As alot of you know, I'm getting my PhD in mechanical engineering. My minor is in Management of Technology. I've had to read a TON of literature for my classes. It's funny. I see alot of parallels between the way we conduct business these days and the way people conduct their marriages. I started thinking that perhaps "morals" or the framework with which we conduct our personal relationships are becoming a thing of the past. <P>In the past, communities were small and tightly knit. Everyone depended upon the other, so moral integrity was very important. Furthermore, there were severe penalties for stepping outside of the moral framework of the community. Any man or woman who divorced would be shunned, and certainly, anyone who abandoned their children would not be able to show their face. That person would be forced to go start over in a new community. This community would also probably be very suspicious of a newcomer and this person would most likely spend a great deal of time earning the trust of his/her new neighbors. So, in many, many ways, people had HUGE incentives to live within certain guidelines. <P>These days, that is no longer true. I see very little incentive for people to have morals. If you cheat on your husband or wife and shack up with a new lover, people just say "oh well, it just didn't work out". If someone leaves their kids, it is not at all difficult to find another person willing to spend time with them and even give them a set of all new kids. <P>What does this have to do with business practices? Well, there was a time when business owners also had a strong investment in the community. Not any more. If their stock dips a bit, its time to close the factories and ship off to Thailand, or Mexico, or wherever, for cheaper labor. Of course, labor has now reciprocated. There is no such thing as worker loyalty anymore either. Everyone knows they can be fired at a moments notice for no reason, so everyone constantly has an updated resume on their computer and is constantly on the lookout for a better deal. Sounds like alot of marriages these days. <P>Long story short, the morals that served us so well in the past seem to no longer be valid. The frustration so many of us have faced with the seeming lack of remorse from spouses willing to chuck our marriages are only a symptom of larger forces at work in our culture. I know, nothing new. At some point, alot of us would like to think that this spouse will somehow "suffer the consequences" of their behavior. That might have been true in the past, but I don't think that is true now. What I think is that our current culture literally SUPPORTS those who swap partners every so often. Pretty cr*ppy huh? It supports the notion that you use a person to help you reach certain goals in life (whether it is having children or career goals) then you chuck them for the next best deal when they cease to serve that function anymore. <P>Do men who trade their stay-at-home wives for the trophy wife after they reach their financial/career goals suffer? Not really. He still gets to visit his kids whenever its convenient AND pays less than he would have if he was the primary provider. Do women who have children suffer when they dump their hard-working husband for some guy who makes more money? No. As a matter of fact, she makes out better because the bio-dad still has to provide child support even if she remarries. There is very little societal pressure for either of these people to stay married to their "partner of their youth".<P>I suppose my discussion is intended for people who are truly hurt by their spouses decision to leave the marriage. In some respects, it is not about them (the person who was abandoned). It is about the fact that many people simply have no incentive to struggle in a marriage. People tend to do what they are rewarded to do, and people tend to take the easy way out whenever possible. It is just human nature.

TheStudent,<P>Absolutely. I agree with you completely. (How come I keep finding myself saying that in response to your posts?)

Student,<P>I TOTALY AGREE!!! <P>I have read alot of your posts, (I`m a lurker, mostly) and feel your points of views are very much right on target.. and this post, hits a cord.. and I applaud you..<P>I will add one more thing though.. money is the real power now a days, and as it goes, it is used also as the solution and answer to all.. so yes, I agree, there are no more roll models as far as morals go.... <P>AV<BR>

As long as their are people like The Student, Nellie1, Numbheart and myself who are disgusted by these things and choose to live differently, morals will remain a part of society- maybe a small part, but alive none the less.<P>I see what you see and agree with you. I am disgusted and compare modern day America to the worst days of debauchery of ancient Rome. We support personal freedom and say we don't want to legislate morality. We serve the god of money and abandon our chidlren to do it. Is it any wonder we are a society of divorce, rampant drug abuse, and hopelessness?

