Comments

1
In another related development, there's apparently a fresh tall greenish brown steaming pile of shit in the commode.
2
And no gay Na'vi neither. Hrmph.
3
Cats have barbed penises.
4
Danny, you clueless little prick-
you really should get out more.

In a perfect place inhabited by beings that have their shit together they WOULD postpone it until in a lifelong monogamous relationship.

It's special.

Cannibalism, incest, rape, promiscuous sex and eating poo are all features of your 'natural' world.
Rise above it...
5
Well, in that scene right after Sully first inhabits his avatar, all the avatars are getting into bed in the locked building outside. Sully (I think, it could have been another avatar) picked up his magic tail thing and was fiddling with it, and Sigourney says, "don't play with that, you'll go blind". I either took that to mean, it was some sort of genitalia or it was a joke about how the magic tail things were like genitalia (though, that's our first exposure to the magic tails, so I really was thinking the former). That's probably as about as "commenting on his new junk" as you're getting in PG-13.
6
I think you're putting a lot more thought into this than James Cameron did.
7
They're working blue.
8
Yes, and Pandora is a planet dominated by six-limbed lifeforms. All except the dominant species. Reason? Dur... it looks cool. I guess. Whatever. Too hard to make blue furries with four arms.

Clearly, this was a science-fiction movie made for audiences that don't go to the movies to think.

Dissecting this movie and explaining all that is wrong with it is rapidly becoming tedious and repetitive. But it's necessary, just to push back against those moviegoers who considered seeing it in 3-D akin to a religious experience and who won't shut up about it and stop trying to convert people to their newfound fetish.
9
Further evidence that the movie is not entirely librul propaganda. This and the Na'vi ride dinosaurs, just like Jesus did.
10
"in hindsight it's slightly weird that another alien species would actually "kiss" each other—an extremely Earthling thing to do—but whatever."

This is pretty much a conceit in a lot of sci-fi, with conduct and biology. Beyond kissing, there are all kinds of little behavioural cues that are probably unique to humans and would completely confuse a genuine *alien* being.
11
@9 for the win. Besides, didn't they get strung up on crosses before being "saved"?
12
Cameron was able to get away with stuff in Avatar—by making the Na'vi blue?—that George Lucas wasn't able to get away with in Phantom Menace. Cameron's blue Na'vi are noble savages; Jar-Jar Binks, who was brown, is clearly Amos and Andy.


Jar Jar Binks' behavior is what earned Lucas his shitstorm. Or are the Na'vis used for unfunny, insulting comic relief?
13
It's also funny that you quoted io9 pointing out that aliens would likely not kiss, but then call monogamy unnatural. It's not possible for aliens to be different in more ways than one?
14
"And yet in this fable Cameron presents us with a highly unnatural view of the way sex works in a world where beings live in perfect balance with nature."

Actually, don't ducks mate for life?
15
I'm sure the reason they didn't include more of a sex scene is because then it would look like bestiality when they linked with their horses or dragons.

The smaller dragons bond with one Na'vi for life but apparently the horses are the sluts of their animal kingdom, willing to bond with anyone at anytime.
16
@14 Lobsters too. Of course, I learned that from Friends, so take that for what it's worth.
17
I almost broke down and saw Avatar but went with Shelock instead because I knew if I saw something that took itself that seriously I'd end up wasting time trying to analyze material that's too thin to bear the weight.

Instead I can ask, Why does Holmes use kung fu to kick the bad guys' asses? Because it's fucking cool, that's why. Duh. End of deep discussion.
18
Ducks don't mate for life, far from it. (Rape is actually pretty common - charming creatures.) Although a lot of birds and some other species are considered monogamous, what that means in almost every case is that they form a long term or lifelong pair bond, but are not actually sexually monogamous. In birds, for instance, some 90% of species form long term pair bonds (two parents stay together, raise families, etc.,) but testing of the chicks reveals anywhere from 10 to 40% are not related to the male raising them.
19
No animals mate for life. Many, many of them (including 90% of all bird species) are socially monogamous, but not sexually.
20
What @18 said. :)
21
@14, 16: Are you listening to yourselves? You're talking about ducks and lobsters. I refuse to compare my life choices with that of delicious entrees.
23
I thought it was incongruous that the earthlings, who had to have FTL (faster than light) capability to travel to another solar system, and who were capable of creating virtual avatars to inhabit organic bodies, still relied on guns, missiles and bombs for weaponry. But I still liked the movie.
24
i agree that "real" "true" monogamy is uncommon in nature but the "degree" of monogamy tends to correlate with male parental investment. the more males invest, the more it pays for them to find monogamous females. the more females depend on male parental investment, the more it pays for them to find males who are monogamous.

so of all the animals in the whole wide world for whom monogamy would make sense, it is humans in a culture like ours (like in the USA). relative to females, males invest more than in just about any other animal.
25
I think that claiming that it's just that they're aliens, therefore these things can be explained away is a cop out.

Cameron either intends this as purely entertainment, and wishes to send no messages, or his movie is meant to be sending certain messages about the environment, colonialism, etc.

I think it's the latter. So in addition to sending messages about the Na'vi's relationship with nature, his choice to make them monogamous for life is also sending a message. Whether he wants it to or not. You can't say that his choices in one part are meaningful, and in others, they aren't.

There's no reason to presume that an alien species would be in harmony with nature either, but the Na'vi are, because it's a movie, contrived to send a particular message. There's no reason to presume that the Na'vi would be monogamous or not (hell, they could be asexual, or hermaphrodites, or have the choice of reproducing sexually or asexually, as some species do), but there's also no reason to presume that much of what they do in the movie would be true. Yet we take messages from those.

