Over on reddit.com, there is a group called AMA, for Ask Me Anything. I ran into this and thought hatrack might enjoy it, on account of the storm of controversy surrounding OSC's gay characters that end up in heterosexual marriages, such as Zdorab from Homecoming, and Anton from the Shadow books.
Here is a real-life gay guy that, because of Buddhist beliefs, is in a monogamous marriage with a woman and has had children.
You can register (takes literally 2 seconds) and ask him questions if you want.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Have you asked him anything?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's really fascinating.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What do you find fascinating about it, BB?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What do you find fascinating about it, BB?
It's just a perspective that I've never seen outside of fiction. Of course the guy could be lying about everything, but even if that is so, some of the reactions of the questioners are also of interest. Some of them go as far as to say they know more about how he feels than he does.
Further, I've never actually heard homosexuality stated as wrong within Buddhism, I'm still scratching my head over that one.
I find it interesting that he cheated on his wife early in their marriage (too much self denial?), then found religion, then decided to not act on his impulses. His statement that there are many people like him, and that he thinks having sex with the opposite gender you are attracted to is not very difficult to me is perplexing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually don't see too much problem with enjoying sex with a gender you are not attracted to. Consider it similar to masturbation. I also can definitely see loving someone without being sexually attracted to them (I mean, that's what Harry Potter's all about). It would be a different relationship than most husbands and wives have but not necessarily less fulfilling.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think if it's not much less fulfilling, then you're clearly not gay.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm with BlackBlade on this -- it's interesting. What I'm actually more interested in at this point, though, is what his wife thinks of all this. It's a perspective I would find at least as interesting as his.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I know someone like this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm maybe not seeing the whole conversation. From what I can see, there is almost nothing from this guy besides skeleton statements.
And I've got to say, several things (the "I'm doing this because I'm a traditional Buddhist - where traditional Buddhism doesn't have anything to say about this and then later he says that he became a Buddhist after marrying his wife being the most obvious) are pretty big red flags that the whole thing is made up.
I think it would be very interesting to get an actual account going into the life of someone in this situation, but even if this is actually genuine, I don't think you're getting that (unless I'm missing information that other people are seeing). This seems a lot more like someone stating that they are doing these things but not giving any view of their actual life.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, if it's true, then he can do what he want, and if he isn't doing it due to some deep seated emotional problems, and it isn't making him miserable, than whatever.
Still, for myself, I can't see myself having sex with someone of the same sex. I just find no attraction, and I would not be happy in such a marriage.
I assume if my attraction went the other way, then barring deeply built in religious guilt I would probably not be happy with a girl, if my personality was otherwise the same. (And I see nothing in the homosexuals I know, in general, to suggest that all the other parts of my personality would be any more or less likely to exist if I was gay, but then I am also not an expert in that particular question, and I don't know if anybody is.)
But regardless, that's just me. I also hate fish, but a lot of other people like fish, so I can't say anything at all about their personalities. I'll never understand it is all!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When I think of all the joy I get from being a mother and all the joy I get from sex, I am not sure which one I would pick if I could only have one. I think a gay male could reasonably in this society believe that he could either be a practicing gay or a family man- but not both. I am not saying that I agree with this belief, just that I can see how someone might believe it. And in that case, I can understand choosing family life over sexual life. I also think accepting that you are making the sacrifice and acknowledging it are important. Since he acknowledges who he is and his desires openly and freely, just does not act upon them, it is unfair to say he is living a lie.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
See Scholarette, I know EXACTLY which one I would pick! Maybe that's why I'm not as over-the-top offended by Card's writing on homosexuals. I can easily imagine someone choosing a family over sexual gratification. What I don't understand are mothers or fathers who completely disrupt their children's lives because they suddenly decide they can no repress their homosexual tendencies. I find that sick! Though, for the record, I don't find it any MORE sick than a mother or father who decides to disrupt their children's lives because they decide their so very attracted to the young secretary at the office or the tennis pro at the club! (That being said, I do NOT agree with his stance on SSM. I'm just saying I find his writing semi-plausible.)
Do we have any Buddhist's on here who could explain homosexuality in relationship to that religion?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
" I find that sick!"
But who are you to say that all of them have your mindset? Or, just because you have your own priorities, everyone else must have the same? Or that they all have the same situation? I know more than one person who's been pressured into acting straight by their family and community from a young age, and it's far, far, far harder to overcome such pressure for some people than it is for others.
When you've been told from childhood that what you are is wrong, evil, and disgusting, and that the only, ONLY thing that will allow you to be accepted by your family, not to mention go to heaven, is to not pursue relationships with the sex you actually like, but instead must pursue relationships only with those who you do not like... then who exactly is to blame later in life when they are finally able to break free of their externally enforced unhappiness, again?
Just because you know which one you'd pick does not mean that it's the best for everybody. Or that everybody SHOULD pick, or should WANT to pick what you want.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But then, due to certain recent events, I am unable to be very objective about all of this. I may very well have taken your words as worse than I think so. This is true even if, right now, I cannot but interpret it the way I have.
I have friends who have been hurt too much by this sort of thing, and it is emotionally analogous to the pain of a burn to see this. Perhaps I take it out on you, since you mock the sort of situation that a friend of mine will almost certainly see herself trapped into due to outside forces.
