+- VadaVaka (https://vadavaka.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Debates and Polls (https://vadavaka.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Debates (https://vadavaka.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+--- Thread: BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux (/showthread.php?tid=2646)
Pages:
1
2
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Beastie - 04-30-2003
We have developed a community of mutual interest in a game that will probably be forgotten sooner than later. However in the web page and forums, we have the opportunity to get to know one another in a way beyond what is offered in play. We take very little from the usual gg's, lol's, that guy haxor's, Bleet's, Oorgles's, and random shittalking. Not to say we knew nothing of eachother prior to the forums, however we have something now that is infinitly more valuable to expressing real thoughts and opinions.
I will grab at this opportunity to create some discussion. I will offer some observations about life in general. They may or may not pertain to Ricochet, CounterStrike, Half-Life, or they may be completely unrelated. In any case I will do so once each week. If you choose to read them, great. If not. Oh well, I can deal with that too. Dialogue leads us to see eachother for who we are. Obviously you each wanted to know one another at least a bit more intimatly, for you did register to read and post.
Please reply as you please, but keep a few things in mind.
1. Beastie does not always take the side of which he posts. I like to play devil's advocate from time to time.
2. All opinions expressed are respected and worthy of acknowledgement. Please do not jump too hard on somone for sharing the potentially unpopular.
3. Please do not spam these topics. If you have something to share, put some thought behind it and make sure it's more than 2 lines. I may ask admins to remove certain posts if they offer nothing to the discussion.
4. I may add more to this list as time goes on.
Enjoy all, for a lot of peeps are doing a great job on these forums. I just want to add my 2 cents. My first topic will follow.
Beastie
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Beastie - 05-21-2003
Beastie's Babbles topic #4.
As I posted in my topic 3 summary, I will be attacking an institution that I consider 'vulnerable' in today's world. I am speaking about America here in particular.
Marriage.
Many of you come from the biggest wave of divorced parents our nation has ever known. Marriage is for ever, right? Maybe our second marriage is anyway. In many cultures the union of two souls is set up long before the happy couple agrees to court. These marriages are aranged in barter, set up to keep bloodlines pure within a small number of clans or tribes. In others the available young, ripe females are simply sold to the highest bidder be it a family or an old, rich, horny male. (stop pointing)
The idea of marriage based in love is one of western decent. We are 'lucky' to have such a choice in our society. Women have gained the most from this development. The options available for women in the states are worth migrating for. She can leave her mate if he becomes unfaithful. She can leave if he becomes abusive. She can leave for really any reason at all, for there is a constant and mutual right within a love based union: either can end it at any time. I am not saying men do not share these rights, it's just they kind of' enjoyed them before. If a woman tried to excersize them in other cultures however, the man could also decide to punish, even kill her. Ownership of a wife is still a part of many cultures.
Western civilization offers another option to men and women alike. That is not to wed at all. In doing so we keep the ever rising divorce rate down. We also have time to devote to careers, hobbies, and share ourselves with multiple partners. ((Huh?!)) Come on, don't call me the bad guy for pointing it out. To most of you it is no secret the number of partners most americans are sharing is waaaaaaay up from in the past. And that is not limited to single people, reported infidelity is as high as ever, too.
1. Is marriage a man-made concept, or are we SUPPOSED to go through life in pairs?
2. Would more marriages succeed if more couples accepted the human urge to 'spread the seed' among multiple partners?
3. Do you plan to get married someday? Would you marry somone who has been divorced in the past? How about divorced multiple times?
ps. disclaimer... you are already trying to answer a 4th question in your mind: why is Beastie such a friggin cynical ass?! I assure you I am not. I may share my own beliefs waaaay at the end of the week.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - jabbahunt - 05-21-2003
A population in dispair. more or less mates?
A population overrun, more or less mate?
I was in dispair, I was saved by my wife and could nor would look any further. but life is enjoyed further thru the looking glass of rico and my friends, (thanks grits).
