What happens in Atlantic City… April 11, 2011Posted by shaunphilly in religion, atheism, polyamory, culture.
Tags: Bachelor Party, monogamy
1 comment so far
…stays in Atlantic City?
Except when you blog about it.
And no, I will not be posting pictures.
And no, I actually will not be writing about what occurred in Atlantic City over the weekend at my friend’s bachelor party. First, it really was not that rowdy that it would be worth divulging. Second, the other mens’ wives would not approve…even though not much happened that would be very upsetting. Third, it’s none of your damned business!
There was a moment, the day after the primary revelry, while we were sitting around the beach while a bit hung over, under slept, and digesting our brunch, that someone clearly asked; “so, what’s the story for the wives?” It sounded like a joke, but it was only partially so. The truth is that some of what happened, even if tame compared to the things I do with my girlfriend while out at clubs and bars, would be problematic for them if their partner’s knew.
And this got me thinking (as well as one does while hung over) about what this implies about the nature of marriage in our largely heteronormative and monogamous culture. (This is a subject I have written about before). It got me thinking about the expectations, insecurities, and fears that underlie the need for such a question. And, especially since these are people (both the men and some of their wives) whom I know quite well, having known them for years, I began to see things that I had not quite known. Those details are not important, and even if they are they are personal so they will not be illuminated further here.
It seems that the bachelor party is a ritual of our culture wherein monogamous men can allow themselves to behave a little past (or, in some cases, a lot past) the boundaries of their relationships, so long as the details of said ritual are not exposed. That secrecy seems to be part of the ritual. It is a time to let loose a little, to step outside of their normal life and into an alternate reality for themselves, and there is an understanding that what happens there stays between the participants of said ritual.
In another sense, this ritual seems to partially be designed as a temptation exercise. Described as a last chance to live the bachelor’s life before the plunge into marriage and commitment (even though the couple has usually been committed for some time at that point), it seems like an excuse to put the groom-to-be in a position to test their willpower, usually while quite drunk, in the face of scantily clad young women. In a sense, if you can avoid said temptation under the circumstances of this ritual, you supposedly can do so for the rest of your life, even if the two things really don’t have much to do with each other. In other words, specific temptations are not the same as a personal set of needs and desires that are eschewed over time and which may conflict with the confines of a specific relationship.
An Alternative Point of View
Coming from the point of view of being polyamorous, which includes the pragmatic necessity of communication, honesty, and openness about my desires and needs, I find myself wondering to what extent this ritual still has meaning. More interestingly, perhaps, is the question of whether the concept of a bachelor party is even meaningful to someone in my situation, at least in the same way. If I were getting married (which I may do at some point) the ritual would be meaningless, although it still could be a great time.
It would, in fact, just be an expensive night out on the town where I am not paying for anything, including the possibility of strippers, sluts, or prostitutes (sluts would be preferable, being one myself). And the irony is that this does not really sound like that much fun, mostly because it would all be activities which would be acceptable any other time for me. I suppose it sounds like more fun when it is outside of what is acceptable; most of us like to be bad sometimes, especially if we think we can get away with it.
I would much prefer to skip the pretense of the swanky clubs with their cover charges, expensive drinks, and gobs of sexy women in little dresses…ok, keep those…and just go out for a few drinks with some friends like I would any Friday or Saturday night. But then, I’m missing something important here; the revelry that such a night allows is not only for me, but for the other men who are in monogamous relationships and who may want an excuse to let out their inner slut, even if only in drunken exclamation and not in action. Further, it is understood to be a safe place to act in this way; what happens at the bachelor party stays there.
Except that any women I would marry would not only want to hear about what would happen during such revelry, but they might want to see pictures and, perhaps, to be there to help my inner slut come out a little bit more. (But then the other men would have to behave because there is a woman there…and she might tell the other women…). And that, my friends, is the main benefit of an open, honest, and slutty relationship with a polyamorous woman; I don’t have to hide my inner slut, so there is no wild self that gets freed at such parties because that part of me gets regular exercise. And therefore such a bachelor party which may look like a release or a freeing of pent-up desires from most people’s point of view looks, from my point of view, tame.
Cultural Expectations and Monogamy
Because of the expectations of our culture, most men who get married might not be honest with themselves about what they want sexually because those things might become out-of-bounds. So how could they share that with their partners if they can’t admit it to themselves? Also, their partners are supposed to feel, according to the cultural expectations referred to above, threatened or jealous about those desires if they were to surface. But those desires of many men, well-hidden they may be under usual circumstances, become clear to the other participants of this ritual with the alchemy of alcohol and the other not-so-sacred rites of the bachelor party. Add those ingredients to the presence of drunk women who are either at bachelorette parties at the same club (and therefore possibly experiencing a similar desires) or who are trying to pry more dollar bills from the stack in front of these men (obviously at another kind of club).
