No, I don't usually take Chris Rock quotes too seriously, but I heard that and thought it interesting. Do you think that's true? I thought we could use a change of scenery around here... just one day: tomorrow's hard hitting politics again. Is Rock right? Let's talk!
Z
131 comments:
....not only men... else how would you explain out-of-wedlock birth rates in the West, today?
I would amend it as follows:
Men are only as faithful as their options and their individual commitment to their vows of fidelity.
Temptation and options abound for women too, you know.
It's not my quote!
But I hoped we could address men's infidelity today...
AOW, that's a huge part of the question; are vows important to most men? I think it depends on the man.
Z,
I realized that the quotation was not your words.
Some men take it very seriously that they have vowed fidelity before God.
AOW..sorry, what I meant by "not my quote" is that I couldn't really change it BECAUSE it's not my quote....I could add a lot to it, right? :-)
I found it a fascinating concept...sad, really, and I think that fidelity before God is HUGE and realize there are people, like Rock, who don't consider that.
I think that's an interesting conversation......
I think it's fidelity, even through the difficult times, that makes marriage worthwhile.......that amazing feeling of having done the right thing though tempted.
I had a couple of very interesting men come after me during my marriage, I have to admit; and I never took them up on it, and I felt like I had a marvelous, proud secret from Mr. Z. He didn't know, but I KNEW.
This is what I hope we can talk about here today.
Remove the word 'men' and insert 'people,' and I agree.
The more opportunities one has, the more opportunities one has to fail.
Is there any data available to show that women are more virtuous than men?
Whether it be man OR woman, fidelity CAN be merely a matter of opportunities, but it doesn't HAVE to be that way.
Take Shakespeare's "Othello" as it relates to the relationship between Othello and Iago. "Why" does Iago plot to destroy Othello's marriage? I think it well stated at the play's outset:
RODERIGO
Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate.
IAGO
Despise me, if I do not. Three great ones of the city,
In personal suit to make me his lieutenant,
Off-capp'd to him: and, by the faith of man,
I know my price, I am worth no worse a place:
But he; as loving his own pride and purposes,
Evades them, with a bombast circumstance
Horribly stuff'd with epithets of war;
And, in conclusion,
Nonsuits my mediators; for, 'Certes,' says he,
'I have already chose my officer.'
And what was he?
Forsooth, a great arithmetician,
One Michael Cassio, a Florentine,
A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife;
That never set a squadron in the field,
Nor the division of a battle knows
More than a spinster; unless the bookish theoric,
Wherein the toged consuls can propose
As masterly as he: mere prattle, without practise,
Is all his soldiership. But he, sir, had the election:
And I, of whom his eyes had seen the proof
At Rhodes, at Cyprus and on other grounds
Christian and heathen, must be be-lee'd and calm'd
By debitor and creditor: this counter-caster,
He, in good time, must his lieutenant be,
And I--God bless the mark!--his Moorship's ancient.
RODERIGO
By heaven, I rather would have been his hangman.
IAGO
Why, there's no remedy; 'tis the curse of service,
Preferment goes by letter and affection,
And not by old gradation, where each second
Stood heir to the first. Now, sir, be judge yourself,
Whether I in any just term am affined
To love the Moor.
Iago was the "faithful" and experienced subaltern passed over ofr a "college boy"
Othello never "vowed" to remain "faithful" to Iago, but to some, the phrase "Acta non verba! has real meaning... especially in the face of death and/or its' threats.
...and so we often wonder "why" so many blacks do not "see" the "justice" in the Zimmerman trial. Perhaps they, like "Iago" do not view the "law" in the same way we do, do not make the "Oedipal" leaps in thinking that envison an advantageous "return" offered in its' adherence, but instead see only the "impediment" it represents in the satisfaction of its' "desires".
But, there is a twist. The liberating aspect of law is both a “symptom” and implicated in yet another set of arbitrary, punishing demands, those of the superego. First, the image of the omnipotent Other to whose whim one is subject is a fantasy. It is a way for the subject to avoid acknowledging that its desire can’t be satisfied, to avoid facing the fact that the Other doesn’t have the ability to give it what it wants. In Hobbes' state of nature, it simply is not the case that one could have everything one desired were it not for the rights of others. As Hobbes acknowledges, desire is itself always in motion, ceaseless, beyond satisfaction. Law intervenes, then, as “a way for the subject to avoid the impasse constitutive of desire by transforming the inherent impossibility of its satisfaction into prohibition: as if desire would be possible to fulfil if it were not for the prohibition impeding its free reign.” The sovereign (for Hobbes) guarantees desire not simply by restraining others but by commanding restraint in general. Law lets the subject think it could get what it wants were it not for law’s prohibition. So, here law lets the subject avoid the impossible Real of its desire. Our attachment to law, then, is a symptom in that it is a way for us to secure our desire (that is to say, the space for it, not the object of it) by avoiding confrontation with the impossibility of fulfilling it.
