Questions Game

Spendius - I'm no God to have the power to forgive. Faults are a part of human nature and there's nothing I can do about it. It's just as it is.

You say language even when used well make the situation worse. From my experience, I wouldn't tell that. "Confusion of sentiments" make the situation worse but language can improve it. That's why I evoqued the subject.

Speaking of personal preferences, homemade soup, fags, television and snoozing are subjects I do not value (exception for beer).

Dev - The topic I was willing to discuss was "love talk", the basic one, between lovers. Not the intellectual litterary chat.

Very much so dev.I'm one of those young men.I might be considered half way to being an expert.I didn't care for Ms Jong's book overmuch but I might get it out and have another look.Ah-but I was so much older then,I'm younger than that noooooow!Dylan met Miller.Henry said to a naked maid-"get the folk-singer Johnnie a drink willya?"
Dylan said after that he'd never been put down as good as that before.Well-Henry was 70odd.

One of the effects is that I have to go to the pub now without fail.

You will be nice to the others won't you?

Why shouldn't I be nice to others?
I have to agree with Francis, love - romantic love that is -
cannot be defined by quoting love from the mouth of famous authors.

Even with a high divorce rate and ending relationships,
most all of them have experienced love at one point in their
relationship, and know what the feeling represents.
Neither do I care, what Bob Dylan, in his drunken stooper,
said to Miller, all those things are irrelevant.

One should be able to draw a conclusion from his/her own
experience, don't you think?

Not at all.But I have to go.

F-You misunderstood.My English no doubt.

Maybe later eh?

Okay.

Is it later now?

Yesh.It shure ish.

No.I'm only kidding.

Yes it is my leetle shunshiney.

Look Cal.I represent the authentic voice of blokes.You represent the authentic voice of our companions.If we,us,blokes,allowed the feminine perspective to present itself as self-evidently perfect then what?How could men and women possibly understand each other if women have an illusory picture of men.The 50% divorce figure SCREAMS that something is wrong.How many more would get divorced if they could afford it or if they didn't care about the kids.My guess is 95%.You don't seriously think that the 50% who don't get divorced are all overjoyed do you?That tells me that the relationship between men and women has broken down.It hasn't for me in case you think I have a subjective agenda.I'm going on the facts.I'm not interested in me.I'm interested in the sociology.

Dylan and Miller and many more may not be relevant to you but they are very relevant to men.
How do you want men to be then.Like they actually are or pretending to be like they ought to be to have your approval.

I think you would hate that.It might be nice for a while but it would get on your nerves after a few years.

Don't you agree?

Puh, just picked up little Jane from summer camp and
they're shooting a movie right in the vicinity, and all those
darn actors are sitting in their trailers and wait...

Do I agree? Somewhat spendius. I just think that marriage
needs to redefine itself. For the last 100 years, we have made progress in all aspects of our lives and environment,
except marriage. It is still the old principle "..till death do us part". I think that's wrong! People didn't live that long
100 years ago thus their marriages didn't last that long either.

Today, we live in a more fast paced society. What we loved
at 25, is obsolete at 35 and again at 45. If you think back
what was important to you then and now, you only can imagine to what degree you've changed. The marriage partner you dearly loved with 25, may have developed into
a different person that does not correlate with your ideas
of marriage and a future life together. People change, and so do marriages. Why do we need to stay together until
death do us part? Why not see it for what it is worth - a union between two people who love each other however
long it lasts. If it doesn't last, then it doesn't.

Why do we hold on to "till death do us part" if we're otherwise not religious at all?

Possibly to try to make us love each other.Maybe if we had to we would learn to do it.Once we don't have to then any effort seems worthless.Or,at least,it doesn't survive a test.And there are powerful forces tempting us to not make the effort.Forces that gain from us not doing.

All the things I loved at 25 I still love and always will do.I'm a right stick-in-the-mud.You can't just glibly say "if it doesn't last it doesn't last".It costs a fortune,kids are devastated,social problems arise and really,when you get right down to it,there's nothing to gain unless you jump right out of the whole shooting match and vow to stay away from it all for ever and are happy with that.I'm not speaking here of abnormal behaviour-then it may be different.But I mean abnormal.

