The Glade 4.0

edit: Nevermind. I was in a bad mood last night.

No, no, I'll just walk away, shaking my head, as I do often these days.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

So basically Meghan Daum is defending women who want to be unhealthy? Ridiculous.

Hardly. Re-read and summarize, please.

Edit: Oh, OK, wait. Before you do, who are the "unhealthy" ones? I think we're on opposite sides here.

The point is, women are asked to do things to succeed in ways that men aren't, or don't have to, given natural aging processes and how humans interpret them. Women get "frumpy" as they age, but men get "distinguished."

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

I'm not sure I agree with this.

I know plenty of older men who are "frumpy" and older women who are still quite attractive.

No, she's saying that not being attractive is no excuse for a husband's affair.

And she's correct. It's not her fault, it's her husband's.

Most affairs that the men I know have had were spawned by their wives diminishing sexual appetites.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Serious question regarding Rynar's statement in the quote...

Is it okay for a man to have an affair because of his wife's diminishing sexual appetite? What if it's the reverse, and the wife has the affair because of her husband's diminishing sexual appetite? Is that okay?

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

I dont think anyone thinks either is ok (outside of some kind of open relationship)

Affairs are not ok...period. If you want to **** someone else, get a divorce and do it. If he had done that, no one would have cared who he ****.

_________________


Dream as if you'll live forever...
...Live as if you'll die tomorrow

Vivere Senza Rimpianti

Rynar was not saying that diminishing drive makes an affair ok, just that its a common reason.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think we all agree that it's not OK.

That said, the other side that I've seen in this situation is that the spouse (as I assume this can happen both ways) doesn't acknowledge the importance of that physical and mental contact with their partner. Somehow society (IMHO largely drive by religion) has made sex this thing that is only appropriate for reproduction or to feel guilty about afterwards. I believe that many people underestimate how important that regular contact is for a healthy relationship.

To say that it's "OK" is to miss-state my point. I'm simply saying that the reason all of the men that I know who have had affairs, have had those affairs is because they weren't getting any at home.

Sex is a big part of most monogamous relationships. When one partner cuts off the other it can be damaging to the fabric that binds them together. So while it doesn't make it excusable, it certainly makes it understandable.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't mean to imply that you think it's okay, Rynar, I was just asking an open question to everyone here. I was just curious.

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

To answer your question, I believe it would be equally understandable no matter which spouse was the one committing adultery.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

While it's quite true that a healthy romantic relationship does require regular physical intimacy (assuming both parties are physically capable of it), the idea that society has "made" sex into something only appropriate for reproduction or something to feel guilty about is inaccurate.

First, we're talking about married people and infidelity, and neither society nor the religious boogeyman, outside of a few small areas and the very occasional priest who got a little carried away has ever pushed the idea that married people ought not have sex. Evangelicals, in particular, often hype how great sex is, and that married people ought to engage in it regularly. In colleges, its not uncommon for evangelical types to push how great sex with your spouse is as a reason to wait for marriage.

Second, society has been moving away from the idea that sex is only for reproduction and is a source of guilt, not towards that idea. Those ideas did not come from religion, either; religions had those ideas because back in the day, sex was for reproduction because birth control was either poor, unreliable, or nonexistent. Getting pregnant unexpectedly meant a baby that had a good chance of not surviving, a real risk of death for the mother, and resources that were scarce to raise. Social attitudes towards sex came from the simple reality of how human reproduction worked. Different societies came up with different ways of handling this, for the most part, highly imperfect, but those social attitudes couldn't evolve without the technology needed to address the simple fact that if you just **** like crazy with no birth control, there's going to be a lot of babies. Religious attitudes are based around that fact, not around some desire to control sex for the sake of controlling sex.

Third, people don't understand the importance of sex in a relationship because we either insist on treating sex in a married/long-term monongamous relationship as some sort of joke, or as something women don't want and dole out to men only at their whim or as a reward for good behavior. We've made enormous progress in recognizing that marriage is not an excuse to force sex on an unwilling spouse, but we have forgotten that while you aren't obligated to have sex with your spouse on demand, you are obligated by love and common decency to make yourself available to your spouse at least semi-regularly. It is not legitimate to condemn adultery and at the same time condone practices seen on popular shows like Everybody Loves Raymond.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have never watched Everybody Loves Raymond, but I assume? The women are withholding sex? DE, you said it is not legit to condemn adultery and at the same time condone practices like on this TV show. I don't get this...

IMO adultery is wrong period. It doesn't matter what sexual practices are in the relationship..if those sexual practices no longer fit and work with both people in the relationship...then the result is divorce...it should not be cheating with the excuse that she/he wasn't giving me what I needed sexually. People that cheat don't have the guts to do the right thing.

If Patraeus had divorced and dated Broadwell no one would have any problems with him.

_________________


Dream as if you'll live forever...
...Live as if you'll die tomorrow

Vivere Senza Rimpianti

Actually it's perfectly accurate DE.

It's really only been since the late 60's that sex has become something other than a taboo subject and not fit for "polite" society. There is a long long history of societal etiquette and frankly brainwashing all tied to sex being the "original sin" that we as a culture are getting over.

This is especially true in the United States due to our Puritanical roots. Just look at how sex and sexuality is viewed pretty much anywhere in Europe compared to here. Our handling of it here in the States is much like college binge drinking where we haven't figured out how to be responsible and we all think that we're getting away with something now that the parents aren't around to say "no".

You are quite right that we are getting better, but we're coming from a state of heavy repression and completely backward views on sexuality and sex.