- Jodi Dean, "Zizek on Law"
What really binds a community, what really tells people that they are members of the same group is not their knowing what laws to follow but their knowing what laws to break. Attachment to community comes about through identification with the suspension or transgression of the law.
- Slavoj Zizek, "Metastases of Enjoyment"
Zimmerman "knew" what laws it was safe to break. Trayvon did not.
Husband's (and wive's) generally know which laws it is okay to break, and which they cannot w/o endangering the relationship.
I agree with Kurt -- especially the way society has evolved in the past fifty years. Women today are just as apt to be promiscuous, unwilling to commit and to postpone taking on the responsibilities of marriage and children indefinitely as men have generally been thought to be.
I, personally, think it depends a great deal on the individual. Some people are constituted to have and to hold a loved one till death does them part, many can't begin even to consider putting themselves in such a situation.
I know, as much as any one of can know such a thing, that my father was absolutely faithful to my mother, and she to him. I also know, however, that they were very friendly with a couple from our church, and that the wife in that couple was madly in love with my Dad. I discovered this in my late teens when I caught her kissing my father wildly at a New Year's Eve Party behind the bar -- in OUR basement rec-room. It had just turned midnight, and, and everybody was kissing everybody else, -- but not like THAT.
I remember being shocked. I mentioned it to my mother several years later, and she said she knew that Dorothy was crazy about Daddy, and that Dorothy's HUSBAND, Fred, had even made a mad proposal to my mother that they might SWITCH partners as a way of working out all the tension.
Mother reassured me that both she AND my father rejected the idea resoundingly. Astonishingly, however, they continued to be friends with Dorothy and Fred who were part of a larger group of married church couples who palled around together.
Dorothy and Fred never had children. Maybe that had something to do with i, and maybe it didn't, I'll never know. Anyway, they all worked it out as I believe adults should. No one got hysterical. No one threatened divorce. No one acted spitefully. No one ever talked about it at all. They just went on with their lives.
I think my parents were unusually wise and perceptive people, and possibly more sophisticated than many of their generation, because they had been raised in New York City and were exposed to many and varied influences all their life. They were also very much in love with each other. That certainly helped. Many married couples never have really loved each other, and live as they do in sterile, joyless relationships only because they think society demands it of them. I find that very sad.
Apparently, if we are to believe Kinsey and he other sex researchers who followed in his wake, this kind of thing (wife swapping and such) was very common, even back in the good old days.
Today, of course, everything has gone to hell on jet skis and society appears to be totally out of control.
HOWEVER, I believe there is no such thing as any kind of universal "Normal." "Normal" is whatever happens to be in vogue -- or in force -- in any given society at a given time. It has always varied immensely from culture to culture and from age to age.
The Christian Ideal may be beautiful, but it is anything natural -- except for certain individuals blest with an unusually placid, benign, well-balanced and unselfish nature.
...typically, whether one is faithful or not "consciously" depends entirely upon one's estimation of whether faithfulness' "returns" outweigh its' "costs".
...only some of us are stubborn enough not to care. For the law's "Oedipal" barriers have been crossed, and the law habitually inculcated into our unconscious. We have been "Oedipally blinded" and act faithfully, w/o ever consciously "weighing" the opportunities which may present themselves for transgressive behaviour.
.......that amazing feeling of having done the right thing though tempted.
...and the "source" of that feeling is the "surplus" enjoyment derived from "prohibition"...
...just ask "The Barber of Seville"...
