like an all-American cartoon character ("Casper the Friendly Ghost? Meet George the Friendly Fire.") Admittedly, cock ups in the field resulting in the deaths of one's own troops is nothing new in warfare but the American army seemed to have taken it to new heights of ineptitude. Consider, for example, the incident last week, which saw the American military give it's opinion of the interim Afghan P.M. Hamid Karzai as well as demonstrating some of the methods of effectively prosecuting a modern conflict. Or, to put it another way they dropped a bomb on their own troops (killing three of them; the Taliban have so far failed to kill a single soldier in the Coalition military and have had to limit themselves to a few journalists and a member of the CIA) and also managed to injure the most important Afghan in the world at the moment. Mm, nice work boys. Maybe next we'll see the US army help to quell the Marxist rebellion in Nepal by bombing the royal palace. Perhaps they'll even start gunning down more of their own troops to show the Taliban how it's done...
Of course, we are a cynical generation and one that was probably half expecting more wacky friendly fire mishaps and so this is not a subject on which one can dwell for long before it becomes boring. Something which is altogether more interesting (interesting = scary) is the US and it's determination to extend the War Against Terror. Over the last week there ever louder voices from the US in favour of some sort of punitive action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been promoted up the hierarchy of world evil by an American government that would seem to have had its appetite for warfare whetted quite nicely by the war thus far. He has gone from being the beaten but still irritating thorn in the side of the West to a super villain masterminding the manufacture of more and better weaponry regardless of the consequences to world peace. He is the despotic head of an unrepresentative government that came to power by dubious means who has no interest in anyone's opinion but his own. He uses terrorism to further his own aims and is unapologetic about doing so. We have been warned that we leave him undisturbed at our peril, for he will surely pay no heed to the UN or any other organisation that may seek to limit his mischief.
I'm not going to try and become Hussein's cheerleader at this point. I have no doubts that the man is an evil and bloated old swine and I look forward to reading his obituary in the papers one day. I'm not even going to disagree with the fact that his removal would be a fundamentally good thing; Paul Wolfowitz (American Deputy Defence Secretary and renowned warmonger) wrote a paper in the late 70's calling for the removal of Hussein and stating that he was a menace to Western security. Whilst I'm not in any position to question Mr. Wolfowitz's academic credentials (which in any case are impeccable; Wolfowitz is respected throughout the political world for his foresight and acumen if not for his ideologies) I am rather concerned at the sight of a powerful man using his position to try and fulfil what is to all intents and purposes a prophecy from a school project. I mean, dear lord, I confidently predicted a nuclear holocaust that would wipe out mankind when I was 14 but I'm pretty damn sure that you wouldn't find me beavering away to bring that to fruition.
The main thing I take issue with however is the implication that the US government is going to simply do whatever the hell it wants and consequence be damned. There was some pretty intense negotiation to secure the, well not the support but the non-interference of the Islamic World in the Afghan war. Even then, there have been waves to rock the boat; Rudolph Giulianni refused a $6 million donation from the Saudi Crown Prince because he dared to hint obliquely that the US government was less than even handed in it's dealings with the Middle east and that may have contributed to the Sept 11th disaster. The fact that this is true doesn't seem to have troubled Rudi's conscience in refusing the money. And whilst the various Moslem governments have given their approval there remain several doubts as to whether they represent the views of the majority of their people. All this occurred to the backdrop of an horrific and unjustified attack which saw the sympathies of the world with America. So one can foresee trouble ahead if the US decides to trample all over the delicate and volatile political situation in the Middle East in order to rectify their mistake in failing to remove the tyrant at the first time of asking (if nothing else they'll be less well informed about the Iraqi military capacity seeing as America doesn't sell them weapons anymore...).
