posted April 22, 2010 07:45 PM         

And she's probably unhappy because she has been humiliated in front of millions of people. Hell Hath No Fury...

Unenlightened? Maybe, but then, would that not mean a man giving in to his "dog nature" is JUST as unenlightened??

He stood in front of the preacher and he said the vows. Why? That to me, is the real question.
You are implying that it's because it was the only way to get her? Well, why did he want her then, knowing full well what is "expected" in a marital bond?

Maybe Jesse is a blatant opportunist?
Maybe Sandra is a dellusional woman?
Maybe Jesse got tired of being Mr. Bullock, and running to movie sets here and there?

posted April 22, 2010 08:26 PM         

Wow, you just got right up
on your high horse, didnt you?

I don't think you noticed,
but I included a lot of "maybe"s
and "probably"s and "i think"s...

I also asked a lot of questions.

Mostly, I speculated.

We're still free to speculate, aren't we?

To muse, and share our own opinions
and interpretations of events?

And, yes, it is for my own purposes.

It's highly conscious projection.
Everything seen through the lens of
my thoughts, feelings, and experience.
I can't honestly do anything else, can I?

Of course its for my purposes.

I don't write about the stories
or celebrity intrigues that can't
be related to my own experience.

But I think I was pretty fair to her.

If you don't think so, it may be
that you're not as forgiving
as I am of human shortcomings?

To me, it's not an attack to admit them,
because I know we all have them, and
we're here to learn from them.

I dont mean to be unfair to Miss Bullock,
but, for the purposes of this thread,
it doesnt matter what the facts are
concerning her particular case, --
just concerning infidelity in general.

If I interpret her situation in a way
that makes my own clearer, then her
situation has served its purpose for me.

And, as I said, I was pretty careful
not to make any absolute claims.

I thought that was pretty clear.

posted April 22, 2010 08:45 PM         

Bad boys
Good boys

What gives?

We are born--- we live - we have sex - we reproduce - we die.

often (not always) - but I am talking about the majority.

I just do not look around me and see bad boys - good boys, bad girls and good girls. I see people - all shapes -- all sizes, all personality types.. sooooooooooooo many people.

I see people I can connect with and people I have nothing in common with. I get close to the former and not the latter.

You are saying a woman believes she is the *one and only* for her man. Well not necessarily. I mean I could care less about the physical aspect. I believe my guy's perfect woman looks wise would look more like Halle Berry (this is from things I have heard him say) - and if you saw my pic on FB I have a very different look to Hale Berry.

But the connection we have is special and unique to both of us. So yes he is that ONE special guy for me.. and I am that ONE special woman for him.

Things change in time ... I know that.

posted April 22, 2010 08:51 PM         

Yeah, the "million people" thing
is a little unique to celebrities.
I didnt think of that.

quote:

---

Unenlightened? Maybe, but then, would that not mean a man giving in to his "dog nature" is JUST as unenlightened??

---

I tried to address that in my post. I'm inclined to think the desire to share love, or pleasure, with numerous people is not nearly as unenlightened as the desire to have someone all to yourself. The first involves being open, while the second involves limitation, control, and withholding. Seems like a difference between Uranus and Saturn. And, yes, I think the outer planets are more enlightened.

quote:

---

He stood in front of the preacher and he said the vows. Why? That to me, is the real question.
You are implying that it's because it was the only way to get her? Well, why did he want her then, knowing full well what is "expected" in a marital bond?

---

Maybe he loved her.
Maybe he believed he could do it.

In any case, I doubt he could tell her
what a sacrifice it would be for him.

quote:

---

Maybe Jesse is a blatant opportunist?

---

That's possible.

I give her more credit, though;
consequently, I give him more.

quote:

---

Maybe Sandra is a delusional woman?

---

I'm inclined to think they had love,
and a very happy life together, but,
that he had certain needs which are
highly taboo in this society, and which
neither of them could be honest about.

quote:

---

Maybe Jesse got tired of being Mr. Bullock,
and running to movie sets here and there?

---

I dont think that has,
or should have, anything
to do with it, do you?

quote:

---

Maybe they'll reconcile? Who knows??

---

It's so public.

