What's the deal with sex?

[speakerchef]

Fido,

By honour- do you mean commitment to your word?
Or to your love?
To yourself?
Your actions?

What is in honour?

I still don't understand how a person could say that love is more important than honour, that is why I ask.

Cheers!
-sc

[Fido]

Originally Posted by speakerchef

Fido,

By honour- do you mean commitment to your word?
Or to your love?
To yourself?
Your actions?

What is in honour?

I still don't understand how a person could say that love is more important than honour, that is why I ask.

Cheers!
-sc

I certainly do not say that love is more important than honor. A person cannot live without honor, and people often never find that one they can love without restraint, doubt, pity, or hate.

Only that person with honor can be trusted with the care and feeding of a relationship, and this involves the treasuring of intimacy, as this is the wealth in a love relationship. It is not the only wealth in relationships, but without honor all wealth spiritual and temporal are endangered. Find the germ of honor in your if you ever expect to be worthy of love, for love and life are wasted on the dishonorable.

Something else. Love relationships have moments of intense sympathy and affection, but they are subject to outside forces that often stress relationships beyond the breaking point. People have their preconceptions of a relationship and these suffer and cause suffering. Ultimately a person's health or ability to love will affect the question. There are times in a love relationship when love seems everywhere else but in evidence. Then, on memories or hope people have to keep the relationship alive for their honor. And this is fair, because to bet everything on love and to lose is not a loss like the guilt a person of any honor will suffer in surrendering his commitments and looking for others. People can live without arms and legs easier than they can live with guilt. People with guilt invite their own suffering, and seek their destruction. Do not do this. Do not commit to relationships if your heart and head are not strong, and your will is not willing for every change of circumstance. Love is not for the weak, but for the brave, the strong, and the honorable. Never seek love out of need, but from an abundance of gifts, skills, wiles, and joys in life.

[speakerchef]

Fido,

I still don't understand what you mean by honour, or for that matter, love?

I know days could be spent writing on these two subjects alone, but do you have a concise definition for both?

Finally, I apologize- I intended to write "I still don't understand how a person could say honour is more important than love, that is why I ask."
Instead of "I still don't understand how a person could say love is more important than honour, that is why I ask."

I missed the reversal of honour and love in my proofreading. For what its worth it made sense in my head though!In fact, my whole ethical system appears to be built primarily about the idea of love.

Until I understand your definition of love and honour, I can't decide if I agree (end of discussion) or disagree (discourse, and interesting bits).

Please let me know

Cheers!
-sc

[Fido]

Only a general definititon of love is possible. Considered -as caring, or as a form of relationship- is as close as I can come because everyone gives it a final definition with their lives and with the value they give to love. There are many examples of love with only general definitions. Your love will always be unique.

Honor has more of a social definition because every honorable person in society tends to make the whole society honorable, and every dishonorable person tends to degrade the definition and endanger society. We forget that honor did not come out of a world of police. The police enforce laws, and not honor. Nor does honor come out of a money economy, though I trust it is a form of economy. People can trade on their good name like some use credit. Honor is more important for the poor, and money is more important for the rich. The reason for this is clear. Where people are poor, and money is scarce, for anyone to goes out of their community to get goods, or to trade for necessities, one must be able to trust those one leaves behind with family. Honor is essential to trust, and in this sense is like love, that we cannot love those we do not trust. But in small poor communites it is also essential to know that when you share your goods out of necessity with a neighbor that he in turn will reciprocate. Wealth can be hoarded, but poverty must be shared, or some will die for want. And who will die in a small community built upon some common nativity who is not family in some sense, who we do not love, -if aid is withheld?

When law, and capital first began to have real power in Europe, it did not only attack the affairs of honor, the defenses of honor that cost many lives and feuds, but they also attacked the communities that gave honor its meaning. When a person gave land to the church in order that his will would be conidered valid by the church, that person may have been giving what was not properly his to give. When the commons were closed in England and Scotland and all those who depended upon them for survival had to sell their little plots and move on; they were selling what was never before theirs to sell. People's children were stolen from to make great estates for a few, and the capital of hundreds of years was suddenly made available for investment. What about the many thousands put on the street without recourse but to sell their labor for wages?