That said the Pakistan based opposition to this war was vociferous in its denunciation of American aggression yet it has failed thus far to destabilise and topple the military government of Pervez Musharraf (in fact the only real trouble he is currently facing stems from the dispute with India in Kashmir). Admittedly this is because he has access to all of the guns and has the support of the army, but then that is the story across a large portion of the Islamic world. Is the American government about to gamble the stability of the governments of the Middle East against removing a threat that, though it exists, is currently held in check?
As a parting shot, I'd like to go back to my earlier description of Hussein and see if it holds true elsewhere. The US government has at it's head a man who came to power by dubious means (thanks to his good old brother Jeb in Florida), who is developing more and better weaponry no matter what the consequences to world peace (the Son of Star Wars missile system continues to roll on despite the fact that it doesn't work and is annoying the hell out of China, Russia, Europe etc), and who has no interest in anyone's opinion but his own (Kyoto is the tip of the iceberg as far as agreements that he has reneged on go). He supports right wing anti-government terrorists in Central America in order to promote his own agenda (because Uncle Sam doesn't want any nasty left wing governments on his own doorstep, no sir-ee!). He hasn't even deigned to make reference to the UN other than to berate other nations for not doing as he told them. If America wants another Boogeyman to frighten it's children with then it would do well to start looking a little closer to home.
Wednesday 5 December 2001
The Office Party
An attempt at a commentary on monogamy from a man failing utterly to be monogomous at that time.
It's that time of year when parties play a large part of one's social calendar. Office parties loom large in the lives of many, Xmas parties throw together families who are still refusing to talk to each other because of what your Suzy said about our Sharon, and New Years Eve parties will see millions of people starting the New Year as they mean to continue; incoherent and pleasantly numb. The first and last of these three party pieces are also notorious for another festive flavour; infidelity and lack of faith to one's partner (of course, if you live in Saffron Walden, South Shields, or the deep south of the USA then this is probably a feature of the 2nd gathering as well; if anyone from those places reads this then I hope they're enjoying following the words with their one eye and 14 fingers...)
Before I even begin to have a look at what drives men and women the world over to casually cheat on the ones whom they supposedly love dearly I suppose it's worth having a look at what bizarre impulse exhorts them to promise a life of monogamy in the first place. Firstly, some cod science; I'm given to understand that man is genetically keyed to sleep around and generally try and have as much sex with as many people as possible. This gives rise to a number of issues. Firstly, does that therefore mean that marriage and monogamy is an unnatural practice (and if so, will the church declare it "Against nature" just as the pathetic timewarps do concerning homosexuality)? Secondly should we actually class sex and the kind of love that leads one into monogamy in the same bracket, or are they entirely separate things? Finally, does this mean that religion was wrong all along and God actually intended us to spend our days rutting away at anything with a pulse (if so then pity the countless monks and nuns who have spent their lives celibate; I'll bet they felt rather foolish upon getting to the pearly gates as St Peter greeted them and led them through to the sight of the assembled heavenly hosts indulging in orgiastic pleasures...)
If we work on the assumption that we are indeed predestined for a life of furtively hunting for our next conquest then we have to ask the question "Why do we have marriage?” After all, divorce rates are continuing to rise and I'm sure you're familiar with the stereotype of the unhappy couple staying together out of a sense of duty, as well as the numerous innuendo's about plummeting post wedlock sex-drive. Shouldn't we all just do what comes naturally? Tempted though I am to go running down that path shouting "OF COURSE WE BLOODY SHOULD! IT'D BE GREAT!!" I rather think that it is not as simple as that.
For example, whilst at University I behaved in exactly the way that students have done since time immemorial; I got horribly drunk a lot and had frequent and casual sex with as many women as I could. My girlfriend at the time did precisely the same thing at her university (erm, only she did it with men, despite all of my fevered fantasies...). If what I've said so far is true then that should have been the most natural thing in the world. If that is the case then perhaps someone can explain just why we both felt so utterly wracked with guilt at our betrayal of each other? We both generally shied away from such encounters when we had some brain cells that hadn't been felled by alcohol. In other words we needed Dutch courage; not to sleep with someone else but to quiet the voice of our respective consciences. If lack of monogamy is the natural state of affairs then why did my morality (such as it is) try so hard to stop me having a good time?