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-21-2003
1. I have no idea. That's up to the evolutionary biologists I suppose. But the simple fact that marriage spans across all cultures, and has for many times, would suggest that is a part of human nature in itself. Now if you went by the human male sex drive, you'd think humans would spread faster than we do. Just think about it, fellas. Particularly starting around 13-16, depending on who you are, sex is a constant thought. Guys at their peak could orgasm several times in a day... spread plenty of "seed" for each day. You'd almost think that humans are designed to have each male vastly out-numbered by females, just so he could go around impregnating women. That does seem to contradict the whole idea of spending our lives with one woman. Either way, I don't know exactly how to say it's a man-made concept... naturally any concept is man-made if it comes from our mind, but I don't think marriage originated for political reasons, lifelong partners are a part of people. This is just an observation... let grits give all of the biological stuff.
2. No nuh no no. If there is one thing that is definitely human, it is the idea of a relationship. Relationships are necessary, both friend and sexual relationships. Now, there are plenty of guys who might disagree (or girls for that matter) but I don't think this urge to just go have sex should go to OTHER people. There is a certain time in your life when that is how things go, and I'm down with that. But at some point, monogamous relationships are necessary to be normal, happy, whatever. If you start a multiple partner thing, it becomes destructive. This is not just an observation, this is psychology. I'm not saying don't have sex with lots of people... like I said, there is a time in life for that. If you forget the risks involved, I have no problem with it. At SOME point, one needs to settle down a bit.
3. Uh... hard to say. To be honest, I'm not so sure I'm the kind of person to get married and live that old fashioned happy life. That is, wife, house, kids, that kind of stuff. If I get seriously into law enforcement, I probably won't get married. It'd be too hard. As for divorced people... it might freak me out a bit if I wanted to consider marriage... if I wasn't, and I just pursue long-term relationships and see what direction they lead, then game-on.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - GRITS - 05-21-2003
Hmmm I am definitely going to have to reply to this one in more detail...since I have been married, separated and on my way through a divorce...and not a 'multiple' partner kind of person.. and not sure if another marriage is ever in my foreseeable future....
So while I contemplate the depth of my answer let me say a couple of things....
Many animals mate for life and are monogamous, so it is debatable whether marriage and fidelity are only 'human' issues. Most animals live in groups so 'relationships' and social issues apply throughout the animal kingdom...I think that consciousness, guilt, and ethical and moral issues are hard to observe in animals so I am not sure that these are or are not human issues.
Not sure how much genetics you want to delve into but diversity is a necessity to avoid mutations and genetic abnormalities. (doesnât mean multiple partners just means not within your own family) and if there was not some kind of ârelationshipâ established during your ancestors time eventually you wouldnât know if you were mating with a close relative until your offspring were born with defects. Interbreeding show dogs and other animals including the hemophilia studies with the royal family demonstrate this conclusivelyâ¦maybe marriage started out as just a way to keep records and keep population in control.
"human urge to spread the seed" ok that one needs its own debate post I think Beastie.
Animals masturbate so I think we should realize procreation is not the only reason for sex...pleasure is by far a contributing factor...while women are born with all the "eggs" they will ever have and they get old as the woman ages men regenerate new sperm continuously through life...thus the reason why Strom Thurmond could have children with his wife (30 years his junior I believe). That saidâ¦. my personal beliefâ¦no scientific back up hereâ¦I think men need âreleaseâ more than women. Also I think women are probably the ones that should have multiple partners in an evolutionary population control environmentâ¦to weed out the bad seeds. (damn beasties humor is catching) and a little off topic maybe butâ¦â¦women can have 'sex drives' as strong or even stronger than men and I think that is where society plays a part, most women donât talk about it much less act upon it. Doesnât take quite as much out of a woman to masturbate as it does a guy.....so I am thinking greater than "several" times a day.....no problem. Ok still havenât really answered the questions but I better get to workâ¦hopefully I didnât detour too far from the topic.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - fritoman - 05-21-2003
In my oppinion marrage is designed for the sake of well being, and devorce as well, I think that people that are able to go thru life with out a partner are very strong willed and are very sure of them selfs, and dont need the reassurances of others to let them know they are doing the right thing as far as life choices. I do believe that I would'nt be doing as well in life if it had'nt been for my wife, you hear all the time guys saying "man my wife nags me all the time" well chances are the guy is lazy and the wife has to nag to get him to accomplish anything, and in the male mind I think that they want to make there wifes happy and so are drivin to satisfy, and that in its self gives you a meaning for excistance.
