Kevin's Watch

Yeah, but you know what? The longer I'm raising my daughter, the more the "media pressures" thing kinda seems like more and more of a cop out.

Kids today are incredibly media savvy. If parents give them the tools to deal with the media the way it usually deserves to be dealt with, I'm beginning to think that there's not as much of a problem as we have been lead to believe. (Which is why I'm working on this new idea.)

If they don't, well... It's a little like blaming the Sabretoothed Tiger for Ook Jr's disappearance after sending him off, alone and unarmed, to the watering hole.

The thing is, sex was used to sell things back in the good old days too - I think that kids becoming jaded might be a bigger problem on that score than becoming corrupted.

Sure, sex has been used blatantly since the '80s, though I'd argue not nearly to the extent that it is now, but kids weren't specifically targeted then.

Joe Camel got banned because the government felt he was targeted towards kids (I never got that, by the way), but kid's clothing with "Porn Star" written on it is OK?

People have strong sex drives. Some teenagers have always been sexually active; some people have always committed adultery.

I hardly see any of those people as automatically going to hell, or a sign that society as a whole is going to hell, either.

Who am I to condemn some lonely person alienated from a workaholic and/or emotionally neglectful spouse from getting a bit of attention and comfort from another source? Who am I to condemn a man (or woman) whose needs are simply not being met by a spouse who is not interested in sex at all from wanting a relationship where basic physical needs are met?

People who are happy in a relationship and whose physical and emotional needs are being met rarely stray, after all.

And as for kids...in many societies throughout history, people were married off as soon as puberty hit, or soon thereafter. It's only been in the last hundred or so years that people started having extended childhoods like our kids have now. Having sex as a teenager is what our bodies are biologically programmed to do. And some kids do just that.

While I would prefer that my children wait until they are adults to begin having sex, I think it is important that they know how to have safe sex if they do get carried away by their hormones.

Cail wrote:Sure, sex has been used blatantly since the '80s, though I'd argue not nearly to the extent that it is now, but kids weren't specifically targeted then.

Joe Camel got banned because the government felt he was targeted towards kids (I never got that, by the way), but kid's clothing with "Porn Star" written on it is OK?

I'd argue that banning either isn't okay (never got the Joe Camel thing either), but right now I'm in a real "Oh, so the terrorists hate our Freedom? Let's show 'em so much Freedom they choke on it!" state of mind.

My break (back in the day) with the Democratic Party was largely due to their attempts to make parenting decisions for me. (Dems like to legislate the livingroom, 'Pubs the bedroom - whaddya gonna do?)

SoulQuest1970 wrote:Does cheating affect the other person even if they don't know about it? YES!

And adultery ... remember adultery? This is a topic about adultery.

There are "open marriages". Is that adulterous? Maybe so, but there's a critical component to it: you and you're spouse agree whether or not it is okay to have a fling before you have a fling.

So if you have to ask ... is adultery wrong? ... then ask yourself ... if it's not, why are you keeping it a secret from your spouse?

If you're hiding it, you know down in your soul it's wrong. You're not protecting your spouse ... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. (Don't go there, folks.) You want to follow your urges and also keep your saftey net.

Plissken wrote:My break (back in the day) with the Democratic Party was largely due to their attempts to make parenting decisions for me. (Dems like to legislate the livingroom, 'Pubs the bedroom - whaddya gonna do?)

Stephen Colbert Makes it Simple:

So, this is the difference between Big Government and Small Government.

If it's trying to control something you own, like your trash, that's BIG Government. Uncle Sam has no right to tell you what to do with your empties.

Now, if it's trying to control what you do with your body, that's small government. Now, you might be asking: 'Stephen, Don't I own my own body?' No. Because then, you could sell it."

"...If it's trying to tell you what you do with your dirty parts, that's Small Government. Fellas, the only thing you should be doing with the tool is keeping it well greased and in a dry place until you meet that certain special toolbox.

Now, posting the ten commandments in public buildings or banning homosexual unions- that's small government.

But, if they're caring for the poor, turning the other cheek, or sitting down with tax collectors, that's big government.

To put it simpler: mentioning Jesus in your speech is small government. Doing what Jesus asked is big government."

-The Colbert Report, 6/20/06

(Much funnier on video, thanks to Godzilla and Lassie helping out: here.)

Wayfriend wrote:

SoulQuest1970 wrote:Does cheating affect the other person even if they don't know about it? YES!

And adultery ... remember adultery? This is a topic about adultery.

There are "open marriages". Is that adulterous? Maybe so, but there's a critical component to it: you and you're spouse agree whether or not it is okay to have a fling before you have a fling.

So if you have to ask ... is adultery wrong? ... then ask yourself ... if it's not, why are you keeping it a secret from your spouse?

