You all will have to forgive me if this is even less coherent than usual. Death in the Afternoon. Unfortunately, it's evening.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the virtues of loyalty vs. honor on this thread have me a bit fogged. In practice, they seem like exactly the same thing. However, loyalty seems more like a virtue chosen out with reference to the other ... acting in loyalty out of a sense of bonding and consideration of the other's agenda and feelings first and foremost. Regardless, it's *personal*. Whereas honor seems more self-focused and theoretical. In that, honor is what you do with relation to your own code of ethics, regardless of one's actual *emotions* toward the recipient of said fidelity (in this case).
Do you all really think men and women are *that* different? 'Cause I question that. I think this whole discussion is thrown off for me because I have plenty of cow but no (as far as I can tell) actual *maternal* instincts. When all the girls my age were cooing over babies, I was over playing tag with the boys or something. Damnit, I just like boys. Whereas I've never had the vaguest idea what to do with a baby. Some things never change, apparently.
All I know is, my sense of honor has kept me this side of the fence (if only just) when my sense of loyalty was shot to hell by frustration and resentment.....
Blackfoot and maybe Stig, what the hell rocks have you been finding these women under????
Burgbud, you cannot respect women too much. Same for men. Kowtowing and placating and princessing and pedestaling are not forms of respect. Respect says, "I trust you to save yourself and calm yourself down, to a degree ... I know you are competent." Respect also says, "I trust you to not kick the damn puppy dog."
BTW, to a general audience, what the hell is this prejudice against the puppy? How unreasonable is that? Like every man doesn't have a puppy. What kind of LTR will thrive on pretending that isn't so? God knows I have no wish to spend an inordinate amount of time cowing the puppy. That is hell on desire. But come on. In a serious relationship (read: marriage) any man is going to have his puppy moments. It's authentic. If I was with a man who caved up whenever his puppy might be making an appearance, I would feel like he didn't trust me to care well for his puppy, whereas I am perfectly competent with puppies. (Again, I don't know where you guys are finding these women.) If he can't trust me with the whole zoo, why the hell is he with me at all? What motivation do I then have to expose my bunny? He gets to be one up by not having a puppy, but I still should display my bunny so he can be all rescuing and knightly? Sucks to that. Everyone wants to be the saviour sometimes. Nor would I desire a (committed) relationship where *nobody* shows their vulnerable animal. What's the point? Are we all not equally human and flawed and vulnerable?
Very slightly inebriated message ends.
Kett, my fellow cat, I couldn't have said it better myself. Even with more ‰.
I agree with Corri that I'd do anything to protect my babies but I don't think it's a female trait. There have been plenty of men throughout history who have compromised their principles in some way or another simply because they loved someone. A woman. A child. Someone. And the situation of "either my honor or my child's life" is pretty theoretical. How often does it come up in real life? And would the average man really answer it any differently than the average woman?
In a non-relationshippy context I've worked with both men and women and it's pretty much a wash whether they'll do what they say they will. There are plenty of guys who'll promise you they'll do things and then they don't. I've worked with women who painstakingly try to always keep their word. And vice versa.
