| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2009 04:41:11 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Congratulations on your happy marriage. For a relationship to last that long love must be present. Can you help define love? |
I don't know.....part of what it is that works with Lisa and I is a certain inexplicable connection that scared the heck out of me when we were first together because I knew she was my life mate right from the start.
How the heck do you define something you're not even sure you can explain?
We're quite different, yet the uncanny places where we've fit into each other's complete sense of being where pretty much all the bases are covered is nothing short of magic. Our relationship has always been different, and truth be told somewhat peculiar, yet we work so well together that I sometimes cannot believe that it's been so many years.
One of the truly beautiful things about it has been the effect that it's had on our daughter......because we've been so unconventional in how we work together at life, she see us as normal, and knows that there are no boundaries, gender-wise, that prevent her from being anything she wants, and to her, a relationship that is 100% based on acceptance, respect, and understanding of your partner is what makes it work. It's made her a young woman who is well-adjusted, confident, and comfortable with who she is regardless of who her friends may be and she doesn't need to date someone to validate who she is.
The passion is definitely not what it once was, but the feelings have developed into something so much more whole and wonderful.......it's funny, 'cause people are constantly flabbergasted at the amount of time we spend together and how after all this time that we still truly and genuinely LIKE each other.
The love thing, IMO, after all this time, just has to do with that squishy feeling I still get when I look at her....8>) |
Thanks for a beautiful story. I will start a new thread about love next week when I have more time to participate. It is a subject I have a lot of interest in, I would think an artistic community can help define it. Sorry for hijacking the thread. I will return it to discussion of Gov Sanford. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:07:04 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Congratulations on your happy marriage. For a relationship to last that long love must be present. Can you help define love? |
I don't know.....part of what it is that works with Lisa and I is a certain inexplicable connection that scared the heck out of me when we were first together because I knew she was my life mate right from the start.
How the heck do you define something you're not even sure you can explain?
We're quite different, yet the uncanny places where we've fit into each other's complete sense of being where pretty much all the bases are covered is nothing short of magic. Our relationship has always been different, and truth be told somewhat peculiar, yet we work so well together that I sometimes cannot believe that it's been so many years.
One of the truly beautiful things about it has been the effect that it's had on our daughter......because we've been so unconventional in how we work together at life, she see us as normal, and knows that there are no boundaries, gender-wise, that prevent her from being anything she wants, and to her, a relationship that is 100% based on acceptance, respect, and understanding of your partner is what makes it work. It's made her a young woman who is well-adjusted, confident, and comfortable with who she is regardless of who her friends may be and she doesn't need to date someone to validate who she is.
The passion is definitely not what it once was, but the feelings have developed into something so much more whole and wonderful.......it's funny, 'cause people are constantly flabbergasted at the amount of time we spend together and how after all this time that we still truly and genuinely LIKE each other.
The love thing, IMO, after all this time, just has to do with that squishy feeling I still get when I look at her....8>) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 08:56:02 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I assume that you meant love is a state where you have complete comfort with another individual. You know what they are about, you trust them completely, there are few surprises. Being comfortable with your partner is a wonderful thing, but you can be quite comfortable with people and not love them. Comfort can be a long term result from a relationship that has love. |
Having been with the same woman for thirty one years, and beimng in the kind of state that you describe is a truly beautiful thing.
Two points, though....
The way that we are with each other after all this time would not be possible without love.
And the few surprises thing is not true in our case......part of the beauty of our love is that after all this time, we can still surprise each other, and that's part of what keeps the love alive. |
Congratulations on your happy marriage. For a relationship to last that long love must be present. Can you help define love? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:42:41 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I assume that you meant love is a state where you have complete comfort with another individual. You know what they are about, you trust them completely, there are few surprises. Being comfortable with your partner is a wonderful thing, but you can be quite comfortable with people and not love them. Comfort can be a long term result from a relationship that has love. |
Having been with the same woman for thirty one years, and beimng in the kind of state that you describe is a truly beautiful thing.
Two points, though....
The way that we are with each other after all this time would not be possible without love.