If you're hiding it, you know down in your soul it's wrong. You're not protecting your spouse ... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. (Don't go there, folks.) You want to follow your urges and also keep your saftey net.

I think openess and honesty is a key here. I have always told my husband that if he meets a woman he would rather be with than me to just tell me. Sure, it would hurt - but a lot less than a lot of sneaking around and lies and the broken trust that months of such behavior would bring about.

The one time I was interested in someone else, I went to my husband and got permission to spend time with that person. Now, it never did come to actual adultery, and my husband and I did eventually work most of our issues out. But that honesty was very important to both of us.

In retrospect, him knowing that I was dead serious about seeing someone else might have even saved our marriage - as a result of that, he started to give me the only thing I had ever asked of him - some of his time and attention.

If I had destroyed what trust there was by lying and sneaking behind his back I do not know if we could have saved things?

Duchess wrote:

The one time I was interested in someone else, I went to my husband and got permission to spend time with that person.

WOW. If I ever tried that with my wife, no matter how honest my intentions, I'd be out the door so fast my head would spin.

I think Fist was right about the whole marriage/adultery thing - it's all about monogamy, and how we're just not suited for it in today's age. I tell people all the time, in just a few short years - maybe 20 - marriage will be a thing of the past. That's a strong statement, I know, and probably not accurate at all, but it's my view on the matter.

Don, please, you're rankling the Christians!

I am a Christian, although admittedly it's difficult to tell.

dlbpharmd wrote:I think Fist was right about the whole marriage/adultery thing - it's all about monogamy, and how we're just not suited for it in today's age. I tell people all the time, in just a few short years - maybe 20 - marriage will be a thing of the past. That's a strong statement, I know, and probably not accurate at all, but it's my view on the matter.

As a Catholic (or in spite of my Catholocism), I couldn't agree more. My wife and I have been together for 18 years....Since I was 20, which is waaaaaaaaay too young to even consider spending the rest of your life with someone. I simply cannot comprehend spending another 18 years with this woman. Not because I hate her (not yet), but because we are two massively different people with massively different ideas about life. In short, we're not the same people we were in 1988, and that's probably a good thing.

What's truly unfortunate, is that to terminate the marriage, I'll lose custody of my daughter, as well as my home, most of my friends, and half of the rest of my stuff.

man. 18 years is a long time. i oughta know. i'm closing in on 19 myself.

sheesh. its unconventional. or at least it doesn't follow the conventions i was TAUGHT. but i can't imagine him not there. THAT would be weird. no children involved here, and the next 18 could be weirder than the first 18 given our personalities.

we've split a thousand times in a thousand ways. we have diverged so much from what we were that i'm sure who we are today wouldn't take a second look at each other. and still i can't imagine him not there.

at this point, there's not much that could screw up my marriage...adultry included.

i'm not sure we ever should have been manogomous. (we the general we, not me and ger)

it just don't seem right. call me crazy.

I always loved Oscar Wilde's views on marriage:

In married life, three is company, two is none.

The proper basis for a marriage is mutual misunderstanding.

There is nothing in the world like the devotion of a married woman; it's a thing that no married man knows anything about.

I know most people would disagree with me, but divorce can be a blessing. My parents had a miserable marriage, with my mother always laying down horrible emotional abuse and manaipulation on my father. They never got divorced, as they grew up in a conservative part of the South, in a time when divorce just didn't happen.

I think we would have all been a lot better off if they had split up, as long as my father had gotten custody of us.

How can living in a house filled with violence and daily screaming and abuse be better for children than a divorce between their parents (as long as they are not abused anymore in the aftermath).

My mother (who was paranoid and crazy) always accused my father of cheating on her. She would hit him, scream at him, punch him, break furniture by hitting him with chairs and whatever - I think it is why I have issues with jealous women to this day. He never did - it was all in her mind.

My sisters and I have discussed it, and we actually wish the poor man had cheated on her. At least that way he could have had some gentleness and pleasure - and maybe even a bit of love - in his life. As it was, he got the abuse fior having supposedly done it, but none of the fun.

And - if he had - I see no sin it under the circumstances (providing his partner would have been free of encumbrances). He spent his life being abused, and stuck around taking care of that crazy violent manipulative woman until the day she died. He would have had a lot better life if he had institutionalized her, but he did his duty and followed his vows as he felt he had to do. If he got a bit of gentleness on the side -would that have really been wrong???

Ah, well, if we must stay on topic:

I don't think that marriage is obsolete. It's conventions may change, just as they have throughout history, but lifetime contracts between people will remain.

I say this as a divorced, single man. I never wanted to be married, got married too young, and for the usual wrong reason (doing the Right Thing, dontcha know), was in an emotionally draining (and occasionally physically abusive) marriage, and I never once cheated - even when she told me to get a girlfriend. The missing component in today's marriage isn't a sense of right and wrong, or personal responsibility, or that we have suddenly become less capable than our forebearers to control our hormones.