My guess is that they are monogamous so that they can still be considered more "moral" and "pure" than humans when it comes to sex too. And in our culture, that means monogamy, even if it really isn't true. If they were getting it on like bonobos, Christian viewers would be turned off, and it would allow them an excuse to say "Ah, the Na'vi aren't so moral after all. Well, if destroying the environment is what it takes to stamp out kinky sex, so be it!"
26
I guess polyamorous people are just a sensitive as over weight people.
27
James Cameron has been married at least 4 times.
28
Jar Jar Binks was offensive because portrayed Caribbean people as unintelligent, kind of like the "black" transformers in Transformers 2. Monogamy exists in nature and in many instances it has clearly evolved separately from others and can be found in many taxonomic groups. It is extremely rare and I don't think it's natural in primates (humans included) but to say it is unnatural is incorrect, Dan. Especially seeing as these are supposed to be aliens.
29
@24, the reason for that is simple: we have bigger brains, and they develop almost entirely after birth (since otherwise the baby's head would tear the mother in half), thus we require an unusually long nurturing period.
30
Hipsters like Dan won't admit or are too dense to catch on to the fact that abstinence until "marriage" and monogamy thereafter represent the most advanced rational evolved mode for humanoids.
No STDs.
No out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
No emotional baggage.
None of the stuff that keeps the letters coming to Savage Love.

"but monogamy is tooo harrrrd" they whine.
Sure, "healthy" choices require a little disclipine and control.
The payoff is huge, however.

Eating healthy and getting exercise are not "natural" or easy but the reward is feeling better, being healthier, emotional satisfaction.
We don't see Dan extolling the virtues of promiscous eating or lard-assed coach-potatoery...

Taking a dump or peeing where ever the mood strikes may be "natural" and easier but latrines and indoor plumbing are healthier and more sanitary.

What is "natural" is not the point.
The difference between humans and tapeworms or hyeneas is that we can make behavior choices that yield better (or worse) results.

If there were a cure for AIDS that was 100% effective but required adherence to a fairly strict (but very doable) protocol and the government came along and said "yeah- it's 100% effective but it's toooo harrrdd for the gays to follow- take this pill that is 65% effective and stfu" Dan would scream his head off.
But that is the solution Dan recomends for America's teenagers- "abstinence (though 100% effective at preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancy) is tooo harrdd...(and "unnatural"!?) try GAY SEX and anal amd oral....."

btw- Dasn has NO FUCKING IDEA what is "natural". A degree in BullShit and a minor in AssHolery don't qualify one to make pronouncements on the topic....
31
reads like a Harry/Draco creature! fan fic. Now I almost wanna see the movie...
32
@ 30

You, sir, are an idiot. :(

Mainly for ignoring realism. Realistically, teenagers AREN'T going to be abstinent until they marry, thus we have sex ed to make sure that safer choices can be made.

But FUCK those pesky gray areas, right?
33
Maybe the aliens are just full of shit and lie about the status of monogamy in their community just like humans do.

And I'm sure when that marine heard he was mated "for life" he thought to himself 'oh fuck.'

34
@30: "A degree in BullShit and a minor in AssHolery don't qualify one to make pronouncements on the topic...." It sure didn't stop you, did it? And I'd say Dan's degree is in Bullshit Deconstruction, actually. But you clearly don't read or listen to enough of Dan's work for it to be worth educating you in how many ways you've proven yourself to be an idiot, just as 32 says.
35
Mario @25: I don't think citing the alien nature of the Na'vi is any kind of a "copout." The movie clearly distiguishes between the touchy-feely tree huggy thing we here on Earth associate with "natural balance" and what the Na'vi do, which is to literally commune and bond with everything around them. That's the substance of Grace's speech toward the end, when she's trying to convince the corporate asshole guy not to attack the tree.

I think that if we as humans had tendrils sticking out of our bodies that we used to physically patch into the thoughts and feelings of the flora/fauna around us, there would be profound differences in who we are, and exactly what constitutes "human nature." Rote parallels are hard to discern here.

I know this is kind of a geeky argument, but in my view, the movie is not meant to be taken quite as literally as some are taking it. I agree there's some correlations there with Native Americans, but the differences are too great to make assumptions about how metaphorically human the Na'vi are, including any natural inclination toward (or away from) monogamy.
36
also... who is to say that "monogamy for life" is inherent in all the Na'vi? Perhaps that is just this tribes custom but those nose pierced-plain living-horse rider Na'vi have big ol' giant poly associations?
37
32
34
Half of teenagers already make it out of high school without having sex. Pretty good considering the popular culture does everything in it's power to ridicule and belittle abstinece.
Imagine how successful it might be if someone really cool like Dan owned up and said, "it's true- there is nothing safer or more effective and it is a totally cool choice- being smart always is..."

32- Realistically homosexuals WON'T remember to take their meds so the 65% effective pill is all they deserve...

34- insults are a poor substitute for facts
38
Wow, @30 that little tirade just earned you an "11" on my Bullshit-ometer.

Let's take a look at a few of your off-beat assumptions:

1.) Many so-called "Sexually Transmitted Diseases" (STD's) such as Herpes I can be passed between individuals by mere contact, even if they haven't had sex with each other.