also it is better to share joy and sadness with someone you love, it makes it more joyfull and less saddning.<---not sure if that is a word, because everyone needs help now and then so its better to have someone there you love and trust to help you.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Gwarsbane - 05-21-2003
My mom was never married and I have never known my dad. I am not with anyone right now, and truthfully I don't know if I want to have someone around right now (its just the way I am, I'm happy being alone and being able to do whatever I want when ever I want). I suppose you can say I'm looking, but I'm not looking very hard. I don't know if I would want to get married, but I know I wouldn't mind spending my time with someone if they came into my life.
I have known people over the years that I thought were very happy with each other but then suddently get divorced. But I have also known people that have lived with each other for many many decades and are still happily together.
I'm not for or against marrage.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Beastie - 05-22-2003
I am certainly not making any attempt at all to undermine the happy marriages you are in. That is not at all my intent. This is surely meant to insight discussion about the concept.
It's interesting you brought up the animal kingdom, Grits. Because I instead see it as a big argument against marriage instead. As mammals we have only a very few distant cousins that mate monogomously for life: seals. Seals somehow mate once each year with the same mate every time. Even if the happy partnes part ways two months later, each will seek out the other where they met the year prior. That is pretty amazing, indeed!
However the majority of mammals are real whores!! Many mammals herd. People hear that word a lot but most don't know what it means. A herd of animals is usually comprised of females. They will travel between the territories of the males. If I am a male lion, the females will herd into my domain, where I will attempt to impregnate each and every one! If another male comes in and attempts to mate with any of my fine feline action, there is going to be a fight. Really I am telling him to simply wait his turn.
Personally I would like to see a herd of 21 year-old brunettes seek my terretory this week. It's not that I am a pig ( I don't know if wild pigs herd or not), it is just that my deep routed mammalian drive to spread my seed as far as possible leads me to want many, MANY partners. Is this so far off, or am I making excuses for my easy male counterparts?
Beastie
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-22-2003
2 words : I'm male.
3 more words : I'm not easy.
:blink: :wacko::blink: Speak for yourself. :blink::wacko::blink:
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - GRITS - 05-22-2003
I hear your argument Beastie and wish to point out that it is just part of the animal kingdom....there are many animals that naturally select one lifetime mate and that is where the basis of my argument lies....Those animals that travel in herds do so for the benefit of the species...survival and procreation...travel in packs for protection, a male to female ratio that allows for more offspring and continuation of the species etc etc...Those animals that 'choose' to pair up do it for a reason I don't believe we can critique...but it is a natural choice an "animal instinct" to do so. These male animals are able to resist the pheromones that are cast off by females that are not their chosen mate during mating season...those are very strong animal instincts that they overcome....so does that make you...the human male whose urge is to "spread his seed", a weaker "animal" than a peacock or a seal....is the human male an 'animal' that is in less control of their own natural instincts than a dove?
I believe the "ceremonial" part of a marriage may be manmade but I think there is enough natural 'pairing' to debunk any theory on marriage being manmade at the emotional/spiritual level.
Think about the animal species that you bring up.....the Lion....which animal is the lowest on the scale of social acceptance? Is it the Simba? the dominant male? let me help you out here.....nope...is it any of the females that are responsible for the continuation of the species?...nope again....its that male "bachelor" that is deprecatedâ¦so if you arenât the âkingâ male you arenât really important to the pride....maybe that is why they fight so much to be alpha male. :D
ok maybe I can work on question 2 now....
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-22-2003
Let's get back to genetics. The human race is relatively even in terms of male and female. Somehow, to me, that supports single partner practices. I said supports... meaning there are several other reasons for it, this just adds to it. One could make the argument that equal numbers could also mean equal distribution, so to speak. Male goes from female to female, essentially all males go for a different partner every so often. This would promote the mixing of genes from different races and such.
