Arjuna and Krishna walk into a pickup bar.

A:  I cannot do this, O Son of Vasudev, look at the Kauravas arrayed at the bar. Duryodhana is there twirling his moustache with his muscles all bulging out from under his tight shirt sitting as if he would not concede a single inch (at the bar) .   Dushasana, that pervert, is already buying a drink for that petite chick who isn't wearing much that she could be disrobed of.   Even that old self-proclaimed celibate Bhishma  is chatting up two young girls.  And the bartender looks like Shakuni. What chance do I have?

K: Do not be so dismayed, Partha. I know your breakup with Draupadi was hard.  But a good solid rebound shag is just the thing you need.  

A: Oh, Draupadi, that polyamorous wench. Let's not speak of her tonight, shall we?  

(mutters:  if she can have five, why can't I?)

K: Tarry, O Kaunteya, anger does not resolve anything,

A:  Oh, I wish I had brother Bhim with me tonight.  He solves everything with great anger.  He would have started a brawl by now.  

K:  Good, a dry sense of humor like that is all you need to make an impression, Arjuna.

A:  You should reserve these silly compliments for your village cow-girls.  They do not help me.  

K:  Well I will help you if you will let me. Just think of how you won Draupadi with your consummate skills.  You still have those moves.  

A: I was just a nerdy teenager back then.  And that old half-mad Drupad just decided to marry her daughter off to somebody who could win a competition.  That's all I needed to do then. That's all I was back then. A trophy child going around winning archery competitions to please Kunti.  How does that help me impress women in a bar, Krishna?  Do the broads here care for archery?

K:  You should play to your strengths- there's nothing more that pleases a woman than confidence and accomplishment in a man. But yes, just archery sounds a little dorky.  You need to add more to your game these days.  How about mentioning your conch blowing skills?

A: Sounds like a bad innuendo gone wrong.

K: I guess so.  You know what a "conch" is in Spanish? (sniggers)

A: Let's go back out, Krishna.  This is not my night. I can feel it.

K: This won't do, Partha.  How about we shoot some pool and have a shot or two, first?

A:  Good idea, let's do that and then get going. 

(After two chaser shots, Arjuna begins to put away the pool balls with elegant ease.)

Together

Together, we'd rove oceans,  ford rivers, see
the world with each others' lustrous eyes;
Together, in a giant city square lost in a crowd
we'd hold hands and sing in the Revolution.
Together, we'd lose ourselves in the Art
of every Renaissance museum in Europe.
Together, we'd write postcards to each other,
from Valparaiso, Chile to Nairobi,  Kenya.
Together, we'd get pained and impatient
at all the great injustices of the world.
Together, we'd build love-nests of glass and steel,
that in bold arcs spanned the star-spangled sky.
Together, we'd build huts of palm fronds on coral
that danced with the breezes of some Pacific isle.
Together, we'd read poetry, suspended in bubbles
of arrested time; losing our selves to  Ideas alone.
Together, we'd be selfish, and reduce the world to
delusional secret islands that only we know about.
Together, we'd escape the humdrum din of our
Industrial lives;  the charcoal dust of empty routine;
Together, we'd be handcuffed and imprisoned by
the powers-that-be that we would subtly spite.
Together, we'd break free of the chains they clad us in.
Together, we'd make love like Eternity didn't matter,
Together, we'd hungrily possess each other's Souls,
Together, we'd be sentenced for Crimes we didn't commit.
Together, we'd wrestle the Angels and drink their Nectar.
Together ,we'd be in impossible dreams that never converged.
Together, we'd script sad lives where we'd never be -
Together.

Whatever happens between consenting adults ....

"Whatever happens between consenting adults behind closed doors should not be the state's/somebody else's concern", or some variant of that, is an oft-repeated liberal maxim, especially in American spaces (which means, the Internet).   This to me sounds like one of those vacuous liberal cliches that while having some basic appealing elements, doesn't really hold up to any degree of critical scrutiny, in both rational and moral senses. At its best it states the bleeding obvious, and at it's worst, it is plain wrong and stupid.