2.) Monogamy does not equal wedlock, which is what you're implying (see all the bird references in other comments)

3.) Monogamous relationships have just as much, and in some cases considerably more, "emotional baggage" as non-monogamous relationships. Do you have any brothers or sisters? Ask them how much baggage they're carrying around simply by virtue of the fact that you're their sibling.

Eating healthy and exercising are completely natural: how many unnaturally overweight animals do you see in-the-wild? Almost none. Your assertion is ridiculous on its face.

On the one hand you claim "natural" things are "hard" (monogamy), then turn around two sentences later and claim they're "easy" (shitting in the woods). If even you can't correlate "natural" functions as being one or the other, why would you assume anyone else should either?

Most animals at some level can make "healthy choices" and they do so every day when deciding what to eat or drink, or whether to fight or flee. But sometimes one can make all the "right" choices and still end up with a negative result. The world is simply not anywhere near as black-and-white as you think it should be.
39
blah blah blah avatar blah blah blah cameron blah blah blah!!
40
Allegedly (@4), you clueless little prick --
you really need to get off the internet and engage in some analog activities, like take a walk, get some exercise, and talk to a woman...that's not your Mom.

Perhaps in Magic Allegedly-Land beings who have their shit together would postpone sex until a lifelong monogamous relationship, but this never happens nor has in the history of life.

No-one has their shit together, ever.

The slender few (of any species) who succeed in monogamy do so either though a lack of opportunity or a lack of interest. Even your ultra-devout televangelists and bishops can't keep it in their pants.

The rare exceptions are species that eat their mates (like spiders), or die from the reproductive process (like octopi).

STDs have never been extincted though containment. Never.

More importantly, people get better (higher-skilled, more considerate, more comfortable with themselves etc. etc.) in sexual encounters by experiencing it with multiple partners. Some pairs don't discover their incompatibility until after consummation. So the virtue of monogamy before sex is highly suspect. Monogamy is a Jewish construct by which a nomadic tribe with a limited breeding pool can keep diseases in check, and they couldn't keep their underwear on.

This is not to say promiscuity is better than (or in conflict to) marital fidelity, but that fidelity in the post-modern era is about communication and negotiation, not about sexual exclusivity.

I know, Allegedly, it's really hard to develop the humility that humans are animals too. We're not so much God's chosen, subject to diabolic temptation so much as beasts with the capacity for higher thought. Events in human history that validate the latter model by magnitutes outnumber the events that imply the former. I know, it's a shock that you're not the center of the universe. You can get over it, Allegedly. SLOG is here for you.
41
Dan's rants against monogamy are getting old.
42
Allegedly (@4), you didn't just compare sexual liberalism with cannibalism, incest, rape, eating poo, did you? Wait, you did!

You're right, Allegedly, rape is really common in the animal kingdom, very likely more so than consensual sex, and it was rampant amongst humans during those good ol' days when women were regarded as chattel. Interestingly, you and yours still harken to those days, refusing to equalize the rights of women to men, especially when it comes to their own bodies. We liberals believe equality between individuals is a hallmark of civilization. What do you conservatives believe? (I mean besides that a brainless unborn fetus is worth more than the woman carrying it?)

Regarding cannibalism, incest and coprophagia (I know, rough word. I assume you mean exceptional coprophagia unless you're willing to disparage entire ecosystems), those are rather rare in the animal kingdom, whereas promiscuity (i.e. having more than one sexual partner in a being's life) is rampant. I get that in Magic Allegedly-Land nothing icky ever happens; food is digested completely, hence neither feces nor ani exist, and mated individuals get electric shocks when their eyes fall on anyone attractive other than their mated partner.

As an interesting note (to me), the differentiation between chaste and wanton women is particular to the Judeo-Christianity-indoctrinated west. It is stereotypical that all men are sluts, and will boff a woman at any opportunity (hence the term rake the male term for slut, is nowhere near as stigmatic). In classical times it was reversed, women were assumed to be intrinsically round-heeled, and it was contrary to a man's masculinity to succumb to his own urges. Of course these were the guys who thought man was a mere science experiment and woman was a gift from the gods (yet, still, the downfall of men).

PS: You do get, Allegedly, that starting off a post with an insult like you clueless little prick, you really should get out more cheapens your point. I feel cheap and sleazy mirroring it back to you. I'm sorry I called you a clueless little prick, Allegedly, but I'd appreciate if you'd reconsider before passing such proverbial flatus here in the future, in Dan's direction or otherwise.
43
Interesting. I didn't so much notice the monogamy issue as I did the fact that once Jake passes his manhood test, he's apparently allowed to "choose" whichever woman he likes best to be his mate-for-life. Neytiri, who's flippin' royalty as well as being his teacher, has to stand there looking mopey and anxious, waiting for *him* to decide literally everything about their future together or lack thereof. So although I enjoyed the movie, there is nothing less appealing to me than the idea of being a Na'vi woman. So much for utopia, which as usual tends to end up being utopia mainly for straight white dudes like Jake Sully.
44
I think it's fairly obvious that when you spend $300,000,000 on a movie you are not gonna go out of your way to weird out the lowest-common-denominator moviegoing public with a bunch of gay polyamorous dragonfuckers. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But. I am curious about this one thing. According to the blue lady, once you get up on that mate-for-life dragon thingie you are eligible to find a mate. So why is it that the blue lady and Nahuey (or whatever his name is) both fly around on dragons and yet they are in some sort of prolonged engagement situation? But the day Jake Sully does his dragon flying it's all like "boom, choose a mate!"?
45
To the contrary, My Name Here, Dan's arguments against monogamy are, to us SLOGgers, a day old, maybe. In the dollar-a-loaf basket, but still edible and nourishing. In contrast to the now cliché opposite message, "omnia vincit amor" Dan's arguments against monogamy are still cooling from the oven, its aroma driving everyone in the bakery mad from hunger.