Law has often supported, and even demanded the dishonorable from people. Law has often broken down the old economy of honor, and is doing so today. If it were possible in Europe for people to be forced to sell inalienable property, it will some day be possible for people in America to purchase inalienable rights. Never mind that we all made this country what it is. If it will be privatized, it will be through law, and against honor. And this attitude of money being the equal of honor destroys many relationships, even marriages, and finds a willing support in law.

[Justin]

We've lost sight of this topic which is sex. We've jumped into love and honor. Please try to stay on the topic of the thread as much as possible. Maybe a new thread topic should be opened with regards to honor and love.

[speakerchef]

Aaaah Fido, thank you!

Now I can weigh in.

First, love.

You say that everyone defines there own love (at least thats what I see between the lines) but if that is so isn't (to use the now classic example) a pedophile loving in there own way? In ancient Greece it was considered perfectly natural that men should want to have boys to love (pedophilically).

This was their unique style of love and considered perfectly natural, and from what the ancient Greeks write did little or nothing to harm the child. In fact, it was considered good for the child for he could pick which suitor he liked. He could select someone rich or poor, good looking or bad looking.These boys were of course not so young, but still in puberty (around 14,15).

This, of course is a terrible tragedy, but it stems from your definition of love.

If love is a relationship, do you mean any relationship like, say, a brother? Or that which is traditionally between a man and a woman?
I am uncertain here.

A minor point, but if all love is truly unique, could love be hate also? That would be really unique!

I still don't understand what you mean by honour, for I don't see a definition, just a description, however; I a mildly certain (if there is such a thing) of your meaning, and so I will precede.

If honour has its own economy, isn't if woefully inefficient?

1. Honour is only a form of credit, but credit can run out, credit can be a lie, credit can fail. You may say you'll rescue Maid Mirriam, but if your father's on his deathbed how do you walk away? Do you sacrifice actual love for potential love and honour, especially if you never promised your father that you be by his deathbed?
2. It is still based on money, because I am honour-bound to pay you back what I owed, be it a cow, car, carrying goods, or cash.

People trust the poor less, because of their situation, not more. Perhaps among the poor honour is more important, but I think that would be difficult to prove at best. As a poor person, I wanted to be rich, (just like the vast majority of other poor people want), so I would say that honour is not important. As a poor person, I didn't want honour, I wanted money.

Law always had real power in Europe. I have no idea how you could think otherwise. Imperial law has not always had power, but even when all of Europe broke into pieces, each society had very strict laws.

Law is important and powerful in every culture, be it native, white, black or any culture. Law exists in every one. It just may not be written down.

If you are referring to fuedalism and its 'honour system' please check your sources, especially from 6th century A.D. to 14th century A.D. honour was a noble idea, but was in no way commonly practiced. While I think the Crusades are wildly misinterpreted I certainly agree that they were dishonourable.

Your last question in third paragraph, What else do you think people have always done with their labor? Sell it! That is what people do in every society, even communism!

Furthermore, most of the rapine of the masses from the end of fuedalism was done by lords who were trying to barely get by because they couldn't support themselves without such measures. They were forced to become poorer and poorer, until they too had to sell to greater lords doing the same thing. Only the biggest lords escaped this.

Finally, the law is always about honour, because I am bound to honour it, in a very real sense. If everyone followed their honour there would be no need for law. If everyone followed the law there would be no need for honour.
The law isn't dishonourable, its incredibly noble, just a FEW blood-sucking attorneys destroy it for everyone. If anyone has every met a good lawyer, they'll know what I mean.

Look forward to your response.