popeye,<P>From my thoughts to your written words - Our society today has many similarities to ancient Rome. But just as other parts of the world survived and thrived while Rome fell, so it may still happen today. There are many other societies (Europe for example) where the family unit and the community are still very important, unlike our own.<P>Where will this all lead us Americans? Only God knows, but to me it looks like a lot of people are going to need some flame-retardent suits!<P>But that should never stop you, me, us, from believing in these things. And it should not stop there; we need to voice these beliefs as well. Maybe not to go out and try to reach the masses all at once, but rather to chip away at society, one person at a time. If by nothing else, than through our own example.<P>A priest once related it to me in the same sense of compounding interest: If you can go out and reach just two people, just TWO people, and they turn around and reach two more, and on and on, the good news will spread like wildfire across the country. <P>And the amazing thing is that each person ONLY has to exert enough effort to just reach two people!!!<P>Food for thought.<P>Mike

sotired,<BR>I believe in trying to reach people who are around me as well. I have a neighbor, who I'd like to call a friend, but just can't because she is having an on-going affair with a married man. On at least two occasions I've told her how I feel about her behavior. At the time, she did not get defensive and seemed to know that it was wrong. However, she continues. So, in order to maintain my self-respect I've had to distance myself from her. <P>I've struggled a great deal with this issue. How can you remain "engaged" with people who continue to do things that hurt others, yet maintain one's self respect? I'm at the point where I feel like a continued friendship with her is somehow leaving the impression that I condone what she is doing. <P>The best solution in my mind has been to focus my attention on those who are repentant and honestly want to change their lives (like the "Cheater's AA"). I do extend a hand to others who are still "cheating" but not for long. If they were a long-time friend of mine, and I felt this was out of character for them, I might hold on a bit longer. New people I meet who are engaging in this behavior get sent out the door. It usually becomes clear fairly soon which ones want to change and which ones don't.

<BR>TS writes:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Do men who trade their stay-at-home wives for the trophy wife after they reach their financial/career goals suffer? Not really. He still gets to visit his kids whenever its convenient AND pays less than he would have if he was the primary provider. Do women who have children suffer when they dump their hard-working husband for some guy who makes more money? No. As a matter of fact, she makes out better because the bio-dad still has to provide child support even if she remarries. There is very little societal pressure for either of these people to stay married to their "partner of their youth".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm not buying all of this. Historically, men engaged in opportunistic divorce right after they attained an advanced degree. This is the "ditch the wife who put you through school" divorce syndrome. Nowadays, the wives in such divorces can (and do) lay legal claim to part of the increased earning stream of the husband's degree. The laws were changed to discourage such opportunistic divorce by men. I'm not saying that it never happens, but the fact is, women overwhelmingly file for divorce.<P>The question is why. Margaret Brining recently wrote a paper showing that whoever expects to gain custody of the children (and hence, gleefully nail the other spouse to the income shares cross) is disproportionately likely to file for divorce. Because the "best interests of the child" standard used in custody decisions is inherently subjective, in practice its really just the warmed corpse of the notorious "tender years doctrine." The upshot is that women are awarded contested custody far more than men. Because they are practically guaranteed to win custody of the children, they perceive that they have less to lose in a divorce. Hence their filing rate is so much higher. <P>I am utterly unsurprised that states adopting a presumption of joint physical and legal custody have seen a decrease in divorce rates. And when we rewrite child support laws to reflect reality (i.e., increasing CS at lower income levels and substantially decreasing CS at higher income levels), my guess is that we'll see divorce rates drop even further.<P>As far as morals go. My good deed of the last week and half: A friend of mine had fallen into an emotional affair and wanted to sexualize the relationship. I persuaded him to NOT do that, and instead to confess everything to his wife. He just did so last Sunday. His wife took it very well and is using the incident as a wakeup call for their marriage. My friend just today thanked me profusely for righting his errant direction. Its these little battles that turn the war, IMO.<P>Bystander

bystander,<P>"Nowadays, the wives in such divorces can (and do) lay legal claim to part of the increased earning stream of the husband's degree. The laws were changed to discourage such opportunistic divorce by men."<P>That is great. I'm all in favor of laws that make it harder for anyone (male or female) to engage in opportunistic divorces. If you've read my posts in the past, my standards for divorcing are pretty darn high for either men or women. Abuse, repeated and long-term infidelity, substance abuse. Perhaps 5-10% of divorces. Certainly not 50%.<P>If you notice, I also mentioned that I thought it was wrong for women to dump their husbands to "marry up" as well. <P>I'm glad you stepped in to help your friend. Good thing he was a guy, because if your friend was female, the odds are pretty good she would have gotten punished in some way (either verbally or physically), immediately dumped, or the husband would have gone out and had a revenge "affair" to salvage his pride--then dump her. Lets talk about double standards now. As you know, I tend to counsel against confession for women, as a result. I would have counseled her against making it sexual of course, and doing everything to end contact, but would have suggested she see a counselor instead and to try to initiate change in the marriage in other ways. <P>Everytime I see your name, I think of the question you asked me long ago. Everytime, I ask myself that question again, just to check. It's been 3 yrs now(?) and things I've seen here, and personally experienced make me believe even more that the answer to your perennial question would still be....no. And I'm not telling any future man about the past either. It would be nice if I could, but I live in the real world where women are (usually) punished and men are (usually) forgiven. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had facial hair and..and.. other male parts though <p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited October 31, 2000).]

