A woman's 7 year secret

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Troops,


Without standards, or without the embracing of moral absolutes of SOME kind, situations like this will continue to occur----whether a man or woman reveals their lack of integrity 7 years from now, or 107 years from now.

Situational ethics, political correctness, and the "anything goes" mentality is always great until WE are on the receiving end of the outcome of said lifestyle, isn't it?

In many ways, since seeds of self interest seem to be the majority of the seeds sown in this society, is it any wonder that the moral crops we keep seeing pop up are so corrupt? Whatever happened to ostracizing people for Wack Assed behavior, whether they're women OR men?

It seems we've allowed our desire for SELF-gratification to overwhelm our sense of justice and fairness...and to even MENTION "right and wrong" would make many here SO incensed that they'd stop reading THIS particular post altogether. Which, in fact, would PROVE the point I just made.

This is why when many react angrily to being agressed upon (see---CHEATED ON, LIED TO, BILKED AND SWINDLED), it's always a good idea to do a self-diagnostic and see if WE might be in need of a little "character" tune up as well.

In other words, only those who choose to direct their lives by operating from at least a PERSONAL moral compass should have a right to EXPECT others to treat them with consideration as well.

Here's the PROBLEM:

As long as mankind continues to INSIST that he is no better than the lowest of animals, HE (meaning male AND female) will NEVER rise above his current Sub-Par state because he will not believe, accept, or recognize it when the exact moment of his INSPIRATION to ELEVATE the motivation for his continued existence comes.

However, if MEN and WOMEN can look past their own selfish interests for but a MOMENT, they could recognize something that they've been unable or UNWILLING to before:

We are more than what we THINK or have been TOLD we are from a text book. And equally as important, recognize that our pasts STILL do not have to equal our future. Our power of choice, free will, and ability to self-reflect differentiates us from everything else alive.

All "DJ" tricks aside. All "Masculine Energy Emissions" aside, nothing takes the place of choosing a woman with self-respect and good character. And the more we let ourselves AND the women we interact with get away with selfish behavior, the more dicey even the process of RECOGNIZING a good woman becomes.

As long as people don't hold themselves accountable for their own actions, heartless shiit like what the original poster shared with us will continue to go on UNABATED. No one is immune to accountability---women nor men.

For some of us, the goal is to always actively participate in our own "Shang Chi" - The rising and advancing of our spirits."

Only when people can accept and admit that they are NOT servants to their instincts and hormones, can they raise their standards of behavior.

Anybody (whether it's a man or woman) who constantly uses the "it's just genetics" or "it's just the way that I am" or the "I was in trouble, so I just did what I HAD to do" justifications only do so to rationalize the hurt that they cause others-----AND to be able to sleep at night.

While the REAL truth is that they have just willingly turned their backs on Freedom of Choice, because to them, the price was too high.

So instead, they've chosen to sublimate their will and take upon themselves the yoke of BONDAGE that comes from living their lives by biological impulses, emotional placation, and self interest ALONE.

...like DOGS returning to vomit.

 

[jonwon]

Yo Troops,


Without standards, or without the embracing of moral absolutes of SOME kind, situations like this will continue to occur----whether a man or woman reveals their lack of integrity 7 years from now, or 107 years from now.

Situational ethics, political correctness, and the "anything goes" mentality is always great until WE are on the receiving end of the outcome of said lifestyle, isn't it?

In many ways, since seeds of self interest seem to be the majority of the seeds sown in this society, is it any wonder that the moral crops we keep seeing pop up are so corrupt? Whatever happened to ostracizing people for Wack Assed behavior, whether they're women OR men?

It seems we've allowed our desire for SELF-gratification to overwhelm our sense of justice and fairness...and to even MENTION "right and wrong" would make many here SO incensed that they'd stop reading THIS particular post altogether. Which, in fact, would PROVE the point I just made.

This is why when many react angrily to being agressed upon (see---CHEATED ON, LIED TO, BILKED AND SWINDLED), it's always a good idea to do a self-diagnostic and see if WE might be in need of a little "character" tune up as well.

In other words, only those who choose to direct their lives by operating from at least a PERSONAL moral compass should have a right to EXPECT others to treat them with consideration as well.