At this point,
the way our society views these things,
she'd be more humiliated if they reconciled.

posted April 22, 2010 09:02 PM         

You dont look around you
and see Saturnians, Uranians,
Venusians, Plutonians, etc.?

I do. I see all sorts of people.

And I have things in common with all of them.

In case you haven't caught on to my style yet,
I am not, under any circumstances, to be taken literally.

I make generalizations because I make points.

Have you ever tried to say EXACTLY what you mean?

You get mired in technicalities. You become ineffectual.

If short, you cannot say anything without generalizing.

So, since I am not about to take a vow of silence,
I'll go on generalizing and making my points, thank you.

posted April 22, 2010 09:12 PM         

I used to imagine in my mind, all the people that had to know (and there were many) and how they must have pitied poor put upon Gypsee at home with 3 kids. It made me nauseous.

So, I can only barely fathom how Sandra feels looking at herself crying in the tabloids, and reading Jesse's text messages of a private nature, knowing that there are literally millions of people either feeling sorry for her, or saying, 'well what did she expect?"

And, I see people the same. EXACTLY, how you described them.

posted April 22, 2010 09:38 PM         

quote:

---

In case you haven't caught on to my style yet,
I am not, under any circumstances, to be taken literally.

I make generalizations because I make points.

---

I know.. I see your style. I usually find your style interesting & engaging. Other times I am neutral. I was not trying to be "critical" -- Just expressing my own perspective.

quote:

---

I'll speak for the rule,
and you can speak for yourself;

---

The rule makes me uncomfortable.
I know it would be true for many. But I find it a bit upsetting that people can't just LOOK and see the other as a human, rather than place a label on them.

I know we use labels daily and I do as well.. some of which you mentioned: uranian, plutonian etc..

But I guess it is a matter of extent. When I use a label I am simply thinking about a "vibe" I get -- a general vibe.

I would not call the vibe positive or negative. It can go either way.

Saying "good" or "bad"... is weird to me.. because I see both positive & negative traits in absolutely everyone including myself.

I see a person like that in a tabloid - Someone like Jesse James. I think: He was a kid once. He had a childhood. He had and still has friends, family, parents, enemies as well perhaps. He had his heart broken. He fell of his bike and cried about it. Maybe he had a family pet die. He has a story -- the story of his life.. as we all do.. and he also cheated on Sandra Bullock (That is part of his story now). He is a HUMAN being. He's not a "face" - He's not plastic. He's not a JERK.. and he is not a GOOD GUY. He is just like me and you from my perspective.

-sigh- I just think many things shape a person and define a person.
Any "bad boy" is also a "tame guy" and vice versa, depending on circumstance and who is judging. That's the same for women.. All women are both the "good girl" and "the bad girl".

posted April 23, 2010 10:41 AM         

you can continue loving someone when they hurt your feelings. but if your marriage vows have been broken, that is an indication that no trust remains in the relationship.

and marriage vows come from the reality of the health dangers of sexual promiscuity. for a very brief time(about 50 years, in the middle of the 20th century) those health fears seemed to have been eliminated but we found it just isn't so. and even excluding std's there are other health problems that can be communicated thru intimacy. not to mention the possibility of bringing extraneous children into the relationship without the consent of one of the partners. the list goes on of reasons why mutual exclusivity was written into marriage. if it is unrealistic how come so many people manage it? because they do.

does he/she care if you contract aids, hepatitis, even tb? if not, does he/she love you?

but why are we talking WOMEN expecting exclusivity exclusively? don't men expect it even more? to the point that women are considered to be "more naturally monogamous in NATURE?" [which is just not necessarily so, is it?]. another reason for the "exclusive" clause in marriage is so that both partners will know who parented any children that come along.

as to why sandra is unhappy, who knows? what we see is the tip of an iceberg, and we deem ourselves capable of answering such a question? in the case of a rich and famous person, i suppose the question must arise - did they just pretend to get a part of my wealth? this is a person who was trusted and they have lied. what other lies are hidden waiting to be discovered?

i too have trouble with the word "cheating" when it is used for having sex with an "outsider" if there is no other affect on the relationship when together. but the discovery that one has been living a lie is always destructive of trust. this man didn't just have a few (or a lot of) one night stands, but led several women to believe his feelings for them were other than the reality.

posted April 23, 2010 11:41 AM         

I just think its more complicated
than a lot of people like to think.

