What Pisses Me Off About the Hunger Games

Now, before you get all psycho-fan-geek on me, I'm as Hunger-Game-crazed as they come. My pre-pub paperback copies of books 1 and 2 are respectfully mutilated. And Mockingjay I listened to on audio book, which concludes with a rare interview with Suzanne Collins. Highly recommended, if you haven't yet ventured into the world of audio books.

Additionally, if you're paying attention at all, I've adopted HG's charmingly clueless protagonist, Katniss, as my alter-ego. There may be some Freudian interpretation to my chosen persona, but let's move on.

There are many reasons I believe Collins' trilogy to be one of the finest pieces of recent literature. But for the sake of not losing every reader to my geeked-out drool session, I'll sum up. 

Important themes: challenge the established system, whether it's "good" or "evil"; human connections are messy, but ultimately make life worth living; does the end justify the means?; what you are told should always be run through the filter of what you feel is right or wrong. 

It is this outside-the-established-boundaries thinking that makes HG so popular, like so many cherished iconic stories. The audience has an easier time imagining how "things could be different" because it's someone else's reality. It's much easier to see how some other person, culture, way of thinking is flawed than to evaluate your own, from within the bubble.

This is no easy task. In real life, it can be difficult to recognize that you are even confined within a bubble. Oftentimes, breakthroughs require a catalyst. An event that pushes you beyond your limitations, out on the ledge, so to speak. Or sometimes, you realize the small-ness of your world when you come into contact with someone from another culture. And you start to ask yourself: why do I do it this way? Why do I do it at all? 

The reason is because you didn't know you had a choice. Culture (and oftentimes religion) keeps you within certain restrictions and breaking out of these can mean isolation, rejection, and in mythical contexts, eternal damnation.

Novels like HG help us wake up to our bubbles. Our pre-programmed actions that we run through without realizing it. The structures we use to make our decisions, not realizing there are other structures available, or (wonder of wonders!) that we can make our own!

While I will always have a soft spot for all things Katniss, Collins fails in one very obvious way. She questions the very fabric of society (her's is fictional, but still), but she doesn't question the possibilities of relationships structures. I mean, it's okay if we start talking about equality, peace, (and in the real world) gay marriage, and freedom from religion. But monogamy? This isn't even brought into question. Collins assumes that Katniss will have to choose between Peeta and Gale. Or, at least, that her faux-mance with Peeta means there is no possibility of her being with Gale. A big assumption for a fictional future dystopia.

Oh, Katniss is kissing Peeta on national television? Gale must be sad, jealous. Oh, Gale is sneaking kisses in the woods with Katniss? Because if Snow and the Capitol found out, then it must mean she doesn't really love Peeta. There's no way she could truly love both. (And for Katniss's sake, she doesn't really love either, but realizes she needs both to survive. But that's another story.)

Others have written about the poly/mono implications in HG and more recently Catching Fire. Some have focused on gender issues, and have even made good points. 

But what really pisses me off about the HG is the assumption. The assumption of the author. The assumption of the readers. We're thinking progressively here, people ... oh, but not quite that progressively. You couldn't possibly have a love triangle without conflict. I mean, how much would that bring in at the box office?

As long as these assumptions prevail in our entertainment, it will cement the mass populace in their comfortable bubbles.

In Collins's defense, I appreciate her ending where (SPOILER ALERT!!!) Katniss ultimately chooses neither. She is content to allow things to be as they are, as long as no one is getting hurt, which I would argue was her position all along. 

If I see one more Team Gale or Team Peeta, I think I'll puke.

A Weiner Dog With Mustard Please

Did I miss something?! I mean, I don't follow politics, and I wouldn't consider myself a Weiner fan, but this recent controversy over the mayoral candidate is flat out stupid. As far as I can tell, Anthony Weiner got caught (again) texting nude photos of himself to women he had been chatting with (for a period of time) online. This is news worthy?

Refresh  my memory. Since when is it illegal to send naked pictures of oneself over the wire? Oh, wait, were there children in the pictures? Receiving the pictures? No? Oh, okay. So then he must be imposing his sexy pictures on unwilling ladies? No? Um, okay ... so, exactly what has he done that every other hot-blooded American male hasn't done or thought about doing? And since when is said activity illegal?

Sometimes, when engaging with those inflicted with the monogamy-is-right mindset, I get the feeling that their disapproval stems from more than just cultural deviation. In other words, they're jealous. They wish polyamory was an option for them. Maybe they feel that time has passed them by, or that their current partner would "never go for it". But they look at me, in all my slutty happiness, and think, if only ... At first sight, they are intrigued by the thought of poly, then, in the very next breath they're running down the (obvious) gamut of poly critiques.

What's the rub? Well, if I'm not allowed to be a happy slut, then no one else should be allowed either. I spent my life suffering needlessly. The least you can do is suffer in the same way. I didn't get to be happy in my life-long relationship(s), why should you get to sleep with whomever you want and get away with it? 

