So on
Wednesday we have a class discussion on Book II of Utopia. I heard a lot
of people saying that they did not like it as much as Book I and I have to
disagree. I thought Book II was great because it offered us insight into the
thoughts of what Thomas More may, or may not have considered a Utopian Society.
What I wanted to talk about on the blog were some of the things that we didn’t
talk about or mention in class. My con’s list far outweighed my pro’s list for
the Utopian society so I thought I would address those rather than the pro’s. One
of the things that I couldn’t stand was their courting rituals. Where the women
and man have to show themselves to each other naked? “Whether she is a widow or
a virgin, the woman is shown naked to the suitor by a responsible and respectable
matron; and similarly, some respectable man presents the suitor naked to the
woman.” (72) It may just be my old soul showing through but I was like that’s odd…and
weird…and I am uncomfortable. I also found their ideals on war fascinating.
They have this idea that war is beneath them, and yet if it came down to do it
they are willing to pay as much as it costs to get the Zapoletes to fight for
them. These people, the Zapoletes, are said to be made of the utmost
viciousness. It is curious that although war is beneath the Utopians, they are
willing to slaughter their enemy, and the fighters they hired should it be necessary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that though the intimacy of premarital intercourse was prohibited, each party of the couple were given the opportunity to check their suitor out physically. This stipulation to marriage is further supported by a very consumerist, materialistic analogy that only serves to degrade the process of choosing a marriage partner to something very shallow and focused on physicality: it is compared to buying a colt,
ReplyDelete"When men go to buy a colt, where they are risking only a little money,
they are so suspicious that, though the beast is almost bare, they won't
close the deal until the saddle and blanket have been taken off, lest
there be a hidden sore underneath. Yet in the choice of a mate, which
may cause wither delight or disgust for the rest of their lives, people
are completely careless" (73).
So a spouse is a product, an object, that you evaluate before consuming. This is not only categorizing women as a piece of property, but it seems fair to deduce that men are also deemed as such. What is bizarre to me, for the sake of argument, is that if one is allowed to look upon the naked body of someone not your spouse (a very intimate experience), why can't the couple "experience" them intimately. If this process is being reduced to a consumer experience and it is recalled that colts are inspected before being bought - - - well so also before a car is purchased, it is taken for a spin to make sure it runs the way that is desirable to the consumer. If we're arguing this way, then why disallow premarital intercourse? The Utopian "see" them but cannot "try them out" before sharing a lifelong bed with the person? What if such intimacy in the union does not meet expectations?