Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Beast of the Month - April 2000

Expand Messages
  • robalini@aol.com
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 26 2:14 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.


      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      Beast of the Month - April 2000
      Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? and William J. "Pete" Knight, Mockers
      of Marriage

      "I yam an anti-Christ..."

      John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"

      "I keep thinking you can get to the bottom of human behavior, that it can
      never get any more sordid or pathetic. But I'm always wrong."
      Adam Parfrey, Publisher, Feral House

      Sometimes it is quite amusing to see the depths that civilization can sink
      to. In a world dominated by Jerry Springer, The Backstreet Boys, and Michael
      Bay, it's hard to believe that culture could fall to even worse levels, but
      recently it did precisely that. At the same time, a wrong-headed political
      campaign echoing irrational sentiments was an overwhelming success. On the
      surface, bad cultural taste and bad politics appear to be two entirely
      different issues, but in reality, they are reflections of the same social
      dysfunction, which is why they share The Konformist Beast of the Month.

      Anyone who has been through a divorce can confirm that it's not an enjoyable
      event. On the stress-o-meter, it is right up there at the top, and it
      certainly isn't a pleasant experience for children to go through, either. And
      yet, half of all marriages end up in this state. What's up with that?

      There are certainly many reasons behind this tragic phenomenon, but
      ultimately, a major factor is that many people rush into the commitment of
      marriage unable or unwilling to contemplate the meaning of lifelong union.
      That's no surprise, since there is so much social pressure to marry that a
      good portion of people don't ponder the consequences of such a ceremony.
      Instead, people often focus on the attributes that society tend to emphasize,
      for women being good looks and for men lots of money. Such things (even if
      they can be attained indefinitely) can't mask countless other attributes
      needed to keep a happy marriage together.

      No matter. On February 15, Fox TV (the home of such tasteful "reality" TV
      shows such as World's Deadliest Swarms and When Good Pets Go Bad) presented
      to the American public Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? The concept for
      the game show was simple: 50 attractive women competed for the privilege of
      marrying a rich man, after putting on bathing suits and wedding gowns and
      answering inane questions. On the heels of ABC's successful Who Wants Be a
      Millionaire?, Fox had already presented the unsurprisingly tacky knockoff
      Greed, but this was a major step lower in terms of shamelessness. That it
      seemed to emphasize all the most shallow values that are involved with modern
      love didn't stop Fox from presenting such a tacky spectacle. After all, even
      with his supposed championing of conservative politics, Fox Chairman Rupert
      Murdoch has never let traditional values get in the way of a quick buck.

      Nor did it stop people from watching the show. 26 million people viewed the
      tasteless monument, including one third of all women between 18 to 34. It was
      quickly declared a huge hit. More episodes were promised to follow.

      There was only one problem with this fairy tale ending: Darva Conger, the
      foxy blonde 34-year-old bride, didn't actually love the man she was married
      to. (Gee, imagine that.) She cried all the way to her Barbados honeymoon,
      where they stayed in separate cabins.

      Oh yeah, and the groom, 42-year-old Rick Rockwell, he was alleged (in a
      document uncovered by The Smoking Gun) by a previous fiancee to suffer from
      "severe emotional highs and lows", and she claims he assaulted her,
      vandalized her car, and threatened to maim and kill her. Even worse, he
      probably wasn't really a multi-millionaire, having up to $600,000 in debts
      after a dubious real estate career following a stint as a comedian, which
      climaxed with appearances in bit parts for three direct-to-video Attack of
      the Killer Tomatoes sequels. (Hard to believe that a supposedly rich man
      needing a game show to find a mate may either be psychologically disturbed or
      lying about his wealth.)

      Sounds more like Who Wants to Be a Legalized Whore for a Psychotic
      Pathological Liar?