Cheers
-sc

[Fido]

Speakerchef;
I am going to have to get back with you on this, but the question about pedophiles you will have to take up with them. I will point out that rape, as pedophilia is, is not the violent expression of sexuality, but is the sexual expression of violence. If you do not understand this, let me explain further: It is violence primarily expressed sexually. People who do that sort of thing in our society feel powerless, and take as their victims those who feel more powerless still. There is nothing of love in it. It is an act guaranteed to cause anger, to offend the public conscience, and to shame their victims. Two facts only demand mercy for pedophiles. One is that if they do not face death they will be less inclined to inflict death to avoid punishment; and many were themselves victims, and are now expressing their pain by inflicting it.

The cultural ethic that allowed man boy relationships in Greece are too distant to judge. I doubt it was ever as sexual as portrayed. Men in particular found the thought of being a receptical for another's bodily fluids revolting. We have to understand that they were at a point in time where the men had only recently taken over society from the women, If they were not matralinear, and I would have to look and see if they were still, and they were not matriarchal, as they certainly were not; then they had no normal and natural reason to respect women, and so held them as chattles. Eventually these societies caved in. Women were not valued, and lived hard lives without reward or thanks. As a consequence female children were exposed, and not wanted by fathers or mothers. While many family lines died out for lack of wives those women who did survive to adulthood found better lives as prostitutes than as mothers and wives. So perhaps the Greeks thought of themselves as super men and needed super women in the form of boys. Contempt of the opposite sex is not the basis of any good relationship I know of.

[speakerchef]

SeeTopic: Love and Honour

[Fido]

Originally Posted by speakerchef

Aaaah Fido, thank you!

Now I can weigh in.

First, love.

You say that everyone defines there own love (at least thats what I see between the lines) but if that is so isn't (to use the now classic example) a pedophile loving in there own way? In ancient Greece it was considered perfectly natural that men should want to have boys to love (pedophilically).

What I mean is that Love is a very general, and what love is in reality will always recieve a final definition by the people in it. It still has to be mutual. It still has to be generally love.

This was their unique style of love and considered perfectly natural, and from what the ancient Greeks write did little or nothing to harm the child. In fact, it was considered good for the child for he could pick which suitor he liked. He could select someone rich or poor, good looking or bad looking.These boys were of course not so young, but still in puberty (around 14,15).

I have seen similar things in this age where an old hand would take on the training of an apprentice.

This, of course is a terrible tragedy, but it stems from your definition of love.

Love is always comic. Look at it, even the lowest form of comedy, the police story or whodunit is about bringing society together by excluding the criminal. Most are about some wayward element being brought into the family situation again, often through marriage. If you want to look at a good comedy, see Uncle Buck. It even has a great weenee, which is a technical term for that moment of recognition where the tragic comic figure sees himself for what he is ,and has to make the choice to be a part of the family or not.

If love is a relationship, do you mean any relationship like, say, a brother? Or that which is traditionally between a man and a woman?
I am uncertain here.

All concepts are forms of relationship. All forms are forms of relationship. All relationships have some formality to them and the best have very little. Depending upon what sort of relationship you believe you are in, different rule apply. The rules are differnt between a love relationship and an employee, and employer relationship. Marriage is different that simple love between friends or a couple when first together.

A minor point, but if all love is truly unique, could love be hate also? That would be really unique!

Love is still love, but each couple feels special in their love, and they are.

I still don't understand what you mean by honour, for I don't see a definition, just a description, however; I a mildly certain (if there is such a thing) of your meaning, and so I will precede.

I think it was Count Basie (sp) who said: If youhave to ask (what Jazz is) you will never understand. People are raised on honor and honesty. We allknow what it is evenif we try to avoid it.

If honour has its own economy, isn't if woefully inefficient?

1. Honour is only a form of credit, but credit can run out, credit can be a lie, credit can fail. You may say you'll rescue Maid Mirriam, but if your father's on his deathbed how do you walk away? Do you sacrifice actual love for potential love and honour, especially if you never promised your father that you be by his deathbed?
2. It is still based on money, because I am honour-bound to pay you back what I owed, be it a cow, car, carrying goods, or cash.