The other evidence to support single partners is, once again, the psychological aspect of it. We have a desire to be with one person, to be in love, at least at some point in our lives. That doesn't go for everyone, but it's pretty general. I fail to see the reason for having an emotion such as love (maybe if you don't like the idea of love being a true emotion, just think about trust/devotion/friendship and so forth, they can replace it) if the idea is to go from woman to woman. Many guys wouldn't feel bad about having sex with plenty of different girls, just for fun, but he certainly would not desire to go impregnate a bunch of girls. Also, women have very emotional experiences when it comes to sex and relationships. Once again, what's the biological purpose of that if she is destined to have many partners? The only other possibility I can think of is that marriage and single partnership is a manmade concept which has sociologically and biologically been infused into modern man. Therefore, we've adapted to this lifestyle based on our intellect.
I simply look at it this way... it exists, and there has to be a reason. Whether the reasons are biological or societal, marriage is a universal concept. We all have different forms of marriage ceremonies, but the concept is in pretty much every society. Even polygamy in preindustrial regions is usually restricted to rich guys, just to enhance his social status and such.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-22-2003
Personally, I think monogamous relationships have existed for as long as perceivable emotions have existed. It's just really selective. Could any of you think of any other reason for the fact that monogamous relationships have such tremendous possibilities. When you're with the right person, and you know that person will be with you(forever?), you reach a state of completeness. I know they can yield some pretty nasty results, but that can become the past. When you're complete you always have tomorrow to look forward to.
Note that I AM only 17 and have never been married, engaged, or even in a real relationship. Nor do I choose to be anytime soon. I also don't want to go around sleeping with random people. I'm just pulling this all out of fat air as always. ^_^
(Damn, I said I wouldn't post but it became too much for me already.)
(fixed a couple typos. eating sunchips and typing at the same time is slow) :P
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Beastie - 05-23-2003
Ok, we have examined questions 1 and 2 pretty well. I want to look at question 3 a little bit. I am not here to offend anyone, especially those open-minded individuals who have confided with facts about themselves here in my thread. But we have to acknowledge a cetain phenomenon in our society, one that exists since the giant rise in divorce over the last two decades: the notion that divorcees are damaged goods.
I am only bringign it up because it needs to be discussed. In a forum usually viewed by young, unmarried gamer males? Why not. We have a few married folks in here and a few divorcees.
I have a good friend back home, I met her in college. I met her my sophomore year, she was the same. She seemed to have some unhealthy disposition towards men, I never understood why. We had our run-ins early on, however she became a good friend. I learned after knowing her for 2 years that she had been divorced shortly before we met.
In those 2 years she dabbled in short term relationships, often she would 'date' guys in relationships. She would never get too close to her guy pals, she would pull away before things could really get going. A great girl, many guys wanted more with her. Her experience led her to have behaviors that made me very curious. Learning of her loss and pain shed some light on why she acted in such ways.
Later she settled down and has had two long term relationships since. She looks back on her marriage at 18 as a mistake of youth. It's not that she holds a ton of regret, for it was a learning experience. When we talk of our sophomore year, she knows and acknowledges that she was in a man-hating period in her life. Dating her at that time, you would definitly have experienced damaged goods. Today though, the experience is only part of what she brings to the table. She is a smarter dater.
1. I would certainly date this girl now if I were able and back home. Is this more of a timing issue than a divorce one?
2. Guys, do you feel like you will in some ways we are blamed for jerks in girls' pasts? Girls, do you experience this, too?
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-23-2003
If I'm still alive, I definitely plan on marrying in the future. :blink:
The fact a person's been divorced once or multiple times doesn't matter. It all depends on the person, not their past. Hell, if I met a woman who had a past of being "easy" if would make no difference to me if we really loved each other. (Unless of course she had contracted an STD or two, but that's a given.) :o
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - PIX - 05-23-2003
Monogamy is not a natural part of the animal kingdom; it is a moralistic state placed upon established societies
by religous figures from long ago. Considering humans as part of the animal kingdom, males of a species try to
prolong their genetics and spread their lineage as much as possible. This is done by mating with as many females
as possible. Not that any of us guys want to be paying for dozens of illegitimate kids and women want to be up to
their asses with rugrats. It is just the instinct that drives us all. I am not condoning unfaithfullness or cheating...that sux.
It is just sometimes hard to overcome that genetic drive that is built into our AT-GC makeup. You ever seen 2 guys
fighting for one female; fixing their plumes and trying to look the best. Amimals do this too. The stongest will survive.
