KevinD

You're in a tough position, Izzy, and I'm sorry to say I have no specific advice to offer you. However a few thoughts occur to me as I read your message. . . . You realize that this is pathological behavior. Not merely cavorting with call girls and flirting with coeds (that's bad enough), but he's bragging to you about it, and sending you pictures of his "ladies of the night"! (Who's ever heard of a married man showing photos of his "escorts" to anyone — let alone to his female friends?) It sounds to me like this guy has some very serious problems. His wife may indeed be the innocent party, though perhaps not as much as you might think. I don't want to speculate too much on a relationship I know next to nothing about, but this kind of thing always strikes me as suspicious. I'm sure you've heard all the reasons and explanations for why their separation "had" to happen — I know you said they still see each other regularly, and they go on vacation together often. But isn't a major part of marriage the joy of building a life together? The pleasure of sharing your day-to-day experiences with the person you consider to be your soulmate? I've heard this "sex drive" business many times before, and in my thoroughly unprofessional opinion, a lot of the time it's bunk. I don't doubt that he's much more interested in sex than she is, but generally speaking when a woman lacks desire in this regard, it's almost always because she's not turned on by the man she's with. Very often, "low sex drive" is a kind of psychological euphemism for "harbors serious misgivings about the relationship." Believe me, some women can go from being practically asexual, to the proudest multi-orgasmic beasts you've ever met, simply by finding a man whom they can love deeply and passionately. Your former friend's wife probably is being deceived — but then, you have to wonder to what extent she may be a willing participant in the hoodwinking. As a previous poster alluded, you don't know what's going on behind the scenes here. Can a woman be married to a man for two years, and not be aware on some level what kind of a person he is?

Actually, justice is the virtue of judging the character and conduct of others objectively, and acting accordingly: it means granting to others what they deserve, and only what they deserve (from you). It does not mean "administering punishment" to every two-bit cretin who levels baseless barbs, because he's drunk, deranged, disturbed, or just unbelievably immature. You're not serving justice by granting importance to those who, by their own choices and actions, are unworthy of your time and attention. Justice doesn't demand that you work to extinguish insignificant fires; if it did, that would quickly become your full-time occupation, and you'd never have any time to pursue your own interests. In the vast majority of cases, if a person demonstrates that he's unwilling to communicate with you as a thinking adult, you're much better off ignoring him. When you focus your consciousness onto him — when you exhibit concern for his inner experience, and try to (negatively) affect his emotional state — you treat him as a metaphysical equal, and a brother-in-spirit; your insults in fact pay him a complement which he definitely doesn't deserve.

A rational person is never motivated by the desire for "revenge" (at least not of the kind under discussion here). He wouldn't be concerned about another person's consciousness in that way. To derive satisfaction from the infliction of pain per se is sadistic, not an act of justice.

The principle that springs to mind uniting all three of these, is generally low self-esteem. (I) If I don't love myself — that is, if I don't regard myself as an important value — it will very difficult for me to believe that anyone else really loves me. I may therefore be drawn to people who I know will hurt or reject me, on the grounds that such is what I deserve, and this will serve as evidence to further reinforce my view that happiness is not in the cards for me. When a person of low self-esteem encounters someone who treats them well, it can feel very uncomfortable. Clearly the other person does not know the "real them" — if they did, they wouldn't act so nicely toward them. Being with a partner who treats them poorly puts them in much more familiar, albeit often painful territory. (II) Any kind of faking or phoniness in a relationship (or anywhere else for that matter) is almost always the product of insecurity. Many people believe that to be truly in love with someone, to acknowledge this fact and to express it openly, is a sign of weakness or moral failing. This is especially true of men, but it also happens with many women. Vulnerability and openness, contrary to popular misunderstanding, require an extremely solid sense of self; they require the courage to reveal yourself on a very profound level, to someone whom you care about deeply. When people put up defensive barriers in this regard, you can be sure there are self-esteem deficiencies lurking behind them. (III) This is very clearly a lack of self-esteem — but more than that, it's an exceedingly childish way of relating to other people. If somebody walked up to you on the street and shouted some random epithet at you, you'd probably look at him strangely, then quickly walk away. But some people, whenever they feel they've been "put down," are so hurt by this that their reflexive reaction is to hurl back a nasty comment of their own. It's as if they're saying "You hurt me — now watch me hurt you." It's a foolish kind of revenge, yet it takes place all the time. It's the hallmark of a person whose self-concept will not allow for criticism of any kind, regardless of how idiotic and unimportant the "criticism" may be.

Moose: If you were a twelve year-old boy, saying the kinds of things that you have here, and you exhibited the slightest inclination toward growing in your understanding of this subject, then I'm sure you'd find me infinitely more benevolent, and much more eager to help you. But clearly you already know it all, so why should I bother?

Why so shocked, Sophia? That Moose has no understanding of the moral meaning of sex, and consequently has very little respect for its metaphysical significance in human life, has been evident since his very first post in this thread.

