A Hot August Night 2018 Pt. 02

I agreed. "Greg did say the word was 'archaic' as defined. That speaks to the technical accuracy in a manner that is similar to his other good example of the term 'colored,' although there is a significant difference. Both are, in fact, out-of-date in society today; that makes it inaccurate. We should keep that in mind."

I had told Nadia to express herself, that Eva and I were right but that she should make her points. So she did. "Impact is relative. It was my FATHER I was talking about, so the impact is very high for me. The term is accurate and, to me, proper!"

In response I went a different way. "No, it is not accurate, and it is not proper, not today. Okay, let us try another angle - it takes us to an ugly place but we must know what to avoid, like rush hour in a big city. So a question: who is the most famous woman who remains married to an unfaithful man? For the sake of this discussion, let's exclude Hollywood."

That got a chuckle.

After a minute Rob had an answer. "Hillary Clinton! Bill is a dog, in his own words. The Arkensauce on Monica's blue dress is proof positive. But instead of him being removed from office for cause they are still married, in their own fashion." Barb gave him a look. "Hey, it's true, everybody knows," he said.

"Now, this one is for Nadia. Are you for equality of women? Given these facts, is Hillary Clinton a cuckold?"

She was sure it was a trap so she thought about it for a minute. But she had to answer. "No, the definition applies to an adulterous WIFE, it is gender specific. Rooster, stallion, bull are other gender specific terms off the top of my head. I guess all men were expected to act like dogs," she said jokingly. But nobody laughed.

"No, that is not it. Recall, we are talking about an archaic term. The traditional marriage vows are spoken by both husband and wife. Each can act to violate those vows. Yet only the man has been subject to this unique term of derision. Why do you think that is? Anyone?"

Greg had an idea. "We have to look at when the term was used in literature, in terms of the roles of men and women. Chaucer and Shakespeare are commonly noted, that would be roughly 1400 to 1700. Also, look at the source of the word. During that period, and for a time after, women were effectively property belonging to their fathers and then husbands. Money was paid upon delivery. To be honest but not PC, they were treated by law and society like a special class of livestock, intended primarily to provide true sons to their husbands, as well as valuable daughters who had breeding value to others. That is why there was such a premium on virginity. If a woman was unfaithful, it was not a condemnation of her any more than one would condemn a bitch in heat for breeding with another man's dog when running free. The assumption was that it was THEIR nature, to be opened by any man as they were presumed to have no power in the transaction. The condemnation was reserved for the man who could not manage his valuable property, keeping her in her place, fenced away from the other dogs he knew were out there."

"You were right, this is ugly," Qiao said. "Also, it is still the truth in many places that are not America. For many more people than are in the western world. Americans sometimes forget the world is out there, they are a small minority."

I followed up on that. "We could talk about how it gets much darker, but let us move on. Barb and I mentioned the judicial writing on this point. In 1707 the English Chief Justice stated that a man having sex with another man's wife was 'the highest invasion of property' with emphasis on the word 'property' for the woman. Her willingness was simply not an issue. Well, what changed?"

Dee had written a paper last year that was on point. "Actually, there are 3 ages of womanhood for this. In times when we were wandering tribes, women were tribal property; there was no pair bonding as there was a nine-month gap between action and result, so the only relevant association was with the tribe. Any member in the tribe could use her subject to tribal rules. Tribes stole women from other tribes, they had to or else they died out from the inbreeding. Not just in prehistoric times, think of the Sabine women, who were stolen to populate a nation and who saved that nation from their fathers. Once pair bonding started, women became personal property, like livestock. Only the husband had the government and church sanctioned right of use; he also had the right to use harsh measures against others who interfered with that right. Laws were written about adultery. Funny thing about that, they are said to have hung horse thieves, but in the 1800's society only allowed whipping for the men who snuck out of a wife's bedroom; it tells you the relative values of the day, and how 1870 American values changed from 1705 England. A horse was more valuable! Finally, in the modern age, women are independent actors in society, just like men. They are equal in terms of their rights. But that means either Hillary CAN be called by the pejorative, or a man can no longer be one. Given that society no longer considers the woman's act as justification for a man to take harsh action, but rather her own free choice without any sanctioned consequences - even 'alienation of affection' laws only remain in only a few states* - I would argue that the latter is the case."