Perhaps people have, in some sense, settled for what they see as the better choice between sexual freedom and the benefits of commitment. And perhaps the occasional desire, like the ones presented at such parties of a bachelor nature, are but a blip within a larger happiness encased in such commitment. But I don’t think that this, even if true, makes these desires trivial. I think it is meaningful to point out that there does not have to be a choice between sexual freedom and commitment. And this ritual of a bachelor party is part of the narrative that tells me that monogamy is not a value outside of uncertainty.
I, for example, have the wonderful joys of a meaningful, emotionally enriching, and sexually fulfilling relationship with Ginny. And there is no contradiction, in either of our minds, with this and the ability to have other sexual partners, relationships, and even other meaningful and emotionally enriching relationships. Because we both try to be honest with ourselves about what we want, are honest with each other about those same desires, and are secure enough with the status of our relationship that we don’t feel necessarily threatened by flirtation, enjoying the sight of, or the sexual activity with other people.
Wrapping Up this Bachelor’s Party
So, here I was yesterday with these other men, most of whom are married and in monogamous relationships (or at least want to be) and feeling no compulsion to hide any of what happened from anyone. And because of the ramifications for the other men with their partners, I have to keep it under wraps for their sake, at least insofar as their wives don’t find out. Ginny, on the other hand, was somewhat amused by some of what happened that night. And perhaps that is the other part of it; illuminating the truth of human behavior openly exposes truths that many people are not quite comfortable with. To share those activities with our partners allows them to see the secret rites of the bachelor party, which is to see what is hidden beneath the sometimes facadesque bliss of married life.
And, again, very little happened that would be a problem for these men and their relationships. And, in fact, a few were very well behaved because apparently) they are genuinely content with their relationships and therefore the temptations were not pressing. It was just a night out (an expensive one, granted) with some friends with more drinking than we really needed and being up very late. Those whose desires did press, even if they did not press far, will not face relationship problems because it really was quite tame.
One question remains; what kind of activity could I get into that could get me in trouble at my potential future bachelor party? Whatever activities might be included in such an evening, most of the men I was with Saturday night certainly could not participate. Hell, they might not even want to because it would be past their own boundaries. Even the single ones, in most cases.
More likely my bachelor party would bore them because I would feel no desire to find bachelorette parties, strippers, or prostitutes. It’s just not my thing. I prefer a few slutty friends, some good beer, and a large bed. I can’t really invite the guys for that, can I?
Well, maybe they can bring their wives. That would be interesting.
Penn Jillette agrees with me about agnosticism! April 4, 2011Posted by shaunphilly in religion, atheism, polyamory, culture.
Tags: agnostic, agnosticism, fundamentalist atheists, Penn Jillette
So, when I saw this video just now, I was getting ready to be frustrated, because I have had to correct people (namely, Gary Gutting in those links) on this question about agnosticism a number of times in the past, starting with one of my very first posts on this blog called “A Message for Agnostics.” This is a point I have had to explain many times, and it appears as if I am not the only one.
In any case, take a look at this:
But, I was not disappointed (except for the dizzying back-and-forth between the cameras that Penn was doing). As it turns out, Penn and I see eye-to-eye on this point. I say that because Penn, while I do like Bullshit, tends to have opinions that I disagree with, especially politically. Also, I have heard some stories about him that make me think I would not get along with him, despite the fact that we are both atheists, he also is not particularly monogamous (from what I have heard), and we have some common friends.
But, I do like a good beer, and Penn is pretty vehement about not drinking, which means if I ever did meet him the obnoxious part of me would order a beer. But I’m just that kind of guy who likes to start trouble, even around other strong personalities.
But, in any case, we agree on something.
Tags: accommodationism, atheism, gnu atheist, Jerry Coyne, John Shook
Here is a resource that may be helpful in tracing some aspects of the discussion about accommodationism, in case such a thing interests you.
I have been no friend to the so-called accommodationist camp of this discussion within the atheist community concerning our relationship with believers and our culture at large. (Here are some examples). I have clearly staked a claim as a ‘gnu atheist,’ but I will agree that I often am baffled by the so-called accommodationist’s position. I mean that I really don’t even think I understand what it is.. I have a feeling that there are a number of behaviors that are called ‘accommodationist’ which differ greatly from each other, and I think it is time to parse what those things are.