Here's the PROBLEM:

As long as mankind continues to INSIST that he is no better than the lowest of animals, HE (meaning male AND female) will NEVER rise above his current Sub-Par state because he will not believe, accept, or recognize it when the exact moment of his INSPIRATION to ELEVATE the motivation for his continued existence comes.

However, if MEN and WOMEN can look past their own selfish interests for but a MOMENT, they could recognize something that they've been unable or UNWILLING to before:

We are more than what we THINK or have been TOLD we are from a text book. And equally as important, recognize that our pasts STILL do not have to equal our future. Our power of choice, free will, and ability to self-reflect differentiates us from everything else alive.

All "DJ" tricks aside. All "Masculine Energy Emissions" aside, nothing takes the place of choosing a woman with self-respect and good character. And the more we let ourselves AND the women we interact with get away with selfish behavior, the more dicey even the process of RECOGNIZING a good woman becomes.

As long as people don't hold themselves accountable for their own actions, heartless shiit like what the original poster shared with us will continue to go on UNABATED. No one is immune to accountability---women nor men.

For some of us, the goal is to always actively participate in our own "Shang Chi" - The rising and advancing of our spirits."

Only when people can accept and admit that they are NOT servants to their instincts and hormones, can they raise their standards of behavior.

Anybody (whether it's a man or woman) who constantly uses the "it's just genetics" or "it's just the way that I am" or the "I was in trouble, so I just did what I HAD to do" justifications only do so to rationalize the hurt that they cause others-----AND to be able to sleep at night.

While the REAL truth is that they have just willingly turned their backs on Freedom of Choice, because to them, the price was too high.

So instead, they've chosen to sublimate their will and take upon themselves the yoke of BONDAGE that comes from living their lives by biological impulses, emotional placation, and self interest ALONE.

...like DOGS returning to vomit.

I love your posts man
Integrity and open honesty is something that is lacking for most people sadly, at least if your moral compass is that off a dog, granted i do some anamilistic behavours and enjoy it, at least I can do it with out the veil of deciet and destructive choices, granted i have used manipulation but never to the point of degredation! Some people actually rather alot will sacrific ideals of others for selfish gains, what ever the cost.

For the OP.
I am not going to comment, the guy will make is choice regardless of advice posted here, but thanks for posting it, a reality check is always a good thing to see.

 

[blueguy]

I'm with Victory Unlimited. Humans set morals and laws for a reason. Stealing, murdering, cheating. Humans are more intellectually developed than any other animal.

Only when people can accept and admit that they are NOT servants to their instincts and hormones, can they raise their standards of behavior.

Exactly. If we all listened to the pleasure-centered part of our brain without letting the logic part of our brain intefere, we'd all be laying home with a steady flow of heroin being injected into our bloodstream and masturbating ferociously like a bunch of rats in a crazy lab experiment.

But we're smarter than rats.

Heroin-addicted rats don't know heroin is bad for them. That's why they keep taking it until their death. They don't have a set of morals to live by. They just follow their instincts because they do not have a 'society.' Is society a bad thing?

A lot of people think that since we're biologically wired to take in or activate whatever fuels our dopamine levels that whatever does fuel these levels is good for us. Fortunately, there is education on food and drug addictions.

It wasn't until the 1900s that many drugs were actually deemed dangerous for us. If it weren't for scientific research into the matter, certain drugs would still be legal and long-term effects of them unknown. Many people would still take them thinking that they are actually good for them. Maybe even 50% of the population would take certain drugs. Would that make it right? No. These people wouldn't know they were harming themselves.

Unfortunately, scientific research into the effects of an unnatural contraceptive promiscuous sex life are much more complicated. Likely because it is fairly new. Society is not currently very well educated on which people are happier - those who live life in family units or those that go through life without. As time passes, families and children are projected to shrink dramatically, which will have devasting impacts on the way society operates that we've never seen before. As more are influenced to believe that cheating is natural, more become uninhibited in their sexual practices and believe sex and relationships are two completely separate acts. The effects of this new casual sex, non-family lifestyle are still relatively new and unproven.

