3 ms·

There is an encouraging side to this agony: At least some of the people in that family cared, really cared, about the issues of intimacy (that is, open commun

by graycat 12y ago

There is an encouraging side to this agony: At least some of the people in that family cared, really cared, about the issues of intimacy (that is, open communications in the sense of giving knowledge of themselves to each other, as in E. Fromm, The Art of Loving), honesty, trust, fidelity, etc. This fact is "encouraging" because now it is far too easy to conclude from various circumstances, stories in the media and/or tabloid media, the hookup culture, etc. that in US culture these issues have been regarded as meaningless, that any sexual behavior is no more meaningful than, say, a game of ping pong, that the standard marriage vows are just lines in a stage play comedy/fantasy, that a couple stays together only so long as the combination of money and sex are appropriate, etc. YMMV, and not everyone agrees, but there is a body of thought that the fundamental problem of life is doing something effective about the anxiety of feeling alone, that the best solution is the joining with and love of spouse and the associated family and its bonds (as in common marriage vows), and that love making, especially causing conception of another human, is a crucial part of family formation, bonding, joining, love, and security against the anxieties of being alone. Then infidelity, dishonesty, deception, violation of vows, etc. are torpedoes just below the water line of a Good Ship Loving Home and Family and, thus, a disaster for all involved. Net, good to see, even with the agony of this story, that some people still care about the ideals of a traditional family. It is easy for someone to be fooled about traditional views of love, home, and family, that is, regard these views as so good, beneficial, and attractive, nearly universally, that a candidate life partner would also leap to embrace and honor the views. Alas, too often too many people fail to see and/or act on such views. Art is sometimes defined as the communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion, and some of the strongest emotions have to do with the family and love issues here. Then, we can find some art that communicates the agony of love, home, and family destroyed. E.g., there is the Renata Scotto performance of the aria "Un bel di vedremo" from the Puccini opera Madama Butterfly as at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCSdz2hM_o4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCSdz2hM_o4 Apparently Puccini was correct that audiences would see the reasons for the agony expressed in that aria; that is, many in the audience would understand that love making was one of the most important issues in all of life and that often casual sex was quite serious and not at all casual. Similarly for the intimacy of giving knowledge of self, honesty, trust, fidelity, etc. To me, good to know; to me, regarding traditional marriage vows and love, home, marriage, and physical love making as casual or just a joke is rot in the foundations of our society. So, it's good to see that not everyone accepts such rot of our society.

jacquesm 12y ago
It feels as if you're just using the story to see your own preferences confirmed. For all you know from the facts as displayed by the story that was a perfect family and the dad never knew he made the woman pregnant. It is also possible the mom had several sex partners before the marriage and did not get pregnant. It may not have been all that casual, relationships do end. So if you want to draw unfounded conclusions go right ahead but the story definitely does not confirm your chosen beliefs. In fact, if there is one thing that you can take away from this story it is that mere information was capable of destroying one of those homes full of love you're going on about without either partner ever breaking their marriage vows.
- graycat 12y ago
  > It feels as if you're just using the story to see your own preferences confirmed. In part, right. > For all you know from the facts as displayed by the story that was a perfect family and the dad never knew he made the woman pregnant. Strictly speaking, yes. But we have to expect that usually the man will know if the woman he had sex with did get pregnant. E.g., legally he can be on the hook for supporting the child until she/he is 18. Also if the couple was intimate enough to conceive a child, then typically they are also intimate enough to communicate that they did conceive a child. > In fact, if there is one thing that you can take away from this story it is that mere information was capable of destroying one of those homes full of love you're going on about without either partner ever breaking their marriage vows. Strictly speaking, yes. But the story is not very complete in the details, e.g., we don't have dates. So, a guess from the story is that the child discovered was the result of adultery within the marriage; indeed, otherwise there was relatively little reason for the discovery to break up the marriage. Whatever did happen when, adultery or not, that the marriage did break up does indicate that at least one of the partners cared a lot about the issue of the so far unknown child; that is, someone really cared a lot about, if you will, 'traditional family values' whether there was actual adultery or not. Yes, some relationships can be both not casual and broken up. But one of the main reasons for a relationship is 'commitment' where both partners believe that with their relationship they have a long-term, not just a 24 hour, solution to 'the fundamental problem of life', doing something effective about feeling alone. Then, being casual about a relationship ending shows too little understanding of much of the reason for a relationship, that is, knowing that have the problem of being alone solved for 24 hours, 48 hours, a week, a month, a year, a decade, for life. Indeed, lots of details in our legal system are to this end thus indicating that some people value such commitment. Or, a relationship should not be like a car that just trade in on a new model -- pun intended. Such a trade in has to suggest that the origin of the relationship involved a lie, that is, a false claim or suggestion that there was love in the sense of commitment. Indeed, some people who pursue and defend casual sex do admit that one of the main issues is not lying, that is, being clear that the sex is just casual, say, like playing a game of ping pong, and not a commitment for the future. For your last paragraph, why did the information destroy the home if there was no adultery and, really, the father was not aware of the pregnancy? So, since the home did break up, I have to suspect that there was some deception involved, either adultery or at least just deliberate lack of communications, that is, deliberate concealment. Such poor communications is a lack of intimacy and, thus, a lack of intimate love and, thus, a bad biggie for the relationship. Or, as in E. Fromm, the couple is supposed to give knowledge of themselves to each other, if you will, take all their clothes off between their ears. I have to return to my broad view: Casual sex isn't; sex is serious; really there's no such thing as casual sex. I'm pleased that some others see something at least similar.