It would be great if we could just
reduce it to a question of trust.

Because I agree that,
when an agreement has been made,
there is no excuse for breaking it.

But what really interests me
is how entitled people feel to
impose restrictions on their mates.

It's interesting to me that the
closed, monogamous relationship is
the generic model we see in society.

Nature seems to make it pretty clear
that women are designed to have sex
with one person at a time --
to get pregnant.

I'm not saying its right, but its nature.

And it seems equally clear to me
that men are designed to have sex
with multiple partners, to spread seed.

Again, it may not be right,
and we may wish to alter our natures,
but, let's not ignore the raw material.

I don't think we, as human beings,
ever made a conscious choice to honor
a woman's need to possess her lover
over a man's need for multiple partners.

But this is what happened.

Suppose, women,
that the tables were turned.

Suppose 99.9% of the men you met
declared that they would see other women,
and if you want to be with them,
you will have to agree to that.

If you, at some point,
demand his full attention,
that will be a betrayal of trust.

So, what do you do?

Wait for that knight in shining armor,
who was already so difficult to find,
before you had to annex 99.9% of all men
from your dating pool?

Or.. what?

Learn to overcome your jealousy
and your possessiveness, right?

Do you think you could?

Could you do it for love?

Because, all social conditioning aside,
it makes infinitely more sense for a man
to ask you to learn how to open your hand
out of love for him, than to ask him to
close his hand out of love for you.

But that's what we do.

My point is that,
this may seem like an open and shut case,
but only because our culture is already
skewed in the direction of closed monogamy.

posted April 23, 2010 02:05 PM         

so THAT is also a social construct and imposition on the woman's nature designed to assure the man that the children are HIS. the contract imposes equal restrictions on both sides.

if your woman said to you, i am pregnant, it might be yours or jacob's from next door...how would you feel about raising it?

posted April 23, 2010 02:40 PM         

quote:

---

Because, all social conditioning aside,
it makes infinitely more sense for a man
to ask you to learn how to open your hand
out of love for him, than to ask him to
close his hand out of love for you.

---

posted April 23, 2010 02:46 PM         

I think children should be raised
by a community, and that procreation
should be minimal, -- but I understand
nature makes that difficult, too.

Of course I sound just like a man
trying to justify promiscuity...
Whenever you call into question
a long-standing moral code
you will appear to be justifying
something immoral or taboo.

Also, most people don't think or talk
about things like this in the abstract,
but, only when they have to, and only
when it applies to their personal lives.
The reason people always speculate
on your personal motives for thinking
is that they can't identify with
impersonal motivations.

The truth is,
there is nothing to justify,
if we are talking about the right
to personal freedom in relationship.
Possessiveness needs to be justified;
promiscuity does not.

But once an agreement has been made,
we're talking about a different thing.
And my words have made it clear
that I don't justify cheating.

What I am doing is asking questions
about our values and rights -- questions
which ought to be confronted before
any promises or agreements are made.

So often, we don't ask these questions,
but take our rights and values for granted.

I think my Venus/Uranus was put here
to get us to ask difficult questions
about freedom in relationships.

They say, if it weren't for Venus/Uranus types,
we'd all still be practicing arranged marriages.

posted April 23, 2010 03:12 PM         

for him to justify it? no need, i would cut off his balls and feed them to him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. bobitz style. then i guess he would have quite a story.

posted April 23, 2010 03:12 PM         

You dont make sense.

posted April 23, 2010 03:17 PM         

We are talking about
promiscuity in general.

Before any vows have been made.

Before any vows have been broken.

We are talking about freedom.

posted April 23, 2010 03:25 PM         

See my response to cpn,
and my previous response to kat.

I am talking about
PRIOR to any agreements.

Before you even start setting
your ground rules for what you
expect from your partner.

Before you even decide that
what they do is your business.

Why is it your business?

What right do you have
to impose on their freedom?

Is the weakness yours,
if you want closed monogamy?

Is the ego yours?

Is the selfishness yours?

This is what I'm discussing.