Good point. I trust that in honor societies there is always a deficite just as in our economy. Look at the potlatch societies of the West Coast Indians, or others societies whose primitive economy was built around the giving and recieving of gifts. Just like some people cannot have enough money there were some who could not have enough of honor even if it meant poverty. In many respect poverty among poor people is synonymous with honor. And just as people kill for money, some will kill to preserve their honor. Recently, in Pakestan, a man killed his step daughter and three or four of his own daughters because his step daughter left her husband who had hired her out to work in a cement plant, and the step father presumed infidelity bringing dishonor to his family. He judged he could not live without honor, and was probably right.

People trust the poor less, because of their situation, not more. Perhaps among the poor honour is more important, but I think that would be difficult to prove at best. As a poor person, I wanted to be rich, (just like the vast majority of other poor people want), so I would say that honour is not important. As a poor person, I didn't want honour, I wanted money.

Where money is wealth, honor is cheap.

Law always had real power in Europe. I have no idea how you could think otherwise. Imperial law has not always had power, but even when all of Europe broke into pieces, each society had very strict laws.

Not really. The difference between the German tribes and their laws was slight between the American Indian tribes and their laws. See: Law and Revolution. It is a legal history book concerned with the end of the first millenium and how the church took over and within a very short period developed Western Law as we know it throughout Europe.

Law is important and powerful in every culture, be it native, white, black or any culture. Law exists in every one. It just may not be written down.

I would note, were I you, of all the difference between Islam and Christianity. What the Muslims have is significantly different, and in most respects is superior to our law. They may execute more, but they have fewer in Jail, less police, and less crime. You do see what happens when social controls are suddenly lifted. Old scores and insults are accounted for. First, they have a tribal view of honor. Second unlike us, they believe each person has an absolute right to justice. And third, their religion support their community and tribal legal view of justice.

If you are referring to fuedalism and its 'honour system' please check your sources, especially from 6th century A.D. to 14th century A.D. honour was a noble idea, but was in no way commonly practiced. While I think the Crusades are wildly misinterpreted I certainly agree that they were dishonourable.

I think you mis understand feudalism. I have read much on this subject, and I can give you two examples off the top. First, each personhad his feudal rights through a mutual pledge of fidelity. A breach of this faith was called a felony. If a lord slept with his man's wife, which was dishonorable, then the man could have his fee without obligation- he could de-fy his lord. Honor was everything in that society. It was the source of wealth as none of the property could be said to belong to anyone since none was alienable. As the Chinese would say, some had top rights, and some had bottom rights; but all had rights. When the rich and the powerful finally got control of Europe and said the kings and lords actually owned the land it constituted a great theft.

Your last question in third paragraph, What else do you think people have always done with their labor? Sell it! That is what people do in every society, even communism!

No, usually people supported themselves with their labor. In the middle ages there were few roads and little commerce, and little need for commerce. Everyone was sitting onthe greatest wealth they could imagine: the land.

Furthermore, most of the rapine of the masses from the end of fuedalism was done by lords who were trying to barely get by because they couldn't support themselves without such measures. They were forced to become poorer and poorer, until they too had to sell to greater lords doing the same thing. Only the biggest lords escaped this.

Finally, the law is always about honour, because I am bound to honour it, in a very real sense. If everyone followed their honour there would be no need for law. If everyone followed the law there would be no need for honour.
The law isn't dishonourable, its incredibly noble, just a FEW blood-sucking attorneys destroy it for everyone. If anyone has every met a good lawyer, they'll know what I mean.

Look forward to your response.

Cheers
-sc

I think your view of history is off a few notches. If you pose these questions in the next thread I will answer. Thanks

[ogden]

dolphins have sex simply for pleasure, as do banobo chimpanzees!