I, for one, am really tired of hearing love conquers all, because it's a false product. If true love does happen (which I'll concede it might), it's as common in fiction, yet as uncommon in reality as are princes and princesses. For the rest of us, sexual monogamy is a compromise (usually the choice of security against time over sexual freedom), and in that regard it often fails. It's also, but for the stigmatization of polyfidelity, an unnecessary stricture to perpetuate. Love is about trust, and it can be the trust one's partner will retain commitments during a third-party fling as easily as it can be that the partner won't fling at all.

One only need look at the divorce rate to see that we don't intrinsically mate for life. When you look at the significantly higher proportion of folk who ditch their partners when the latter becomes disabled (the separation rate is around 90% within two years after the disabling event) it becomes clear that monogamy isn't secure at all.

There are no statistics of which I know about the Westleys of the world who've been able to beat top swordsmen, wrestle giants, out-think criminal geniuses and resist torture based solely on the power of a commitment to a single other. Until I see one, I'm going to assume true love is sentimentality that is projected by sentimental authors into mainstream fiction and pop music and nothing beyond that.

Dan, you're disturbingly right about the kissing thing. I had thought kissing was a universal human behavior that was an extension of the pheromone matching process (the oral intimacy being a necessity due to our comparatively poor olfactory senses), but deep romantic kissing is specific to the post-Christian west. It's appearance amongst the Na'vi is, hence, sociologically conspicuous.
46
How come no one's brought up the whole religious crap thrown at you throughout Avatar... praying to the all-knowing-all-seeing tree god, where all the dead Na'vi go forevermore.

Avatar is just CGI porn, scripted for children.
47
Thank god some other people have recognised the horrors of Avatar. I'd like to be able to say it doesn't matter beyond being bad sci fi crap, but it's not. It's offensive sci fi crap. Post colonial cliche of terror ideas. AND, what about the lead army guy? Armed Scary or Gay Gym Bunny Scary? Racially, sexually charged cliche promoting white 1950s vision of the world. Argh.
48
dig the mad hitz yo
49
@ Uriel: I seriously <3 you.
50
@44 'gay polyamorous dragonfuckers' FTW
51
@38

"Many so-called "Sexually Transmitted Diseases" (STD's) such as Herpes I can be passed between individuals by mere contact...."

"Many"?
Wow- that's scary.
How "many"?
What are the others?
"Mere contact", as in brushing up against someone on the bus? Or as in sticking your tongue down their throat...

Let us guess- you caught Gonorrhea from a toilet seat.
Are we right?
Did your momma buy that story?
(if you didn't sit down to pee you wouldn't expose your ass to so many STDs...)

You should alert the CDC.
They should start calling them
"merely contactually transmitted diseases"....
MCTDs.
Has a nice ring to it, no?
52
@38

"Monogamy does not equal wedlock, which is what you're implying (see all the bird references...)"

Hold on-
are you saying that birds don't get married?
That they just, you know- 'shack up'?
No preacher man?
No ring??

Well, Poppa Bird is going to be pretty pissed when he finds out about this.....
53
@45

Your observations about "Love" are very insightful.
How many people are on their fourth or fifth
"One and Only 'True Love of their Live' SoulMates"?

It is not "Love" but "Commitment" that leads to marriage/relationship stability.

So when the Gays get all weepy eyed about "We can't marry the person we LOVE...." it is impossible to stop ones eyes from rolling.
54
Dan,

I used to have respect for you and valued many of your opinions till you started all this anti-monogamy crap. Clearly monogamy isn't for you, and that's fine. But how dare you call it unnatural! My partner and I have been monogamous for 14 and half years--and we are two GAY MEN. We already have to deal with all the right-wing bullshit telling us we're unnatural because we're two men, and now we get to hear one of our own doing the same.

So while you're sitting there pointing fingers at monogamous couples and calling us unnatural, just remember that there are many of us out there who are (believe it or not) just as happy and satisfied in our exclusive relationships and you are in your non-exclusive one.
55
As I said, feel free to cite the Westley statistics, Allegedly (@53), with links, please. In the meantime, have you ever made a commitment in your life, Allegedly? Tell me of the soulmate to whom you're committed, Allegedly.

There's a reason I know the stats about spouses or partners that become disabled, and the direction such relationships tend to go. I've hinted at it before. It's safe to say just from the assessment from your hobby hanging out here on SLOG nagging the queer folk (including the queers) to harvest reactions just to feed your ego, that you and whatever commitment you imagined you could be in in would crack under the strain, just from watching the one you love turn into a completely different person than she once was. I suspect you'd probably justify dumping her on the basis that she's no longer the chick you once married. And this is before we get to the part where you watch her helpless and in pain for weeks or months at a time, and yet are unable to do a thing for her, because there's nothing to be done.

I'm not gay, yet I know full well the issues of discrimination by a Procrustean, hypernormative society. You've been around here long enough, Allegedly? You've read my posts. Why haven't you figured it out, Allegedly?