And the few surprises thing is not true in our case......part of the beauty of our love is that after all this time, we can still surprise each other, and that's part of what keeps the love alive. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:59:24 AM · #5 |
| Are we still talking about this guy? Geez ... |
|
|
|
07/06/2009 10:52:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
A quick quiz for the community. How do you define love? |
comfort.
Ray |
Love is not a sofa, it is often quite uncomfortable. |
You define love any way you want and I will stick with my definition as it is abundantly clear you have no clue as to what it is I speak about.
Ray |
Not trying to offend, just to have an intellectual discussion. I assume that you meant love is a state where you have complete comfort with another individual. You know what they are about, you trust them completely, there are few surprises. Being comfortable with your partner is a wonderful thing, but you can be quite comfortable with people and not love them. Comfort can be a long term result from a relationship that has love.
If you meant giving comfort to someone is an act of love, I would agree with that point of view, but I don't think thats what you meant.
The poster couple of love, Romeo and Juliet, had a very uncomfortable relationship.
You can't define love any way you want if it is to mean something. I think Gov Sanford wouldn't have had the problems he did if he knew what love is.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2009 10:10:26 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
A quick quiz for the community. How do you define love? |
comfort.
Ray |
Love is not a sofa, it is often quite uncomfortable. |
You define love any way you want and I will stick with my definition as it is abundantly clear you have no clue as to what it is I speak about.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/06/2009 09:42:24 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There may be emotional, moral, or philosophical rationales for such behavior, but I doubt those would carry the day in court. |
Often they do...... |
|
|
|
07/06/2009 07:31:09 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Your reactions : It is wrong, a murder is wrong regardless of what happened. A murder is murder.
My reaction : Lets see why he murdered person A. What happened. Is there any chance that person B is innocent. I would like to know more.
Then knowing more means that it turned out it was selfdefense. |
Your analogy is incorrect -- there is no legal equivalent to "self-defense" in the case of violating the adultery statute.
You are (within specific limits) legally allowed to commit homocide, e.g. in self-defense, the term is "justifiable homocide." AFAIK no statute pertaining which provides for one spouse the right to commit" justifiable adultery."
There may be emotional, moral, or philosophical rationales for such behavior, but I doubt those would carry the day in court.
Message edited by author 2009-07-06 19:32:02. |
|
|
|
07/06/2009 04:59:50 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
A quick quiz for the community. How do you define love? |
comfort.
Ray |
Love is not a sofa, it is often quite uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2009 10:47:26 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
A quick quiz for the community. How do you define love? |
comfort.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/05/2009 08:19:31 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Every couple should know the answer to these questions in order to prevent the common fate of Gov Sanford and his wife. |
Good observation. I have to agree with most of what you say. Also, people do change over time but with budget, kids, the "life together," just up and leaving is easier said than done. |
I used to think that people change, and thats what destroys relationships. I now know this isn't true, because in subsequent relationships, the same issues come up again. I have found that people can change, but it takes considerable effort to make this happen. What changes readily is the way people relate to each other (the relationship). For example, when a relationship firsts start, a man will overestimate the woman's qualities. This is what Gov Sanford is currently doing with his new lover. As time goes by, this overestimation necessarily decreases. All of this can be overcome, if you realize what is happening, and you love each other.
I know it is difficult to leave a broken relationship, unless you are wealthy, but in many cases it isn't necessary. Relationships can be changed if there is love.
A quick quiz for the community. How do you define love? |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 11:25:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Every couple should know the answer to these questions in order to prevent the common fate of Gov Sanford and his wife. |
Good observation. I have to agree with most of what you say. Also, people do change over time but with budget, kids, the "life together," just up and leaving is easier said than done. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 10:39:25 PM · #14 |
I have studied relationships for some time, and find what has happened to Gov Sanford and his wife to be a very sad, but also a very common outcome for committed relationships. A relationship is between two people, so it is usually not possible to assign blame to one when a relationship has failed. I see no one blaming the Govenors wife for the failed relationship, but you could blame her for the failed relationship. The Govenor admitted to several affairs. Where was she all this time? How could she allow this to go on. Now don't get me wrong, I am not blaming her either. The point is, its a relationship, ie two people. Both of them share the responsibility for the failure. I find several things to be very common in relationships as they mature:
1. Women lose sexual desire for their partner, but have an increased desire for tenderness from their partner
2. Men maintain sexual desire for their partner, but lose fulfillment from sex with their partner. This leads to unhappiness.
