By staff writer Nathan DeGraaf
June 13, 2007
Kevin: I’m getting sick of my girlfriend.
Nathan: What is she doing?
Kevin: She’s not being three other women I find attractive.
Nathan: That bitch.
There is more than one way to skin a chicken. And that my friends, is why I eat chicken. Variety. The spice of life and all that. Know whatI’m getting at? Of course not, how could you? I’ve only just started this column and so far I’ve made no sense. Allow me an elaboration.
There is a school of thought out there that feels that it is against the nature of humanity to be monogamous. Furthermore, some of those within this anonymous school that I have made no attempt to research feel that the reason monogamy exists is to help keep people in line and under control. After all, if we all just ran around getting each other pregnant, then headed off to play video games, the world would be a scary and feral place (impressively high video game scores aside). However, I believe in the exact opposite of this theory, which, when worded, looks a little bit like this:
It is incredibly stupid and arrogant to think that one can derive most of the human emotions they desire from one other person.
“It seems fitting to me that all humans have the right to the best of love, companionship and sex.”
Sadly, my theory, if it has the audacity to even fumble with the truth like a 12-year-old boy’s fingers on the back of his stepmother’s bra, means that just about every relationship is essentially doomed. Fortunately, we don’t need to take my word for this or even guess at it, we can just take a look at the divorce rate in America and then return to the obvious conclusion that I am a genius.
So, because we now know that I am a genius and my half-assed theories actually come to me by divine right (did I skip over that part? My bad.), we should now turn to me and ask me how it is that relationships can exist safely and sanely if it is incredibly stupid and arrogant to think that one can derive most of the human emotions they desire from one other person? Fortunately, I have the answer. I’m like a philosopher and shit.
There are three main reasons that humans bother getting in relationships: sex, companionship and love. The problem is not that we get into relationships for these three reasons, but that we think all three reasons should come from the same person. That is why I think that every single person on this planet should be permitted no less than three lovers at a time.
Now, before you go shouting bigamy and other dirty Mormon words, I want you to hear me out. Remember, they laughed at Matt Groening, too.
Gentlemen and ladies, I want you to think of members of the opposite sex who you have loved the most, then think of members of the opposite sex whose coital abilities best pleased you, then think of those ex-boyfriends/girlfriends of whom you enjoyed spending time with the most. If all three of those emotions happen to have come to you in the form of one person, then you are a lucky bastard and I don’t want you to read any farther down this column.
Seriously, fuck off.
Now, it seems fitting to me that all humans should have the right to only the best in the way of love, companionship and sex. So therefore, it follows then that if we need three people to get it, well, that is better for our mental health than would be a marriage that has better odds of failing than being successful.
Now, some of you might think, well, what about the children?
And to that I say, “They’ll be fine. They’re tough kids. And they have lots of TV stations and shit. I’ll bet they hardly notice.”
Anyway, every good movement has to start somewhere, and we all know that life and death happen in threes on this planet (unlike on Mars, where it happens, oddly enough, in imaginary numbers), so I am here to invite all of you into my new cult, where we will practice the virtue and the power of surrounding ourselves with three lovers. Everyone is welcome.
Except the fat chicks.