Monogamy and marriage made its first appearance along with early civilisation. There are Greek comedies from the 4th/3rd century BC that refer to marriage between a man and a woman (as opposed to the polygamous marriages that evolved mainly in African/Arabic/Polynesian cultures; lucky bastards...). Although marriage was a ceremony with religious overtones, it was not the supposedly sacred rite that we would recognise today. For example, the Ancient Romans of the middle and upper classes changed their wives more often than a student changes his underwear. Marriage was less about relationships than about alliances between families and to find a couple who had married for love was rare indeed; the Emperor Tiberius, although now noted as a paragon of depravity, was more famous during the early part of his reign for the absolute misery he had suffered by being forced to divorce his beloved wife Vipsania in order to marry the previous Emperor's daughter Julia. After he had taken to the throne his courtiers had to take steps to ensure that he never saw her again after one particular incident; she passed him in the street and he spent the day following her, unable to speak and with tears in his eyes.
Yet even in those times marriage was used as a benchmark of respectability. Unmarried Roman men were viewed as less respectable than those who had taken a wife. Unmarried Roman women were generally assumed to be either prostitutes or slaves. Emperor Augustus introduced laws imposing financial penalties on the unmarried. Did this attitude prevail as a deliberate contrast to, for example, the Oriental monarchs of the East with their harems and multiple wives, or to the Barbarian tribes of the North who were perceived to be amoral savages? Or was marriage encouraged as a method of ensuring that the Roman blood stayed untainted by that of non-Romans? Whatever the reason for it, a precedent was set; marriage, and monogamy within that marriage carried with it public praise and an air of respectability. Sleeping around led to one being tarred as a prostitute if you were a woman, a rogue if you were a man. And yet infidelity was widespread in the ancient world, so even then the social schizophrenia of wanting to appear respectable to the rest of society whilst simultaneously wanting to indulge one's urges was a feature of life.
Then of course the church became the driving force behind life in Europe. For almost 1000 years marriage was a racket ran exclusively by the clergy and my word what fun they had. Like the Romans, the church held marriage up as an ideal state of affairs for a man and a woman. Unlike the Romans they also made marriage a lifelong affair. Divorce was almost unheard of unless you were rich or well connected (and even that was no guarantee; Henry VIII got excommunicated for divorcing his first wife) and so most people married for life. This was considered to be the best state of affairs to have; even animals such as Swans that mated for life generally got a better press than those that did not (I always remember being taught at school that the swan was somehow better than other animals because of this. I wonder if the lesson plans changed when 2 male swans chased away the female mate of 1 of them and then nested together behaving as male and female...). And did this put a stop to infidelity in any way? Well, I think the answer would be a resounding no. Though the church held sway and adultery was a sin, people were ingenious in their efforts to justify their actions (I would hazard a guess that Bill Clinton's beloved excuse of blow jobs not counting as being unfaithful originated around this point in history).
And that pretty much brings us up to date. The influence of religion in our lives is slackening at a wonderfully fast rate and it would appear that the increase in divorces corresponds with that. We no longer feel as great a sense of duty in a marriage, and so if one is unhappy one can get a divorce or have a fling. And isn't the truth of it that in this day and age we have never been so affluent, so well fed, so generally comfortable? We are in a world where gratification of any kind can be yours pretty much straight away. Add to that the fact that women are no longer expected to be demure little creatures that stay at home and it seems that the opportunity to cheat on one's partner is widespread. People are also learning to differentiate between love and lust; if one is out on the town and has the opportunity to satisfy a few base urges with someone else who is basically after the same thing (i.e. no strings attached) then why shouldn't one do so? I would suggest that the guilt one feels at doing so is due to a combination of genuine love for one's partner, and 2000 years of being told that what you are doing is a BAD THING.
