Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

i hope you stick around gwynedd. as much as i find your tone in this thread problematic, i appreciated - in a different thread- your post about what was going on in the exumas.



interesting quote from an interesting essay,

"throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."

essay- roy baumeister [former president of the american psychological association]:

is there anything good about men?

[vinoveri]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

How to live a good life has been a question for philosophers since we learned how to write. .

And the ancient Greeks got quite far in providing answers ... and I tend to believe they were correct on their conclusion that the good life is had by living the virtuous life with happiness deriving from virtue.

Problem today is although this knowledge is widely accessible, it is not widely taught, not in the public schools nor in the parochial schools. I don't know why, but have my suspicions as to the errors of mindset: 1) "Old stuff is passé and can't be current b/c its old" 2) "The Greeks had a bunch a vices, and of course were patriarchal , and of course were the fathers of western civilization which ultimately colonized, enslaved degraded cultures in the name of western dominance and other political correct nonsense. But think the real reason is the intellectuals gave up on true virtue as the answer and the power/money seekers had no problem in exploiting the failure of the academies to instill virtue.

Primacy on the use of the mind, self control, self-discipline, gentle demeanor and tolerance, self-accusation and rebuke; hmmm, I don't think our corrupt debt ridded and self-indulgent western materialist culture could bare a population of virtuous souls.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

And the ancient Greeks got quite far in providing answers ... and I tend to believe they were correct on their conclusion that the good life is had by living the virtuous life with happiness deriving from virtue.

Problem today is although this knowledge is widely accessible, it is not widely taught, not in the public schools nor in the parochial schools. I don't know why, but have my suspicions as to the errors of mindset: 1) "Old stuff is passé and can't be current b/c its old" 2) "The Greeks had a bunch a vices, and of course were patriarchal , and of course were the fathers of western civilization which ultimately colonized, enslaved degraded cultures in the name of western dominance and other political correct nonsense. But think the real reason is the intellectuals gave up on true virtue as the answer and the power/money seekers had no problem in exploiting the failure of the academies to instill virtue.

Primacy on the use of the mind, self control, self-discipline, gentle demeanor and tolerance, self-accusation and rebuke; hmmm, I don't think our corrupt debt ridded and self-indulgent western materialist culture could bare a population of virtuous souls.

The ancients are dangerous. They pose questions such as, "Who should own property?" "When is it good to lie to people?" and "Who should lead?"

People running the ideal city weren't allowed to have property. Wanting too much stuff was grotesque - letting reason be overcome by greed was not something the virtuous man fit to lead could ever do.

Of course, this stands in direct opposition to what everyone is taught today. The new lesson is that money is the root of all virtue - the only motivation in life worth a damn - the ultimate end towards which all people, effort and institutions must bend.

Start questioning that underlying premise, and what happens to the entire field of economics? At least the majority on the theoretical side goes out the window. We all need money to be the ultimate goal if we are to mirror the perfectly rational utility maximizers seeking ever more wealth that the 101 textbooks say we should be. And we can't have that, now can we?

The best part is that if anyone tries to tell you that maybe values other than money should motivate people, it's so threatening to the entire system that they'll spend months labeling that person a Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Evil-doer. Even the Pope. It doesn't matter how much the idea of a pope being marxist is laughable on its very face. The owners can't have anyone defining virtue in any terms outside of billions...

It's mammon's world. We just live in it.

[Forrest]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

+1

Back in the day, I was a Classics Major, and I don't know if those classes are even available at most Universities anymore. They are not convenient to TPTB.

I am attempting to place TPTB into the same category as bad weather. You live though the storms, work within the weather reports, and live successfully despite it all by blocking the wind, heating the chill, and cooling the heat as required.

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

The best part is that if anyone tries to tell you that maybe values other than money should motivate people, it's so threatening to the entire system that they'll spend months labeling that person a Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Evil-doer. Even the Pope. It doesn't matter how much the idea of a pope being marxist is laughable on its very face. The owners can't have anyone defining virtue in any terms outside of billions...