Is abnormal another subjective spectrum depending on toleration capacities?

Sleep nice.

Jane, I think you've hit upon something! It is one thing to be of a religious nature and follow those rules, but another to say you'll follow something like "till death do us part" when you don't have the intention or something like a faith to do so! I'm not sure I've made myself clear. What do you think?

Spendi-, I think in some of the more 'subtle' situations abnormal is difficult to define, but in the psychological realm, I'd say it's a bit easier. Schizophrenia is abnormal to mainstream society (but it could be normal to the schizophrenic!) That's an extreme though. What one may call eccentric another might call abnormal or crazy. What do you think?

I think that abnormal is a combination of the behaviour and the perception of it.So to come nearer to normal,whatever that is,one could work on both.I suppose that is what counsellors actually do.
But the point is the 50% divorce rate which presupposes a fair number barely hanging on.I think Cal is right and in tune with the times and I'm an old fuddy-duddy nostalgically looking back to a golden age which probably only existed in all the literature I've marinated in.But I just think that love looked at as not being permanent is hardly love at all and leads directly to Huxley's vision of it being socially unacceptable to make love to the same woman two nights running and a whole week brought official admonishment.Once the line moves what is there to stop it.It becomes a part of the fashion business.Being in love might just be fashionable.Getting married is good fun isn't it?Even breaking up could be fashionable.And seeing an analyst.That was really fashionable once among the jetters.That's the way it's moving it seems to me.I'm going to be left for dead.A sad dreamer.

Don't you feel sorry for me?

Yes, I feel sorry for you.
As devriesj said earlier, there are different forms of love,
and utter unconditional love exists in my opinion only
between mother and child. Romantic love will always ask
for something in return, whoever thinks differently is illusory. Love between two adults is always a balance between give and take, and although at times, one can give more than the other, should it become customary to give and give and get nothing in return, love will fade. It is
something that needs to be nourished and replenished.

There are couples who can keep the balance and work
on their love equally, however, there are as much couples
out there, who once loved each other dearly, but stopped
working on it, they take each other for granted, and then
frustration, disappointment and other feelings push love
aside and take presence. It has nothing to do with fasionable
spendius, love just takes its toll if not attended to.

Understand?

I'm afraid I don't.It is the sort of thing Agony Aunts say.

Is this love of which you speak a timeless thing and a geographical thing or is it of the millenium straddling years in rich countries.Augustus brought in laws to try to get people to marry and have children and it was so much resisted that even he had to admit defeat.These easy divorce laws have tested love and found it wanting and a new meaning has gathered around the word and it is this new meaning which Francis sought to understand through it's expressions.One of the components of this meaning is an illusory expectation of the characteristics of the love object which is bolstered by the products of the fashion and beauty industries which are designed to render things prettier than they actually are.
I don't understand how you distinguish this temporary love from a crush.
As I said earlier I think you are in tune with the times and not me.The real question is which of our two versions has the sturdiest foundation and thus be the way forward for society.
Are you denying that a large number of people want to be "in love" because being "in love" is such fun and anybody who isn't "in love" needs to get a life and that this makes the want stronger?

But why all these underpant jokes?

Underpant jokes?

To answer your earlier question with a question, Spendi-, should we feel sorry for you and why do you say that? Because you don't have a someone right now or that in your view your outlook is archaic?

I believe that true love is timeless, yes, and rare and exists world-wide. I'm working on my own true love story, not in writing, but in real life. For me, and maybe all 'true' lovers, love is a decision to love every day, forgiving faults, and all that 'through sickness and health' stuff I promised. It's hoping for the best and expecting the worst, and having it usually fall somewhere in between. Wow, there is so much in this subject it would be impossible to write it all here!
I'm sure Augustus had noble intentions, but you can't force people by law to subject themselves to an ideal they may not believe in. Personally, and I realize I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it must be difficult for non-believers (in God) to commit to love if they don't understand it or experience that unconditional love for themselves.
What are your thoughts?

Leaving aside my ironic tendencies I was referring to myself as being out of date.I have enough "someones" to sink a bloody battleship.I'm nearly in Gulliver's class.

