Very difficult to apply the brakes when you did. To be honest I'd say the average guy would not have. I would like to think I wouldn't go any farther, but who really knows until you're in that sort of situation.
Never Squat With Yer Spurs On
Agnostic Apostate Morals Kick In
by COMF 33 Replies latest social relationships
-
LB
-
spender
teejay: what does that have to do with morality? Not everyone believes sex is a mindless act involving two adults with no emotional connection whatsoever. Before you try to remove the splinter from my eye, remove the rafter from yours.
-
patio34
All talk about morals and judging and who gets hurt by whom and to what extent, etc., aside, there is an interesting point made by Jared Diamond in The Third Chimpanzee.
He asserted that humans are mostly monogamous. The ape family doesn't correspond with the way humans mostly procreate as they are always promiscous and breed indiscriminately.
It was certain birds who's mating habits correlate with humans. Many species of birds mate monogamously mostly for life just as humans do. But they are observed to visit another nest when their mate is away and mate with another's mate. Then scurry back to their own nest before their "spouse" returns.
He concludes that humans are the same way. For the most part, most of the people most of the time are true to one another. However, when the mate's away they may dally at another nest.
There is no moralistic, judgmental--imho--quality to this, just an observation from nature. After all, we all descended from our evolutionary ancestors and some traits branched off into different species before their nearest cousins. Which, BTW, is where the title The Third Chimpanzee comes from: we are the third chimpanzee, sharing 98.7% of our genes with the bonobo chimps.
-
COMF
I'm glad for everyone's comments here so far. Thanks! I'm enjoying it.
My writing style is probably responsible for some of what I perceive as confusion as to what the point of my post is supposed to be. I like to take a "less is more" approach, leaving most of my point unstated, but highlighted by its very omission and the allusion of the flatly factual text, so that when the reader looks for what is manifestly not there, he finds it for himself. He now knows, in his own thought process, the flow of logic that led to it. No longer is it a matter of me having said it. Now, if he wants to argue against the point, it's something he must wrestle with inside himself rather than with me. The ultimate example of this is when spender said, Is the lack of dignity the "main point" i'm missing here? My one-word answer was vastly more eloquent than anything else I could have said.
And so in the case of this post; the subject of the post, the point I was making, was almost completely unmentioned in the text. Clues for a detective: read the title. Agnostic Apostate Morals Kick In". Read the summarizing remarks. Morals. It's got nothing to do with Christianity, y'all. It's all in the individual.
I wasn't telling this story to "get too full of myself." I wasn't telling it to titillate. I wasn't offering myself to the board ladies as a trustworthy guy, either. The point of the post doesn't even involve me, except as one example of what I'm talking about.
Teejay has seen the whole picture here:
Comf said that his present relationship was on its last legs. Why not put a nail in the... uh... coffin?
Why not, indeed. Yes, from my jaded point of view (having seen many a relationship come and go, and able now to recognize the signs), it is on its last legs. It may yet rise phoenix-like from the ashes, but I'm not expecting it to (of course, I wasn't expecting to find a woman who interested me as much as she did, either...).
Now, forget the trees for a moment and look at the forest:
- I don't believe in God. I don't believe I have him to answer to. I don't believe he provides me with guidance, protection, punishment, or any of that other stuff that is always talked about but never materializes.- I don't believe that the bible is a worthy or useful guideline for our behavior. Some parts of it are coincidentally applicable, due to fairly universal perceptions of what behavior is necessary (as are parts of many other law codes).
- I have come to the conclusion that we all are responsible for our own emotions, thoughts and actions (this isn't of my originality, but I've accepted it as true), and that if any "saving" is needed, it can only be accomplished if the one needing saving becomes his own savior.
- I believe, and have said here many times, that we each must decide for ourselves what we believe, independently of the assertions of others, and must build for ourselves a personal set of standards, guidelines for our own behavior.
- If laws, rules, opinions or the wishes of others collide with my personal moral code, discretion is called for, but I will be true to myself. That's the essence of all of this: I will be true to myself.
- As expressed in teejay's thread (linked in my first post), I have come to the conclusion that monogamy is useful while raising a family, because it provides a secure and nurturing environment for the children's development; but with humans stripped down to our essential natures, and with the concept of monogamy kept distinct from notions of love and promises of loyalty, it is largely irrelevant in the case of adults whose children are grown and gone. For the vast majority, this perception is not there, but it is nonetheless true, I believe.
- I have an active, healthy libido.
So... some Christians like to argue that the definition of right and wrong comes from God, not from inside ourselves. Jehovah's Witnesses like to say that when somebody leaves the organization they lose all their morals and the demons move in and take them over. (Harken back to the title again: Agnostic Apostate Morals...
Note that it wouldn't have bothered me for even a second, to have had sex with my former girlfriend, if I had been uncommitted. No worries about non-marital sex for me. No bible conformity there.
Note also that it didn't bother me to give her a free copy of the software (nobody's mentioned that yet... wassup wit dat?)... no bible conformity there.