I don't know if Rollo is just playing devil's advocate here, but I am against using the word "cheat" in parenthesis as if cheating does not exist and/or should not exist since we are biologically wired to do so. Cheating always has and always will exist to intellectually developed humans who as a society have an educated belief that understands the significance sex has on relationship bonding, childhood development, family life, survival and ultimately happiness.

 

[mrRuckus]

The cheating rate in marriages actually runs just shy of 30% for men, and 25% for women. In other words, we're actually the ones that cheat more. Naturally, its our nature to do so (see RT's eloquent discussion on darwinian theory as proof).

I'd bet my life on it that my wife hasn't cheated. I bet RT would too.

I don't think it counts as cheating if the reason the man 'cheated' was because his wife won't give him the same amount of sex she gave him before marriage.

I think at this point she violated the contract and thus he no longer has to follow the contract either.

 

[PRMoon]

What alot of people are forgetting in the men pair widely vs. women pair wisely discussion is that there was diffinitive competetion between male species that let us stand out from one another. Women chose the male that was the strongest of the species as depected by stature or combat. With the human species, this confilict is more clouded then it was in the days before civilization. I can go on an on about why I'm the guy who should be having some chicks child. I could say I have x amount of money, or x amount of stability or x amount of family at my back, x amount of lineage blah blah blah etc etc. What it boils down to is I can manage having your child in our advance civilization which may or many not advance our species but really it doesn't matter because we control our enviroment and food sources which is really all we need to thrive and survive in nature. It's stupid, we go on preaching about how we can't out grow nature but we're already there. I beat nature every day by turning up my thermistat or going to the supermarket. I can treverse large amounts of land becasue I want to, not because I need to in order to find better climate (which I control) or becuase I need to find food (which some one else provides me).

Really the laws of man are what it's come down to. It's my pride on the line at this point. Am I rasing my child or some one elses? Either way I think about it, it's a plauseable situation in which I'll garner some form of sucess or failure depending on me excusively. It's not like this individual child will lead to the sucess or the failure of the species as a whole as nature dictates. In all likelyhood the child as welll as myself won't make too much of a differece as a whole. We MIGHT be published in history books or invent the better lightbulb but humans will get along one way or the other whether it's my kid or his kid. It matters to you because it's pride on the line. I want to be proud of MY kid. I might be ridiculed if it's her ex's kid. It's natural to think this way becuause one of the first things a male lion does after he's taken over a pride is kill the cubs of the previous alpha male. Genetic encoding provides us with the predisposition for shunning someone elses child, but again we live in the society of man. It need not be a viscious cycle because we control so much. It's our responsibilty as men to realize that we fight and beat nature in so many ways but haven't caught up in terms of evolution and biology. When we can think along those lines we'll have truely evolved, not physically but mentally which is the ulitmate change and involves the most work. I pray for humanity every day and every day is just as dissapointing as the one before.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Morals are conveniences when they serve our interests and inconveniences when they don't. Ethics and morals are essentially behavior modification methods that are socialized across a culture and there are many examples of individual culture's subscribing to one set of 'moral' practices that are in direct contradiction to another's. In many Asian cultures pre-arranged marriages were (and still are) common place. This offends our westernized romantic notions of choice and perhaps even fidelity, but to the culture's practicing it the opposite is equally offensive. A woman covered head to toe and walking 8 steps behind her husband at all times is 'moral' in some cultures and only a few thousand years ago a wealthy Jewish man was expected to have multiple wives and servants, all of whom he could legitimately have sex with and bear children with. None of the practioners of these customs would have questioned the moral validity of them at the time, yet we think of them as regressive and/or barbaric from our own sense of morality.

The whole reason for this is that there are no moral absolutes because they are constantly in flux and evolve, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, to better suit the conditions that a particular culture or environment demands. Any notion of moral behavior is dictated by our own need, or a society's need on whole to modify the behavior of others around us. Moral behavior is still behavior, with all of it's accompanying motivations and latent purposes. For every example of a perceived moral dictum I can easily show and prove an environmental and/or biological prompt for it.

 

[Latinoman]

All "DJ" tricks aside. All "Masculine Energy Emissions" aside, nothing takes the place of choosing a woman with self-respect and good character.