The truth of the matter is, just as natural as rape and promiscuity is to us homo sapiens is xenophobia; it's a survival trait that around 90% of humans are wary of strange things (and the remainder attracted to them), which works for a small band of hunter gatherers, but sucks when trying to function in a plurality 300-million strong. And our nation is a plurality; you can serve dominionism, and you can serve America, but these two masters have conflicting interests. The United States is, and has always been, a live-and-let-live society, where we are free to do what we want until there is proof (at least a preponderance of the evidence) that something causes harm.

Which master do you serve, Allegedly?
56
We haven't seen proof that "mated for life" with the Na'vi doesn't mean that people don't occasionally plug in to someone else. It could mean that there is an emotional/spiritual pair bond (like imprinting?) formed with a more flexible physical bond. We have seen plenty of examples of people declaring a bond with someone while still poking around - you can still love someone while craving other people. Because the movie was PG-13, we weren't able to discuss the sexuality of the Na'vi as much as we could have. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see people discussing the movie in more depth now.
57
Um, MMDD, I'm pretty sure Dan isn't saying you guys are evil for being monogamous. If an exclusive relationship is working for you, that's awesome. I think the point is that a negotiated open relationship (with whatever parameters) is also pretty rockin' cool, and deserves its props which it doesn't get (certainly not from Avatar).

But natural vs. non-natural should be a non-issue. Who the heck cares whether one relationship model is natural (id est, mirrored in nature) or otherwise? The point is that what you have works. If it didn't work, it'd be time to consider alternatives, natural or not.

I, for one, don't believe in soulmates, but that's only because nothing I've experienced or witnessed has suggested they exist. But that only gives me greater respect for you and your relationship which has endured for fourteen years!, and that's enviable. We all deserve (and according to Jefferson, inherently possess) the right to pursue something that is equally enviable for each of us, monogamous or not, natural or not.

Thank you Eva. After fighting with Allegedly so much, I need the kudos.
58
getting kudos is nice.
getting a life might be even better.
if dogging trolls 24/7 wears you out
perhaps a new obsession is in order.
59
dude this movie was incredibly well made. stop reading sooo much into everything and just enjoy it.
60
@51:

Nearly ALL STIs CAN be transmitted through non-sexual contact. Although it is rare for some to be contracted through this method, it's not impossible. HIV for example can be contracted in several non-sexual ways: blood-to-blood or blood-to-mucus membrane contact, in-vitro contact, via breast milk, etc. While these may not necessarily be considered "casual" contacts, they are all most certainly non-sexual.

In addition to Herpes Type II, HPV is another STI that can be contracted via direct non-sexual skin contact.

And although not as frequent, any STI can be contracted through other mucus membranes not associated with sex organs: e.g. the mouth, throat, respiratory tract and eyes, as well as through breaks or abrasions to the skin, even very small ones. Infections can also be spread via contact with feces, urine or sweat.

Finally, Pthirus pubis (genital lice, aka "crabs") the most commonly reported strain of STD can be transmitted from bedding, towels, etc., etc. under certain conditions not requiring sexual contact or even any casual contact with another person.

Really, this is all pretty basic "Health 101" type stuff - you should probably ask your high school councilor about taking a refresher course...
61
@23 - The movie takes place on the moon of a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, about four light-years away. It take them almost six years to travel there. So they do not have FTL capability.
62
60
So you're saying that condoms won't do squat to prevent the spread of STDs?
Wow- that's scarier.
you should still avoid licking toilets seats....
63
No, that's NOT what I'm saying.

Since the most common way to contract STIs is still through sexual contact, anything that minimizes risk - e.g. condoms - is beneficial. And condoms are highly effective in that regard when used consistently and properly.

And because NO method of prevention is 100% effective - including abstinence (cit ref my previous comment) - reducing risk is what it's all about.
64
I'm not reading all the comments, I'm responding to Dan. You know, I've read you for a long time, maybe...10 years now? I've bought your books, I even wrote you a "fan" mail many years ago and you answered, I was tickled. My husband and I both think you are awesome.

I still think you're awesome but please don't tell monogamously-wired me that I'm "unnatural". I'm 53, highly sexual but completely monogamous all my life. Even in my sexual fantasies, the "one man only for life" thing is a huge turn-on for me. Always has been, since adolescence. That said, I'm completely in favor of poly-relationships or people who enjoy serial relationships. As long as everyone is honest about it, wonderful. I've been very outspoken and supportive of the poly community in every way for many years now. Despite the fact that for me, monogamy feels "normal". I'm aware that just because *I* think it is, doesn't make it so for everyone.

And it has really hurt over the years when non-monogamous types put down those of us who are wired monogamously. Do you like it when people call homosexuality or poly "unnatural" and "corrupt"? Well, I don't like you saying such things about my sexual wiring either. My husband and I are very happy together, very sexually active with each other and we've been married for a long time now. We both enjoy being monogamous and that's a big turn-on for both of us. Just because you probably don't get many letters (if any) from people like us doesn't mean we don't exist.

Please do not insult my way of life. What turns me on, what I happen to enjoy sexually and socially. The same way I do not denigrate your way or anyone else's way that might be different from mine.