Anyway, my anger shouldn't be directed at you... this is just a very sore subject for me.
I should just avoid it or something for the time being, I'm sorry.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: What I don't understand are mothers or fathers who completely disrupt their children's lives because they suddenly decide they can no repress their homosexual tendencies. I find that sick! Though, for the record, I don't find it any MORE sick than a mother or father who decides to disrupt their children's lives because they decide their so very attracted to the young secretary at the office or the tennis pro at the club!
I don't find it sick so much as sad when a man leaves his family for another man (or a woman for another woman). I see it as a symptom of a society which convinces them to hide who they are, potentially even lie to themselves for years.
Additionally, I find it tragic that a homosexual feels the need to choose between having a family and being with someone they can be attracted to. This is just part of the reason I see a real need for gay marriage to be legalized.
Of course, nature offers some difficulties in the form of bringing children into such a family -- they can't get them in the normal way -- but they should be able to bring children into their families.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't know. I see something very fundamental about the responsibility of being a parent, since such a thing is almost always a choice that you've made (short of being physically raped). Thus, no matter how "trapped" one feels, putting that trapped feeling above doing what's right for your kids is something I feel strongly against.
I am also quite in favor of homosexual's being allowed to adopt children though! I honestly can't understand why so many people are against it, especially when faced with our abhorrent foster care situation in this country - which is nevertheless better than some of the truly disgusting orphanage situations in other countries. I've even gotten chewed out on some adoption forums for saying that I think a two-parent homosexual home is, on average, better than a single parent home. (FYI - I am a single parent.)
So I'm not saying that homosexuals should have to choose between family and attraction, merely that once they've made a choice, they should stick to it until their children are raised.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
ETA: Or, what DDD said.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Abandonment is a strong word. Would you consider every heterosexual couple who gets a divorce for ANY reason to be abandoning their family? I only consider it abandonment if they actually abandon their children. But the vast majority of the divorced couples I know still care for their kids and consider them a top priority, even if they aren't doing it in a dysfunctional marriage which, IMO, can be worse than a broken marriage. This isn't as simple as sexual gratification.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Short of actual abuse... yep pretty much. There's SO much evidence showing that split parents are bad for kid.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's slightly harsh though because you don't know if it's just sexual desires, but something more. I don't know. I don't think it's really healthy to be a gay man who wants men marrying a woman. It can't be good for the woman to have a man who doesn't desire her totally. I know I wouldn't want to be married to a gay fellow who won't do anything about it. I'd tell him, will you go get yourself a nice man? It seems like the only good thing that can come from such a relationship is the kids. It's just not right for a person to not be themselves.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
ETA: Or, what DDD said.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
On a slightly different note...back to the homosexual-specific case: Many of you seem awfully dismissive of "sexual gratification." But I was just remembering something I heard about sex in marriage a while back: If sex is good, it is 10% of a relationship. If it's bad, it's 90%.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I saw a really good documentary about a family in a situation like this. The man had married a women when he was young, hoping he would just get over his gayness if he dedicated his life to his family. He tried really hard for decades to believe in it. They had several children. I guess he was able somehow to perform sexually. Then he just couldn't live the lie anymore. His wife accepted it and still loved him. At least one of his kids loathed him for it.
As I listened to all of them tell their stories on film, I was struck the most by the story of the poor mom. She knew there weren't fireworks in their love life, as she felt there should be. She was left feeling very ugly, rejected, and unworthy. That to me was the saddest thing about the whole mess. She loved him and was attracted to him but he had to struggle not to shudder or flinch when she touched him. All this was obvious from watching how they interacted in the film.
I've totally forgotten the name of the movie but I'll never forget that idea that it so powerfully conveyed. These people's lives had been ruined by his decision just to marry a women despite the fact that he was homosexual. It seemed like a really good idea at the time, but over time it proved to be a colossal mistake.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I know a couple like this. The husband thought he was 100% gay (but accepted that he must be at least somewhat bisexual later) but, as a Mormon, wanted to marry in the temple to a woman and have a family because he felt it was the right thing to do. He told her before proposing what his orientation was but told her he loved her and wanted to marry her anyway.
They've had struggles. He eventually lost his faith and then didn't see the point in being married to someone he wasn't attracted to, so they separated, intending to get a divorce. Except after a while, they both realized that they were really good together, and that they still loved each other, despite their differences.
Today she is pregnant with their third child and they seem normal but happy together.
Personally, I think the only reason their relationship seems to be working is that both of them are aware of his orientation but also willing to love and be loved despite it. I think their marriage is one in a million and don't expect many (or even any) other marriages of its kind to work out as well. Still, people who stay married and in love despite huge challenges always inspire me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I occasionally find myself wondering whether we do ourselves a serious disservice by insisting:
a) that children be raised by their parents; b) that sex be culturally restricted to life partners; c) that life partners be defined by their willingness to raise children together.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, such a cultural definition has certainly had it's uses.
Anyway, I find the idea that divorce = abandonment interesting, as I have first hand evidence that that is a complete falsehood in many cases. Does it happen? Of course, and abandonment is something that is not good, and something I definitely do not respect. But to conflate the two things is an incredibly dangerous, and horrendously erroneous thing.