I agree 100% with that. It is about choosing the right woman. But MANY women will show a fascade in order to make you believe "she is the one". How can you dismantle that fascade? By understanding the risks and consequences of dating certain type of women. We know that there are some exceptions to the rule...but those "exceptions" to the rule are VERY minimal.

The truly best way to understand the true nature of a particular woman is by understanding her past (long term, mid term, and near term). By non-chalantly talking about that past as it relates to "moralistic" issues (without neglecting the issues of self-respect). And by understanding the 'hibernation syndrome'.

There are some GREAT women out there. I was married to one. RT and Anazon, I'm sure each are married to one too.

But even I realized that the likelihood of finding somebody like that is very slim. Heck...even if I find somebody like that again, I might not marry her because my focus is in other things or she might have integrity/self-respect but for the same token be a little whiny or controlling.

Fellows...understanding the LIKELY behavior of a certain group with certain qualities is very important when making life-changing decisions.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Good post, Latinoman.



I agree with your assessment of the importance of picking the right "type" of woman. And one thing I've discovered is that there is a hidden danger to directly telling a woman what you want IN a woman.

Why? Because there are some women who, as you have said, are so dam ready to go into hibernation that she'll IMMEDIATELY start playing the role you want her to play in order to GET you hooked.

And then, as you've stated before, when she's gotten comfortable in the relationship, and her level of control over the man is at it's pinnacle, she flips the script on his ass. Then the furry kitten turns into the rabid wolf.

The best way I've found to combat this, AFTER of course trying to pick a good "type" of woman, is to not communicate my likes and dislikes in a woman verbally. Instead, I let her be WHO she's gonna be. And if WHO she is happens to be to my liking, I will train her by my responses to her what I like and DON'T like about her behavior.

No plan is foolproof of course. But SO FAR, this is the best way I've found to increase my chances of acquiring a woman of likemindedness and character.

Maybe in THIS way, there lies a hope in NOT winding up with a woman who emerges from hibernation 7 years later roaring "I've been cheating on you and Yo ass is NOT the baby's father" .



Peace...one day.

 

[Latinoman]

And one thing I've discovered is that there is a hidden danger to directly telling a woman what you want IN a woman.

Why? Because there are some women who, as you have said, are so dam ready to go into hibernation that she'll IMMEDIATELY start playing the role you want her to play in order to GET you hooked.

I rarely date anyone WITHOUT having seduced them first (e.g. kissing and very likely sex). I won’t even try to go into a relationship with a woman if I have not seduced her first. I strongly believe that the chemical attraction (that strong attraction a woman feels for a man) is very important and I won’t go out in a relationship with a woman that lacks that STRONG chemical attraction for me. And women tend to talk a lot at that stage. Heck, conversation can become sexual and there is when you truly can cunningly get some information about the things she has done. Bit and pieces of information that you would probably not care much at this stage, but they might become VERY important in the event of a committed relationship.

Now…once that is taken care off (e.g. sex, etc.) then I start mentioning my views. And I mention that indirectly or via examples (e.g. The Notebook movie is a good example to mention something to the effect of the lack of integrity that particular woman had). And I will obviously talk about the issue of respect (that, I would do directly).

Many women will try to cover her tracks and try to make similar remarks to make you believe “she is the one” or that she has “similar values”. The issue here is that if you have a LOT of experience (either by being involved in your past with women that cheated or by you cheating or by knowing of female friends that cheated or by knowing of female friends of your ex-wife that cheated) understanding certain character flaws (note: that is a very ambiguous term as we have different standards and definitions of what might be a character flaw), then you will find ways of learning more. Good ways is after several weeks inside the relationship (and “relationship” here means SEXUAL in nature) being introduced to long time friends (they sometimes joke and talk) or family or by accidentally looking at photo albums (e.g. you were alone in the house, and saw this book and suddenly saw pictures of her acting in certain behavior that goes against your values).

Now…there are women that will respect you irregardless of their past. And those women you might be able to keep like that in a LTR (other than marriage). However, a marriage is a complete different thing as it should be a lifetime “investment”.