In contrast to this transgressive notion of desire, the Miser invests with desire (and thus with an excessive quality) moderation itself: do not spend, economize, retain instead of letting go - all the proverbial "anal" qualities. And it is only THIS desire, the very anti-desire, that is desire par excellence. The use of the Hegelian notion of "oppositional determination [gegensätzliche Bestimmung]" (5) is here fully justified: Marx claimed that, in the series production-distribution-exchange-consumption, the term "production" is doubly inscribed, it is simultaneously one of the terms in the series and the structuring principle of the entire series: in production as one of the terms of the series, production (as the structuring principle) "encounters itself in its oppositional determination," (6) as Marx put it, using the precise Hegelian term. And the same goes for desire: there are different species of desire (i.e., of the excessive attachment that undermines the pleasure principle); among these species, desire "as such" encounters itself in its "oppositional determination" in the guise of the miser and its thrift, the very opposite of the transgressive move of desire. Lacan made this clear apropos of Molière:
The object of fantasy, image and pathos, is that other element that takes the place of what the subject is symbolically deprived of. Thus the imaginary object is in a position to condense in itself the virtues or the dimension of being and to become that veritable delusion of being [leurre de l'être] that Simone Weil treats when she focuses on the very dense and most opaque relationship of a man to the object of his desire: the relationship of Molière's Miser to his strongbox. This is the culmination of the fetish character of the object in human desire. [...] The opaque character of the object a in the imaginary fantasy determines it in its most pronounced forms as the pole of perverse desire. (7)
So, if we want to discern the mystery of desire, we should not focus on the lover or murderer in the thrall of their passion, ready to put at stake anything and everything for it, but on the miser's attitude towards his chest, the secret place where he keeps and gathers his possessions. The mystery, of course, is that, in the figure of the miser, excess coincides with lack, power with impotence, avaricious hoarding with the elevation of the object into the prohibited/untouchable Thing one can only observe, never fully enjoy. Is not the ultimate miser's aria Bartolo's "A un dottor della mia sorte" from Act I of Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia? Its obsessive madness perfectly renders the fact that he is totally indifferent towards the prospect of having sex with the young Rosina - he wants to marry her in order to possess and guard her in the same way a miser possesses his strongbox. (8) In more philosophical terms, the paradox of the miser is that he unites the two incompatible ethical tradition: the Aristotelian ethics of moderation and the Kantian ethics of an unconditional demand that derails the "pleasure principle" - the miser elevates the maxim of moderation itself into a Kantian unconditional demand. The very sticking to the rule of moderation, the very avoiding of the excess, thus generates an excess - a surplus-enjoyment - of its own. Slavoj Zizek, "From the Myth to Agape"
Fidelity, oft'n, 'tis a miserly form of pleasure. ;)
...or it is the feminine renunciation (see last part of essay). The ultimate "Christian" act, par excellence.
The difference between male and female fidelity (from the conclusion of the essay posted in the link above):
While men sacrifice themselves for a Thing (country, freedom, honor), only women are able to sacrifice themselves for nothing. (Or: men are moral, while only women are properly ethical.) And it is our contention that this "empty" sacrifice is the Christian gesture par excellence: it is only against the background of this empty gesture that one can begin to appreciate the uniqueness of the figure of Christ.
I see it this way: men and women both thrive on attention, and some people are just not content unless the ego is over-fed.
I don't thithink fidelity is truly about faithfulness to the spouse as much as it is about being true to oneself. Socity sees it as an abandonment of the other, but I see it as abandonment of self.
Maybe that's why some people are less tempted....they are more content with themselves, or secure.
I love what you wrote about your wonderful secret, Z.
Thumbs up to thersites last comment. But I would say that description might only fit undifferentiated women.
I would agree, but add that "modern" women are becoming, increasingly, "undifferentiated".
Present company, excepted. ;)
...for it has become increasingly "uncool" to self-castrate and become a "Rule Girl".
Did this phrase strike a nerve, Thersites?
I disagree with the infidelity thing and "people"; I know FAR many more men who've strayed than women. FAR more.
And yes, I KNOW women stray, too...no need to reiterate that.
I know that many in my parents' circle had crushes on my folks..they were smart, good and beautiful (she still is) and as I grew, I saw the occasional looks cast at both my parents as a kind of longing....I believe this was less to have sex than it was "I wish my spouse was that marvelous and treated ME the way he/she does him/her". I know that.
I used to even hear "Why can't you be like T...?"
I think Rock's quote works better for men because women still like a little 'love' with their sex. That's why I believe he used only MEN in his quote... Given the 'option,' I think more men might give in to an experience they never thought would happen when they woke up that morning, with someone they might not have even known!, than women.
Again, don't get me wrong; I KNOW married women play around a lot more than some people think.
But, I think there's a difference in the playing.
and, that does NOT mean I don't think a lot of men still like loving someone.
Man, you have to include every variance in comments, don't you?! GEEEZ!!
Women today are just as apt to be promiscuous, unwilling to commit and to postpone taking on the responsibilities of marriage and children indefinitely as men have generally been thought to be.
Indeed. THAT is what it means to be "post"-modern. The injunction to "Enjoy" is ALL around us. And, of course, in order to "enjoy" properly/ethically... we must also be presented with a choice of enjoyments. Choose wisely, grasshopper. For one thing is a certainty, that the moment you "get" what you desire, you may likely no longer desire it (ala "buyers remorse"). So perhaps if you "foresake all others", you can "preserve" a quantity of "desire" for the love you currently have. ;)
I believe that post-modernism is putting an end to those male/female distinctions, Z.
Women have been "liberated" from social norms and are "free to choose" to be as stupid as men could ever be.
Heck, they can even "choose" to die for their country/freedom/honor (things) now. It's very hard to "choose" to die for "nothing".
I still think some men are more apt to grab at a sudden 'option' than most women are....
I suppose there are too many variables to make a decisive call on this..but I hoped it'd be fun to discuss.