Everybody loves Raymond goes completely overboard with the most negative stereotypes of marriage. Ray is an inconsiderate, incompetent fool, and his wife is a screeching, nagging, battleaxe. Sex is portrayed as something she essentially hates doing and doles out to him only when he is sufficiently obedient. The premise that they remain married is fairly unbelievable.

In that regard its a caricature, which is because it's a comedy show. However, a lot of what goes on in the marital relationship is "funny" only because of a massive double standard. I don't know if you've ever seen The King of Queens, but it's a good comparison mainly because the 2 shows are related; Ray appears on KoQ at least once as a guest star, as the same character he is on ELR. The couple in KoQ has a lot of the same flaws as the characters in ELR, but they are portrayed as actually in love with each other and most importantly, you don't see abusive behavior or the use of sex to control each other despite the shows being otherwise rather similar.




I'm not disagreeing with any of this. I'm talking more about society's attitude in general; specifically that we regard adultery as unacceptable, but we regard the practice of witholding sexual and romantic contact from a spouse as acceptable. It's fine to say "If you want to **** someone else, get a divorce" but the problem is that we should also be saying "if you don't want to have sex anymore (either with your spouse, or at all), get a divorce."

I don't know that this is necessarily Petraeus's situation, or if his wife was witholding sex, and I'm not saying anything he did was acceptable. Let's assume, for the sake of argument however, that it was the case. Let's also assume for the sake of argument that rather than cheat with Broadwell, he decided to ask for a divorce, and specified in the filing his dissatisfaction with his wife's unwillingness to engage in sexual relations. If those facts, (rather than what actually happened) had obtained, then not only should no one have had a problem with him but she should expect to get a much smaller amount, if any, of equity out of the marital assets.

You are right, it is wrong to sleep around on your spouse. It is also wrong to use sex as a way to control someone.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ok, first of all there was no "brainwashing" at all. It is not as if society was "wrong" for all those years and is now suddenly "right" because it's not treating sex as taboo anymore. Sex was taboo because of the problems associated with unwanted children. Sex would never have been regarded as sinful if it didn't have the potential consequences it does.

We are not "getting over" anything, either. During this time period, there have been massive advances in technology. The late 60's, unsurprisingly, liberalized sexual attitudes as birth control pills began to become widely available and more reliable; only about a decade after the 1st-generation pills appeared. Had those pills come later, the effects of the 60s would have been later; had it not occurred, there would be far less liberalization of sexual attitudes.

These attitudes you are so disparaging towards were not wrongheaded at all in terms of the technology and science available at the times they occurred.



This is an exceedingly narrow and inaccurate view of sex in the United States, mainly because there is no one common national attitude towards it.

As for Europe, their attitudes are not any better than ours are. Having a more "liberal" attitude towards sex is not better or healthier. It certainly reduces problems associated with hang-ups, repression, and sexual abuse, but we've exchanged those for the demonization of male sexuality, and problems associated human trafficking that is easier than ever.



Our views in the past were not "repressed" or "backwards". They were in an earlier state of evolution, and they were driven by reality. These "backwards" ideas were attempts to work out sexual mores that would address the real problems associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing, to say nothing of STDs. They did not just spring up from the imaginations of religious leaders; the ideas were created by people based on what intuitively seemed right. That was hardly the best way to do things, but there was no avoiding it. The science, technology, and even scientific thought processes needed to do anything better simply did not exist. Sexual attitudes were primitive because everything was primitive.

Moreover, modern attitudes towards sex and child rearing would have been unworkable in earlier times. Sexual mores that focused on nuclear families were that way in a large part because of a need for survival. Without automation, an adult would be very hard-pressed to take care of children AND make a living. Less than a hundred years ago, children were a source of additional labor, and while the husband was out working, the wife had to be working around the house to keep everything going.

In the 1930s, one farmer fed himself and three other people. Today, he feeds well over a hundred. That is possible only because of the technology that makes labor far less difficult than it used to be. The technology that provides that is what provides the leisure and the safe methods needed for liberalization of sexual attitudes. That is what allows more liberal sexual mores, not some magical awakening to the reality of "proper" sexual attitudes.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The women who don't exercise and look like fat potatoes are the "unhealthy" ones. The healthier you are, the more attractive you are. Your life expectancy and quality of life increase too. I don't see why the author thinks women need to get plastic surgery, when in reality they should just exercise a lot more. Ageing will always make women look worse (unfortunately and maybe just my opinion), but the effect is greatly diminished if they do the recommended levels of exercise and eat healthy as a lifestyle.

I find it fascinating that a central set of morals regarding monogamy is assumed. While I understand we're from a relatively homogenous, "western civilization" background, and that the events in question were conducted from people who have a similar background, the idea that literally zero discussion exists about various subcultures acceptability of "adulterous" behavior is interesting.

Furthermore, the 900lb elephant in the room goes back to a discussion or comment that I believed happened on the first thread page: this is common for men and women of means or authority. The moral outrage over the issue is, to me, a hilarious distraction tactic from real issues of the day.

Bread and circuses.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Well, my earlier post from The Onion summed up my attitude: People are having sex. Oh, yeah, that's such an important thing to take note of! So scandalous, it never happens that people have sex. Why do we care?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Speaking for myself, I just didn't want to get into the inevitable Bible thumping argument that would arise from having a discussion around that.



I don't see it so much as a distraction tactic as just another example of who shallow we are as a society. Both from the "rubbernecking" tendencies that cause us to slow down and watch a traffic accident as well as making something into a national level issue that frankly should be between this guy and his family.

Personally, just like Clinton I don't care who he ****. And relationships are complex enough matters involving the least rational parts of our being that expecting that it's just as simple as adultery is wrong/immoral is childish and naive.