I think Cal's idea of intense temporary love is the modern way of the world but it can be like a drug with the lows,at best,balancing the highs.It is when the lows need professional intervention,with drugs or analysts etc,all funded,we might have a problem.

Augustus had the sole intention of providing troops to defend the empire.People often forget that soldiers were once cute bundles of joy gurgling in cradles.He wasn't being ethical or anything silly like that.

Underpant jokes!There are a lot of them with many variations.I chose it as a fairly neutral blanket term to cover all jokes aimed at undermining the dignity of the opposite sex and often people in general.I was referring to how popular such things are and wondering out loud how they fit in with this idealistic love thing.They seem inconsistent with it.
One can turn Adonis into a joke merely by depicting him in Y-fronts.I have seen a few famous film stars play lengthy scenes in long-johns.

Proust suggests that love is a collection of habits which become so ingrained over time that putting them down is like cold turkey.I find that a realistic definition.As you might know Proust takes up a great deal of space on the subject and might have objected to my caricature.

I don't think you should expect the worst.Being prepared for it is another thing and even then a bit half-heartedly.

But a bloke is a bloke and not a puppet.His behaviour may be inconvenient at times but that doesn't make it "wrong".

I don't think it is anyone's intention to see their love
as a temporary union. What I was saying is, that we shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't last "till death do us part".

So far, I haven't met a couple who got married and did
not think it would last forever. Reality does prove us differently though, and despite our efforts to make it last,
it can happen and it does.

devries, I understand perfectly your intention and I hope
and wish you well in your marriage. You seem very content,
so I gathered, you are happy in your marriage, as it should
be. However, I don't think God has anything to do when
marriages fail or if they succeed. I know just as many religious
people divorcing as non-religious ones.

As we discussed somewhere else before (forgot where)
I think that religion is not always couple/family friendly.

Right, one shouldn't expect the worst, but one needs to
be prepared for it, don't you think?

I did say half-heartedly.What I meant was just being vaugely ready for the ship to go down but not paranoid about it.

Maybe most couples expect their marriage to last forever but it has become fairly common here amongst the "better classes" to draw up a contract in readiness for a split.I have heard of some very elaborate ones and I know most couples have seperate bank accounts which I find quaint to say the least.Trust doesn't seem to be a factor in these sort of things and if there's little trust and sharing what does that sort of love mean?

I am always surprised when couples bust up.It seems the daftest thing to do once the settling in period has been endured.

Do you think media distorts the picture simply because the stable,meandering couple,and there's millions,don't make exciting and potentially lascivious news stories and also that the sort of people who work in media are pretty unstable generally?

No, people were just as unhappy in their marriages in the
old days as they are today. Unfortunately, social stigma,
unrealistic divorce/family laws and male dominance made
it very difficult for women to divorce their spouses.

One had to give legitimate reasons why one wants a
divorce granted, and had to live apart for a minimum of
2 years, and endure other harassments, before divorce
was even considered by the courts.

Today, family lawas are much more in favor for allowing
a couple to end their marriage.

Do you think it was appropriate how Ireland prohibited
divorce for so many years?

I incline to that view with the exception of abuse cases which though they make the news are not really significant.

The social implications of easy divorce have not become fully apparent yet.I'm not that exercised with individual cases.They can be used to prove anything.I'm more interested in the nation being "in form" as Spengler termed it.

How do you know people in the old days were just as unhappy in marriage as they are now and how do you know they would have been happier getting divorced.

Isn't happiness conditioned by expectations and don't those with egos "twice round the stratosphere" have expectations which can't ever be met?

I think that is very true. Even in my lifetime the expectations of women have quintupled, and with expectation comes, often, disappointment. If you insist on wanting everything, you are setting yourself up for 'failure'. I absolutely agree about the social cost of divorce, too. It is a damaging thing to children and their subsequent marriages.


Am I old-fashioned or radical?

It looks like radical these days if you take your messages out of media but if you take them from everyday life,as I do,not in the least.Old fashioned is an odd term which is often used pejoritively but who cares about that.How about up and down the track mild conservative.A round peg in a round hole.

Which do you prefer?