Heck, my step-dad divorced his children's mom. Had he "abandoned" his children when they lived with their mom, and he spent as much time with them as he could. Is his action wicked?
Had she "abandoned" them when they moved over here with my step-dad? Is her action wicked?
Yeah, divorce is not good for children, but I know darn well that things are better off now than they would have been if my step dad and his first wife had stayed together.
There is no wickedness in this, and to call divorce such in a blanket statement is in completely disagreement with the facts, of at least one case, and I know others as the same.
And as one who knows what it's like to not have a father, I must wonder what precise definition of "abandonment" one is using.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I have a friend who is gay, and completely okay with being gay. He's also an Orthodox Jew, and wants to get married because he wants a family. Judaism is very family oriented. He wouldn't marry a woman without telling her that he was gay (which may be why he still hasn't managed to find someone to marry).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I occasionally find myself wondering whether we do ourselves a serious disservice by insisting:
a) that children be raised by their parents; b) that sex be culturally restricted to life partners; c) that life partners be defined by their willingness to raise children together.
Do you think you could modify any of those assumptions and significantly improve the situation? To say nothing about weeding out all the kinks.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
People who support SSM are not against marriage for children's sake, or marriage for faith. They do not seek to outlaw or deny that option. Its not about denying options, but about allowing them.
However, such marriages can only work when both parties realize the truth, and not try to hide it. I wonder if the Gay Movement will actually increase the number of successful marriages between gay and straight people, by removing the fear, lies, and recriminations that come from hiding ones sexuality.
Posted by Closeted (Member # 10270) on :
I'm a lesbian in a long-term marriage to a man, and we have children. People make their own decisions about what they want to do. I don't think I've done anything wrong to anyone. I don't hide my sexuality from my husband, I don't lie, and I stay in a monogamous, faithful relationship.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
ETA: Or, what DDD said.
I 100% agree!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you think you could modify any of those assumptions and significantly improve the situation?
I don't know. I think the transition period would be awful enough that we'll probably never get to find out.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Buddhism says nothing specific about homosexuality; however, like many religions, Buddhism does have some conservative groups within it that still view homosexuality in a poor light. It would be my guess that this guy grew up in that sort of Buddhist tradition, or if he really did convert when he was married, that his wife did.
Either way, I think he's kind of missed the point. I'm not saying that he's a "bad" Buddhist or anything, just that his view is strongly opposed to mine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Anyway, I find the idea that divorce = abandonment interesting, as I have first hand evidence that that is a complete falsehood in many cases. Does it happen? Of course, and abandonment is something that is not good, and something I definitely do not respect. But to conflate the two things is an incredibly dangerous, and horrendously erroneous thing.
...
And as one who knows what it's like to not have a father, I must wonder what precise definition of "abandonment" one is using.
I would think in many people's minds, the adults in the family being willing to alter their relationships with each other and the family as a whole by ending the marriage and ceasing to live together constitutes a type of abandonment no matter how it is done. It doesn't literally mean: leaving your children, but rather quitting the current dynamic and, yes, abandoning your attempt at being a family. That can be an improvement for everyone, so perhaps the word is wrong by connotation, but divorce is a type of abandonment, in most cases. Perhaps the degree to which the status quo is preserved is greater or lesser in any given case, but people don't get divorced and then keep things exactly as they already are, so it's not like you can claim otherwise. I'm just trying to point out that people see it that way for more reasons than you may have considered, and just because they see it that way, doesn't mean they don't also acknowledge everything you have also said- they may just talk about it differently.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
My heart hurts for everyone in this situation.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Closeted: I'm a lesbian in a long-term marriage to a man, and we have children. People make their own decisions about what they want to do. I don't think I've done anything wrong to anyone. I don't hide my sexuality from my husband, I don't lie, and I stay in a monogamous, faithful relationship.
I was thinking of your last posts as I read this thread. I still think about your marriage sometimes, even though I'm never on Hatrack anymore and I have no clue who you are.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think in society today people define themselves too much by lables such as "gay" or "straight."
A quote from one of the LDS church leaders I think hit it right on the head. (Elder Oaks)
"I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical."
If this gentleman is telling the truth, maybe he is defining his existence through his children and his wife. Perhaps he is focused more on their happiness than his own. One may see him as being dishonest or unfaithful with himself. I see him as putting the happiness of his wife and children before his own desires, and think that is noble.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I think you can find nobility in a person who puts his children above his own happiness. I also think you can find disgust in a society that forced that person into a situation in which he would have to choose between his children and his happiness.
Furthermore, I believe that it is oversimplifying to state that "staying together" equates to "putting the happiness of [spouse] and children before [one's] own desires." There might be a few people out there who could maintain the facade of happiness for their entire adult lives, and maybe a few others whose sexuality lies more in the "non-sexual" (as in, not terribly interested one way or the other) rather than "homosexual" category. But the vast majority of gays stuck in heterosexual marriages find it extremely stressful. And their opposite-sex "spouses" probably do as well - imagine being in a long-term relationship with someone who does not find you remotely desirable. Ultimately, that's not the kind of thing that a couple can bottle up forever. Sooner or later, one or the other person won't be able to handle it anymore (after all, they're only human!), and someone will be hurt - probably everyone. Including the kids.