      All of this seems to echo that famous urban legend: two strangers, a man and
      a woman, meet in a cafe. The man asks, "My dear, would you have sex with me
      for a million dollars?" She smiles, and says to him, "I certainly would." He
      then asks, "Well, would you have sex with me if I buy you a cup of coffee?"
      She steps back, offended, and says, "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
      "My dear," he says, "We've already established what kind of woman you are.
      Now we're merely haggling over price."

      Only this time, the urban legend was real.

      Soon, what was declared a "smash hit" had exploded into the biggest
      television-industry scandal since the fifties "Quiz Show" affair.

      Darva, unsurprisingly, wanted out of the marriage, though her embarrassing
      attempts to fake she had any dignity failed miserably. "I'm not the
      caricature that people saw on the show that night," she announced, then
      proceeded to behave precisely how a caricature would. "I'm a Christian
      woman," Conger lamely offered, "I'm religious, and I know this will inflame
      many people, but if I'm not married in a church with a preacher, I'm not
      married before God, and I'm not married in my heart." She then insisted she
      didn't approve of Rockwell kissing her after she agreed to marry him. "I
      would like to think that someone who really has an interest for me or respect
      for me would have kissed me on the cheek. And said, 'I'm delighted to meet
      you.'" (Say, shouldn't that introduction have happened BEFORE she agreed to
      marry him?) She then added, "I never, ever, considered having a sexual
      relationship with him, just as I would not consider having a sexual
      relationship with anyone I had just met." (Apparently, she has higher
      standards for sex than marriage.) She then claimed, "I don't need anyone
      else's money, I don't want anyone else's money. I just want my life back." Of
      course, she was keeping her $100,000 in prizes, as well as an Isuzu Trooper
      and, significantly, her $50,000 diamond ring.

      Not to be outdone by Darva, runner-up Teresa Bowman later admitted in an
      interview to participating in the spectacle because "I thought I'd get my two
      seconds of fame and no one would ever notice." Nonetheless, she added a
      couple ticks to her clock by adding a negative assessment of Rockwell: "He's
      not how I envisioned my Prince Charming in any way, shape or form." She then
      stated that she believed Rockwell participated in the marriage as a publicity
      stunt for his failed comedy career, then added, without any sense of irony:
      "I think it was cold to do something like that, going into it for
      self-fulfilling reasons." (Incredibly, Rockwell comes off the most
      sympathetic in the whole affair, in a scary, pathetic sort of way.)

      The scandal continues drawing headlines, as the "couple" continues on the
      road to getting the marriage annulled. Meanwhile, Fox officials have feigned
      the high road themselves, declaring that they are out of the "exploitative
      reality show" business. (That is, until the scandal dies down, then it's back
      to the gravy train.)

      Still, say what you will about the "Multimillionaire Marriage" scandal, but
      nobody got hurt from it who wasn't a foolish, willing participant. The same
      can't be said for the crusade led by William J. "Pete" Knight for the passage
      in California of Proposition 22, known as the "Knight Initiative" or the
      "Defense of Marriage Act" depending on who you ask.

      More precisely, Proposition 22 was an initiative to reject the recognition in
      California of gay marriages performed in any other state. Of course, there
      are no states which currently allow gay marriages, but that may change very
      soon in Vermont. No doubt when Vermont (or any other state, for that matter)
      creates a gay marriage contract, it will become a common thing for homosexual
      couples to travel there in order to perform one. If Prop 22 passed, any such
      contract would not be legally binding in the state of California.

      Lost in the debate over Prop 22 was a simpler question: what right does the
      state of California (or any other, for that matter) have to not recognize a
      marriage between a same-sex couple? After all, looking at marriage as a
      business contract, there seems no reason why two people can agree to merge
      their assets as one in a show of commitment for their love. If, on the other
      hand, one wants to insist that marriage is a religious contract instead,
      there is this little thing called the First Amendment. Freedom of Religion
      means the right for churches to create its own rituals without the intrusion
      of the state. In other words, this should be a case closed debate, and would
      be if it wasn't obscured by emotional rhetoric.