What is missing is simple Honor.

I didn't cheat because I took an oath saying that I wouldn't. It wasn't easy, hell, sometimes it was humiliating. But my actions are not predicated on the behavior of others. When I wake up in the morning, I can look myself in the mirror - and I can look my daughter in the eye.

Marriage isn't going anywhere - if for no other reason than it's financially advantagous. The faithfulness component may change, the number of people involved in the contract may go up, but the need to have someone you know is there, and who has your back, is primal. Adultery is wrong - if your marriage calls for faithfulness - but you may choose your vows, and you may honor them. In so doing, you provide yourself with a singular opportunity to honor yourself, your partner, and your relationship simultaneously.

marriage is partnership. plain and simple. if you don't marry your best friend, you better MAKE that person your best friend pretty damn quick or its over before it starts. and even then it's hard.

Um, how is Hips Don't Lie objectionable? And what's wrong with wanting to be like Gwen Stefani or Shakira?

For some reason, a woman shaking her breasts at the camera (constantly) doesn't strike me as dancing.

I'm not saying I don't watch it. (I am only human after all, and the eye-aches of constantly following those things are killer, let me tell you.)

But songs like Holla Back girl point to the normalizing of sexual innuendo, and Hips Don't Lie just strikes me as a naughty striptease w/out the removal of clothing. Have no doubt, our children watch these women, idolize them and eventually want to be them, going so far as acting out on what they think these "role models" would do.

The objectification of women has always and always will be wrong, no matter if it's a 60 year old underground black and white nude mag, or a t-shirt that says "I'm Easy" on it. Please don't think that I believe only tv is to blame. I don't. There is a whole list of ills I could name, and can do nothing about, besides bitch about them, lol.

-B

Some great posts folks.

I certainly don't think that marketing is the source of all these evils, and I think that we all agree that the abdication of parental responsibility is a key factor in allowing it to become such an influence.

That said, and apparently returning to topic, I must offer up my support for Duchess' view. (I don't think that Barad was being literal btw Duchess, although I may be wrong. )

I don't see any wrong in escaping a loveless or abusive marriage, whether by divorce or adultery. I do strongly agree that it's the secrecy and lies that cause the harm more than the simple fact of lack of love.

I agree with Pliss about the whole honour thing too though...if you're going to do it, have the decency to end your existing relationship before you do. If you don't or won't, then you are, as WayFriend said, trying to have your cake and eat it.

As for the institution of marriage, well, with luck Pliss will be right. I've been in a monogamous relationship for 8 years, and neither of us have either any plans to go our seperate ways, or to marry.

Of course, as I've mentioned before, marriage here carries no appreciable financial advantage. (And if it did, don't you think it's the wrong reason to get married anyway?

I don't need the government or some church to legitimise my relationship. That contract or agreement that Cail mentions can be just as valid and binding when made by two people without any third party intervention.

Anyway, the topic isn't about adultery, it just happened to be where it was split. I think that in terms of the title, everything we've said has been on topic.

SoulQuest's point about the speed at which children are being allowed/encouraged/forced to grow up is a valid one I think.

It's not that TV per se is to blame, or that selling sex is to blame. And yeah, in the last 100 years or so, children have had perhaps unnaturally prolonged childhoods, and part of our reluctance may be a love of the status quo.

But maybe that prolonged childhood isn't a bad thing in terms of future stability and happiness...

--A

dlbpharmd wrote:Duchess wrote:

The one time I was interested in someone else, I went to my husband and got permission to spend time with that person.

WOW. If I ever tried that with my wife, no matter how honest my intentions, I'd be out the door so fast my head would spin.

I think Fist was right about the whole marriage/adultery thing - it's all about monogamy, and how we're just not suited for it in today's age. I tell people all the time, in just a few short years - maybe 20 - marriage will be a thing of the past. That's a strong statement, I know, and probably not accurate at all, but it's my view on the matter.

Interestingly enough, from a scientific point of view, several scientists have pointed out that apparently mankind was never supposed to be monogamous: monogamy, according to them, is an invention of society, whereas mankind in its "natural" state would be polygamous. Pay attention though: polygamy only... that is, according to them, in our "natural" state, unmarked by society, a man would have many women, but every woman would only have one man. Polyandry (a woman having more than one male partner), according to these scientists, is not part of mankind's natural sexual behaviour.

I remember a report about that, although not that it excluded polyandry.

And while I agree that monogamy is a social construct, I'm not sure about the exclusion of polyandry though.

If, as I assume, the reasoning for the "unnaturalness" of monogamy is based on the idea of "dominant" gene providers, (i.e. the most likely to procreate is he whose genes ensure the best chance of surviving and prospering), then I see no reason why, if the dominant male was overthrown, a female wouldn't seek the genes of the new dominant the next time round.

--A