IMO, the best possible situation is to have a world in which gays don't feel compelled to enter into false heterosexual relationships just to avoid their society's ridicule. Since that isn't possible at the moment, I think it's far better for a couple in such a situation to have a clean break (and shared custody of any children) than to spend decades growing bitter and resentful of one another.
OMegabyte made this same point earlier in the thread, but was mostly ignored: the choice between "familial unity" and "abandonment" is a false one. There are options between the two - and ultimately, these alternative options may be best for the family overall. Better a child be raised by separated but happy parents, than she be subjected to a broken, bitter household.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think in society today people define themselves too much by lables such as "gay" or "straight."
A quote from one of the LDS church leaders I think hit it right on the head. (Elder Oaks)
"I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical."
Elder Oaks is being extremely dismissive here, whether he intends it or not. Perhaps I need more context to be fair, but practically no one elevates the importance of their hair color, or state of residence, to even the median level of importance that adults place on their sexuality. By making the comparison he demonstrates that he thinks identifying as gay is a foolish and frivolous choice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's healthy to put others needs ahead of your own TOO MUCH. I'm not saying to only think of yourself. You need balance and the like. I'm saying that too much ignoring your needs can really make you sick.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
ETA: Or, what DDD said.
Well, I think that people make mistakes, and with the best of intentions might find themselves in a situation where there are no good options left.
People may reach a point where they simply feel that they have to try to take care of their own needs, especially after a long deprivation, even if it does cause some hurt for others. While it would be accurate to call this "selfish", I think it would usually be wrong to assume that the self being served isn't also subject to the pain that goes with the change. And it may be unfair to condemn them for seeking to balance a great weight of repression with a measure of expression, when most of us aren't so burdened.
Self sacrifice can be noble, but it can also be destructive. I think that you and I disagree on some fundamental things, but I think we probably agree that the purpose of existence is happiness.
I think that sometimes trying to put others' needs ahead of your own unintentionally demonstrates that life isn't about happiness, but about misery. If you can't be happy, what are you teaching your children - what values are you imparting - by soldiering ahead in your misery?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
While I don't know many people who put their hair color at that level, there are many people who place other things on relative levels. The Marines are an excellent example, but not the only one. There are people who are athletes, or doctors, or engineers - and that defines them to such a degree that if they lose that ability, they do not know who they are. That is one of the many problems people have identified with IRL child prodigies (not fictional Ender's). The problem with ALL child prodigies is that when they grow up, even IF they maintain all their gifts, they are no longer a "child prodigy" and they feel like they've lost themselves.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think in society today people define themselves too much by lables such as "gay" or "straight."
A quote from one of the LDS church leaders I think hit it right on the head. (Elder Oaks)
"I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical."
Elder Oaks is being extremely dismissive here, whether he intends it or not. Perhaps I need more context to be fair, but practically no one elevates the importance of their hair color, or state of residence, to even the median level of importance that adults place on their sexuality. By making the comparison he demonstrates that he thinks identifying as gay is a foolish and frivolous choice.
I don't think he is. He merely pointed out that people make their same or opposite sex attraction the defining characteristic of their existence. I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well. Elder Oaks didn't pass a value judgment on the practice, at least not in that quote.
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is. I don't think it's wise to assume that if somebody isn't allowing their sexuality to strongly inform who they are that they are either out of touch with what is healthy or lying to themselves.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think many people tend to define themselves by how they are different from others. The more attention that difference creates, the more central to their identity it is. I think that religion, race, and sexual identity are all such charged issues that if you are not in the mainstream, they are a lot more likely to become a focus of your life. Would you find it fair to say that the role the LDS faith plays in your life is generally equivalent (there's always some exceptions) to items such as hair color, etc. listed by Oaks?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I know a couple (more than one actually) who married in a shotgun wedding after she became pregnant to formalize an "honorable" marital relationship. They did this in the "best interests" of the child, under pressure of their religious heritage.
As a couple their relationship was based on nothing EXCEPT sex/sexuality. Sex was all they did together. They had next to nothing else in common.
Since their marriage, their family has been filled with lack of communication, resentment, and bitterness. (Not to say they are totally void of happiness, but in no stretch of the imagination are they a happy, loving, strong family where children can thrive.)
I find it ironic that many believe "abandoning" (whatever that means in our discussion) one's children/family to follow one's true sexual expression is selfish and harmful; yet creating a new family solely as a result of sex is honorable. In my opinion, the creation of such a family is worse for children than a family where a gay parent leaves a feigned heterosexual marriage to pursue a same sex relationship.
So, what role does sexual expression play in families? If happiness is a main purpose of living, I believe intimacy is a basic human need that must be fulfilled as part of happiness. Intimacy is the antithesis of loneliness. Some people may find intimacy without expression of their true sexual orientation. But for many, sexuality is a large component of deep intimacy.
If true intimacy is being sacrificed within a marriage due to one spouse's same sex orientation, I believe this is beyond the line of healthy sacrifice. Such "sacrifice" in a marriage does more harm than good to everyone in the family, spouses and children. There is a balance between putting others' happiness first, and it does not involve ignoring or repressing one's basic human emotional needs.