      Yet, just as emotion clouds the debate over Elian Gonzalez - obscuring the
      simple fact that, as Elian's sole surviving parent, his father has custody
      according to common law unless he is proven unfit - the subject of gay
      marriages is one that strikes a nasty cord with those who insist
      homosexuality is "unnatural." Prop 22 was heavily promoted by the Traditional
      Values Coalition and the Family Research Council, two reactionary "Christian"
      religious organizations. Nor were they alone in their support: it received
      wide support from both the Roman Catholic Church (which has been quick to
      stamp out evidence that the Church performed gay marriage rituals in the
      Middle Ages) and the Mormons (amusing considering their own history of
      alternative marriage contracts.) It even got some high profile support from
      the Jewish community, thanks to the deranged babblings of "Dr." Laura

      In truth, Prop 22 was embraced by nearly all religious groups, as the
      well-funded campaign was quick to point out. Which shouldn't be too
      surprising: nothing unites people more than the opportunity to tell a
      minority group what they can or can't do.

      Ultimately, however, it was Pete Knight, a modern day Anita Bryant, who was
      the key supporter of the bill, the one who got it on the ballot in the first
      place. Knight, a 70-year-old conservative Republican State Senator from
      Palmdale, had previously tried three times to get the law passed in the state
      legislature. A former hero military airman, it appears that his obsession
      with the issue of gay marriages was sparked in 1996, when his own son
      informed him that he was a homosexual (his son is currently in a domestic
      partnership.) Knight hasn't spoken to him since.

      With this fact in mind, the rhetoric behind Proposition 22 becomes as
      entertaining of a spectacle as the entire "Multimillionaire Marriage"
      debacle. Knight, doing his best impression of Sterling Hayden's General Jack
      D. Ripper, declares the initiative's goal is to "defend" and "protect" the
      institution of marriage. Presumably this defense is from the nefarious menace
      of queers getting married themselves, which would give them special powers to
      sap precious bodily fluids from married heterosexuals. Or something like that.

      Yes, it would be all quite funny, except that Prop 22 passed. Not only that,
      it passed handily, with 61% of the vote.

      Homosexuals are hardly an economically oppressed group, and have had
      widespread positive portrayal in mass entertainment (which may have something
      to do with their vast influence in Hollywood.) In the grand scheme of things,
      restrictions on gay marriage contracts and religious rituals appears to be a
      minor one to some people. Then again, perhaps it wouldn't be so minor to
      these people if they weren't allowed to marry someone they loved. Hey, isn't
      there some little rule about this?

      Perhaps a better way to "defend" marriages would be to encourage people to
      think and ask questions about what they are doing with their lives before
      they jump into a marriage. Or, if that is too complicated, maybe just
      discouraging excessive consumption of alcohol, which remains as always the
      top threat to a healthy marriage. Of course, such campaigns don't have the
      added pleasure of scapegoating a small group for society's problems.

      Only a society warped by fraudulent, hypocritical values could have responded
      to Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? and Prop 22 the way it did. A
      society that celebrates the trashing of the institution of marriage,
      mindlessly viewing crap which reduces it to pseudo-respectable prostitution,
      can't be surprised that half of all marriages fail miserably. Rather than
      examine such a twisted value system, it is much easier to point the finger at
      others, and stop them from trying to express their love for one another. If
      people really cared about the institution of marriage, the best way to
      "protect" it is to set a good example themselves. It appears that may be
      asking way too much.

      In any case, we salute everyone involved with "Who Wants to Marry a
      Multimillionaire?" and William J. "Pete" Knight as Beasts of the Month.
      Congratulations, and keep up the great work, dudes!!!

      The Konformist

      Robert Sterling
      Post Office Box 24825
      Los Angeles, California 90024-0825
      (310) 737-1081

      If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire,
      please visit http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist/ and sign up. Or, e-mail
      konformist-subscribe@egroups.com with the subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"
      (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.