by graycat 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

It feels as if you're just using the story to see your own preferences confirmed. For all you know from the facts as displayed by the story that was a perfect family and the dad never knew he made the woman pregnant. It is also possible the mom had several sex partners before the marriage and did not get pregnant. It may not have been all that casual, relationships do end. So if you want to draw unfounded conclusions go right ahead but the story definitely does not confirm your chosen beliefs. In fact, if there is one thing that you can take away from this story it is that mere information was capable of destroying one of those homes full of love you're going on about without either partner ever breaking their marriage vows.

graycat 12y ago
> It feels as if you're just using the story to see your own preferences confirmed. In part, right. > For all you know from the facts as displayed by the story that was a perfect family and the dad never knew he made the woman pregnant. Strictly speaking, yes. But we have to expect that usually the man will know if the woman he had sex with did get pregnant. E.g., legally he can be on the hook for supporting the child until she/he is 18. Also if the couple was intimate enough to conceive a child, then typically they are also intimate enough to communicate that they did conceive a child. > In fact, if there is one thing that you can take away from this story it is that mere information was capable of destroying one of those homes full of love you're going on about without either partner ever breaking their marriage vows. Strictly speaking, yes. But the story is not very complete in the details, e.g., we don't have dates. So, a guess from the story is that the child discovered was the result of adultery within the marriage; indeed, otherwise there was relatively little reason for the discovery to break up the marriage. Whatever did happen when, adultery or not, that the marriage did break up does indicate that at least one of the partners cared a lot about the issue of the so far unknown child; that is, someone really cared a lot about, if you will, 'traditional family values' whether there was actual adultery or not. Yes, some relationships can be both not casual and broken up. But one of the main reasons for a relationship is 'commitment' where both partners believe that with their relationship they have a long-term, not just a 24 hour, solution to 'the fundamental problem of life', doing something effective about feeling alone. Then, being casual about a relationship ending shows too little understanding of much of the reason for a relationship, that is, knowing that have the problem of being alone solved for 24 hours, 48 hours, a week, a month, a year, a decade, for life. Indeed, lots of details in our legal system are to this end thus indicating that some people value such commitment. Or, a relationship should not be like a car that just trade in on a new model -- pun intended. Such a trade in has to suggest that the origin of the relationship involved a lie, that is, a false claim or suggestion that there was love in the sense of commitment. Indeed, some people who pursue and defend casual sex do admit that one of the main issues is not lying, that is, being clear that the sex is just casual, say, like playing a game of ping pong, and not a commitment for the future. For your last paragraph, why did the information destroy the home if there was no adultery and, really, the father was not aware of the pregnancy? So, since the home did break up, I have to suspect that there was some deception involved, either adultery or at least just deliberate lack of communications, that is, deliberate concealment. Such poor communications is a lack of intimacy and, thus, a lack of intimate love and, thus, a bad biggie for the relationship. Or, as in E. Fromm, the couple is supposed to give knowledge of themselves to each other, if you will, take all their clothes off between their ears. I have to return to my broad view: Casual sex isn't; sex is serious; really there's no such thing as casual sex. I'm pleased that some others see something at least similar.