Thank you.
Annie in CA
65
64
Sorry Granny-
you're one sick deviant unnatural puppy.
don't breath on me....
66
63
So you're saying that since the most common way to contract STIs is still through sexual contact, anything that minimizes risk - esp abstinence - is beneficial?
Sex Education as promoted by liberals as the cure-all addresses sexual transmission of (drumroll...) Sexually Transmitted Diseases. All of the non-sexual routes you describe are not addressed by the Condom Crowd and are not affected by condom use.
So it still comes down to condom vs abstinence and when each is employed properly abstinence wins hands down.
So which revolver would you play Russian Roulette with;
the one with only two rounds in it (condoms)
or the one with zero rounds (abstinence)?
You may take a few moments to think if you need hem....
67
Look, Troll-boy (because clearly you are a male - only a boy could be so willfully obtuse as you are) I'll say it again, nice and slow so it has time to penetrate your neanderthallic skull:

There is NO 100% guaranteed route for NOT contracting an STI - not even abstinence. Period. Case closed. You can get certain STI's from casual contact, and even from non-contact sources. Some forms of protection work better than others: abstinence is probably better than most, but I'll bet even YOU (unless you're a pasty, Pillsbury Doughboy of a dweeb who couldn't get laid to save your life) don't practice abstinence, because the simple fact of the matter is that about 90% of the sexually mature human population doesn't.

And this doesn't even take into account the trade-off between no sex for fear of catching a disease versus enjoying the proven health benefits of having regular protected sex such as: weight loss, improved cardiovascular function, reduced risk of heart disease, decreased depression, improved bladder control, and improved prostrate function (which in turn lowers the risk of prostrate cancer), just to name a few.

So, while we're putting words in each others' mouths, here's a little question for you fella: Are YOU Abstinent? Are you in fact a 30-40 year-old a virgin who has NEVER had unprotected sexual intercourse out-of-the-bonds-of-holy-matrimony of any kind whatsoever? If not, have had more than one sexual partner in your lifetime?

If you answer "yes" to any of the above questions, then what you really are is a hypocritical douchenozzle who should wear a big sign around your neck to that effect, so that you will be sparing any potential future sexual partners from having any of your putrid seed spewed in their direction.

(Although, I get the impression based on your writings that the ladies naturally avoid you anyway, so the sign would probably just be redundant.)

Patiently awaiting your response...
68
What the hell does Avatar have to do with Tiger Woods' alleged sex tape? Guess I'll have to see the movie to understand that one.
69
67
We're really making progress.
Let's recapitulate:

Dan famously whines that monogamy is unrealistic and unnatural.

We have established, however, that postponing sexual activity until entering a longterm/lifelong relationship (among some species and on some planets AKA 'marriage'....) and thereafter practicing monogamy is the safest surest way to avoid the ills that inevitably accompany promiscuous sex (STDs; out-of-wedlock pregnancy; a host of emotional issues such as jealousy, insecurity, mistrust, etc...) and that adopting such a lifestyle is a beneficial advancement for our species; and that leaving behind promiscuous sexual behavior ranks right up there with casting aside such other mammalian 'natural' practices as incest, rape and cannibalism (and eating poo).

Dan's assertion that monogamy is 'unrealistic' is on it's face absurd- this thread alone contains testimonials from happy sloggers who thrive in it and in fact at any given time there are more adults practicing monogamy than are eating a healthy diet, getting enough exercise and maintaining a healthy weight. And half of teenagers make it out of high school without engaging in sexual behavior, suggesting that with support and encouragement from the culture it is a very realistic goal.

And Dan's assertion that monogamy is 'unnatural' is irrelevant- monogamy represents; like most all worthwhile endeavors of our species; an overcoming of the natural creature to beneficial effect.

Did I forget anything?
I think we have reached a very good place here.....
70
Seconding the "STIs can be contracted without sexual interaction" comment. When I was a baby, I had cold sores(HSV-I). When I was a child, I had canker sores. I lost my virginity and I haven't suffered from them since. Go figure: virgin and child=painful and unsightly welts that prevented me from eating due to discomfort, experienced slut=skin blemishes that only appears on parts of my body that *don't* receive sexual attention. If I could get over my fear of penetration, I'd probably have a blemish-free ass as well.
71
It's fiction people
72
Actually, Allegedly (@69), no we didn't establish any such thing.

Except maybe in Magic Allegedly-Land, where you can believe whatever you want. Feel free to visit reality once in a while, but remember we don't follow the same rules here.
73
There you go with whining again, Allegedly (@69). You forget you have to refute an argument before dismissing it. They don't magically go away on their own, Allegedly.

But you're very forgetful that way.
74
@73

@69 laid out a pretty solid case.
Do you have to Refute it before you Dismiss it?
75
It's funny. A lot of songbirds do exactly what humans do. 1) pair up. form a pairbond 2) have sex, have babies, raise them together 3) sleep around. both the males and females "cheat." (as others have noted, anywhwere from 10 to 70% of the babies can be extra-pair) 4) get pissed when they find out their partner cheated (there are multiple ways a bird can "retaliate," ie, provide less parental care, kick cheating partner's ass, etc. It's documented by some really crazy ass, obsessed scientists.

I suspect anti-monogamists think that the 4th step doesn't happen, and its #4 that actually makes bird pair bonding more like "marriage," with all it's expectations, than one might think.
Although it is also true that to some extent, these same birds may also "allow" cheating to happen, just as long as cheater gives enough attention to the babies.

I guess I just think that while 100% monogamy isn't really "natural," neither is the "all is harmonious" take on out-in-the-open polygamy/polyamory. A lot of pair-bonded animals really fucking hate it when they suspect that their partner is being lazy on the parental investment front. And often, hanky panky is their best clue that laziness is imminent.

So jealousy and instinct for exclusivity is "natural," at the same time that polygamy is.
76
You'll have to be more specific, Allegedly (@74). All the cases @69 have been repeated and refuted multiple times on SLOG. If something to you seems solid, specify, and I'll dissect it for you.