Of course I haven't even begun to address other things that play a part in the wonderful world of Adultery (possessiveness, actually falling for the person you have a fling with, etc) but I still can't help but think that the guilt one may feel is a mostly manufactured emotion. I don't wish to belittle those who have been tortured by guilt at their affair(s), but if they really were as heartbroken and remorseful as they say then wouldn't they just...well, not do it anymore? Once bitten is twice shy after all, yet many people are cheerfully unfaithful on a repeat basis. Is the heartache afterwards genuine, or just an emotional purge to satisfy themselves that they have felt bad for doing a bad thing so now the scores are even?
It's that time of year when parties play a large part of one's social calendar. Office parties loom large in the lives of many, Xmas parties throw together families who are still refusing to talk to each other because of what your Suzy said about our Sharon, and New Years Eve parties will see millions of people starting the New Year as they mean to continue; incoherent and pleasantly numb. The first and last of these three party pieces are also notorious for another festive flavour; infidelity and lack of faith to one's partner (of course, if you live in Saffron Walden, South Shields, or the deep south of the USA then this is probably a feature of the 2nd gathering as well; if anyone from those places reads this then I hope they're enjoying following the words with their one eye and 14 fingers...)
Before I even begin to have a look at what drives men and women the world over to casually cheat on the ones whom they supposedly love dearly I suppose it's worth having a look at what bizarre impulse exhorts them to promise a life of monogamy in the first place. Firstly, some cod science; I'm given to understand that man is genetically keyed to sleep around and generally try and have as much sex with as many people as possible. This gives rise to a number of issues. Firstly, does that therefore mean that marriage and monogamy is an unnatural practice (and if so, will the church declare it "Against nature" just as the pathetic timewarps do concerning homosexuality)? Secondly should we actually class sex and the kind of love that leads one into monogamy in the same bracket, or are they entirely separate things? Finally, does this mean that religion was wrong all along and God actually intended us to spend our days rutting away at anything with a pulse (if so then pity the countless monks and nuns who have spent their lives celibate; I'll bet they felt rather foolish upon getting to the pearly gates as St Peter greeted them and led them through to the sight of the assembled heavenly hosts indulging in orgiastic pleasures...)
If we work on the assumption that we are indeed predestined for a life of furtively hunting for our next conquest then we have to ask the question "Why do we have marriage?” After all, divorce rates are continuing to rise and I'm sure you're familiar with the stereotype of the unhappy couple staying together out of a sense of duty, as well as the numerous innuendo's about plummeting post wedlock sex-drive. Shouldn't we all just do what comes naturally? Tempted though I am to go running down that path shouting "OF COURSE WE BLOODY SHOULD! IT'D BE GREAT!!" I rather think that it is not as simple as that.
For example, whilst at University I behaved in exactly the way that students have done since time immemorial; I got horribly drunk a lot and had frequent and casual sex with as many women as I could. My girlfriend at the time did precisely the same thing at her university (erm, only she did it with men, despite all of my fevered fantasies...). If what I've said so far is true then that should have been the most natural thing in the world. If that is the case then perhaps someone can explain just why we both felt so utterly wracked with guilt at our betrayal of each other? We both generally shied away from such encounters when we had some brain cells that hadn't been felled by alcohol. In other words we needed Dutch courage; not to sleep with someone else but to quiet the voice of our respective consciences. If lack of monogamy is the natural state of affairs then why did my morality (such as it is) try so hard to stop me having a good time?