On the one hand it reeks of an unwholesome dose of individualism, that post-industrial Western civilization is so enamored with. It's the kind of libertarianism that paradoxically sees the individual as supreme and self-reliant while she is increasingly more reliant on a complex web of goods and services provided by others. In such an ideal world, people maintain professional relationships in the workplace, and personal ones at home "behind closed doors", and the two are totally insulated from each other.  In such an ideal world, people do not gossip about who they slept with, do not boast about their sexual conquests, and do not feel sexual jealousy at missed opportunities. This is pure sexual utopia, where people have learned to appreciate sex in a perfectly mature and rational way, without sniggering about it, without having conspiratorial chats about it with their friends, and without feeling angry, hurt, jealous or left-out.  Well, why turn to and annoy friends about it, when you are hurt in your relationships then?

There is good reason that marriage came to be institutionalized in most societies. The task of reproducing and bringing up the members of a future generation is too much to be entrusted to the devices of two mere individuals. While sex undeniably has a recreational aspect, the part that society as a whole has more reason to be concerned with, is the reproductive aspect.  Child-rearing needs a broader societal framework, but even before that, a formal, socially-approved contract of marriage has been deemed necessary to make two people aware of their rights and responsibilites towards each other. Without such a broadly established template for marriage or relationships, all the challenges and disappointments of managing a relationship basically get deputed to the two individuals concerned, who as it often happens, are confused and weak.

Then again consider such deeply problematic phenomena as cheating/adultery in intimate relationships, or relationships with an inherent conflict of interest, such as between boss and underling at work.  Going by our nice little maxim, these should not be anybody's concern.  If the two partners involved are consenting adults, why should the partner being cheated upon, care?  Isn't the idea of marriage, or even commitment, a tyrannical institutionalized setup, and shouldn't the ideal sexual relationship then be one that is open and polyamorous?  Why should the other workers care even if the working environment was rendered uneasy by an ill-advised office fling? The truth is it is human nature to care. To be deeply wounded in an animal way when their partner drifts from them, even if logically they come to believe in the idea of polyamory. Shouldn't our political ideas then take such basic facts of human nature into account, before mouthing such glib pronouncements?

Also, what about morality? There is a case for some soft morality beyond that which is ensured by the law. It is a great thing that adulterers in the West are not stoned to death nowadays, nor even do they attract a great deal of social opprobrium. One needs to get on with life instead of just putting everyone on trial. But surely there should be some karmic reaction to all the nastiness - the lying, cheating, abuse, betrayal - that gets perpetrated in intimate relationships.  People ought not to be put in jail, or be punished at work, for such transgressions - but shouldn't they be exposed in more intimate circles? Shouldn't their potential future mates receive some warning about such behavior?  Why is it not anybody else's concern when they may be the ones next in line? And then again, what about the moral issues involved when such sex between consenting adults behind closed doors, is obtained under false promises and pretenses?  Wouldn't it be normal for well-meaning friends or family to intervene when they see that a partner is being unfairly exploited?

Leaving it to just the individuals concerned sounds cruel and lazy to me. But more than that it sounds illogical.
We are a social species, and sex is heavily socially conditioned behavior.

Positive Hatred

Hatred is such a useful emotion in good hands (by that I mean people sensible enough to indulge in it without causing violence or damage to others) . I try to start my day with a hateful rant against big corporations, stuffy ex-girlfriends, evil bosses, dogmatic academic institutions, whoever really. The morning grogginess and the news are often great aids. I pound out the anger in my morning pushups, knit my brows in annoyance as I furiously slurp the cereals, and then mentally flagellate myself into showering. I feel like a positively energized person for the rest of the day. I wonder why "hatred" gets such a "bad rap" and is unfairly labeled a "negative emotion" by American lifestyle gurus.

A Hate Affair

There is no love lost
between you and me.
Our relationship is quite
like an Arab-Israeli affair.
You are of course Israeli,
invading my heart at will,
driving me wild, bombing
out my shelters with wanton
womanly fury. I am Arab,
wild-eyed, passionate,
aggrieved, vengeful, impotent.
They have a word for it, the Arabs,
for your tumultous appearance
in my tranquil life in my
father's olive garden.
They call it Al Naqbe:
The Catastrophe! For that is
what you will always mean to me.
The first time you left me,
You clearly had your victory;
unequal, ravishing, quick,
and then somehow you wanted
to come back: you said
you needed me. What for
but to vanquish me yet again.
Only this time I was ready
and I gave you hell for a while.
My private Yom Kippur War,
and some measure of closure.