But saying Dan famously whines... is inappropriately dismissive. Saying we have established..., when we haven't, is premature. Saying Dan's assertion..., based on testimonials, no less ...is on it's face absurd is dismissive without grounds.

The intrinsic language @69 is already disrespectful of the debate in question, but if you see a point that might be valid, note it and I'll specifically discuss it.

Until then, it's just belligerence.
77
I don't think anyone here is imagining that open polyamory yields a perfect lifestyle, onion. In reality no relationship is without its issues. But we are commonly fed via stories and media the illusion that monogamy is idyllic and harmonious, that faithful monogamous couples do live happily ever after (at least until the sequel), and this phenomenon is rampant, when in statistical actuality, it's quite rare. It's actually a frequent point of disillusionment amongst those who believe in traditional family values when strict adherence to them does not automatically dispel all interpersonal discordance or dysfunction.

My intent (and I suspect Dan's as well) is to recognize that monogamy isn't a necessary restriction for a happy relationship, that many people fail at being monogamous. But as an alternative to dismissing this large chunk of the populous as stupid or weak willed, or as instruments of Satan, we can, for one, consider that open polyamory is healthier than deception within one's primary relationship.

This isn't to say that issues of jealousy do not exist in open relationships, but they exist in varying degrees, and we'd rather see jealousy managed in ways that are not violent or destructive. Commonly, jealousy often subsides once folk witness that their partners repeatedly return to them after pairings with others, that couples represent far more to each other than merely a sexual outlet.

I would also assert that jealousy is more complicated than it is shown to be in media, and can be delineated into issues of possessiveness, inclusion, personal insecurities, et. al. As I've mentioned elsewhere, part of my own turn-on is being desired by my partner, hence, by allowing her to seek other partners, I know she's with me because she wants to be, and not because she feels obligated by a contract or arrangement. So my own issues of jealousy are, by far, more about inclusion than exclusion.

Also, as I said before, natural and unnatural is a moot point, stemmed from the long archaic diversional claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Even if a couple has a practice that is completely unique to themselves, that doesn't make it somehow morally questionable.
78
I thought it was more creepy that a Neytiri would have sex with something she knew wasn't completely Na'vi (and must have been constantly reminded of the fact, since Jake's avatar had five fingers to the Na'vi's four), but rather some lab-created genetic chimera. One wonders what sort of monstrosity of offspring they might have.
79
43, she had to "choose" him, too. She was just encouraging him to make the first move. It's a very girly-human thing to do, yeah, but their future wasn't totally in his hands. As she said, she already did "choose" him. And, just because he passed his manhood test, that didn't mean he had to choose a woman THAT DAY. They were just in the right place at the right time, and, well, these things happen.

Also, it seems like she and the Chief-to-be had an arranged marriage of sorts, but she just wasn't ready to pursue it yet. He was still gearing up to be in charge and maybe she was still getting her life shit together too. She and Jake took the plunge pretty fast, but that's young love for ya. If you didn't have much of an interest in the person you were promised to (read: someone else promised you to that person), would you be gung-ho about making a permanent bond with them? Wouldn't you jump on (no pun intended) the first person you felt a real connection to?

BTW, Cameron already said it was mainly just a sci-fi style retelling of the Pocahontas legend. (Yes, it's a legend, told first by Smith. He told lots of other wild stories about native women wanting his magical white penis.)
80
That's an interesting thought, madcap, whether or not avatars were intricately engineered enough to produce viable spermatozoa. If they were engineered, they might produce normal native na'vi or some genetically designed na'vi-beastie thing. If they were an accident of the process, then is when you'd find your mutant na'vi-human monsters, but most likely they'd fall apart in early gestation.

It does remind me of the wily ways of God's angels in the Christian mythology, who couldn't help themselves for the young fair-haired human women and would rape them without a second thought. The human-angel offspring were typically some misshapen, chthonian monster, and seemed usually to survive gestation. The Merlin who raised King Arthur was the son of a nun and a demon (and cleaned up quite nicely in holy water). But this is why women must keep their heads covered even inside church, where men take their hats off. We don't want to tempt the angels now, do we?

Regarding the legend of Pocahontas and Smith, legend is a good term for it. It's very likely Smith, a known teller of tall tales, never got near Pocahontas (who, herself, would become essentially the mascot for the tobacco industry). And in the meantime, Avatar does seem to be all about the magical white penis (which was covered here).
81
Dan, I'm a big fan of yours, but you're talking out of your ass here. Monogamy isn't unnatural, it's just not the default for PRIMATES. There are earth organisms that DO pair-bond for life. You're being every bit the stupid jackass as the people who thought 300 was a pro-america fascist wank session. IT'S. A. MOVIE. Dial it the fuck back. Jesus.
82
@81
Which organisms both sexually and socially pair bond for life? I had always heard birds like swans do, but then we found out that it's only socially exclusive, not sexually exclusive.
83
I'd like to see a movie with an alien sexual culture based on Mangaia. ;-)
84
Granted, Magic Lemur, the Na'vi are really just the next step in terms of rubber-forehead aliens (contrast to the more realistic but unempathizable starfish aliens). The fact is, Cameron's team was making a strong attempt at believable alien noble savages. I think Dan's complaint is (at least mine might be) that we're in the age of Animal Planet. When we create mythical species, that which does or doesn't appear in nature does matter. Cameron, who is famous for doing his homework, didn't. But this is the age when History Channel, Discovery Channel and every other non-fic network will call him on it.