This is quite the extraordinary statement. You mean that if I choose to have sex with a prostitute, or some random stranger I pick up off the street — that is, someone with whom I share no important spiritual values, and with whom I can engage in a totally empty sexual experience, devoid of any (positive) emotional meaning for either of us — that this will "pretty much always" be preferable to going it solo in the privacy of my own bedroom? My goodness . . . and here I thought there were perfectly good reasons why a person would not want to engage in behavior of that kind!

I agree that it isn't simple, and that sex involves much more than the mere contact of genitals. My question is why: why does having sex with a partner not feel the same as doing it all by yourself? Are the reasons only physical? Please be as graphic as necessary to make clear your position.

How so? It's all just flesh and lubrication, isn't it?

If you just want to "get off" — i.e., have an orgasm without a spiritual connection — why can't you do that by yourself? Why bring another person into the picture?

[Mods: Split into a separate thread?] What specifically do you mean by using in this context? Doesn't sex always involve some sort of "using" of another person?

IAmMetaphysical: "May you get what you deserve." How nice of Dismuke to stop by to announce what a busy and important person he is!

Show me ONE SINGLE SENTENCE, in anything I've written EVER, which advises that a man kow-tow to his partner and "concede" her positions, on the grounds that not doing so would be "emotionally detrimental" to the poor, irrational little twit. I want specific words to this effect — not some twisted, nonobjective "jist" of what you would prefer to imagine that I've said or stand for.

Here are just a few off the top of my head: * Forgoing a career that one finds exciting, because one's parents would prefer that one do something different. * Getting married (or having children) out of a sense of obligation or "duty". * Faking agreement with others so as not to engender their opposition or disapproval. * Allowing oneself to be pressured into supporting (monetarily or otherwise) a person, organization or cause. * Feeling guilty for wanting success; the sense that one doesn't deserve to be happy. * Subordinating oneself to, and/or blindly agreeing with, the opinions, beliefs, prejudices or traditions of others. (Accepting ideas on "faith" without evidence.) There are countless other examples of self-sacrifice which people perform every day, far too many to try to list here. I think an awful lot of fad following or herd mentality is a kind of self-sacrifice; it amounts to placing the desires of a group above one's own rational judgment. Mind you, a great deal of self-sacrifice is the result of deeply entrenched psychological premises. It's not enough merely to tell somebody: "Don't do that." A person has to understand why sacrifice is wrong, what makes it so evil, and why it can only ever lead to calamitous consequences in human life. Until then, the principle of self-sacrifice may well be guiding many of a person's choices and actions, often in ways he's not even consciously aware of.

Just what I said: That I have no interest in criticizing you or anyone else for expressing opinions related to their own gender. Mind you, I might not agree with anyone's particular opinion (in this case I don't), but a woman criticizing women in general is not at all the same thing as a man criticizing women, even if both happen to use exactly the identical wording. As an aside: Please don't anybody ascribe meanings to my sentences which are not abundantly clearly intended. I'm not nearly as multilayered a writer as my critics give me credit for.

I want to retract the statement I made immediately above; I had thought that "Ifat" was a man — I have just learned that she is a woman. I don't care to criticize anyone's opinions of their own sex. Please accept my apologies.

Yes it is. My critics wouldn't be responding in so nasty and hysterical a manner if it weren't.

You can't make this stuff up.

It took me many years, and a great deal of very active listening before I was able to reach my present level of irrationality. It wasn't easy, and I'm still not all of the way there. But I'm doing my best, and I do appreciate the complement.

I said it's "0% rational" — i.e., totally not rational — to get married without knowing your partner extremely, exceedingly well. I don't know what it would mean to say that a person (least of all an entirely hypothetical one) is "70% rational." If you elect to be in a romantic relationship with a person whom you consider to be "evil" — well, the very best of luck to you. I'm saying that Chops needs to be 100% supportive and caring toward his girlfriend at all times, so long as he intends for her to be his girlfriend. What would be the alternative? Withholding love because she believes in God? I think some people here need to grasp the "all-or-nothing" nature of a romantic relationship. As my grandpappy used to say: "You're either in, or you're out. There's no half-assed way to go about it."

Whatever you're talking about, Ifat, it's totally alien to my way of thinking. I don't ascribe percentages to people's rationality. In street language: to accept the fact of exactly who a person is, and never to make any efforts (nor harbor any secret desires) to change them. Like I said, not exactly the shiningest examples of reason and objectivity.

Anyone who undertakes to marry another person without knowing them "thoroughly and completely" cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to be "100% rational." It's more like 0%, if you asked me.

Even there, you'd have to be careful. Can a very young child really understand what it means for a story to be "fictional"?

It's inspiring to see you backpedaling all over the place. Still, I can't help but wonder what your lovely fiancee would have to say about all of this. Dear God — I couldn't have said it better myself!

What percentage of your "anti-religious views" therefore do you expect your fiancee to accept in you? 96%? 73%? Do please enlighten.