 

[joekerr31]

victory unlimited - you and rollo always have bang on posts.

to add to your thoughts...

it just goes to show you, dont judge a woman based on what you see, judge her also on your gut / instinct.

you have to have your eyes wide open when she starts behaving oddly.

like take this guy we're all talking about. now i can't know. but i bet you during those months when she was eating someone elses hot dog that this guy probably sensed something was wrong.

even if he was travelling he probably came home and her demeanor was off. sure, she probably excused with a bunch of lies. and you know what, i bet deep down inside he knew something wasn't right in denmark.

at that point he should have started digging deeper into her psyche. OR, if she's just bound and convinced to play up that her off-mood is because of something that is clearly not the case - get the hell out.

there are probably TONS of guys who dated women, even then married them. and during the relationship, at some point for like a 2-6 month period, everything was just off. they couldn't put their finger on it, but something was just really off for no apparent reason. and their girl was probably getting banged in the *ss by some 12 inch black man. then suddenly, her mood just flips back to what it was before and she's all in love again and they go off and get married. ie. she got it out of her system, came to her senses, and hooked the AFC that would bust his balls his whole life to provide for her.

but the point is what happened to this guy could happen to a lot of guys. which is why when a woman starts sending really wierd vibes and she can't explain why and she actually blames you for wondering what the hell is going on - MOVE ON.

 

[azanon]

I don't think it counts as cheating if the reason the man 'cheated' was because his wife won't give him the same amount of sex she gave him before marriage.

I think at this point she violated the contract and thus he no longer has to follow the contract either.

I was using the term cheating as a substitute for adultry; but perhaps I should have just used the technical term as to avoid confusion. The term "adultry" is the proper term for having sex with someone else besides your marital partner in probably every state in America.

I wasn't addressing whether doing so is justified or not. If we want to go into that, maybe we should make a new thread.

 

[azanon]

Morals are conveniences when they serve our interests and inconveniences when they don't. Ethics and morals are essentially behavior modification methods that are socialized across a culture and there are many examples of individual culture's subscribing to one set of 'moral' practices that are in direct contradiction to another's. In many Asian cultures pre-arranged marriages were (and still are) common place. This offends our westernized romantic notions of choice and perhaps even fidelity, but to the culture's practicing it the opposite is equally offensive. A woman covered head to toe and walking 8 steps behind her husband at all times is 'moral' in some cultures and only a few thousand years ago a wealthy Jewish man was expected to have multiple wives and servants, all of whom he could legitimately have sex with and bear children with. None of the practioners of these customs would have questioned the moral validity of them at the time, yet we think of them as regressive and/or barbaric from our own sense of morality.

The whole reason for this is that there are no moral absolutes because they are constantly in flux and evolve, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, to better suit the conditions that a particular culture or environment demands. Any notion of moral behavior is dictated by our own need, or a society's need on whole to modify the behavior of others around us. Moral behavior is still behavior, with all of it's accompanying motivations and latent purposes. For every example of a perceived moral dictum I can easily show and prove an environmental and/or biological prompt for it.

You really should write a book. Damn you can write. I agree with you 100% too btw. I'm agnostic.

 

[WaterTiger]

I know I'm coming in a little late on this, but here's my view...or "Life in WaterTiger's Little World".

*No man would have to pay support for a child who wasn't biologically his. The biological father will be tracked down and made to pay. The child will then take HIS name.

*If a biologically discrepancy was discovered later, the mother would have to give custody so she could spend time in jail for fraud.

*Child support payment would be handled through lawyers. The mother presenting sales slips to prove at least 80% of the money is spend ON THE CHILD.

*Unless disabled, the mother cannot be unemployed. She must have at least a part-time job after the child reaches school age.

*If the father has "full custody", there will be no child support paid to the mother. (Don't laugh! This happens!)

These child support payment laws were written decades ago, before DNA testing and before commonly had jobs outside the home. (Back when they depended on men for everything)

 

[KarmaSutra]

I know I'm coming in a little late on this, but here's my view...or "Life in WaterTiger's Little World".

*No man would have to pay support for a child who wasn't biologically his. The biological father will be tracked down and made to pay. The child will then take HIS name.