It has been, at least for me. :)
And I do agree that males are currently still much more likely to succumb to those temptations. Must be from our lack of white matter forming inter-hemispherical brain connections. ;)
Thers: I'm glad you've enjoyed it.. Good input, thanks.
Yes, the WHITE MATTER must play a part. Do you suppose that would be considered RACIST? :-)
Nope. Not if you're talking about the dress. ;P
A male friend of mine once said ( about outside influences and extra relationships )...
"If I'm walking down the street and I see a $100 bill on the sidewalk...I don't look in my wallet and say, Gee I already have one...I'll pick it up fast and be all the richer"!
Imp, exactly what a lot of men feel. Except, not really 'richer', is he.
I always wonder about a man who can play around on the wife who's given him children, washes his clothes, makes his dinner...treats him well. IF she treats him well :-)... If I were a man in that situation, the guilt would absolutely DO ME IN; if I had a shred of respect and affection for her.
Joe....of ALL white dresses!!??
@Z:
Hey..I do all the cooking, cleaning, dish washing!! LOL
Mr. Pris and I were always faithful to each other. If your spouse feels special to you, be sure to keep it that way. It overcomes difficult times, and most of all your spouse who loves you, wouldn't want to lose that special feeling. It is a Godsend.
Mr. Pris will always be in my heart, even though he passed away.
Ashleymadison, com
Well, I hit publish early on that one, but there's a reason that site thrives.
I wonder what their mix is.
A lot of men cheat. Obviously.
My first wife cheated on me.
I got Scherie.
I win.
I had a beautiful woman come on to me while out of town on business.
Agressively.
Must have been blind.
But I've got something with my wife that I never want to endanger.
Z, Suffice it to say every man instinctively feels it is his duty to impregnate every female on the planet that looks good to him.
He is drawn to this by the same powerful forces that cause a salmon to swim up stream through rapids and waiting bears.
It is only the sad reality of life and cultural restriction that give him pause. It is the need for a stable family and/or home life that keep him somewhat willingly chained to the wall.
Well, and time and resources.
Otherwise, it's "Wait! I didn't see that one !" as he stands on the altar.
Kid!!!!!!!!!!! I AM LAUGHING SO HARD! WHAT A FABULOUS COMMENT!
i do think some men feel that way..maybe ALL men, but I think that fidelity thing is more than just wanting the comfortable home life they'd rather not jeopardize; I like to think they feel "That woman is MINE and she loves ME and we share a history and ...etc." and that's what keeps him there. A kind of love that outweighs all the cheap stuff.???
Maybe I'm naive.
Pris was married for more than 50 years to a great guy and they shared a 'oneness' not many do. THAT is the great love that two people share who'd NEVER hurt the other...that's big point; not to hurt the other.
Z, Thanks!
Pure honesty here ladies. Seriously.
But it is in the abstract. I will say, I've never cheated on a girlfriend let alone a wife.
But there is a skit I saw Chris Rock do where he's talking about being with his wife and Her girl friend at a restaurant and when his wife goes to freshen up, he wants to jump across the table and be with the other woman (assuming she is attractive).
That's a fact. It just wouldn't work in reality, but it's always there. Men are adventure and conquest, plain and simple.
And relationships and marriages do go through various chapters that cause different things to become important.
But that 25 year old guy? No ladies, he's not got the same outlook on the relationship that you do.
@Kid:
"Men are adventure and conquest, plain and simple."
In other words...it's the hunt. Reconnoiter first, hone in...and pounce!
"Hey sweety...I lost my phone #, can I borrow yours"?
IMP "In other words...it's the hunt. Reconnoiter first, hone in...and pounce! "
Yes, given we only have enough blood to operate one of the major organs at a given time, we can only do one thing at a time.
@Kid...
Speak for yourself pal..LOL
IMP, Oh, I'm in the presence of a true Knight!
A thousand pardons.
Personally I despise men being spoken of in such general terms as nothing more than oversexed maniacs bent on F*cking any opportune hole.
Some of us actually love our wives, not because they do laundry...or make dinner. If women don't like to be objectified neither do I. I'm an individual.
Love transcends being an ATM machine or a sperm donor.
THE INDIAN TO HIS LOVE
by: William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
The island dreams under the dawn And great boughs drop tranquillity;
The peahens dance on a smooth lawn,
A parrot sways upon a tree,
Raging at his own image in the enamelled sea.
Here we will moor our lonely ship And wander ever with woven hands, Murmuring softly lip to lip,
Along the grass, along the sands, Murmuring how far away are the unquiet lands:
How we alone of mortals are
Hid under quiet boughs apart, While our love grows an Indian star,
A meteor of the burning heart,
One with the tide that gleams,
the wings that gleam and dart, The heavy boughs, the burnished dove
That moans and sighs a hundred days:
How when we die our shades will rove,
When eve has hushed the feathered ways,
With vapoury footsole by the water's drowsy blaze.
as opposed to the temporal
Ephemera
William Butler Yeats
'YOUR eyes that once were never weary of mine
Are bowed in sotrow under pendulous lids,
Because our love is waning.'
