Should We Expect Same Moral Standards?

It's good to be merry and wise,
It's good to be honest and true.
It's good to be off with the old love
Before you are on with the new.

But being human, we all fall short of what we know to be good sometimes.

Whenever this subject comes up, men trot out the old tosh about biological imperatives. Doesn't wash with me, it's just a feeble excuse for the sick double standards our society still maintains. It seems to me that men cheat more because they have more opportunity. More money, more control over their time and more freedom of movement. When women have genuine independence, we're just as naughty. Of course, we are better at getting away with it, we have to be because our society reserves much harsher penalties for women who stray.

Taking look at the behaviour of other primates, for instance, it's evident that we females are programmed to "hedge our bets" too. But in a human, ethical context it doesn't excuse what is after all the betrayal of a supposedly dear friend.

That said, my own feeling is that giving someone a concealed chat bug like that is far worse behaviour. Creepy. Inexcusable.

Two cents worth on this: my version of love's definition means that you care deeply about the other person's feelings. The ability to direct one's behaviors in such a way to ensure their happiness is my definition of "commitment". The steady application of that commitment is "fidelity". These aren't abstracts - they form the emotional context for human survival as troops of primates living cooperatively. (Did anthro before nursing school )

I don't think "fidelity" to a lover precludes exclusivity, but it does mean careful honesty, and patience, and tact. How much of that do you see, in any world you care to visit? The emergence of those traits is called "maturity". Same lack prevails.

This discussion recalls something Victorria wrote about a while back in the Herald, I think, about whether or not fluid, virtual worlds would engender fluid, virtual ethics. I doubt it. We may be fluid virtual avatars, but we're not fluid virtual humans.

FWIW, I thought Emma Bovary was a monstrous, selfish horror.

OMG!
*nervously goes to pace off the distance between our houses*
I shudder to think at what might have been overheard if my house IS in range..

Actually Colette, I'm Married AND a Catholic, But I can Divorce, AND Remarry Under Church auspices simply because my Current Union is a Civil one and has never been recognized and/or sanctified by the church (Gay Marriage). According to them, I am Still Unmarried.

Church Wedding,, One to a Customer, Civil Unions, All you can Eat. Lol.

But seriously, In My heart, i AM Married and in My Faith, Church Union, or no, I'm Married for Life. It was a little intimidating to my Wife to Learn she may Divorce me, But i will Always be married to her, But she's learned to live with it.

I frequently hear people saying the problem with marriage today is Divorces are too Easy, and they should be more difficult to Obtain, I Disagree STRONGLY. Divorces should be easier to get than lottery Tickets, It's MARRIAGES that should be Hard to Obtain. People swearing Eternal love, and support for one another after three weeks, Dating three times and h*mping twice is Ludicrous, and NO Authority, Civil OR religious should Ever hand out a marriage under such conditions, but the Divorce courts are Overflowing with Cases where this is exactly how the couple Discovered they were "Soul Mates".
Revolting.

My own thoughts on the matter, Go to Something like the old system where people Announced their intent (registering it legally, Opt out Clause allowing either to end the courtship on 72 hours notice), Then after a LONG Courtship, and Engagement (To my thoughts, minimum Two to Four years, and several Marriage, and Parenting courses), Then and ONLY then is a Licence to Marry Issued. People marrying after all of that have already proved they can handle commitment. Then after that, if one party takes exception to the others Excessive Gas, Again, Allow Dissolution 72 hours after Filing notice (Anyone who would do so is Too childish to be married in the first place) Later if either wants to be married again to another,, Back to square one, No short cuts.

For me, Marriage IS Sacred, I just think it should be treated as Such. Not denied to ANY who can prove their love and commitment, But it shouldn't be handed out as thoughtlessly as it is now.

Angel.

I am not saying I agree with the catholic church. I was merely pointing out their dogma.

Like you said to them you aren't married.

You aren't a married catholic.

You are a catholic person who has gotten married. (outside of the church)


I surely don't think that makes your marriage less.

I wouldn't think it makes people's divorces less either.

But the Catholic church (officially) would.

The one book I read as a child that made me who I am today and taught me everything I ever needed to know about love is, of course "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I'm gonna suggest the official forum book be "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Sorry for not getting to this thread sooner.

This forum isn't for general discussion; there are many Resident Sites where this discussion is appropriate — Resident Answers is for Resident-to-Resident help. I'll close this thread...