[ September 01, 2009, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't actually true. Kids would prefer parents who are happy, but kids are better off with a stable family with an unhappy parent than in a situation where their parent vacates their responsibilities to them in order to pursue their own desires.
Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't actually true. Kids would prefer parents who are happy, but kids are better off with a stable family with an unhappy parent than in a situation where their parent vacates their responsibilities to them in order to pursue their own desires.
Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
Indeed. I would say that it isnt putting someone else's happiness above your own, it is rather, being happy with someone else's happiness. This way, EVERYONE wins.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Thirded. From a child of divorce who has heard every well-intentioned but inaccurate de facto argument against marriage in the book.
There are problems in marriage, yes. "Strengthening" the institution by dissolving it is not the way to solve them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't actually true. Kids would prefer parents who are happy, but kids are better off with a stable family with an unhappy parent than in a situation where their parent vacates their responsibilities to them in order to pursue their own desires.
Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
It is, not surprisingly, more complex than that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not surprisingly, the complexities don't change that ripping a family apart is (almost always) not in their best interest and isn't done for them at all.\
Pretending that it is is just an attempt to justify selling them down the river.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What am I doing?
I have no interest in conversing with you, Squick.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
If we're just asserting our positions sans evidence, I'll say that while of course everything is much more complicated and nuanced when we're writing textbooks about it, as far as general principles go, kat's post is entirely accurate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that where we go wrong is in insisting that families all be alike. Parents that don't live together have not necessarily abandoned thier children. Parents do not have to be of opposite genders. People can be family without breeding.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: If we're just asserting our positions sans evidence...
So far, that's what every poster in this thread has done. It's been asserted that certain evidence exists, but that's all apart from anecdotes.
I haven't looked at the evidence on this issue because I don't have plans to procreate. My only comment is that in the context of a marriage with one gay partner and one straight partner, I see no reason to assume that it's only the gay partner whose sexual and/or romantic desires are unfulfilled.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
From my perspective, I agree with Kat and I don't.
(Way to sit on the fence!)
My parents divorced when I was in my 20s, because of infidelity. I firmly believe that it was selfish of my father to have an affair, and to not be willing to give that person up. I don't believe it was selfish for my mother to demand that he either cease the affair or the marriage ended. I also believe there were many complex issues at play. If one partner won't contribute towards making the marriage work, then I think there sometimes is no option.
As an adult child of divorce - it affected me. My younger siblings were 14 and 6, and I know it affected them. It still does.
That said, for our situation, divorce was the best option, given the reality of the situation . My Dad is a better parent now than he was in the last 5-10 years of his marriage. Do I wish my parents could have worked it out? Of course. But they couldn't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If we're just asserting our positions sans evidence, I'll say that while of course everything is much more complicated and nuanced when we're writing textbooks about it, as far as general principles go, kat's post is entirely accurate.
Yes, but you would be wrong.
A parent can have behavior/characteristics that are not abusive but which make it better (on average) for a child to be raised in a single parent home rather than with them. There are also parental dynamics that are harmful to a child such that the parents divorcing would (on average) be in the child's best interest.
In most cases absent abuse (certainly much more than seems accepted by American society as a whole), the kids are going to be better off with a two parent household, but this is not even close to always true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If only someone had put disclaimers in there... something like "almost always"...if only!!
People imagine themselves to be the exceptions a great deal more than they actually are.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure, kat, are you interested in conversing with me on this or not?
---
If so, I'd note that the statement I was responding to:
quote:Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
doesn't actually have qualifications on it. And that, unless you are using an extremely broad meaning of "almost always", your qualification on the above statement is wrong.
[ September 01, 2009, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I don't think I actually have research to back this up (although, had I - or someone else - time, I'm pretty sure that it is out there), but I'd wager that the children of parents who are constantly fighting are often better off if those parents divorce rather than raise the children in an atmosphere of constantly hostility.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for them to either not have gotten married and had kids in the first place until they were mature enough to handle these things or to work on it so that they stop fighting all the time, but that's kind of beside the point.
---
edit:
I'm pretty strongly against our culture's permissiveness on divorce and parental selfishness and think that one of the big problems with families in this country is that many parents are not mature enough to have gotten married and had kids and put their needs ahead of that of the family, but if you're going to say that "All (or later, almost all) parents, absent abuse, who get divorced do so for selfish reasons and care more about themselves than their children's well-being", well that I just can't agree with. That sort of thinking shows some pretty big selfishness on its own right to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You'd wager.
How nice.
I don't believe you. And I do think that fighting for years is just as selfish as not resolving it. You have a family - deal with your issues and fix things. Walking away from your promises is not a solution, and neither is deliberately making people around you miserable.
I also doubt that a parent who can't stop fighting in front of his or her children to the point that the atmosphere is toxic is actually going to improve anything by breaking up the home - I would imagine that the misery caused by married parents who fight all the time is not resolved by divorced parents who fight all the time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't believe you. And I do think that fighting for years is just as selfish as not resolving it. You have a family - deal with your issues and fix things. Walking away from your promises is not a solution, and neither is deliberately making people around you miserable.
I know. And with war, why don't people just deal with their issues and fix it too? Why do people even have interpersonal problems, when all they have to do is just fix it? I mean, how hard can that be?