(*FYI: North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Mississippi, Hawaii and New Mexico retain such civil laws relating to compensatory damages at this writing.)

Nadia responded, somewhat shamefaced. "So by using that word for Trevor I was implicitly treating myself as property to be fucked like an animal, without a choice. That is sort of my dear mother's view. The term only applies if the woman is assumed to be entirely under the control of the man, be it her father, husband, or any who catch her loose. I see what Trevor meant in saying that my using that word was putting myself down. I was so foolish to listen to Mother on this, I should have known she was using me. Just like she is trying to sell me."

I backed her up and tried to throw in a little comfort. "I said that somebody else brought the word to you, thinking it would have a strong effect, as it would have effected them or the previous generation during their youth in Europe, when older values reasserted themselves. It was considered a matter where honor trumped the laws of society, which is far from the case in today's Europe. You were suggestible to your parent as one would expect, but now you will be less suggestible. Mistakes are one of the ways we learn."

Julio had another point to make. "That means that any MAN who uses the word is implicitly saying he believes women are STILL property. That does not sound like the type of man any woman... including my sister... should be interested in."

His position made sense to the others, they nodded in agreement. To them, the term "cuckold" was now poison for anybody who used it.

Greg jumped in. "Nadia, do you feel like you are anybody's property? Given today's revelations, let us pose the question as of last night."

She gave a little start, then thought. "That cuts right to my choice, doesn't it? If I go to Europe in the Spring for marriage I will get my mother's wealth but I will be property, sold naked on the internet, which passes as today's auction block. Fuck! I will actually be inspected like livestock, to expand a business empire I will indirectly benefit from, but will have no say in... rather like a prize poodle. Or I can stay in America and work to make my own life, and it can be MY life. My choices. My body. My workday. Hmmm... you know, I am the only person in this room that has never made a dollar on my own, so maybe I am livestock. You know, I am glad we had this talk, so I could learn what my brother told me, and what Professor Trevor has taught me despite my giving him attitude. Clearly my own attitude must change, to either accept what I am, or change what I intend. As to Greg's question, let me try this. I expect that when I become engaged, my suitor will ask Father for my hand. So in a sense, convention says I belong to him. But in truth this is more a nicety than a requirement."

Greg asked, "Would it be a serious problem if your father declined? Say a father said he had a better match?"

"As of yesterday, I don't think I would be charming in that case... but it is because I was a spoiled child," Nadia replied. "I admit I did have an agreement with my Mother where I placed myself in the position where I gave up the choice. I did not realize the implications. Now, of course, changes will be made as Mother violated that agreement."

Barb said, "Of course, your Mother has always had a European mindset. In America, the groom still asks for marriage in most cases. Who is asked first, the bride, or her Father?"

Julio answered. "The bride first. Asking the father is really just a formality. His refusal will give the bride pause, and may mean he will not pay for the marriage, but in this society is highly unlikely to change her position, even if it estranges her from family. That is a great change from the past - and from Europe, where as we can see, the family must approve first... at least in our strata."

Following on what Dee said, about her three phases of woman, I posed a question. "Well, what has changed in that scenario, talking about this country, from, say, 1900 to now?"

"Society says women are equals to men," Rob said.

I had to shortcut that, Rob was clearly parroting PC crap which is always a lie. "That is not true. I know we say that, but it is really PC crap. Ask yourself, who has the advantage in a child custody case? Or in a rape case? It has not been 'decided' in any sense, and even if that was true on some social level, that really does not apply to the scenario presented or the issue at hand. What specific social changes have made the scenario obsolete?"