And then She:
'Although our love is waning, let us stand
By the lone border of the lake once more,
Together in that hour of gentleness
When the poor tired child, passion, falls asleep.
How far away the stars seem, and how far
Is our first kiss, and ah, how old my heart!'
Pensive they paced along the faded leaves,
While slowly he whose hand held hers replied:
'Passion has often worn our wandering hearts.'
The woods were round them, and the yellow leaves
Fell like faint meteors in the gloom, and once
A rabbit old and lame limped down the path;
Autumn was over him: and now they stood
On the lone border of the lake once more:
Turning, he saw that she had thrust dead leaves
Gathered in silence, dewy as her eyes,
In bosom and hair.
'Ah, do not mourn,' he said,
'That we are tired, for other loves await us;
Hate on and love through unrepining hours.
Before us lies eternity; our souls
Are love, and a continual farewell.'
Well said ElBro.
Yes, well said. :)
Elmer's Brother,
It seems to me that our society has actually promoted turning men into creatures that they were not supposed to have been in the first place.
Our society has become animalistic. Even worse, such a "life style" is glorified.
Perhaps that's true AOW, but women watch the same movies etc. These generalizations mean nothing unless unless men are screwing themselves.....my guess is that women are just as base as men.
EB,
women are just as base as men
Women can be, certainly.
I see a big part of the problem as the lack of moral compass in our society as a whole. Even the education system pushes that lack of moral compass now.
I agree with you about the moral compass and men certainly have made themselves easy targets. I'm only suggesting that we be treated as individuals...not all of us are whoremongers.
EB,
Agreed.
Collectivist thinking is the problem with a lot of what's going on. We are losing individuality.
Our society also portrays man this not only horny uncontrollable animals but as dumb. Just watch home improvement or any other show we can't seem to do anything right. With the exception of fathers day and even in church most often times the sermon is about how far a man fall short, it can be difficult to counter these stereotypes.
I'm speaking into my phone, because I'm driving I'm using speech to text. So forgive the grammar and misspellings
That should read..... even on fathers day in church the sermon will often be about how far man fall short
Elbro, if my marriage is an accurate sample of male / female relationship, I will say that men are every bit as deep-feeling as women. I believe we all have base instincts, but our upbringing and personality determine how we behave.
I also believe that every person has the capacity to do things they can't imagine, good and evil.
I appreciate your wanting to be seen as an individual. And I think we objectify men (dumb ape, whoremonger) everyday.
I wonder if it's even possible to not objectify one another (collectively)? I suppose it's up to each person.
The collective mind always objectifies....as AOW said...identity politics etc.
I think Kierkegaard had this subject down to some degree
I think it is possible but it takes a "leap of faith" and a renewing of your mind. Love transcends the group think.
Its said that a man who loves many women loves none of them but a man who loves one loves them all.
As for being capable of good and evil....absolutely...we are born with this fallen nature. I'm not suggesting men aren't pigs merely that there are degrees to which that nature may have been tramsformed and that is where we must treat people as individuals.
I'm glad you chimed in on this one.
And thank goodness loves transcends group think!!
I guess we've boiled everything down to gender in our society, and it's a filter we all see through.
The politics of identity / gender are fascinating, but I find it all depressing. how much more we could love one another (and ourselves) if we realized how similar we really are.
But that may be a separate discussion. :)
I agree. I heard someone say Loves beauty lies in its longevity. Equating sex with love then would have the opposite effect, the aesthete will always despair....they will merely seek the next pleasure. Therefore theyre not in control of their life.
EB "Its said that a man who loves many women loves none of them but a man who loves one loves them all."
I have to take issue with this.
1.) No one could possibly love all women. All women are not attractive form any field of view - Mentally or Physically
2.) You say you love your wife to the 100% level. If you hadn't met her or if she passes too soon, are you claiming that you wouldn't have found another to love just as much or won't ever find another to love just as much? I disagree.
Elmers Brother, commercials portray men as knuckledragging idiots because it serves to break up the family unit. All part of the communist agenda that stared in the 60's with LBJ, and culminated in paying to pop kids out like pieces of toast and women's lib, multi-culturalism, victimization, PC-ness, etc.
1.) No one could possibly love all women. All women are not attractive form any field of view - Mentally or Physically
1. It doesn't read ALL women it says 'many'. I'll leave it to you to determine many.
2.) You say you love your wife to the 100% level. If you hadn't met her or if she passes too soon, are you claiming that you wouldn't have found another to love just as much or won't ever find another to love just as much?
