"Soulmates" and Other Cop-Out Concepts

Don't go into it too deeply.That's my advice.

they make a logical decision to cheat there is nothing helpless or emotional about it

So they won't be held responsible for their actions.

Does that include all actions or just the ones you don't approve of?

It all boils down to our societies refusal to accept responsibility. No one wants to say "I f*cked up". And everyone gets away with it! People know that 9 times out of 10, they will get away with something or get off lightly. I can't stand it! Blame anything but myself. I didn't do it. I am the victim here. He made me. She made me. No one wants to take responsibility for their own lives.

agree agree and agree again with Bella Dea - the issue now arises as to "where does the buck stop?"

But this thread has raised a really interesting question that's been preying on my mind - should women be allowed to kill as self defence in violent relationships - ie: battered women syndrome defence, as we know it in Australia anyway.

Would it be immoral if instead of excusing a women for killing or be killed, the judge says something like: "You are the only person who can make your choices for yourself and your choice was to marry a violent man, so live with it." ?

What a thought provoking analysis, Noddy.

Though my thoughts are still being provoked I can say that I now feel very glad to have come of age in the sport-sex 70s when desire and lust were not to be confused with love.

Love is hard work, it takes effort to maintain. I wish it were easy even if fraught with drama.

I don't know what to make of the Frail Reeds and their fainting couches.

Your post makes me think of what invariably happens when Mr. B and I argue and I start thinking he's an idiot:

He says: "Well you married me."

And I say a line stolen from "Fiddler on the Roof":

"I made a bargain with the butcher."

Hmmm - we might say our genes make us do it - "out-bonking" - ie having sex with males who are not one's mate - seems to be a pretty universal strategy amongst vertebrates.

As DNA and careful field observations are showing....



Heehee - the old saw is that females' reproductive strategy tends to be monogamy - while males' tends to be "if it has a hole, go after it". Facts would seem to be suggesting we females do way more outbonking.

You those sweet birds and such who mate for life? Well - the boys do......and he may well be bringing up someone else's wee birdlings...

dlowan--

God keeps his eye on the outbonking female sparrows so that they are not helpless pawns of fate.

I agree with Eoe and Bella - and you said it yourself in the thread title. It's a mere cop-out.

Re: "Soulmates" and Other Cop-Out Concepts


Noddy, there's something about "being madly in love" that causes folk to temporarily lose sight of their normally sensible selves! It must be rampant hormonal activity, or something .... but I guess that could contribute to that feeling of helplessness? Turbulent Seas of Passion are to be avoided at all cost!

Re: "Soulmates" and Other Cop-Out Concepts


I doubt it...

Re: "Soulmates" and Other Cop-Out Concepts


Perhaps they really do feel powerless to oppose their fate. People in love tend to be irrational and unthinking due to turbulent seas of hormones. Reading romance novels may encourage them to think of themselves as helpless heroines being swept off their feet by the tides of love. That is no excuse for disregarding ethics, however.

Dissolve the marriage and go after your "true love," or else restrain your lust and remain faithful. Perhaps someone could invent a pill that would counteract the biochemical effects of being in love so that straying spouses would return to their passionless marriages.

I don't think it is reasonable to be limited to loving just one person for your entire life. We grow, we change, we find different qualities important as we age. The "til death do us part" requirement made sense when women relied on their husbands to provide for them in their old age instead of discarding them for a younger, prettier mate. But with extended lifespans and self-sufficiency it no longer does.

I think we should have term marriages with an option to renew every 5 years. Both parties would have to agree to an 18 year minimum term before having a child, otherwise they are free to pursue other opportunities when the term expires.

I love that idea, Terry. I agree with you completely - it's also why I think we should oust marriage all together. You can be with someone forever (with a little elbow grease and back work) without the title, and if you need marriage to keep them committed then it's not meant to be in the first place.

i think you're wrong. you can think the world of someone and still want to have fun with other people and run around a bit but still always be in love with that person. marriage is a way of stating your intention to stay physically (not emotionally) with that person forever. its the reverse of what you say, first is the emotional commitment and then the physical marriage, people don't get married to create an emotional relationship that doesn't exist

You'd be surprised, Clear.

If it were as you're stating, then there wouldn't be affairs and divorces. Of course there are couples who truly do commit when they say "I do." But there are just as many who don't take it seriously. That's why I think it should be done with. Like I said, if you need marriage to fully commit yourself to someone, then you shouldn't be with them in the first place.

Re: "Soulmates" and Other Cop-Out Concepts

I think on their part the narrative of "caught in passion" is more veneer than sincere belief. Yes, of course those involved are caught in passion - but you will always have faced this moment of decision when you went: "yes, I'm going to go for this anyway".

Then again, I think the whole parallel with spousal abusers is completely off-track. Its not those who sleep with someone who's married who are untrue. They're not the ones breaking a vow - they're not the ones committing a betrayal that, if you want, you could compare with abuse. Why should "the other woman" take responsibility for the spousal commitment the man himself is apparently all too willing to fling aside?

They're "outside". They didnt stand in church. As soon as the husband (or wife) is willing to break and betray his/her vows and promises, that's when the choice is made (the abuse committed, if you want). For the "third party" to then take the responsibility in his place and try to save his marriage for him is akin to saying he is "helpless", not a "rational, thinking, ethical being". He is, he made his choice. It's not for anyone else to save him from it; least of all for someone who'd have to give up her own desire for it.

The Man Who Just Cant Be Expected To Keep His Wild Lust in Check and Thus Has to Be Saved From It By Virtuous Woman, Who Should Know How to Do Right and Be Better Than That - now there's another pre-emancipation lore.

People are, of course, all too willing to echo Cicero's stab at Cataline, and cry O tempore, o mores. I don't believe, however, that there was any less infidelity in the past than there is now. I also agree in part with Habibi that this is not an issue of emancipation. I personally believe that this is an issue of justice.

I don't have a sterling record of good behavior throughout my life to hold up as an example--i want to state this at the outset lest anyone think what i am about to recount is a case of playing "holier than thou." There was an incident which occurred when i was a young man in my twenties, to which i gave not much thought until years later. I would characterize my behavior as having been unintentionally just. I was in a "relationship" which was become uninteresting to me. Another woman more or less made me an offer. I therefore proceeded to break off, with as much courtesy, respect and compassion as i could muster, the existing relationship. In the event, the new liaison proved unstable, and no relationship was establish. So i was left alone in that sense of a tie to someone with whom to share a unique intimacy. I did not indulge any self pity, but rather thought to myself that honesty had nevertheless paid off, in that the first, unhappy relationship was ended.

Many years later, in reading a novel, i was moved to consider the issue of justice between persons--not in a legalistic sense, but in a sense of recognizing when our behavior toward others is just or is unjust. I then thought back to that earlier incident, and realized that although not with intent necessarily, i had served a cause of personal justice in ending the relationship in which i was then involved, before attempting another. It is in my nature to be loyal, and it had always been a rather unconscious thing. But upon reflection, i determined to make it a willfully imposed aspect of my behavior.

Those who "cheat" on someone are being unjust. They have abandoned honesty and compassion. Whether a man or a woman is the culprit matters not. I said that i agreed with NIMH only in part--i agree that the person bearing the greatest responsibility is the "cheater." But the "homewrecker" is also guilty of injustice to those who are betrayed--it is a furtive, sneaking thing, and i will believe no protestations of innocence. And i suspect this is an eternal human failing.

Do y'all think Tom and Katie are soul mates? Howza about Michael and Bubbles?