3 ms·
> 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 stor
by 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.
- Dylan16807 12y agoFrom the other comments you can see quotes from a version of the story showing that there was almost certainly no adultery. The rest of your conjecture is mostly you applying your own bias to an absence of information. It's a circular argument to use that to support a sense of traditional values. For all we know the previous relationship was years long and not at all casual. Unless you're going to interpret any non-marriage relationship as 'casual' I don't think you have any evidence in favor of your main point. Especially since this shows a sliver of failed intimacy utterly destroying love and marriage vows. It's not like the man was living a double life, this is something that never came up. To say that their multiple decades of intimacy were not good enough and this shows the true importance of intimacy is nothing more than No True Scotsman. And I severely doubt that it shows the importance of sexual intercourse either. Just the importance of children, which everyone (to first approximation) agrees with.
- graycat 12y agoNot everyone will agree with my preference for traditional family values, which is fine. Still, I'm not following you: I'm not getting your answer to the question of why the sudden knowledge of the child conceived, say, before the marriage, broke up the (long) marriage? My answer is that either (1) evidence of adultery or (2) (as you claim is argued in this thread, no adultery so) lack of open communications, that is, lack of that part of intimate love. To me, answer (2) looks tough to believe. That is, why break up love, home, and marriage over a love child conceived before the marriage, especially given the chance that the man was unaware of the pregnancy? Since you also don't like answer (1), adultery, I'm left without knowing what your explanation is. My personal preferences aside, if adultery is the only believable answer, then it looks like someone regarded adultery as a really serious problem, enough to break up love, home, and marriage, and, thus, evidence of strong respect for (my) traditional family values. And, you lost me on a second point: It seems that you are saying that the important glue of a romantic relationship, with marriage or not, is having children and not really just sexual intercourse. In that case, given that the marriage did have children, why use sexual intercourse, with children or not, from adultery or not, as a reason to break up the marriage? I'll try to be more clear: A traditional view of much of the meaning of sexual intercourse is the implied bonding and, thus, joining of two lives. It's mostly the promise of long term love, bonding, joining, security, etc. that makes sexual intercourse attractive and important. In this way, sexual intercourse becomes important in the marriage, even without children yet or ever. But in part you seem to be saying (1) what is important about sexual intercourse in the marriage is any resulting conceptions yet (2) are saying that loss of love and home, beyond considerations of children, is a tragedy. So, it seems that with (1) you are saying that sexual intercourse without children is not very important but with (2) you are saying that loss of that part of love is important. You seem to be saying that Bob and Martha can have a great marriage with three great children, still are swingers and have semi-public sexual intercourse with a crowd of strangers or casual friends, yet break up their marriage once there is knowledge of a love child conceived before the marriage. I can understand traditional values and even swingers, but I can't understand how such parts of those two can be combined in one marriage.