The real world is more complex than that. A marriage is made up of two people. Even if one has the drive and maturity to effectively work on their problems, without the cooperation of the other parent, there is only so much that can be done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not overwhelming evidence by any means, but from here:
quote:What About Divorce?
Not all conflicts can be resolved. Sometimes parents find that they cannot continue with their relationship. Does this harm their children?
Jones, an expert in children of divorced parents, says kids do suffer when their parents' marriage breaks up. But it's even harder if parents stay together solely for the sake of the kids.
"There's been consistent evidence over the years that the process of divorce itself is hard on children," Jones says. "But even more important is the level of conflict between the parents. If children are experiencing a lot of fighting — especially if the children are drawn into those fights — that may be more harmful to their development than a divorce."
Cahir strongly agrees.
"If parents come to terms with the fact they are not happy with each other and cannot work it out, the children are better off if they divorce," Cahir says. "The bottom line is if the children see happy, content parents, they are better off. … I have had many clients say, 'I wish my parents had gotten divorced earlier,' because kids know when parents aren't happy. They learn that early on."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
{Edit - This was to Squick and Kat. But more has thankfully been said.]
Hey you two - stop it.
Please.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Imogen, I'm not entirely sure what you'd like me to stop.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The ironic thing about this argument is that *I* would wager that none of us think divorce is a good thing for anyone and that divorce is too often considered before seeking other solutions. (If any of you involved in this debate feel that divorce is great and that we should all get one, please let me know!)
That being the case, I can't honestly say I'm 100% sure what we're arguing about here. It seems to me that Kat is suggesting (please correct me if I'm wrong) that unless someone is getting abused (spouse or children), people should stay married come what may and get over whatever issues they have.
The reason that I haven't brought in any references or citations is that I'm really not at all sure what the heart of the argument is. That people should stop being human and start being perfect? I don't think citations are needed to refute that.
Marriage is a complex subject. It is not black and whit and not every couple enters into a marriage with the same set of expectations. There are a lot of different types of families out there, even within the two-person opposite sex couples.
Sometimes, people get married too young and for the wrong reasons. When they grow up, they have to figure out what to do about their situation.
Should they get a divorce? I don't know....it really depends upon what the issues are between them. Professional counseling is a good pre-divorce step, but unfortunately the only person you can change is you. There are times when your spouse needs to change and you can't change him or her.
I have a theory that most people do not understand what marriage is when they get into it. I think that many of them learn but that far too many leave without that understanding. The people who "fall out of love" with their spouse, for example, just make me roll my eyes. Most of the time I think they are confusing the excitement of those first moments with love and don't understand that love is a verb -- it's something you do, not something you feel until happily ever after.
Once upon a time, our parents picked our partners and that was it. Now, we choose our own and don't always know what we're doing or how to live with the choice afterward.
And human beings are imperfect.
So, we can either expect humans to become perfect or we can simply work within the bounds of human nature to do the best job we can and stop judging one another for every slight -- real or imagined.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
So, we can either expect humans to become perfect or we can simply work within the bounds of human nature to do the best job we can and stop judging one another for every slight -- real or imagined.
Christine, I think that, given that we are fallible human beings ourselves, this is excellent advise. We all are going to need some mercy at some point.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I have a theory that most people do not understand what marriage is when they get into it. I think that many of them learn but that far too many leave without that understanding. The people who "fall out of love" with their spouse, for example, just make me roll my eyes. Most of the time I think they are confusing the excitement of those first moments with love and don't understand that love is a verb -- it's something you do, not something you feel until happily ever after.
Right now, I'm trying to adapt the intro to Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving as a reading for my wedding based all around this idea. Love isn't something that happens to you. It's a faculty that you exercise and a shared creation that you have to work at.
But that doesn't sell anyone anything and it's hard and I think our culture has largely come to see love as solely the magical spark between people.
edit:
And really, I think that is very sad for the people involved. In a lot of cases, I think that they really don't know what they are getting into. It's possible that they are missing out on real, abiding love because they don't even realize that that is what they should be trying to achieve. Our culture has told people so many stories of fairy tale marriages and divorce has become so permissible that people hit that wall where they're not feeling the spark and figure "Well, this marriage didn't work." not realizing that no marriages ever work with just the spark. And the tragedy is that I think that many of these have all the stuff that could grow into real, strong marriages, but that they don't realize that that is what they should be doing. /edit
---
I think this spark is important and while it doesn't last at the intensity that you start with, it is important to keep it alive in a marriage. I think sex is also really important in a marriage, for a variety of reasons. Bonding definitely and shared recreation, but also it really helps smooth out the rough spots (or it least it does for me).
That's the thing I'd find most interesting in a gay person married to a straight one. I do believe that it is possible to have the deep abiding type of love between these people and in the family that they create. But I'd be very interested to see how they got around missing those aspects of a married relationship.
The linked posting that started off this thread doesn't really go into the how of anything at all. It seems all about stating that "I'm doing this." It seems to be concerned about establishing the relationship, not explaining it. That's why (even if I thought it was real), I find it not particularly interesting.