But yet, I honored the commitment to monogamy, even though every animal cell in my body was screaming for what teejay (accurately) called "wild, passionate, meaningless sex." Teejay asks, "why didn’t you go through with it, exactly?"
Because I gave my word on it, teejay. Because I said I would be monogamous. And I'm a truthful person. It's part of my personal moral code to be honest with people.
I picked that moral value myself. I rejected others because I didn't see any justification for them, but honesty I kept because it is very important to me. And I continue to live by it, and by the other values I personally chose and put in my personal collection of standards for living.
They're mine. I put them there. Not God. And I live by them; I live morally as defined by me.
That was the point. God doesn't give us a moral code. It comes from us, individually.
COMF
PS Isn't it past time for You D'oh to jump in here with his incoherent sneerings?
-
unclebruce
Thank's Cap'n,
You're an inspiration to all us retaining watchtower induced inhibitions in company of the softer sex. (I never thought I'd be shy in my middle age but there it is .. chased by girls but not taking the advantage)
Your dialog with spotty faced Spender is hillarious! I see he now sports an asterix on his forehead .. now where the * did that come from? LOL. (I'd love to chat bro.Spender but I have a car to catch)
cheers Captain!
PS: I seriously admire your forthright manner in leaving the bedroom door ajar for us peak'n perverts ;)
-
patio34
Great to see you again Uncle Bruce! We've missed you.
All intelligent people are confrontational.--HBO's Winston Churchill -
teejay
spender,
I sure hope you’re not getting upset ‘cause I’m not. Just enjoying the discussion, is all. Let’s be friends, okay?
You said:
what does that have to do with morality? Not everyone believes sex is a mindless act involving two adults with no emotional connection whatsoever.I understand that not everyone views sex that way, but some do. Maybe Comf does – you don’t know! And, if he and his partner *does* view sex that way (or did this morning), who am I (or you) to say that he should view things our way or that his view is wrong?
Earlier you said that if Comf and his ex had bumped uglies, “others would have been affected in a bad way.” All I was asking was, “Who?” and “bad, how?” Your response was, “Before you try to remove the splinter from my eye, remove the rafter from yours.
I don’t understand these words of yours. I don’t see a splinter in your eye and even if I did, I’d leave it up to you to remove it. I’ve never said that you aren’t free to view things however you wish or even that your viewpoint was “wrong.” At the same time, I’ve not judged Comf, either, nor said that what he did/didn’t do was “wrong.” Remember... YOU did that.
---------------------------------
COMF,Thanks for the follow-up.
I already understood most of what you said in it, however, including the relevance of the title you chose. What confused me is the trepidation you seemed to feel in going through with the deal with your ex, considering that you seemed to say that your relationship with Current GF is over except for the official announcement. If that’s so, why not move on? Who would suffer? This a.m. seemed like just the right time.
I share many of the exact ‘beliefs’ you listed, particularly your not being bound by a belief in god or that the bible is his infallible word of truth. While some (many?) of its moral directives are beneficial, most are found in every other religion, making Christianity fairly middling when it comes to a way of life – no better or worse than any other brand of faith.
I guess I didn’t understand that your relationship with Current GF is not *really* over and your monogamy in the face of wild, passionate sex was only your way of being true to your on-going commitment to her and a commitment to your own, self-induced moral code. I understand that.
At least she – the ex – left with the... uh... door open. Sounds like when you’re ready, she’ll be ready.
Nice thread – a nice extension/addition to the taboo thread. You make a fitting, living experiment, Comf.
-
Carmel
Comf,
I liked the subtler approach.
Spender must not realize your new found religion and how much you need to make it known. I believe it is called secular humanism? In addition to denying the existence of God, it credits all growth and development to what some anti-evolutionists call "happy accident" which includes moral and ethical behavior.
You should thank Spender for unwittingly holding the microphone.
carmel
-
WildHorses
"don't get too full of yourself...I wouldn't even put myself in a situation like that. Just because things aren't going to well with your current relationship doesn't allow you to forget about your promises. Put yourself in the other person's shoes...I don't think you would like to be treated that way either. It's important that both people respect the relationship and each others' feelings."
Spender, are you sure you are only 19?
Comf, I wouldn't have let it get that far either. I would have met her at the door with the CD, said "it's nice seeing you again" then said my good-byes.
Lilacs
I don't want someone in my life I can live with. I want someone in my life I can't live without.
-
COMF
I expect it's hard both to imagine what that situation is like... complete with the unexpected thunderbolt... and to predict how you would handle it, until you've been there.
Your opinion noted, Shari. Thanks!
Carmel, could you elaborate? Subtler approach...? Religion? Need?
I don't deny the existence of God. I invite him to join me for coffee every day.
COMF
Some for the glories of this world; and some
Sigh for the prophet's paradise to come;
Ah, take the cash, and let the credit go,
Nor heed the rumble of a distant drum!