2. You disagree with "till death do us part."
Interesting.
No one could possibly love all women. All women are not attractive form any field of view - Mentally or Physically
The point is that no woman benefits from a promiscuous man, but all women benefit from a faithful man.
EB - "You disagree with "till death do us part."
Not at all. I'm in that situation myself.
I'm saying that if you hadn't met "Susan" in "Gary, Indiana", are you saying you don't believe you would have met another woman you love and would be committed to just as much?
I'm saying you would have.
I'm saying there are thousands of women in this world of 6.5 billion people, split it at 3.25 billion women opposed to men, that any of us men Could fall in love with, be committed to and take til the death do us part pledge.
EB "promiscuous man"
If you're talking about My comments, and I didn't think you were, I thought you were talking about Chris Rock, then I must point out that you must of missed the part about my comment being in the abstract.
Your thoughts...
Kid said...
Elmers Brother, commercials portray men as knuckledragging idiots because it serves to break up the family unit. All part of the communist agenda that stared in the 60's with LBJ, and culminated in paying to pop kids out like pieces of toast and women's lib, multi-culturalism, victimization, PC-ness, etc.
----------
I have to laugh at this. What do you consider America's "Golden Age"? When was there a better time to live?
I'm not being sarcastic, just curious.
The defeatist attitude among conservatives is worthless and a waste of time.
And I didn't glean from Elbro's comments that there is only one suitable mate per person. :)
EB - "You disagree with "till death do us part."
Not at all. I'm in that situation myself.
I'm saying that if you hadn't met "Susan" in "Gary, Indiana", are you saying you don't believe you would have met another woman you love and would be committed to just as much
I know what you meant, I was trying to be funny and I think my comment explaining the quote should suffice for an answer. However if you're still confused I can clarify further.
The defeatist attitude among conservatives is worthless and a waste of time.
Not only defeatist Jen, but buying into the materialist world view, hook, line and sinker.
my comment "till death do us part"...is suggesting to you that my faithfulness to my wife will have been fulfilled at that point, so of course I would feel free to love again. However, that's not the point of the quote...comprende?
Not only defeatist Jen, but buying into the materialist world view, hook, line and sinker.
If we're simply a product of our DNA, time + chance + matter, then fidelity, love, searching for meaning is useless. Life not only has no meaning but life becomes worth-less.
I'm saying there are thousands of women in this world of 6.5 billion people, split it at 3.25 billion women opposed to men, that any of us men Could fall in love with, be committed to and take til the death do us part pledge.
It's still one woman.
Jen Neifer. First Off - Thank You for asking !
America's Golden age. I've actually been thinking about his lately so it's very opportune that you ask.
I'd say that i modern times defined as post Indian and Civil wars, that the golden years were the Roaring 20's and the 50's and 60's.
Many folks will attest to this so I won't add the testaments.
The roaring 20's were post WWI and the 50's and 60's were immediately post WWII.
Admittedly there are lots of factors one could attribute to both of those eras, but what has been occurring to me was that post WWI and WWII, there was a low population of productive males in American society. Given this, the government was in a position (think employees vs employers market) to give as much leeway to the employees as possible because there was much to be done and a lot of revenue to be collected. Hence the Feds got the hell out of the way of American business as well as individuals and allowed capitalism to 'do it's thing' and produce, produce, produce, with as many people working and contributing to the GDP and tax revenue as was humanly possible.
Said simply, government got the hell out of the way, left us alone and the media concentrated on the American Dream and the American Successes.
Today, in contrast, the federal government and its' propaganda whore media arm (including FOX) concentrates on America' failures and demoralizing aspects.
I'll leave it at that but could add more if you like for clarification. Today's America is reverse of the Successful Patriotic, Individual Liberty and Freedoms America of the Roaring 20s and the 50's and 60's.
Realize that every possible group of individuals is now opposed to each other with the government raping the country for every possible angle and few realizing it.
Each of us has been assigned a label and many of us are willing to do violence to many of the people who don't share our label. Tomorrows leaders are ready to carry this concept into the future at warp speed.
What is accepted by the current generation is embraced by the next generation. Can you imagine what's going on today being embraced by tomorrows leaders?
Good God.
Life in America pretty much sucks today and talking and voting are useless to altering course.
Good luck to all of you.
EB, we got failure to communicate here. Best to you and your family.
The roaring 20's were post WWI and the 50's and 60's were immediately post WWII.
The "roaring" 20s was one of the most decadent decades in our country....
EB, OK. Got ya. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but my perspective still doesn't fit in completely with the words you are typing :)
- I can emotionally Love many women and still provide commitment to one.
- In other circumstances - catastrophes - I could provide ALL to many women if the women to men ratio was say 10 women to 1 man and commit to more than 1. This goes on today in quite healthy environments though not to a large degree.