"Oh, I see where this is going," Barb said. "You are talking about changes in reality that have specifically freed women from their husbands and fathers, so they can't view them as property. Changes in reality, rather than changes in the lip service of society."

"Yes, exactly. Since 1900. Any ideas?"

Greg started thinking out loud. "The right to vote and Carrie Nation fit the timeline, but Carrie was reversed, really slapped down with extreme prejudice and voting really does not change things. WW I took place, depression, then the dust bowl, but that is no good. WW II was... WAIT! Rosie the Riveter! She was a cultural icon that showed how a nation at war could, for the first time, use both men and women to great military effect. Putting women in factories essentially doubling the pool of warriors on the front line. That had never happened before to such a great degree. But it ALSO changed the national mindset by showing women could operate as factory workers, earning a good living! They could RIVET BOMBERS together to bomb nazis and earn a paycheck! They did not need their fathers or husbands to support them. What artist does that song, 'I can bring home the bacon, cook it up in a pan, and never let you forget you're a man'? That had to be a huge force for freeing women from their fathers and husbands."

I nodded agreement. "Very good Greg, that is the first key. Rosie freed a lot of women from male control. But were they still slaves to males in another way?"

Jim said, "Well, yes, they still needed a man to have children, to pass their genes. Also, with children many could not work, so they needed a man to take over the support of their nest and bringing home the bacon. In the nuclear age the nuclear family was still efficient, and the nuclear family rests on the wife not straying."

"Accurate, and close, you are only missing one element, the second key," I said. "You do not live in the time when women did not control their fertility. But it was not so long ago that ANY sexual contact was a little like playing Russian Roulette because no matter what, the female could get pregnant at any single episode. That would mess up a woman's plans for college, and even high school education. A baby can also kill a career and a marriage. Abortion was a crime. Women could accept the personal cost and abstain, but recall, we are all descended from hunter-gatherers where both males and females LIKED sex year round, unlike most animals which only mate in season. So abstaining is not a good fit for most women, their bodies know it is wrong. A willingness to procreate is hard-wired. The pill changed all that, bringing control to pregnancies. Allowing sex at will without the career-killing risk. Women could enter the job market with more education for better jobs and control of the one thing most likely to knock their mothers out of a job. This freed women even more from their husbands and fathers. It also gave the woman sexual freedom once she was married. Since she could have sex without conception, in other words, without the tattle tale cuckoo chick, it could stay secret. At least until some gossip found out."

Everybody saw how Rosie the Riveter and the Pill made great strides toward real equality - in the Western World. With equality, the pejorative for any sexual behavior made no sense, except an irrational one. Asia, of course, was a different story.

After a few minutes of contemplation, Greg started us up again. "Alright, I can name another change that is important to the issue. The stigma of divorce."

Rob asked, "What stigma?"

How little they understand history. I took that. "Exactly. In 1900, divorce was still stigmatized. In 1840, the most powerful woman in the world, Queen Victoria, married her first cousin. She had the power to do so and none dared object. Less than one hundred years later Edward VIII held the same position and was the most powerful man in England, but he had to give up the Throne to marry a soiled divorced American woman in the 1930's. Thousands of pre-victorian kings would scream: what good is being king if you can't have an experienced woman in your bed? Today we have a 50% divorce rate, serial monogamy is commonplace, living together is pro forma for heterosexuals and mandatory for homosexuals, and even having children before marriage is not considered worthy of critical comment. Having children by more than one man is also widely accepted - by the law and men. Interracial children - natural or adopted - are almost fashionable. Western society has come a long ways since the 1930's, in terms of accepting choices people have made for their... chicks. Note, I am not saying all these things are good, but plainly they are changes which have taken place. Given this accepted freedom of choice, what exactly is the cuckoo chick in the nest?"

Jim broke in. "Hold it... where did the 'cuckoo chick' come from?"

"The cuckoo chick is where the word 'cuckold' comes from. We will get back to that, I want to finish my point. I will go one step further by asking, what colors are Brad Pitt's children? I will confine the question to those he shares with his most recent wife, we know how things change in Hollywood."