Monogamy and marriage made its first appearance along with early civilisation. There are Greek comedies from the 4th/3rd century BC that refer to marriage between a man and a woman (as opposed to the polygamous marriages that evolved mainly in African/Arabic/Polynesian cultures; lucky bastards...). Although marriage was a ceremony with religious overtones, it was not the supposedly sacred rite that we would recognise today. For example, the Ancient Romans of the middle and upper classes changed their wives more often than a student changes his underwear. Marriage was less about relationships than about alliances between families and to find a couple who had married for love was rare indeed; the Emperor Tiberius, although now noted as a paragon of depravity, was more famous during the early part of his reign for the absolute misery he had suffered by being forced to divorce his beloved wife Vipsania in order to marry the previous Emperor's daughter Julia. After he had taken to the throne his courtiers had to take steps to ensure that he never saw her again after one particular incident; she passed him in the street and he spent the day following her, unable to speak and with tears in his eyes.
Yet even in those times marriage was used as a benchmark of respectability. Unmarried Roman men were viewed as less respectable than those who had taken a wife. Unmarried Roman women were generally assumed to be either prostitutes or slaves. Emperor Augustus introduced laws imposing financial penalties on the unmarried. Did this attitude prevail as a deliberate contrast to, for example, the Oriental monarchs of the East with their harems and multiple wives, or to the Barbarian tribes of the North who were perceived to be amoral savages? Or was marriage encouraged as a method of ensuring that the Roman blood stayed untainted by that of non-Romans? Whatever the reason for it, a precedent was set; marriage, and monogamy within that marriage carried with it public praise and an air of respectability. Sleeping around led to one being tarred as a prostitute if you were a woman, a rogue if you were a man. And yet infidelity was widespread in the ancient world, so even then the social schizophrenia of wanting to appear respectable to the rest of society whilst simultaneously wanting to indulge one's urges was a feature of life.
Then of course the church became the driving force behind life in Europe. For almost 1000 years marriage was a racket ran exclusively by the clergy and my word what fun they had. Like the Romans, the church held marriage up as an ideal state of affairs for a man and a woman. Unlike the Romans they also made marriage a lifelong affair. Divorce was almost unheard of unless you were rich or well connected (and even that was no guarantee; Henry VIII got excommunicated for divorcing his first wife) and so most people married for life. This was considered to be the best state of affairs to have; even animals such as Swans that mated for life generally got a better press than those that did not (I always remember being taught at school that the swan was somehow better than other animals because of this. I wonder if the lesson plans changed when 2 male swans chased away the female mate of 1 of them and then nested together behaving as male and female...). And did this put a stop to infidelity in any way? Well, I think the answer would be a resounding no. Though the church held sway and adultery was a sin, people were ingenious in their efforts to justify their actions (I would hazard a guess that Bill Clinton's beloved excuse of blow jobs not counting as being unfaithful originated around this point in history).
And that pretty much brings us up to date. The influence of religion in our lives is slackening at a wonderfully fast rate and it would appear that the increase in divorces corresponds with that. We no longer feel as great a sense of duty in a marriage, and so if one is unhappy one can get a divorce or have a fling. And isn't the truth of it that in this day and age we have never been so affluent, so well fed, so generally comfortable? We are in a world where gratification of any kind can be yours pretty much straight away. Add to that the fact that women are no longer expected to be demure little creatures that stay at home and it seems that the opportunity to cheat on one's partner is widespread. People are also learning to differentiate between love and lust; if one is out on the town and has the opportunity to satisfy a few base urges with someone else who is basically after the same thing (i.e. no strings attached) then why shouldn't one do so? I would suggest that the guilt one feels at doing so is due to a combination of genuine love for one's partner, and 2000 years of being told that what you are doing is a BAD THING.
Of course I haven't even begun to address other things that play a part in the wonderful world of Adultery (possessiveness, actually falling for the person you have a fling with, etc) but I still can't help but think that the guilt one may feel is a mostly manufactured emotion. I don't wish to belittle those who have been tortured by guilt at their affair(s), but if they really were as heartbroken and remorseful as they say then wouldn't they just...well, not do it anymore? Once bitten is twice shy after all, yet many people are cheerfully unfaithful on a repeat basis. Is the heartache afterwards genuine, or just an emotional purge to satisfy themselves that they have felt bad for doing a bad thing so now the scores are even?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)