I believe the family unit is the most important thing for nurturing a healthy growing civilization.
"Love many women...while remaining committedto one...you mean like your sister?
Otherwise I suggest becoming reacquainted with the definition
Healthy for whom?
Kid, I don't believe there has ever been, nor ever will be a Golden Age.
Nobody can be objective about their current age, because history is not objective.
My point is: a defeatist attitude will breed apathy and contempt in our children. Thereby perpetuating the cycle.
There is no better time to be alive.
Question: are you a polygamist?
Fidelity is about sexual faithfulness, so a man who "LOVES" many women implies promiscuity, not some abstract 'emotional ' attachment to 3.25 billion women.
As someone who grew up on the "High Plains" in Texas, I think that the complete freedom to produce, produce, produce led to farmers over-working the land (in blind greed), which contributed greatly to the Dust Bowl. That, coupled with unbridled greed on Wall Street, pretty much set the scene for misery.
EB "Love many women...while remaining committedto one...you mean like your sister?"
Fuck you. Is that clear enough?
Jen Neifer, comment at 7:03.
well I agree, but also say that happily whistling past the graveyard also has Grave consequences.
Kid you misunderstand....when I said like your sister I meant the emotional love you have for your sister...it wasn't am insult ...it was a question...do you mean the emotional love like you have for your sister?
Jen, No, I'm not now, nor have I ever been a polygamist
Jen - No, the dust bowl was created by the weather conditions at the time it was created. Times of wetness, times of drought.
Are you and EB for real ?? hahaha Good God.
EB, Sister. Ok, close enough.
I love all people until they do something that proves to me they don't deserve it.
In the esoteric, Yes, I can love any woman worth loving. I can provide support to that woman without it being intercourse.
In the practical, Yea, I can look at a passing woman and appreciate her beauty, and casting all reality aside, see myself physically loving her. But we can't cast reality aside can we.
No whistling here. I teach my children my values, and that includes personal responsibility.
But really, I feel disgusted when conservatives bemoan the state of our nation. It's just pathetic and it plays to the paranoid, catastrophizing caricature that leftists love to mock. I can honestly see how young people would see that and run the other way. Who wants to play on a losing team of sad sacks??
Yeah. I'm very real.
What I'm asking kid relates to your comment - you said you can emotionally love more than one woman while remaining committed to one...My question is do you mean like the love one has for a sister?
If you do I would tend to agree with you. If not then I would question why you would be faithful when its obvious your heart lies elsewhere.
The second part of your comment I don't really understand...the catastrophe ....the healthy polygamous relationships I question who its healthy for?
Jen, I gotta say something here.
"Greed on Wall Street"
Greed is what causes capitalism to be the most effective economic system in the history of the world.
Company a, b, c, and d all creating cell phones.
By competing with each other, one of those companies will produce and supply to US, the most economical, most functional and leasing cell phone. ?? Get it ?
In the absence of having a company a, b, c, d environment, you end up with a a Russian YUGO car that is a POS and that the population has no option other than to buy and live with that POS. get it?
It's why Russia lost the cold war. It's why People are Fleeing Russia and coming to America.
Judge a country by the number of people fleeing versus the number of people arriving on its shore.
But this is about fidelity ( sexual) and I simply do not believe its possible without love. ...if you truly understand love fidelity will never be a question
Love is so much more than an emotional attachment
And loving people with phileos love is much different than an agape love
EB, July 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM
Maybe this would describe it best. I LOVE women I've left behind. I'm committed to the one I'm with now.
?
As far as Catastrophe. Have you seen the movie Dr Strangelove ?
Near the end when it is assumed the entire world will be destroyed by nuclear explosion, Dr Strangelove suggests that some number of Americans retreat to deep mineshafts, and to assure the survival of patriotic Americans, each male, selected by computer for genetic background and intelligence will be assigned 10 females of sufficient attractiveness so as to produce as many productive American children as possible while the radioactivity dissipates to the point that they can once again move back above ground.
Yea, fairly serious catastrophy
Yep. I understand. I have changed, thankfully.
Good to see you, Elbro. :-)
Kid, I gotta say something here. Go take your meds. ;)
Perhaps you love them with a phileos love, assuming you're faithful to your significant other.
Dr. Strangelove - fiction
Jen, Good for you and thank you. Every little bit helps but realize:
- the entire media is a propaganda whore that works for the democrat party.
- the democrat party are evil beyond belief. the repubs are useless and are currently moving into the evil category themselves.
The guy in the white house is a racist, anti-American, military hating, capitalism hating, muslim activist from Freakin KENYA and 50% + of the country not only doesn't give a shit, but actually supports it.