[ September 01, 2009, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
kmbboots: I disagree. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I think there are useful generalities we can make in some situations. Of course there is a tremendous room for variation within the family structure, but at a certain point we have to draw lines somewhere or definitions become meaningless. Which is, of course, what some people think is for the best, but personally, I think it just leads to a sort of postmodern morass of confusion. *grin*
Twinky: the bit you quoted was aimed at everyone in this conversation; it was my attempt to recognize exactly what you pointed out.
I agree with your observation as well.
MrSquicky: We're talking about different things. It seems like, very often, when people are discussing generalities, someone pops up and talks about the exceptions to the rule -- the idea being, apparently, that anyone talking in general terms is willfully refusing to recognize the complexities inherent in relationships.
And I think it is in fact important to note those exceptions, because we don't want to become rigidly Puritanical about these things. At the same time, I think it's needlessly pedantic to, for instance, pick apart kat's posts to the degree you have. I don't think it's correct to assume that if a person posits a general rule, that they are necessarily ignoring those exceptions.
I actually agree with all your observations regarding the permissive culture of divorce, and especially with your thoughts about love being a shared creation, etc. Seems like people assume that when you say you have to "work" at a relationship, it can't be as good as the intoxicating hormonal first couple of months of puppy love; but the "working" at the relationship is actually far more satisfying, and, in some ways, fun.
Edit: If anyone in this thread is interested, I'd recommend Fatherless America, and The Future of America both by David Blankenhorn, for a decent overview of the general issues and evidence available about this topic. The author is good about keeping his arguments in the secular realm and backing everything up with evidence, though like most studies of this sort it is by necessity more correlation-based than "proven" causally. I just find the correlation to be too great to ignore.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
"Divorce is hard on children."
True.
"Unless abuse is the cause, people who divorce are harming their children."
True, but the harm done could be the lesser of two evils. In cases where the parents fight constantly or use the children as either targets for their anger or pawns in their battles, more harm emotionally is done than done in a good divorce.
"Parents who argue constantly, turn to their children in their anger, or use them as pawns in their anger are damaging their children and are wrong."
True.
But what are we to do about it?
To remove the option of divorce unless of violence may stop that pain, but it won't stop the pain of parents who are too simple, too mean, or too thoughtless to think of their children first. Yes its Daddy's or Mommy's fault that the family is torn apart. What can we do about it?
This is the problem with laying blame. All it succeeds in doing is removing you from having to help with a solution. To blame the problems of high divorce rates or childhood trauma's on those parents who think with their anger or lust instead of their hearts or their heads is fine, but it doesn't help the children.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: kmbboots: I disagree. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I think there are useful generalities we can make in some situations. Of course there is a tremendous room for variation within the family structure, but at a certain point we have to draw lines somewhere or definitions become meaningless. Which is, of course, what some people think is for the best, but personally, I think it just leads to a sort of postmodern morass of confusion. *grin*
So? Why? My sister-in-law was just as much my family before she and my brother had a child. A husband and wife are still family even if they are childless. A widower and his children are family. Adopted children are still family to their parents. Grandparents raising their granchildren are family.
Why do you think that families have to look the same?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I don't think they have to look the same. You are continually rephrasing the argument and attacking your own strawman. I have never claimed that any of the relationships you listed are not family, so please stop suggesting I have.
At a certain point, we have to draw lines in order to speak meaningfully. We disagree about where to draw those lines, but I think we'd both agree that our bosses at work are not family, regardless of how often we get together and have barbecues.
Look, no one is saying that a relationship is necessarily lessened or of an inferior sort if they're not family. It's just a different type of relationship. Categorizing things in such a way is not prejudice, it is the willingness to define things with useful clarity. And it's worth pointing out that in some cases, some relationships really are unhealthy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Zotto, then I am confused. You, I thought, were disagreeing with this statement:
quote:I think that where we go wrong is in insisting that families all be alike. Parents that don't live together have not necessarily abandoned thier children. Parents do not have to be of opposite genders. People can be family without breeding.
Where are you drawing lines that disputes this?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Zotto, kat didn't posit a general rule that admitted exceptions. Here's what she did say:
quote:Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
I saw that as an unjust accusation of many parents putting their gratification ahead of their children's well-being. Certainly many people do so, but this is not the case in many other divorces.
So, firstly, I spoke up to defend those people from an unjust accusation.
Second, the idea that the only situation where getting divorced results in a better environment for the children is one where their is abuse going in is flat out wrong. This is a statement of ideology that is not matched by the facts and should, I think, be noted as such. I would hate for people to make decisions based on false information like that.
You may see this as unnecessary nit-picking, but to me, it was, as I said, a defense of an unjust pejorative and countering a wrong but pervasive view of divorce and children's health.
edit: And I want to note, my initial comment was merely that things are more complicated than what was said. It is only upon repetition of the same incorrect information that I went into more detail.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
(Edit: This response was to boots.)
