<The "Let it all Hang out" philosophy went out with the 60's. I am so sick of the "If we don't use it it will shrivel up" song and dance. Real adults know what they're getting into when they make a committment, and then hold up their end of the bargain, or if they can't, they come clean and bow out with honesty> I wonder who are these "real adults" you are talking about. Go take a look at the statistics pertaining extra-marital relationships, and then get back to me. Also, take a look at the percentage of "bastard" children born every year world wide, or if you are a conservative that deeply believes the american "family values", go check how many children born in the USA are the result of affairs. What you are proclaiming is an illusion created and defended by our society that ultimately can be translated as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy of the same kind, or worse, than the one you have attacked. It can also be seen as an ideal, and I have nothing against it as an ideal- if proclaimed as such and honestly defended as such. Defending a pattern of behavior you think is the correct one is an attitude heavily LOADED with personal MORAL VALUES and, to some extend, somewhat INTOLERANT MORAL VALUES. I see you all over this forum defending very conservative ideas and holding up, at the same time, an attitude of "morals have nothing to do with it", or "people are granted their own choices" and all this bla- bla-bla. you have probably learned in your 3-years MS. That is hypocrisy as well, and it might be- you see, it might be- that some people would benefit from you "coming clean" and having the courage to defend your views for what they are, in stead of hiding behind a mask of tolerance and acceptance towards others' attituteds. <Real hypocrasy is taking a vow of fidelity and then pretending to maintain that vow, while going around someone's back to put your own needs before anyone else's. The institute of marriage has also been around since before infidelity, otherwise, infidelity could never have been invented, as it is based on monogamy. If infidelity were so mentally healthy (and I'm talking about the mental health of all parties involved, not just the individual) then there would be no such thing as marriage> You have contradicted yourself. You better stick with the ", infidelity could never have been invented, as it is based on monogamy". Some logic is good once in a while. Your entire set of statements contains no information and do not in any way contradict anything I have written. I did not say that infidelity is mentally healthy. I simply stated that it is natural, as natural as the impulse toward monogamy, and if society-or at least health care practitioners- stops to hold this hypocritic attitude that "it is not something that happens to the good ones" and try to exercise more tolerance, the people who get involved in affairs, and their partners would be spared from so much suffering. The entire society would be healthier. That is my ideal, and I hope it happens one day. < Humans, unlike some animal species, are programmed to be raised most optimally by two parents. When a child is produced by a parent who is not involved in that child's life (because he is married to someone else), the child, if no one else, is the one who suffers> I did not defend fathers abandoning children. But you are ignoring other societies in which children are raised by the community, in stead of locked within four walls with mom and dad, which gives rise to all sorts of child abuse and childhood trauma which are, by no means, very unhealthy. There are also societies in which polygamy is allowed and it would be very presumptious of yours to state that our way to raise children is by no means the best. <I don't care what you say about single mothers doing a good job. I agree that many do a fantastic job. But the bottom line is that children develop optimally when there is a father in the family.> I did not mention single mothers anywhere <As for your recent jab at the mental health profession, I am so sick of people characterizing us as money-mongers. If I go into debt $30,000 and spend three years getting my master's, then I deserve to make more than a Burger King employee. Would you want to be treated by someone who went to a community college and maybe has taken a Psych 200 course? Because you are not going to get anyone to go through the time and expense of higher education without a means to pay back those student loans before retirement. > I do not know who are these people that called you " money-monger". I am sorry if there are people that say such things. You certainly deserve making more money than a burger-king employee, but I have met many people from very simple backgrounds that are able to hold more a tolerant and less defensive attitude than you. No, I would not like to be treated by " someone who went to a community college and maybe has taken a Psych 200 course", but I would not like to be treated by people who have accomplished a 3-years MS, go into debit, and finally end up playing, with clients, the game "if you do not leave him (her, your affair) you will have to leave me as well. Such attitude being defended makes me very sad, indeed. Regards
Alex.
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.