This evening I had the eye-opening opportunity to engage in a blog discussion over a Savage Love post published in The Stranger, a Seattle weekly newspaper. It concerned an unspoken 'man-code', which basically prescribes, 'A man will not have sex with his male friend's female lover, or even his former female lover, without obtaining the permission of that friend.' Sound familiar? That's right--Moses, Mount Sinai, and that whole fiasco. The punishment for violation of the code is relatively light--a mere savage beating. The post itself was a response by columnist Dan Savage to an anonymous reader who argued that Savage was incorrect to suggest to another reader that, essentially, he could not 'steal' a woman from another man, since a woman is not property to be stolen in the first place.I was truly nonplussed reading about this primitive 'contract', which seems founded on jealousy between heterosexual males, male possessiveness of females, and disregard for female volition. Repeatedly, some bloggers argued that the 'contract' did not treat women as property, but rather sought to preserve the friendship between the males involved. Personally, I cannot see how this is true: this strange proviso does not involve just the two men's interests, but also those of the woman, yet it is the desires of the two men, and not those of the woman, with which the 'contract' is concerned.
My amazement billowed into disbelief as I read some of the comments left by readers; with relief, I observed many heterosexual men denouncing this silly pact as cretinous, the preservation of 'nebulous notions of honour', as one individual astutely put it. It is gratifying to know that forums for discussing such issues as this are ubiquitous and easily accessible nowadays through the internet, and although at times he can come across as smug, I respect Savage for his appreciation of fairness and reason, and for his empathetic interest as a gay man in the plights of similarly marginalized individuals.
You can visit the blog at http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/02/savage-love-letter-of-the-day; you can read my own comment to the post below. It may offer a more coherent reading first to review the blog post itself to get a comprehensive understanding of the controversy, then to read my response below:
I am incredulous. Is "MEAT" actually arguing that it is inconsequential whether his ex-girlfriend has the right to date whomever she wants, and whether he has the right to control her? It is just strange to think that one would sabotage the relationship of a former lover despite her voluntary desire for it. That is truly arrogant.Image ©1986 Jonathan Borofsky
MEAT's argument sounds like a defense of outmoded (if it ever even was the mode) alpha-male corralling of potential "incubators" (females) for the alpha-male's genes. It seems like an embrace of some primitive impulse to hoard such "incubators" against competition from other males, with whom the female nonetheless may wish to mate.
Of course, I believe such a "man-code" is total bunk, and would have believed it was bunk even when it was the case. After all, that a state of affairs is true does not mean that it should be true (which is partly why I oppose biological determinism). It appears to be a desperate, artificial construction of some sort of "masculine social mystique". At any rate, I have no sympathy for men who try to control women's actions, whether because they want to propagate their genes, because they merely suffer from jealousy, or for any other reason. It was bad (for everybody other than the alpha-male) in the first place, and it still is. I care more about people's autonomy than about spreading my seed, even if MEAT doesn't.
Dan, I am glad you disagree with MEAT concerning the irrational disregard by jealous men of their former lovers' voluntary participation in subsequent romantic affairs.
B. Arkell