This particular pope does seem to be a break from the trend and even passed on the more luxurious accommodations he was entitled to use.

What's laughable to me is an organization whose supposed goal is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus who have the most opulent headquarters I've ever seen. The pope even lives the rich man's maxim to the fullest: Own nothing, control everything.

[Woodsman]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

This particular pope does seem to be a break from the trend and even passed on the more luxurious accommodations he was entitled to use.

What's laughable to me is an organization whose supposed goal is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus who have the most opulent headquarters I've ever seen. The pope even lives the rich man's maxim to the fullest: Own nothing, control everything.

Dude, he's the Bishop of Rome. Salt away a few shekels since before 300 AD and get the Emperor Constantine on your side and you'll do okay over time, too. Meanwhile, deep in the most foul orifices of the world there is a priest and a nun bringing comfort and lightness to people nobody else in the world cares about. Go figure?

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Dude, he's the Bishop of Rome. Salt away a few shekels since before 300 AD and get the Emperor Constantine on your side and you'll do okay over time, too. Meanwhile, deep in the most foul orifices of the world there is a priest and a nun bringing comfort and lightness to people nobody else in the world cares about. Go figure?

I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his followers to save their money so they can build luxurious palaces to live in.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his followers to save their money so they can build luxurious palaces to live in.

Of course he also warned us about being a hypocrite about others when he said "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." I think this applies to all of us, I know it does me.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

The pope even lives the rich man's maxim to the fullest: Own nothing, control everything.

It was supposedly one of the Rockefellers that said that.

But here's a secret I know.

The Rockefellers owned a lot.

I've driven a couple hours of my house, and seen Kykuit, Newport, Manhattan, & Hyde Park. Winter on the Hudson; Summer on Aquidneck; elephant sized property and land in both places. More beds for servants than family and guests at any location.

What makes a man rich but owning? It's part of the very definition.

What does that maxim mean then?

Not a whole hell of a lot if you ask me.

[Woodsman]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his followers to save their money so they can build luxurious palaces to live in.

Mercy. Don't look to me for an apologetic, friend. I see the same divergence among our local parishes every day; and I'm talking just a few miles apart here.

But forgive me if I tackle that first before I take on the Roman Curia. All I know is that in the hierarchy of enemies of humanity, I rank the Roman Catholic Church since Pope John XXIII a lower order threat. Anyhoo, Rome and the papacy have been at this politics game well longer than the USG and any of the states of Europe have been in existence. Nobody has clean hands here, certainly Catholics understand that much.

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Of course he also warned us about being a hypocrite about others when he said "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." I think this applies to all of us, I know it does me.

Fortunately, I don't make any claims to being a Christian. The rampant hypocrisy was a large part of what drove me away or led me to question my Christian upbringing.

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Christianity is based on a book that most of it's followers haven't even bothered to read in its entirety. It's literally considered "The Word of God" and they can't make time to read it. And when people do read passages like the above, they immediately start rationalizing their actions. "Oh Jesus didn't really mean you have to give your possessions away. He's just saying rich people have to be extra sorry for their continued refusal to actually do what he said."

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

It was supposedly one of the Rockefellers that said that.

But here's a secret I know.

The Rockefellers owned a lot.

I've driven a couple hours of my house, and seen Kykuit, Newport, Manhattan, & Hyde Park. Winter on the Hudson; Summer on Aquidneck; elephant sized property and land in both places. More beds for servants than family and guests at any location.

What makes a man rich but owning? It's part of the very definition.

What does that maxim mean then?

Not a whole hell of a lot if you ask me.

I think the point is more about the technicalities involved in ownership. So the assets are held in trusts and other entities rather than personally titled. That was always my interpretation anyway.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I think the point is more about the technicalities involved in ownership. So the assets are held in trusts and other entities rather than personally titled. That was always my interpretation anyway.