I want to extend an invitation to people who have either self-identified as either a gnu or an accommodationist or have been labeled as such by others. I want to hear your points of view.
First, a little background
A few days ago John Shook, author of a book (which I have not read but of which I have not heard good things) The God Debates posted this article up on CFI’s website. I read it and commented almost immediately, which led to some discussions that can be found in the comments section.
Them today, Jerry Coyne discussed Shook’s book and some of his other recent writing and gave him a general thumbs down (if I may summarize in such a terse manner). I’ll add that I agree with Jerry Coyne here, and find that John Shook is not a very good writer, uses vague language, and is trying to draw parallels which I simply do not see justification for. My guess is that this is an outgrowth of trying to express a point of view that seems contradictory and indefensible. Shook’s post led to more conversation (in the comments section, again) which got me talking to people on different sides of this debate….
I think that what has started to happen in the last couple of years is a clear split in the atheist community about a number of things. Many have commented on it, and I will not dwell too much on the history or points of said disagreement here. But what I want to identify is a certain tribalism that is starting to make itself much more clear to me. In the comments to Jerry Coyne’s post, I am seeing some people talking about what “side” someone is on, as if this is a clearly defined conflict with clear sides.
I think that Michael De Dora is partially right when he says, in a comment (#5) on Shook’s post)
The term “accomodationist,” in current use, means so many different things that it essentially means nothing.
Now, at first I disagreed with this sentiment (and I still do, but let’s not get sidetracked) as the record shows in that subsequent discussion. I think that it is something that requires more discussion, and I extend the invitation to other people who are, or who have been branded with the title of, accommodationist.
I think he is right to the extent that because of the various obfuscations, differing uses, etc of the term ‘accommodationist,’ many people are not really clear on what it means. But I do think that at first there was a use which was clear and which could still make a simple distinction between perspectives on this issue and which describes a real divide in opinions and not mere semantic games.
For me, the central criteria for accommodationism is where one stands on the issue of incompatibility between science and religion. More specifically, the incompatibility between certain scientific issues (usually evolution) and religious believers. How much are we willing to appease or accommodate (hence the term) people’s religious beliefs while trying to convince them of the overwhelming evidence for science and its powerful method.
That is, when it comes to scientific literacy and education, how do we deal with religion and the fact that there are incompatibilities between religious doctrines and scientific conclusions? Do we overlook when liberal religious people don’t notice the contradiction or don’t think there is one? Do we point out that we think that scientific conclusions make their world worldview look indefensible?
A secondary issue is that of the willingness to be confrontational. New atheists are called strident, rude, and other words which I shall not repeat, while the other atheists are nice, they listen and don’t criticize even while they disagree, and they just go about their godless life almost unnoticed.
And whether one is more willing to be confrontational will not necessarily tell you their opinion about the question of incompatibility. What happens, I think, is that confrontational gnus get attacked by confrontational accommodationists. And from the point of view of the religious, the confrontational gnus look worse because they are saying that there actually is an incompatibility while the accommodationist talks up the compatibility. Good cop bad cop, of a sort?
Here’s a little dialogue from an up-coming play I’m writing called Good Accommodationist, Bad Gnu:
“Hey, fella, that gnu cop is really riled up out there, saying this and that and how wrong you are. If I let him in he’s gonna rough you up a bit, so I’ll keep him out there, away from you. But I understand where you are coming from…you didn’t mean what you did and you didn’t know better. No big deal, right? Let’s be friends, help me out and I’ll help you out, ok?”
We all know that the “good” cop thinks this “fella” is guilty and is just trying to get a confession, but he’s being really nice about it. Will it work? Maybe. But we have not heard from the other cop, what the guy did, and so all we hear is the “good” cop. That’s how it is for much of the audience of people like Chris Mooney or the Templeton Foundation writers. All they hear is the shouting coming from the other room (which they are not really listening to) and a calmer cop in their face, acting like their friend.
And this issue of confrontation is not unrelated to the issue of incompatibility. The philosophical disagreement about compatibility of science and religion leads to the appearance of confrontationalism being the central difference between the ‘gnus’ and the ‘accommodationists’. Allow me to try to parse that out:
- Atheists have been pointing out for a while that saying something critical about someone’s beliefs is often viewed as confrontational or rude, no matter how politely it is said. Thus, even when an atheist is trying to not be confrontational, they appear to be confrontational.