3. Men and women don't know or understand what their partner's true sexual desire is
4. Men and women generally don't practice (or understand) love
Gov Sanford should not have had affairs. Ms. Sanford should not have put up with the affairs. What they should have done is try to solve the riddle of relationships. To do this, they need to answer these questions.
1. What is her true sexual desire, and how can he fulfill it?
2. What is his true sexual desire, and how can she fulfill it?
3. What is love, and how do you practice it?
Every couple should know the answer to these questions in order to prevent the common fate of Gov Sanford and his wife.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009 07:18:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....a confession on national television isn't enough for you? |
Was that the speech where he said his mistress was his "soul mate", that he had had several mistresses before his "soul mate", but that he was trying to fall back in love with his wife, and that leaving office in disgrace would be "too easy", so he was going to tough it out, and then said he was like King David of the Old Testament, who had also been lured into bed by many women but had endured? Was that the apology speech you meant? I know he cried, but he never said what he apologized for, and never said he intended to do anything differently that he has done them in the past. It sounded to me like the canned sports star in trouble "apologies". If I ever hurt anyone I am truly sorry? He may have confessed, but he never admitted that what he did was wrong, nor is he planning on not keeping on doing it. Is that enough for you? |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 06:08:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Oh we understand much more than you assume, its just that our attitude is "innocent till proven guilty". A thing that is difficult for you to fathom.
We also think that things are not black or white there is a grey matter in between. |
So.....a confession on national television isn't enough for you? |
you still talking black and white. I am talking about knowing more before making judgement. And knowing more means answers to many other questions that involves - why or what made him do it.
Take my murderer example, if person B confessed on national TV that I killed other person.
Your reactions : It is wrong, a murder is wrong regardless of what happened. A murder is murder.
My reaction : Lets see why he murdered person A. What happened. Is there any chance that person B is innocent. I would like to know more.
Then knowing more means that it turned out it was selfdefense.
For you , he was a criminal because he said it on TV, you needed nothing more to crucify him. For me this was not enough, I always had in my mind that by any chance he is innocent.
edited to remove personal remark.
Message edited by author 2009-07-04 18:20:53. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 01:44:51 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!! |
Talk about looking at the world through Fox-colored glasses....
The whole "It's sad for the family, and that's all it should be" stance is ridiculous. Moral relativism? The point is that once again politicians who have held themselves up as beacons of morality have shown they are as vulnerable to temptation as everyone else! Governor Sanford voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment against President Clinton citing the need for "moral legitimacy and integrity." Senator John Ensign was a Promise Keeper who declaimed on the "sanctity of marriage" when promoting the Defense of Marriage act (as I believe did restroom lingerer Larry Craig).
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009 07:02:46 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Oh we understand much more than you assume, its just that our attitude is "innocent till proven guilty". A thing that is difficult for you to fathom.
We also think that things are not black or white there is a grey matter in between. |
So.....a confession on national television isn't enough for you?
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009 07:01:56 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Here is what you said.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The bottom line is, regardless of circumstances , if he slept with another woman while he was married to his wife, he violated the marriage contract, and like it or not, it's wrong.
It may be able to be rationalized and understood by the majority to be justified.....maybe she slept around first, or she was physically & mentally abusive, but until there is a divorce or annullment, it's adultery, a breach of the marital contract, and by the accepted behaviors of our American society today, WRONG!
|
Seems like you are saying that regardless of what other person did, if he slept around it was wrong. |
Yes!
That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009 05:55:32 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Yes it is selfdefense but according to your arguement - irrespective of what other person did, it should be judged on what he did and not on what others did, it should be crime. And wrong thing to do. |
No, that is not my standpoint at all. Don't assume you know what I mean, you obviously don't.
|
Okey so you did not say that regardless of circumstances and regardless of otherperson involved.
Here is what you said.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The bottom line is, regardless of circumstances , if he slept with another woman while he was married to his wife, he violated the marriage contract, and like it or not, it's wrong.