So the next time you sneak into your parents bedroom and get out their nudie tapes and watch one dude take on 5 chicks,
don't think dirty, naughty sexual perversion, think....wow....we got ourselves some natural selection going on.
:D
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - GRITS - 05-23-2003
PIX did you not read this whole thread??? we already went through the monogamy thing in the animal kingdom...while it may not be as prevalent as the "herd" society in the animal kingdom it is indeed evident
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - PIX - 05-23-2003
ok ok...I'll admit it...I didn't read the whole thread.
When Beastie and g-boy start writing 400 word thesuses, I start to drift.
ps...my dog doesn't masterbate his pillow...it's pure love between him and that fluff of love.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-23-2003
Also remember that humans are unique animals. The way the mind and body has evolved, we serve a different purpose. So... yes, we may be a part of the animal kingdom. That does not mean we are automatically wired to impregnate every woman possible. We're not insects, hehe.
And I don't see it as something made on religious grounds because monogamy is a univeral human concept. Throughout the world, in every region, monogamy is there. Psychologically, we pursue it and many need it... a life partner is an essential part to many people for a happy life. In that sense, I see anything that is univeral to humans and in many cases a psychological necessity as being biological in nature, not based on morals that we came up with.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-23-2003
Ummm, g-boy. Read what you've written again, be reincarnated as a human baby raised by animals, learn to write in english and give your opinion again. I guarantee you won't be writing the same thing. Nearly everyone else who posts in these types of threads are a lot smarter than I, so I'm surprised at the fact none of you have brought up the issue of environment. It plays a huge role in what a person becomes. o_O Humans vary so much because we are very susceptable to psychological adaptation. The whole monkey see, monkey do buisiness. Just not exactly. How could you not grow up with a high probability of doing things the same way everyone of your kind are doing things. All of these beliefs from the masses are constantly pounded into your head, leaving little chance for you to do things on your own successfully.
This is just a possibility. Let's not jump to any conclusions about what's really going on here and try to find evidence for what MIGHT be going on here. I'm not completely blocking your idea of genetics being the reason, PIX. I'm just saying most of us either don't really know or don't have access to the kind of first hand, feasable observations that would back up ideas relating to DNA structure, etc.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-23-2003
Nature vs. nurture. I know plenty about psychology. Yes, it is a combination. It is not purely environmental. I'm not so sure you've read everything evan, because my last post was sort of a response, I didn't want to repeat myself or anyone else about everything. Understand that monogamy (not sure how many times this must be said) is UNIVERSAL. If we did stuff based only on a moral ceremony developed by religion, there wouldn't be single partner relationships all over the world. I know we are supposed to be talking about marriage, but I'm putting it on a broader scale of monogamous relationships, not just the ceremony of marriage. Why do people seek "the one" and put their significant other on such a high priority? Because they see it on TV and their parents told them about it? Not really. I will agree with this: marriage and living arrangements are most likely nurture. Meaning, traditionally in American lifestyle (though it is changing) we get married to someone we "love" and then get a house, live together, and have children. We date and woo first, all that stuff. In other cultures, there are arranged marriages. Some live with extended family. So yes, stuff like that I see as environmental, we do as told and as we see. However, I say the emotional drive for being with one person at a time, at some point hoping to be with one our entire life, is a part of nature. It would not be such a strong feeling and so universal otherwise. Beyond being universal, it's also a very OLD emotion and drive.
I'm laying out my opinion soulevan, and I haven't mentioned environment much because I don't see it as much of a significant factor, in terms of the basic single-partner relationship drive. Let me ask you this... do you think we smile because we see our parents smile? Or laugh because others do it?
BTW, I read everything I write about 3 times before I hit the button. This is also a debate, state your opinion and respond, don't give attitude. I know what I am saying, and once again, if you read what I say, I'm stating all of these possibilities. Many of them are NOT my opinion, I'm just throwing out ideas. This post I just wrote reflects my opinion the most.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-23-2003
For one I'm not giving attitude. But the way you say things gives an annoying, arrogant ring to every sentence. :blink:
Like I said, I'm not nearly as intelligent as most of you so I won't understand or catch everything you can.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-23-2003
Sometimes I get the sense you're talking about when I read Wha?'s posts... but some people speak different ways, there's nothing arrogant about it. If you're annoyed by it, don't read it. I'm terribly sorry if you get annoyed by my proper writing. And I am talking in a scientific matter because the post has turned in that direction. I'm not jumbling large words or scientific terms or anything... I thought I was writing rather clearly.