Suggestion: are Weiner's critics merely jealous that he indulges (shamelessly) in his own sexual fantasies, while they've had to deny themselves in the name of decency? And, yes, I want to use the word "jealous", because jealous is: Why does she get a bigger piece of chocolate cake? and Why doesn't he have as many grey hairs as I do? Jealous is I'd rather see you brought down to my level so we can both suffer, than watch you enjoy something I don't have, even if I don't really want it.

How many men, I wonder, deny themselves opportunities to indulge their (legal, mind you) sexual fantasies because they have been convinced by the morally superior (and usually hypocritical) that said fantasies are "wrong"? How many do engage in said explicit activities but fear discovery, especially by a spouse, because their spouse has been indoctrinated that "good husbands" don't engage in said activity? So, why should Weiner be allowed to do what ever he wants and just get away with it? Politicians can't be sexual! They must be chaste, monogamous, and, let's just say it, asexual. Is that really so much to ask?

Or maybe, Weiner's critics still live in the delusional world where monogamous love lasts for a lifetime and is completely satisfying. I keep forgetting that some people believe this fairytale. Sigh.

My mother actually says she doesn't understand why Weiner's wife stays with him, and stands by him. HELLO! That's an easy one: because she wants to. Is this really even a discussion topic? Again, with the happily-ever-after. So, he likes showing off his body! What is the big fucking deal? He's not even sleeping with these other women (reportedly). And even if he were, how is it anyone else's business but his and his wife? She accepts him and his behavior (at least publicly).

Sydney Leathers

And who is this chick with the purple lipstick going on about, I thought he had changed, and He's lying to everyone? Sydney Leathers says she felt manipulated by him? Are you kidding? She develops a relationship of some kind with this man who has a known "issue" (because it was such a scandal the first time). Then she's shocked when he sends her naked photos and runs straight to the media! And we're supposed to believe that Leathers is the one being manipulated here.

Of course if Weiner (or Leathers) was caught gazing at Playboy or pursuing through Hustler, well that's an acceptable form of sexual expression. And just when I thought our culture had progressed a smidgen.

Marriage Manifesto, Part III: Where Do We Go From Here?

How does marriage function practically in the real world? A definition free of cultural stigmas and religious doctrine (which has no Biblical foundation) is paramount to the redefining of marriage. I am referring to “marriage” in the legal, not the spiritual, sense as discussed in the previous post. For clarity’s sake, I will hereto refer to said legal union as a “pledge.”

What a pledge is:

1. A pledge is a commitment. What is commitment? Well, that could be whole other post, but to keep it within Reader’s Digest range: a commitment is a formal intention or agreement to remain partnered with someone regardless of changes in yourself, your partner, or life events. As opposed to, say, a “dating” relationship where you “try each other out” like trying on clothes at JC Penny. A committed relationship means you’re past the try-out phase and you and your partner agree that you will stay together regardless.
2. A pledge is a public acknowledgement of parental rights/involvement. This one is tricky, as parents or step-parents have different comfort levels of involvement. Currently humans have elected to raise children in a “family” type structure. By default, any pledged partners will automatically be viewed by society as having some sort of authority over these children, regardless of their actual level of involvement. 
3. A pledge binds financially. This is where the government is needed to stick it’s dirty nose in. Pledged individuals want to provide for each other, to protect each other financially. The government is expected to enforce their wishes in this regard on their behalf should they become unable to. 
4. A pledge is recognized by the law as a person’s closest kin. Hospital visits, health insurance, probate … All the fun stuff we look forward to dealing with when we partner up with someone. 

What a pledge isn’t:

1. A pledge does not necessitate sex or reproduction. News flash: It’s optional! 
2. A pledge does not require that partners are different genders. It’s no one’s business but mine whom I choose my next-of-kin to be. Especially not the government’s. 
3. A pledge does not necessitate monogamy. Is it the government’s business whom sleeps with whom? Can a single individual pledge to multiple individuals? Why not? We don’t limit the number of children people can have, or the number of reproductive partners, or the number of extended family members. “Sorry, but you've got too many aunts. You’re gonna have to cut that number back. The law doesn't allow for so many aunts.” 
4. A pledge does not necessitate partners living together. The point of pledging is not to form a Cleaver family. The purpose is to have the government recognize your important relationships the way that you do. 
5. A pledge does not grant or imply ownership. Ugh. See Part I if you haven’t had enough of this already. 
6. A pledge does not need to be approved of or recognized by a religion or by “god.” Let the religious bigots have the term “marriage.” Let them define it any way they want. They do anyway. They don’t even defer to the Bible in this regard. Let them have their illusion of meeting their soul mate, and bringing up 2.5 kids. But don’t let them impose it on the rest of us via the government. The government needs to break away from this religious definition and adopt a concept more closely representing how people actually live. 

Author’s note: I in no way claim to be a linguist. My background is in religion, philosophy and psychology. I used the word “pledge” here instead of “marriage” merely to make a point. However, I do believe that a simple change in terminology can make changes in the way people think. True, lasting change.

I'd like to hear what other terms people like for this concept. Post in the Comments: What do you think would be an effective term for a legal "marriage" stripped of it's religious dressings?