Hey, if you want to go through life with a coke and a smile thinking everything is cool. 1.) I can't blame you because you can't do anything about it. and 2.) You're in denial. As long as you know that, then whatever works for you.
A smart man once said "See both sides. Always see both sides. You may not agree with the other side, but if you don't understand the other side, you are doing yourself a disservice". I couldn't agree more.
I've shut down a lot of the 'news' myself. I can't do anything about it, and if I let it get to me to the point of making me negative then 'they've' gotten me twice. That's not gonna happen.
I'm going to have a good time and deal with what gets in my face, or knocks on my door as necessary.
And I would say if these old loves are "options" that Chris Rock is wrong
EB - "Dr. Strangelove - fiction "
Yea? so?
So it has no basis in reality
"So it has no basis in reality"
Well, that was actually the 3rd sentence in my Original comment...
"It is only the sad reality of life and cultural restriction that give him pause. It is the need for a stable family and/or home life that keep him somewhat willingly chained to the wall.
.
.
July 22, 2013 at 4:49 PM"
Hi Jen Z has my emailif you'd like to reconnect
Jen PSS, But I'm going to keep myself educated as to what these bastards are up to, how it may affect me, and plan for how I may deal with it.
To do anything else is foolhardy.
And by repeating your comment I'm emphasizing my point that fideliy must include agape love....not some empty cinematic necessity
I'll say it again:
But really, I feel disgusted when conservatives bemoan the state of our nation. It's just pathetic and it plays to the paranoid, catastrophizing caricature that leftists love to mock. I can honestly see how young people would see that and run the other way.
Kid, I mean no harm. I would LOVE to see a conservative base with an optimistic attitude, determined to make positive change.
It's hard to come by in the blogosphere.
Good deal, Elbro. :-)
EB, I would never agree that any kind of love is Empty.
Kid its myopic to only consider the temporal, politics, the culture etc...will always disappoint. The one glimpse we have of the eternal are the relationships we take seriously enough not to screw up.
Would you say then that sex for the sake of sex can be empty?
Jen, I agree. I personally believe that reality aware people have come to realize that there are no politicians who are working for either Us, or America.
I agree it's pretty bleak, but to deny the problem only delays the solution.
There are no republicans who are worth a damn. There is insufficient support for a 3rd party.
denial, anger, depression, acceptance.
I'm at the acceptance phase and I'm thinking about solutions that do not involve the current political 2 party construct.
If you want to view me as a debbie downer as a result, then Ok.
No problem can be solved before it is defined and realized.
Because as I understand in the movie hes suggesting it merely as a way to repopulate the earth, yes?
Pragmatic perhaps, but empty
Jen, I believe you and many others are frogs in water. Eventually, and I think Soon, you will feel the water boiling.
I offer this in the best possible spirit of your welfare.
- Over and out.
EB, Have you seen the movie?
If not, it's pretty cool.
But no, it is not about repopulating the Earth, it is about repopulating AMERICA.
difference
Either way....the point is the same. Pragmatic but empty.
And that's if you equate sex with love - big mistake
And an adoption of the very cultural mores we conservatives despise
Wow...this post took on a life of its' own.
Just thought I'd through some gas on the fire. ;P
Speedy,
this post took on a life of its' own.
Hasn't it, though?
Interesting conversation -- maybe because men are from Mars and women are from Venus. **smile**
I hadn't seen these comments before I closed down for a week. Kid emailed and mentioned your exchanges, so I thought I'd come look;
WOW.
I will quickly say:
Kid and Elbro:I do think men are more promiscuous and more eager to just 'do it' than 'MOST' women are. And I think more and more women are getting to the male stage of "any port in a storm," sadly. And I think that's a terrible, terrible state of affairs and will only take American culture down faster than it already has gone down.
Double standard? you bet.
Jen, how can ANYBODY not bemoan the state of our country today?
Liberals have done that too, particularly during Bush; CONSTANTLY, in fact.
Our country is going so far downhill SO fast, that it's hard to not recognize that.
Are we not to mention it because we'll turn kids off?
Kid, I am a Republican who's worth a damn, no? I don't like to associate with the R's much, but in contrast to the D's, I am an R!
byeee,y'all!
We can bellyache all day long, Z.
I just don't think it does us any good.
As a parent, I choose to focus on the solution, rather than the problem...but that doesn't mean that I deny the problem to begin with.
My argument wasn't about who cheats more...its simply this....don't assume any one male is like the other. I don't think with my penis
Z, when I say republican, I'm talking politicians only.
Otehrwise, to all good looking women, be advised I'm now officially on the hunt for you. In the abstract of course.
Love by its very nature is exclusive. An "I do" also has a corresponding "no I won't "
EB,
Love by its very nature is exclusive. An "I do" also has a corresponding "no I won't "
Well said!
Lust and love are not the same thing!
Post a Comment