Rob had the answer. "White, black and yellow, assuming one is using the common terms to reference racial characteristics."

"Okay, now I want to turn to two other aspects as to why the term, and the idea it represents, is harmful to society as a whole. Greg said earlier that the term is an archaic term, and a pejorative. He also mentioned the source of the word, which gets us to Jim's latest question. Let's go with that second adjective first to catch Jim's question. Why was it a pejorative?"

Greg had that. "The term derives from the cuckoo bird, which is a 'brood parasite' in that it lays it's eggs in the nests of another species, so the lazy female cuckoo bird need not build it's own. The host birds unwittingly feed the cuckoo chick, investing great effort raising young that are not their genetic offspring, and neglecting their own smaller chicks who starve - killed by neglect. The opposite of the 'true son' mentioned earlier. It is a subtle and sophisticated form of predation between species. For birds the 'wife' of the pair is not even at fault! There are other species that do the same. In humans, if the wife is assumed to have no control of her urges of use, the husband of a wife who had another man's child was mocked because at the time, raising children took serious effort and sacrifice. The husband was the fool who worked hard to raise the lazy lover's offspring, who will inherit his wealth in place of his own children. Meanwhile the lazy no-good lover lives a life of ease and pleasure where he can spread his seed far and wide without ever paying the price of building a nest; charm beats hard work to win the breeding war - the 'gene' war - because the woman is easy prey for a disreputable man."

"Very good, the comment about wasted effort is critical. Now, thinking about the time frame of 1400 to 1700, we must know that many people were married and lived on farms. People did not often move. Everybody the couple saw more than once a week was a guest at every wedding. Tell me, how common was divorce?"

Barb took that. "Divorce took the permission of the Pope even for the King of England, which is to say it was effectively impossible. The marriage ceremony used the line, 'what God has joined, let no man put asunder,' because God was assumed to bind the couple in the sacrament. Parent-child linkages were effectively carved in stone by the parties..." I saw enlightenment come into her eyes. "Unlike today where marriage and divorce are effectively a private affair between husband, wife and the IRS. So in those farm communities of the past everybody knew who was married, they had been to the wedding and there was no divorce. But now you really have no idea if the couple next door is married... unless you work for the IRS."

I was going to reveal something, but Dee caught fire, a personal insight, so I let her go.

Dee caught on. "Also, a man raising the child of another has become a routine effort, something an ambitious woman can do alone, not a major effort. I am proof of that. Mockery for such conduct would be unseemly and a show of ignorance. Heck, there is a TV show where a famous most-macho Olympic champion and motivational speaker, the ultimate macho, has raised another man's son and daughters: the Kardashians. Note, I did not say it was good TV."

Of course that got a laugh. To many who watched the show, the people on it were a great source of humor, sort of "look at the rich and foolish."

I said, "This all points out yet another change to the cuckoo model. Parts of society are so rich now that children can be adopted by conventional families, single parents, and gay parents that clearly share NONE of the parents genes. Raising another's child is a fashion, or affluence, or political statement. The rich can adopt on a whim, only the poor are prohibited."

Everybody laughed but it made the point. The mockery in 1500 had been because a hard working husband building wealth was fooled by the charming but lazy lover who lived a life of sexual freedom. Today, with greatly reduced relative effort required to raise a child, and flexible marriages, mocking somebody for raising a kid was always on thin ice and in bad taste.

That led me to ask if raising another person's child was in fact a laudable endeavor today. "Does anybody mock Brad Pitt? Or Madonna, who is effectively a single parent? Ask Sean Penn. Or anybody who adopts an at-risk child?"

Rob asked, "Who is Sean Penn and what does he have to do with Madonna?"

I suggested he look it up.

Nadia mentioned some backlash on cultural grounds. "A black child raised by Madonna will not have his biological parents culture... or their shortened life expectancy." But everybody agreed the acts seemed laudable, as there were still poor people who had children they could not raise; children they had because they could not use birth control.