Hmmm. Just shed personal liability? I guess that was the whole original point of the corporation.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Fortunately, I don't make any claims to being a Christian. The rampant hypocrisy was a large part of what drove me away or led me to question my Christian upbringing.

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Christianity is based on a book that most of it's followers haven't even bothered to read in its entirety. It's literally considered "The Word of God" and they can't make time to read it. And when people do read passages like the above, they immediately start rationalizing their actions. "Oh Jesus didn't really mean you have to give your possessions away. He's just saying rich people have to be extra sorry for their continued refusal to actually do what he said."

That is probably true of many Christians, but most of the ones who I am close to do read it everyday. Also a Christian is no where near perfect. A christian is simply a sinner saved by Grace. We can do nothing to win salvation. We merely have to accept the free gift offered us by His Grace. It is very true it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, because too often his real God is his wealth and things he believes he owns. However, nothing is really ours, it is only on loan to us from the true owner, the creator of all things, God. There are many who would say they are Christians, but only God knows who is truly is.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

i hope you stick around gwynedd. as much as i find your tone in this thread problematic, i appreciated - in a different thread- your post about what was going on in the exumas.



interesting quote from an interesting essay,

"throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."

essay- roy baumeister [former president of the american psychological association]:

is there anything good about men?

Hi Jk,

Well, the problem is people communicate in completely different ways, and yet most of the time the assumption is that we all agree on what abstractions mean like "lightness", "darkness", "equality"(Liberté, égalité, fraternité like a Jacobin). Thus "inequality" to them was an abstraction that represents evil and therefore I am making an argument to be evil. However I practice the the science of removing the ambiguity in my communications for a living, but most people just won't engage in it. Yet not doing so just makes babble which is why the rules of rhetoric were created 2000 years ago. Consider "problematic tone". That is exactly the kind of thing I have to deal with 95% of them time that is an abstraction that I cannot even address. I cannot defend against it or even agree with it. Perhaps you meant my punctuation? Am an an idiot? Am I smart? Or have I done idiotic things and smart things? Granted abstractions are handy and save time but unfortunately the freedom of the net to express one's opinion does not seem to have freed noble spirits ,but rather has become an opportunity for intellectual piracy , a hoard of emancipated slaves who have no more bright future than domesticated animals that have opened the barn door and are now free to perish in the wild.

Consider what I have said:

I said what I did had merit and yet the only abstractions I listed were vices, not virtues. Thus I declared my natural state to be depravity , dark and wretched. So I am a man in darkness trying to light a lamp , not an angel of light. I now count three of you who think the best intentions and goodness is sufficient for justice. You have judged me even here without presenting the evidence. The most essential quality of an angel of light is knowledge. Another is the justification for punishment. That is why the courthouse spends most of its time going over the evidence while the sentencing is very short. I must say that I am not of the opinion that anyone here is an effective angel of light because you have forgotten the most important quality, sufficient knowledge. Imagine being a destroying angel that went to the wrong address in Egypt.


Speaking of chess look who acted like a loser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KKfOGaR_w


Perhaps some have been so tolerant and reasonable for so long that they simply are without even trying anymore. They are emeritus and need not demonstrate tolerance anymore? Being morally sound it not sufficient to judge. Being morally sound and knowing is required.


But in equality, competing and losing I would rather be a doorman in heaven than a prince in hell. So if I am forced to compete with everyone else than the human race will be better, and the form of heaven will be that I may be the happy idiot. Am I the only one who wished he was the dumbest person ever born? Speaking of the Exumas they canceled my flight in "heaven", and so I was late flying back to "hell". Yet in hell I was able to get a cab in 5 minutes. It was hell to be a passenger in heaven but heavenly to be a pilot. It was heavenly to be a passenger in hell but hell to be a cab driver.


I would rather have the decency to declare you my enemy than to pledge my friendship with nothing behind it. That is why I will not say anything is equal because its a lie or a meaningless pleasantry. All I offer is what I see as the truth. If that results in flame war than I won't be here one way or another. Attack my arguments, please.