This is a complex debate... so if you don't get everything, it has little to do with intelligence. But I'm in the discussion, and I'm getting kind of detailed, it's not my fault if everyone doesn't understand all of it. If you don't like reading complexity, don't read a debate which has turned long and multi-faceted.
This reminds me of when you didn't like the word "precocious." So far, you're the only person in my life who has ever told me there is a problem with my "communication skills." In fact, good communication and clear speaking/writing is one of the few qualities that I have been praised for.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - GRITS - 05-23-2003
Ok ok back on topic....I want to know...since I am soon to be one of the 'ostracized' do men truly believe divorced women are less than desirable just because they are divorced? Does that mean I donât have a chance? Or is it just the younger guys who feel that way....wow I would love to know if women feel the same about divorced men...I sure as hell don't ...well depending on the reason for the divorce of course...or divorces...ok the three strikes and you are out rule should probably take affect in this situation:P.... But seriously there are so many reasons couples get divorced and the fault can lie with either or both of the parties...or maybe even no fault...just better that way....omg I thought I was scared to get back in the dating world before this...I might end up getting 4 or 5 more game servers if being divorced makes me "damaged goods"...maybe 'damaged' as in the terms of "injured" or "hurt" but not in the 'spoiled' or 'tarnished' definition and I can not believe that is even implied...
You know what they say about a divorcee' if a woman has a chocolate milkshake every day of her life and then one day there is no more chocolate milkshakes......well she will do just about anything for a chocolate milkshake..
* From the first season of Happy Days...jeeze I thought divorced individuals had progressed further in social acceptance than a 1950's sitcom
:)
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-23-2003
Okay, just one more off topic post. I just want to apologize to g-boy. I've recently been having some issues with my parents and didn't know what to do with the frutration. So I picked the first emotionally stable person I ran into while playing. It just happened to be you. Sorry again man.
Okay, NOW continue. o_O
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-24-2003
No prob soul.
Now... as for divorced women being "damaged goods." I don't really see it that way... then again, I'm pretty young and I won't be coming across datable women that have been married before... for quite a while anyway. I think it's just the word... divorced. Some guys might get scared off by that. Or they are just intimidated that you would have a lot of experience. Or perhaps they are afraid that after one marriage, the next one will come quick... who knows?
It is sort of unfair... there are reasons and sometimes it is just out of our control, sometimes it is the best thing. And yet the perception will be the same for everyone. For me, unless there is something really significant, I'd ignore a girl's past relationships. Even if, some day, I go out with a previously married woman, I would just not worry about it unless it has happened many times. I judge people on the present... not the past.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Beastie - 05-24-2003
I am all for judging people by the present.... by what I see and not what I have heard in heresay.
BUT... there is this woman out there named Lorena Bobbitt. Now I understand this is an extreme and almost too obvious compared to points I usually like to make....
BUT... she did something really awful. Since it made international news, of COURSE you wouldn't date/marry/sit-in-the-same-room-with her.
BUT... what if it did not make any news what-so-ever? What if you met her somewhere and she seemed nice. You hook up and she has this 'ghost in her closet'. Look for yourself, it's right there next to the hacksaw, the industrial scizzors (hey RWS :D ) , the tweezers (hey Cloud :huh: ) , and the lightsabre.
NOW... I am not saying that we need a car-fax type service to keep tabs on why people are divorced so we can look it up later, but I think it's safe to say we would ALL like to know that our potential bride/groom hasn't mutilated their previous mates.
NOW to bring it back to normality... Western belief on marriage says that it is for EVER. Something did go wrong in a divorcee's marriage ((NOT necessarily having ANYTHING with faults in that person)). So a new possible mate has to wonder what it was that did not pan out. It is only natural and defensive curiosity, not some insecure invasion of privacy.