*If a biologically discrepancy was discovered later, the mother would have to give custody so she could spend time in jail for fraud.

*Child support payment would be handled through lawyers. The mother presenting sales slips to prove at least 80% of the money is spend ON THE CHILD.

*Unless disabled, the mother cannot be unemployed. She must have at least a part-time job after the child reaches school age.

*If the father has "full custody", there will be no child support paid to the mother. (Don't laugh! This happens!)

These child support payment laws were written decades ago, before DNA testing and before commonly had jobs outside the home. (Back when they depended on men for everything)

Jesus. An old bird with some sense and objectivity. A true rarity.

I'm keeping an eye on you . . .

 

[treefingers]

. Moral behavior is still behavior, with all of it's accompanying motivations and latent purposes. For every example of a perceived moral dictum I can easily show and prove an environmental and/or biological prompt for it.

I'm not saying you are wrong per se but there are enough seemingly contrary examples that one can certainly play a convincing devil's advocate.


For instance I read a story awhile ago of an act of bravery in Iraq. Two friends who were soldiers were operating a checkpoint. Neither had children back home. A bad guy came to the checkpoint and proceeded to attack one of the soldiers during which the bad guy brandished a grenade. The other soldier, and friend to the one being attacked, rushed to the scene and in one swoop was able to push his friend to the side(and to safety) and then used his body to absorb the exploding grenade so his friend would not be injured by it. He of course paid the ultimate price for his bravery.

Now here is a man with no children (so he hadn't yet passed on his genes), who knowingly gave his life (thus forfeiting his chance at passing on genes) to save his friend. And he could easily have lived had he wished(he didn't have to do what he did. He could have instead called for help or stood back in order to save himself from the blast rather than try to save his friend at the expense of himself).

Such stories (and there are many more) fly in the face of darwinian evolution; the selfish gene as dawkins calls it.

If you can explain that one within the framework of darwinian evolution then I am all ears.

 

[WaterTiger]

Such stories (and there are many more) fly in the face of darwinian evolution; the selfish gene as dawkins calls it. If you can explain that one within the framework of darwinian evolution then I am all ears.

The trait that flies in the face of darwinian evolution goes by many names. You can call it valor, courage, or insanity. It's the same trait that sends fireman running into a flaming building to rescue YOU and your family. It's the same trait that sends a police officer into a hostage situation to rescue the victims. It's the same one that sends the Coast Guard Rescue swimmers to jump out of a hovering chopper into stormy water to save someone they never met from drowning. (Just saw "The Guardian", had to put that in.)

Are these men stupid? Undesireable? Self destructive? Most folks call them heros.

I call it "Community". Groups of people can survive better than individuals. Saving people who are your own flesh and blood is admirable. Saving people who are not, makes the community stronger, a sharing community survives better than an ego driven one.

 

[blueguy]

So the discussion is heading in another direction. So what do you guys think? Do you think the morals of westernized society will evolve the to the point where sexual fidelity is no longer part of the moral code book? Where marriage is extinct? I'm curious what most people think on this matter since it seems to be a large debate (sexual fidelity and marriage). Do you really think society as a whole is better off without?

I personally don't. To be honest, I think it is possible this is the main reason some ancient religions were formed - to worry people into following a set of moral practices for the benefit of the society.

 

[lee36044]

So the discussion is heading in another direction. So what do you guys think? Do you think the morals of westernized society will evolve the to the point where sexual fidelity is no longer part of the moral code book? Where marriage is extinct? I'm curious what most people think on this matter since it seems to be a large debate (sexual fidelity and marriage). Do you really think society as a whole is better off without?

Seems like we tried that in the free love sixties and the promiscous seventies. Whatever did happen to all those relationship and sexuality fads? Ohhh .. I remember ... they fell by the wayside! Because they sounded good in theory but were just contrary to plain old ornery human nature! Once you find a good partner ... it just don't feel right to share :nono: Not to mention the AIDS scare of the eighties!

I personally don't. To be honest, I think it is possible this is the main reason some ancient religions were formed - to worry people into following a set of moral practices for the benefit of the society.