- Having the opinion that religion/faith and the scientific method’s power to explain (including the so-called ‘scientism’) are incompatible is a position that will be critical of a very significant percentage of our culture. To point it out is not, many say, diplomatic. It will not make us many friends, and it will chase moderates away from us towards fundamentalism, and fundamentalists towards a more strict literalism.
- Therefore, those with opinions about the incompatibility of science and religion are viewed as confrontational, even if they are not actually confrontational, because their position is undiplomatic. To be undiplomatic is to be confrontational, it seems.
- Many atheists (including this one) believe that to pretend, while interacting with religious people (especially about science), that this incompatibility does not exist is to be short-sighted and is only telling a half-truth at best. We feel that we don’t need to always sweeten the medicine. And when we see religious scientists, we may say “sure the two things can exist in the same brain, but they are philosophically incompatible.”
- Other atheists believe that in order to make short-term gains in science education, the opposition of conservative and fundamentalist religious agendas, and to generally have a better relationship for communication with most of the religious world we need to not press them on their faith. So they talk up, Templeton and HuffPo style, ways in which religion is a lot like science or naturalism and rarely talk about how they are incompatible.
- Many atheists with the perspective that this incompatibility should not be glossed over, appeased, or accommodated are frustrated because it is dishonest or demonstrably wrong. In my case (and I think Coyne’s and PZ’s), this is due our watching some atheists not point out this incompatibility to the larger cultural audience even when they may agree that the incompatibility exists. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
- There are other people out there (and perhaps John Shook is one of them), who believe that the incompatibility exists but insist on trying to draw similarities between naturalism and supernaturalism. They do this, I believe, with good intentions; they are trying to further the dialogue with the religious world.
- Further, many these people often attack those who refuse to play this game of diplomacy. They try to appease the largely religious (or religious-friendly) culture, which is most of their intended audience, while also publicly attacking the people who are not trying to appease the religious world. Many of these people agree that religion and science are incompatible.
- And even if these attackers don’t agree with atheists like me on the incompatibility issue, they are still attacking other atheists. They are trying to dissociate themselves from the so-called ‘new atheists’ who are seen as strident, aggressive, and rude (even when they are not). They are widening the rift which is a difference of opinion about tactics which the public really does not understand nor really cares about. They are making an internal issue public so they won’t look bad; the irony being they don’t really disagree very much about the general questions of gods, religions, and faith, just how we should address the public about such things.
- This is playing politics. It comes across to me as dishonest, short-sighted, and it treats the public as if they were children rather than adults who can hear what people like Shook claim to actually believe but obfuscates with posts like the one linked above. If you believe that the incompatibility exists, dont attempt Chopra-esque mental and linguistic gymnastics in order to show how they may be compatible.
All of this amounts to the development of tribalism. We see the same thing in politics, especially here in the United States, and it turns into sides, rather than perspectives in a complex set of problems that may have a number of solutions, or at least sets of solutions that can be grouped into major categories.
Working towards an internal conversation
I would like to have more dialogue about this issue, and stop building more fences. I want those who side with the gnu atheists to talk more with people they call, or who call themselves, accommodationists. I want us to talk through these issues and find a way to either clearly define the boundaries and hack out the actual philosophical disagreements or to throw away the terms and just talk about the differences. We may have to come up with new terms, although my guess is that the current ones will stick, as terms are wont to do.
There are probably many shades of grey in this discussion, and I am sure that I am not the extreme on either end of the spectrum, if it is, indeed a spectrum. It’s probably more like a multi-dimensional graph with at least 2 axes; level of agreement with incompatibility and level of confrontationalism. Picture a simple graph with the y-axis being the strength of their agreement with incompatibility, and the x-axis the level of confrontational behavior you are comfortable with.
I would be higher on both axes, while others would either be high on one, the other, or neither. We need to recognize that this issue about accommodationism v. gnu atheism is not a simple binary position. This is complex, and it’s time we talked and figured out what the issues are, the possible positions, and where we all stand. And perhaps in doing so, we may get rid of the terms ‘accommodationist’ and ‘gnu’/'new’ or we may simply add to them.
It may turn out that the various positions are incompatible and that the confrontational people on all sides will continue to be strident, but let’s at least figure out what each of us means when we define our positions and why we criticize each other. I want to know what others think about this, and I want them to understand my point of view. Right now, I don’t think anyone has a really clear picture of any side. Even if nobody changes their position, I think some clarity may help us better understand our own position.