I made it clear in my example post that I would in fact have dated and who knows, married this girl from college. So I certainly not taken her from the pool JUST for having a divorce in her past. Looking at my parents, too: I would say my dad is quite un-marryable to any woman where my mom is now veeery happily married once again. If my step-dad would have held my mom's divorce against her, he would have suffered a tremendous loss!!
Just some thoughts for ya'
Beastie
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-24-2003
Mr. Bobbitt (sp?) was an ###### though. He mistreated her to the breaking point... at least that's what I've heard, I didn't look it up or anything. Not that I think any man deserves that... it's not like she would have done it to a wonderful, caring husband.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - Beastie - 05-27-2003
Beastie's Babbles Week #5
I chose not to sum up last week's marriage topic, and instead continue on with the relationship theme. People got kinda' into it and I like that there are no real right answers. So feel free to revert back to anything from last week if you'd like and I will go on to some new questions, too.
Cheating... I mean infidelity not wall hax ;)
I mentioned last week that reported infidelity is way up from past generations. This alone is worth discussing. Now I am going to include relationships married and non this week. I am also including hetero and homosexual unions into the pot. Feel free to make points in any or all related areas.
1. What specifically is included as 'cheating' and what is not?
2. Answer the following. A cheater is:
a ) Somone who has cheated (possibly reconsilable)
b ) Somone who cheats (habitual)
I guess the bottom line here is.... once a cheater always a cheater?
3. If you hook up with somone who has a bf/gf , can you later date that person? Why or why not?
Enjoy... I always do.
Beastie
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - g-boy - 05-27-2003
1. Cheating is getting with another person romantically or physically. Even kissing, as small as it may seem, is cheating. Think about it this way... if your partner is just kissing someone else, it is almost as if they are courting eachother... they're not just seeking some physical pleasure and something new, they are emotionally into it. So in some ways, seeing someone else and not just screwing around is worse than a one-night stand. But back to the point... I see it all as cheating anyway. Porn and masturbation isn't cheating... but even like an internet relationship is, it's just the principle of it. I would not feel good if my girlfriend somehow needed someone else, whether it was in person or physical or whatnot.
2. This is tough, I won't answer it. There are shades of gray. It depends on age and how close you are to eachother in a relationship. So let's say it's early, there are rocky times, that kind of stuff. That's possible to get over. If it's a close relationship, and there is cheating, particularly romantic cheating, then I say it's over. You can't do that stuff. Marriage... I suppose with counseling and stuff, anything is possible to get over for the sake of salvaging what normally is a good marriage. If the marriage sucked anyway, it should be over. I know I'm making statements like it should be set in stone, but I'm just saying my personal thoughts about how I'd feel in the situation, or what I think might be best. I personally think infidelity is just straight up wrong, and I myself wouldn't tolerate it. I wouldn't do it either, guys may be horny, but there is plenty of self control. I think I feel this way mostly because I cheated with my friend's girlfriend when I was 14... he's no longer a friend, she is a nutcase that I should have never gotten involved with in the first place, and that's sorta put things into perspective. And for guys... I don't necessarily think once a cheater, always a cheater. Though there is self control, sometimes hormones can get the better of a weak man. But the experience can make him stronger and change his ways. Then again, some guys are completely habitual and don't even care (they are known as dickheads). Women, it's kinda hard to tell. I'd say because it's more rare for a woman to cheat, that one that does is probably habitual. Then again, if there is a guy who is really charming and comforting, and her boyfriend or whatever has been an a-hole recently, it can be a one time thing.
3. Once again, shades of gray. But I'd say 90% of the time, bad idea to go out with someone in a serious relationship if they cheated with you while with someone else. Not necessarily that they will do it again, maybe you just swept her off her feet, and that's it. The problem is the insecurity. Knowing what she (or he for that matter) did with you, you'd get jealous anytime she was with another guy. Or if stuff started reminding you off her past relationship... it would just be a lot to handle.
BEASTIE'S BABBLES part deux - SoulEvan - 05-28-2003
I can't quite point out what's different about this post, g-boy, but I really liked it. Nice topic coverage. I, on the other hand, am going to stand on the sidelines.