I haven't yet seen Avatar, myself, and am sharp at sewing up loopholes like crazy. That said, when Neytiri and Sully mate, it could be they pair up for life as an ideal, or she was indicating she wanted to be his life mate. It could also be that the Na'vi were engineered by a seeder civilization as custodians of Pandora, but I don't see it likely that they would evolve to pair into exclusive relationships; the exclusive males would eventually get bred out by the stronger of the prolific males.

In the meantime, for the sake of human mating practices, once again I ask: why does it matter whether a given social parameter is natural or unnatural? Just because it's very atypical for someone to, say, enjoy getting flogged while knee deep in green jello doesn't mean a person shouldn't do it. Likewise, just because mollusks like poking each other with darts during loveplay doesn't mean we should do the same (though there are rare and beautiful people who do get off on play piercing). Natural occupancies of a given activity are irrelevant in regards to the activity's validity.
85
Actually, the questionable content is not the virgin until marriage thing. It is the permanence of the marriage. It is not that strange for this type of culture to DEFINE marriage by who you have sex with. They got married by having sex.

Is a lifelong pairing with the only person you've slept with possible? Well, she's a religious/moral leader. I'm guessing he's going to be the political leader, since - SPOILER - the other guy died. With that kind of marriage, they will do their best to make sure it's a lifelong relationship. But I completely believe that, ordinarily, divorce is a normal and not overly remarkable even in Navi culture. You just stop having sex with the person. Well, that's how I imagine it.

The other possible explanation is that it is normal for unmarried people in that culture to experiment sexually, but there is "special" sex, involving the hair tail thingy, which makes it "marriage" sex.
86
Monogamy is a choice, a boring selfish choice, but, whatever. I guess if it good enough for giant fake blue aliens, it's good enough for christians.

BTW-I'm boycotting Avatar. Titanic was such a steaming pile of garbage that I can't imagine anything worth watching coming from the mind of James Cameron. I'm sure americans will eat it up, because, well, most of them are fairly stupid sheep.
87
Blanket statements that mating for life is "not natural" are overkill when so many species follow the "socially monogamous, occasionally sexually opportunistic" pattern. Like there was time to explore what happens to Na'vi after they've been together for five years and Jake is away on a hunting trip.

I don't think the movie was Shakespeare by any stretch, I'm just entertained by the excessive vehemence of the negative reviews. People see every bugaboo in it.
88
Please feel free to pointlessly join this Facebook group and at best provide some suitable LOLs...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26…
(I swear if James Cameron wins the Best Director Oscar for Avatar...)

...or if you're lucky enough not to have Facebook go and LOL at the absolute x8 morons leaving comments here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJp7Wd6Af…

I'm not even going to think about seeing it untill I can source a 100% guaranteed pirated copy that will in no way help Cameron get ANY of his money back...and a great big bag of weed...
89
Ok firstly let me just disclaimer all my following comments with "avatar" is what you get when you borrow and analyse other peoples ideas and current cultural references over a 15 year period. So lets just appreciate it for the surrealist artistic endervor that it is. Floating mountains any one?? I'm pretty sure thats a surealistic painting by magrite. pretty much everything in this movie is a symbol or reference and hence unoriginal so lets not go down that road.

I found the interspecies dynamic between jake and Neytiri fasinating on many levels, firstly why do people assume that Neytiri is typical Navi ? there were photos of her at the school set up by humans and surely she learned as much from jake about human behaviour by spending all that intensive time with him.

As for the kissing that was jake's move so it is a human behaviour there is no evidence to suggest that it's a navi behaviour at all. If the leaked scripts are for real, NeyTiri suggests that they have something better i.e she's never really thought about kissing someone before. but joining ques (pony tails) on the other hand. I think the mated for life thing is like the biological loyalty of the rider / flying dragon and probably to do with the species intelligence level. It doesn't mean they are sexually monogamous, although that is culturally implied. Also it is separted in the story from honour / love loyalty which is represented by the "I see you" comments.

Also someone mentioned that jake might not have thought thru being mated for life as his "avatar" which cameron has him express as "oh shit what am i doing" when he wakes up aka he got lost in the woods a la pocohontas and john smith.

Besides what would you do if when you touched your tail to a tree your thoughts were up loaded for posterity. you probably behave in more socially aceptible ways and more respectfully than most humans do.

As for the mongamy argument, animals, humans or in this case fictional blue aliens, generally do whats best for themselves as an individual and their own progeny, be that polygamy, monogamy, or mostly monogamy with the odd daliance (who hasn't heard of someone who cheated on their long term spouce). But this is not species specific, it individual specfic i.e. a leopard can't change its spots, a Navi can't chage it's blue cat lizard water marks lol. but there are often behavioural trends in a group / society.

This is getting really long now, so lets just say I loved the movie it's very entertaining and thought provoking which is helped along by the way surreal 3D images ensare the senses. It has a little something for everyone despite being targeted at the lowest common denominator of movie goer. And thats how you make the big bucks

Debbie :)
90
Monogamy is not natural. If it was, there would be no such thing as marriage. There would be no need for it, because people would just stay together.
91
Dan Savage, the reason Tsu'Tey has distinctly African features is because of his actor, Laz Alonso, who is of African descent. The characters look like their actors.

Not to mention that Neytiri and Mo'at (Neytiri's mom) also have distinctly African features since they are played by actresses who are of African descent (Zoe Saldana and CCH Pounder, respectively).

In the future, do your research before jumping to conclusions and practically smearing people's names.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.