Most ancient religions were about appeasing the unknown and avoiding catastrophe! So all ancient religions had an element of control in them. They almost invariably included fertility rites and worship of the magical component of "woman, the life giver" too. Back in the day, babies were an asset ... people were few, scattered, and vulnerable. So fertility was something the gods mandated.

The old testament is just full of good old fashioned survival knowledge that kept the semi nomadic herdsman of the time from commiting racial suicide. Things like clean camp rules to prevent disease. Avoidance of foods that could cause disease or poisoning if improperly prepared. Rules for mating to avoid the consequences of inbreeding. And commands to be fruitful so the tribe would survive!

But marriage is a social construct more than religious. The gods ordained fruitfulness ... men made the rules about how it was acheived.

On the question, magic 8-ball says, "the future is cloudy!" And it really depends on whether enough voices speak out in support of either of the two paths you mention. We might just chooe neiher and cruise along merrily fvcking our way to DJ'dom while the whole damn society collapses around us too! History does repeat and it has happened to societies before.

Since I don't have answers, I'll fuel the fire a little here.

Think about this ... we are already living in a society where nearly every negative consequence of violating the existing moral codes pertaining to marriage and fidelity have already been legislated away. The average idiot on the street is already all about instant gratification. Most have no ingrained moral code to fall back on either! Do you really think that the majority of these people will follow a moral code that has no provision for enforcement if it interferes with their desires? Or will they do what they please as they will suffer no consequence for violating that toothless code?

Maybe if enough of us "man up" and rediscover a few things like honor, integrity, and even that old standby , the golden rule, things like marriage and fidelity can begin to have some value in this culture again. Until that happens ... it doesn't really take a magic 8 ball to see where things are likely to end up!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

TREEFINGERS, there are many examples in the natural world of what appears to be altruism, but the motivations behind it are what gives it away. Meerkats live in a cooperative community and post guards to lookout for potential threats to that community. It's common practice among these lookout Meerkats to sound a warning loud enough to alert the clan, but also specifically to draw attention to themselves. They often make no effort for self-preservation and allow themselves to be killed in order to forestall a predator and give time for community members to seek safety.

This may appeal to our sense of morality to be an altruistic act of self-sacrifice, but it's really one example of species preservation among higher order animals. I read about the soldier falling on the grenade in Iraq and there are many other similar stories of exactly this same act in other conflicts throughout history. And while I can't say for certain what a man's personal reasons were for self-sacrifice, I do know the function for which the behavior occurs - sacrifice for the greater good. One dies so that that a majority do not, makes for an efficient preservation of the whole. A bee stings, perhaps without knowing it will kill him, in order to preserve the collective. It's written into it's biology to react to threats in such a way. For the same reason I sincerely doubt that a soldier throwing himself on a grenade would have any premeditated concept of sacrifice for a whole. Nor would I say the guy gave any forethought, much less had the time to do so, to contemplate who in the group had kids to live for or assessing the individual value of their existence, or thinking he would live on in infamy - he just reacted.

Often what we call acts of courage, heroism, cowardice, or even greed are little more than necessary behaviors of what a particular condition demands of us. We can afford the luxury to call these behaviors what we'd like after the fact, but often we don't have the time to contemplate the consequences of our reaction - we just do things autonomously some times. A soldier has 5-10 seconds to react to a live grenade, but we've got a lifetime to define what heroism is.

 

[lee36044]

Hey Jonwon, total agreement here on the religion statements. I confined that answer to "ancient" religions to avoid the long dissertation . But ancient religions were more about fear of consequences in the real world ... not the afterlife. If you eat rotted meat, the gods will punish you by making you sick! If you don't propitiaate the fertility deity, the gods will punish you by not sending babies to help the tribe survive. So yes there is an element of control but for the most part it was a matter of the shaman guiding or influencing the tribal leaders than controlling. Yes it's a very fine line. Modern religion on the other hand? 100% control, as you said.

Probably should have added that although marriage is a social construct ... religion is normally the major influence in the form that construct takes.

The point about society's influence was that with no effective consequences to fear for breaking the moral code, most people won't live by it. So we have to develop our own code and then if marriage is to be part of our life, we have to find a partner who has personal beliefs that concur with our moral code. Because our current society no longer has the ability to effectively impose that code.