speech for the (con)dumb

hmm ... how does the red guy go about writing his very first blog?

Stop Press!

Condom here wants me to write an article on the vices of live-in relationships for his english class tomorrow. funny thing is, it was a week ago that he asked me to write an article in favor of the business. Something fishy ?I suspect a girl is the reason behind his volte face. All in a day's job for the esteemed Condom.

Anyway , here goes:

"Ahem , what is the first thing that comes to your mind, ladies and gentlemen, when you think of living-in,' cohabitation', as it is euphemistically called. I, forgive my puritanical views, am reminded of the redoubtable blunt Duchess in Tolstoy's "War and peace" , who when apprised of the Countess Bezhukova's extra-marital aspirations, acidly remarks, " There is nothing heretical in what you are attempting dear, its been done for ages. Only, they call it adultery." Or words to that effect.

While the world has certainly moved on from that cruel Russian winter of 1812, I intend to prove by virtue of my arguments, that certain verities stand true forever, and that the indispensibilty of matrimonial sanctity is one such.

Proponents of live-in relationships argue that marriage is anachronistic in today's hectic metropolitan lifestyles. They assert that the concept of the existence of an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman is as irrelevant to society as is the abacus to computing. The contention, justifiable in a sense, is that the concept of matrimony assumes on the part of both contracting parties a constancy of thought, speech and action that we as a species are genuinely incapable of.

With women increasingly holding their own as professionals and with metropolitan ethicality increasingly tending to a unisexual ideal, the idea of delimiting spheres of interest based on gender no longer holds water. With the nouveau riche increasingly demanding a lifestyle of convenience, an institution that imposes upon you a long-term liability would certainly appear to be a bad bargain.

It is obvius that, viewed from the 'I-me-myself' point of view, the stand against cohabitation is rather untenable. The question to be asked then is this, is society merely the sum of its parts, or does there exist a bigger picture that we need to collectively consider for the furtherance of our culture, of civilization itself?

If so, we need to look beyond live-in relationships per se at their impact on society in general. The biggest issue is, the issue of issues. What about children? Do they or do they not entail long-term commitments in the union of a couple? Or is reproduction out-moded just as well? Children, it is universally established, are a humongous nuisance. Why not dispense with them altogether? That's what sensible, modern, emancipated, liberal live-in couples do.

Not really? You want children? But you want to be able to walk out of a relationship at an hour's notice too! Please gentlemen, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The question here is, would you like your relationships with your kids to also be just as disposable as you would make your sexual ones?

Next, we consider sexual bonding from an evolutionary perspective. Once upon a time, back in the hoary mists of pre-history, homo sapiens used to live in massive, rigidly exclusive social groups. To the end of the Paleolithic period, we find no evidence of structure in sexual associations. This was followed by the hierarchical structuring of mates on the 'Alpha male rules' Darwinian principle. By the early Neolithic period, however, we find that, with increasing linguistic and social skills, sporadic efforts were made by group leaders to match all group members in long-term bonds. Such behavior, it may be noted, is also evinced by the higher mammals, viz. primates and pinnipeds.

By the end of the Chalcolithic period, we come across the first instances of religiously ordained marriage ceremonies. In history, of course, the matrimonial relation is too well documented to brook further discussion. A pertinent point, however, is that the concept of polygamy(or polyandry for that matter) has never been found to rise uniformly as a trend.

The crux of the argument is as follows. Is the nouveau riche not, by arguing for looser connubial ties (or their abolishment), bucking a Darwinian trend established 10,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age?

In summary then, is not this endeavor perverse in terms of both biological and social evolution?

I think we may, with some justification, answer in the affirmative. If so, what is the rationale behind cohabitation? "

phew , enough of this . Condom is going to make quite a splash tomorrow, isn't he?