I'm disagreeing with that statement because you say that I'm "insisting that all families be alike". I think families are tremendously varied, and each one has idiosyncratic quirks that have never been seen on the earth before. At the same time, they do fit general underlying patterns that allow us to distinguish between them and other types of relationships in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Zotto, my first post wasn't addressing you in particular. If you tell us where you draw your lines, maybe we can find where we agree and where we differ.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Zotto, Would you agree then that the cases that boots mentioned can accurately be called families?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
MrSquicky: You probably disagree, but I think kat has sufficiently clarified that she is speaking in generalities. Maybe slightly hyperbolically, but still accurate. I don't think she was unjustly accusing anyone, and though I can see how it might be read that way, I don't think it's a correct read. To be honest, I think the longstanding feud you two have going contributes to both of you consistently reading each other in the worst (and most exactingly precise) light possible.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Ack, I am a slow typist!
It depends on how colloquially we're talking, I think. I can say my best friend is "family", but that's just a hyperbolic way of saying that I love my family and I love my friend and we have the same closeness that a good family has.
If we're talking a little more precisely, I would say that anyone who is biologically related (to a more immediate degree than "we're all part of the same species") is automatically (and by definition) family. I also think biological parents are different in kind than step-parents, though this says nothing about the quality of the relationship; in my own case, for instance, even if he is not biologically my dad, I have a very high regard for my stepfather.
Because such people are taking responsibility for others and -- this part is important -- fulfilling certain gender-roles in the "hetero-normative" (as the jargonists say) social organization embedded in our culture, I would consider all the people boots mentioned to be family, though in some cases they are not biologically related.
Edit: sorry, edited this a couple times for clarity.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
I understand you are speaking on how others perceive you. I don't think that is what BlackBlade was trying to say. It is how that person perceives himself, and what he does to share that perception with others.
A good example would be (forgive me for this one) Uncle Rico in Napolean Dynamite. In the film Uncle Rico was obsessed with the last game of his high school career. They lost the game and he felt that if had done things differently they would have won the game. He has his van in the middle of nowhere and he spends his days filming himself throwing passes with the ball. He even buys a fake time machine on ebay with hopes he can go back in time and change things.
It could be argued that this is just how we are perceiving him, and that would would be valid. However one can see that it is more than just a personal perception on our part, that this character obsesses about it, and that he feels it defines his existence.
I don't define myself by my sexuality, I define my life by accomplishments. If I had a child and thought that their life would be better or that they would be happier in a certain situation, I would do whatever I could to make sure they were happy, no matter what those arrangements were.
In my opinion when you have a child their wants and needs go before yours. You brought them into this world, you have a responsibility to care for them. Whether in a single parent home, two parent home (whatever the gender of the parents), or another living arrangement, you have a responsibility to that child.
That being said, most people only think that which is what is socially acceptable. Homosexuality has been been frowned upon by the majority until recently. The outlook on a family unit has changed over the years. Women are looked at differently. The Civil rights movement ocurred.
In another hundred years, it may be socially acceptable to do any number of things that are not accepted by the general population now. It is all based on perception, and little by little those who want the perception to change can influence many people over the years. We can't judge whether the current perceptions are right or wrong, just as we can't judge whether the new perceptions being introduced are right or wrong. No one can prove either perception is valid, because it will always be based on an individual's personal beliefs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Zotto, The only qualification that I've seen kat offer was that parents who get divorced are acting selfishly and putting their gratification ahead of their kids well-being in almost all cases. To me, almost all at it's widest would be something like 95% of cases. Does that seem like a reasonable number to you?
In that case, would agree with that characterization? That 95% of all non-abuse divorce situations can be put on selfish parents who don't care much about their kids? Because that seems unjust to me.
Likewise, I believe that it is obviously not the case that at most only 5% of cases of divorce (absent abuse) where the kids would have been better off if the parents stayed together. What's your take on that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
I understand the principle you are talking about. There are definitely different aspects of my personality that I project to different people. But I think you are overstepping a bit when you think there is no way I could know somebody intimately to the point that there is far less I don't know than I do.
I know my friends and acquaintances to varying degrees for sure, but there are some I know better than anybody else, just as there are some I am sure do not open up to me all the way.
Posted by Closeted (Member # 10270) on :
I'm a lesbian. It is a part of my identity, but not my entire identity. I'd argue that there are very few people who will choose one aspect of themselves and insist that that one aspect is the sum total of their entire being. I am also a mom, a wife, a professional, a foreign car driver, a Hatrack member, a writer, a volunteer worker and an American.
I won't deny any of these parts of me. Some of them are much bigger pieces of the puzzle than others. But whether or not your sexuality is "important" to you or not so much, it really is a big part of the puzzle. It is a very basic chunk of our human psyche. And if you don't think that being straight is a part of your identity, that is probably because it is such a big part of your identity that you take it for granted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
I understand the principle you are talking about. There are definitely different aspects of my personality that I project to different people. But I think you are overstepping a bit when you think there is no way I could know somebody intimately to the point that there is far less I don't know than I do.
I know my friends and acquaintances to varying degrees for sure, but there are some I know better than anybody else, just as there are some I am sure do not open up to me all the way.
I'm not sure I understand the turn this took. BB, you were talking about what people self-identify as, right? Then it seems to me that Orin went in a very different direction with how other people view someone.
I don't see how the how other people see people as all that relevant to what we are discussing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky: I was saying people do make certain physical aspects of themselves their defining characteristic. Orincoro disagreed that I could know that as people merely project parts of themselves to everybody around them. I agreed that is often the case, but disagreed in that you can know certain people to the point that you know if they have a defining characteristic.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)