It may be able to be rationalized and understood by the majority to be justified.....maybe she slept around first, or she was physically & mentally abusive, but until there is a divorce or annullment, it's adultery, a breach of the marital contract, and by the accepted behaviors of our American society today, WRONG!
|
Seems like you are saying that regardless of what other person did, if he slept around it was wrong.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by zxaar:
So pick which way you want to go, crime (and wrong) or not. |
Okay...crime=wrong
Self-defense is *NOT* a crime.
|
Based on your above argument.
Killing a human being is crime. Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The bottom line is, regardless of circumstances |
Crime is wrong.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Nope, my opinion is wait and see things completely taking regard to who did what. Which is what neophyte is been saying all along. I do not think he aproved adultery, he merely said that rather than jumping to conclusions see things fully. The things sometimes what they look on face may turned out to be completely different when investigated. |
I stated previously that you should form your own opinion.
He still broke the law and admitted it.
|
Same way the person who killed other person broke the law.
(he will only be acquitted after investigation. That is knowing full fact. Which is what me and other person arguing with you. Not whether adultery is wrong or not.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm REALLY having a hard time seeing why you guys cannot follow this process.
|
Oh we understand much more than you assume, its just that our attitude is "innocent till proven guilty". A thing that is difficult for you to fathom.
We also think that things are not black or white there is a grey matter in between. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 04:22:06 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by neophyte:
How was he as a governor and senator? His private life should be just that; private. |
No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!! |
Here is a hint, if you think it is a private issue, stop calling press conferences to talk about it. It won't stop the presses, but how can you ask for silence if you won't shut up?
Calling for the prosecution of a politician because he lied about an extra marital affair, while you are a politician lying about an extra marital affair is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. If Sanford hadn't railed against the very behavior he was enjoying during the impeachment of Clinton, then it wouldn't be so outrageous that he seems to have no shame about the situation, nor any plans to do what he said Clinton ought to do, which was to step down from office and deal with his private matters in private.
Sure it is better fodder for late night comics when moralistic social conservative Republicans get caught with their pants down, just as it is funnier when bleeding heart tax happy Democrats turn out to be tax dodgers, or closet racists. When something is the opposite of what it pretends to be it's funny. You can get angry about it, but you can't change it. Part of what made Gov. Spitzer's troubles so funny wasn't the fact that he was having sex outside his marriage, but that Mr "law and order" was paying a prostitute for that sex. The affair, so-so, the hooker, that is what the press flayed him for, and rightly so. Plus it was funny. Strom Thurmond's black daughter? You can't make stuff up like that.
Message edited by author 2009-07-04 04:30:43. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 02:46:24 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by neophyte:
How was he as a governor and senator? His private life should be just that; private. |
No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!! |
No, no, no, he's a Hypocrite. Practice what he preaches, not what he does. Don't condemn him for doing what he's condemned others for doing, he's special. He's weak and was taken advantage of, while everyone else knew all along what they were doing.
The fact that he's a Republican that can't keep his pants zipped around women other than his wife just adds to the overall hypocrisy of the entire party. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:48:37 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
How was he as a governor and senator? His private life should be just that; private. |
No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!!
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:49:52 PM · #24 |
Ah, the wonderful world of moral relativism! If a person espouses a standard, they can be guilty of hypocrisy by failing to adhere to that standard, but a person who claims to have no standards cannot be guilty of wrong doing, even if they engage in the exact same behavior. If moral standards are not external to all individuals' opinions, they are not standards at all. And yes, by definition, a standard is arbitrary - it really does not care about anyone's opinion or circumstances.
Also, in our modern times, I've never understood how an individual's failure to uphold a standard invalidates the standard. One might suspect that some who hold that there are no standards, or that each person defines their own standards are conveniently finding others' inability to conform to a standard an excuse for their own behavior. Maybe it is as simple as no likes being told what to do, or to be confronted that what they're doing is wrong.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:31:29 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.
"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person. [/b]
So, what more do you need in the way of information to decide whether or not he broke the law?
I will reiterate again.....feel free to think whatever you want to about this guy, but he still broke the law. |
Although I am not all that familiar with the particulars of this case, the prosecution might have a problem in that
a) there is seemingly no indication that they lived together, and
b) they would have to prove that habitual carnal intercourse occurred.
Things may not be as clear as they seem to some.
Ray |
|
