Quote: If people were capable of walking around the planet, taking full responsibility for all their actions, we would need no laws. Each of us is ultimately responsible for our actions, in that we must answer for them, but there is no one perfect on this planet
So, because we are incapable of FULLY accepting responsibility for our own actions in every instance, this exonerates us from accepting ANY responsibility for our own actions? C'mon, NOP, we all do the best we can. But just because I can't be perfect at it ALL the time does not let me off the hook for failed attempts or botched choices, now does it?
Quote: My statement is also NOT a 'morals cop'. I personally don't care what your, or anyone else's morals are, as long as your choices don't impact others.
Every single choice I make, every single action I take, will have an impact, cause a reaction from some one or some thing on some level. No one or anything acts independently. Not even in a vaccum.
Quote: Meat shopping in a bar does impact others, I don't care if 'everyone else is doing it' or not. That isn't policing morals, that is simply a bad idea - common sense.
If I am a married person heading out to a bar with the intent on going 'meat shopping,' shame on me. If I flirt and get myself into a non-intended but sticky situation nevertheless, I hope I am intelligent enough to learn something from it. Does that mean I never go out with my girlfriends to a bar? Jesus, I hope not, or I've become my own jailer.
Quote: I am talking about common sense, Corri, not morals or fear. If you are high or drunk, you are much more likely to make a responsibility mistake than if you are working with a clear mind.
No offense, dear man, because I do love you, but this is not the level to which I am referring, nor do I think Dave is either. This is pretty elementary, don't you think? This is a lecture I deliver to my teenager, not a peer or a spouse. If I have to deliver this type of information to my peer or my spouse, the problems are going far beyond common sense issues.
Quote: Unless you are there to get laid, a bar is a dumb place to exercise your lack of "fusion", regardless of how enlightened, or how "differentiated" a person thinks they are.
Well, I would probably agree, but it is a matter of opinion. Why can't I try out my lack of fusion in a bar and NOT get laid at the same time? Because I am trying out my lack of fusion in a bar, does that mean I AM there to get laid? Why? Because I like going to a bar to play trivia games or watch football with my buddies, does that mean I am violating my marital vows? You're saying the only reason to go into a bar 'sans spouse' is to get laid? Really?
Quote: Lastly, I am not suggesting that they should be attached at the hip. I AM suggesting that rather than 'differentiation' or 'fusion', they are dangerously close to a lack of basic respect for each other.
If one or the other has voiced a problem with it, sure, I'd agree. But why would a spouse have a problem with the other spouse being in a bar without them? Who's issue is it? If I am 'policing' my spouse, who's got the respect issue, me or him?
Change happens from the inside out, NOP, not because I'm riding coach on my spouse's azz. If I AM riding coach on his azz, he's more than likely going to change temporarily, just to get me OFF his azz, not because dawn has broken over Mt. Marblehead.
It is my personal opinion that BECAUSE Dave and his W have given each other the freedom to explore and find themselves within a mutually AGREED UPON arena, they have given themselves the best opportunity to realign their trust and honesty with one another out of free choice, not marital mandate or religious ethic/code.
Freedom of choice is an amazing, incredibly heavy burden, an awesome responsibility that most of us never truly experience. And you know exactly what I am talking about because you gave your own example not too long ago with the 'set up' you put on your wife. You robbed her of a choice because you manipulated a situation, and thankfully you realized it... not because she whacked you over the head, or rode 'coach' on your azz, but because you had the freedom to either listen or ignore your conscience, and then make a choice.
Cathy:
I think Dave answered for himself rather well. I'm not saying that what Dave is discussing is necessarily the optimum, but let's be honest, how many of us have really and truly figured out 'who we are' before we got married? And what if that 'who we are' changes over the years? (which it probably will). How do you figure that out? What happens when you confront yourself with changes you didn't even realize were in there yourself if you cannot openly and honestly discuss and explore that with your spouse?
In lieu of a divorce, what I see occuring is the two of them giving each other the maximum amount of trust and space negotiated between them to find their RE-negotiated boundaries and happiness. They have ground rules. What happens if one of them bothces that? Well, I suppose they will either get divorced or figure it out, just like anyone else.