<BR>TS,<P>Child custody and exhorbitant child support awards create the setting for opportunistic divorce by women. The solution is to reform custody/CS laws to discourage parents from divorcing.<P>As far as my question goes, I understand why you feel the way you do. But I challenge you to provide data supporting your position that women are "punished" and men are forgiven. I've looked in the literature, and I haven't found any evidence of differences is likelihood of filing for divorce, because of infidelity, as a function of sex. It sure seems plausible, but the data just aren't there. And I've never seen *any* data on the likelihood of having a revenge affair as a function of sex.<P>Look, I think what your exH did to you is absolutely reprehensible. Your scars haven't fully healed, and it shows. He torpedoed your self-esteem, and (I don't mean to sound nasty, I'm concerned about you) I don't think you've got it back yet. But you will eventually.<P>And that's when you'll know the difference between other-validation and self-validation. Its when you won't fear the consequences of telling a potential partner about your past, because you'll realize that you'd prefer to be known <I>for who you truly are, including your past</I>, rather than who your partner only thinks you are because of your efforts at impression management. You are quite simply too good a person to want to live a lie your entire life.<P>I think I've mentioned this before. Your case has led me to ask many of my friends whether they would find someone with your background suitable for marriage. I haven't had a single person declare you unworthy of marriage - the overwhelming concern was assessing the likelihood that *they* would be betrayed. Which only makes watching your relationship aversion all the more psychically painful for me.<P>Bystander

I think I have to disagree with you. I don't think "morals" have really changed. I differenciate between morals and acceptance.<P>As you pointed out, when we were not such a mobile society and people had to "live up" to community standards, they did so in public.<P>That doesn't change what they did in private. Every little town in America had a "house of illrepute" that was frequented by married men. Because of the social and economic situation women/wives were taught to look the other way.<P>Of course "affairs" were just as common too. In fact, adultry is one of the most well covered sins in the bible.<P>I think what we are seeing is the result of people being more open about their "real" lives and not buying into the "stay married at any cost" mentality. And women taking an equal role in the foundation of the acceptable community standards.<P>Consider that just a few decades ago it was acceptable to hit/strike/whup/beat your wife if she wan't following your rules. It wasn't just acceptable, it was expected. No one had ever heard the words "spouce abuse".<P>Regardless of how badly treated, a womans/wifes place was in the home, in the kitchen, hopefully bare foot and pregnant.<P>Keep in mind that men set the "acceptable community standards" at the time. All governmental positions were held by men, all clergy were men, doctors were men, bosses were men, etc., etc..<P>I would think it fairly easy to be married in a community where all the rules were set up by and for men. If the wife argued, slap her. If she didn't want another child, sick the local minister on her. If she caught you in an affair, point out it's acceptable for men because, well, they are men.<P>In other words, as long as I could have complete control over my W, there would be no reason to ever seek a divorce. Result, lower divorce rates.<P>I guess my feeling here is that moral people will always be moral people, the others won't. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I agree with The Student 100%. No one is held accountable these days. Maybe there were those few people in each town in the past who acted against the "community standards"...today it's everywhere. You can hardly swing a rolling pin without hitting someone who has been involved in or had an affair touch their lives. It's disgusting.<P>And the thing is...the people who still have morals and scrupples and say anything, we get looked at like radicals! That's because the majority of our society is sooooo far away from it, we actually ARE radicals...on the edge, instead of in the center where decent people used to be.<P>The incentive issue is so true. That is EXACTLY what my H said...."I just don't have the motivation to work on the marriage." So off he went to re-invent himself with a new person. While there can be degrees of committment, the word really means a binding. You are either bound by seven ropes or by one rope...thing is you are still bound. You either are or you're not. It's like being pregnant...you can be 1 month along or 9 months along..thing is you are still pregnant. You either are or you're not. <P>So when my H says he was committed for 11 years....well, no he wasn't. Committment in marriage, in my book, doesn't have an end. That's the vow he took....He was in the marriage for 11 years, but he wasn't committed or he would have see it thru.<P>Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Personal integrity and morality, to me, are the most important thing we human beings possess. Without that, everything else is just a bunch of b.s.<P>Aloha,<BR>Mrs.O<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Mrs.O (edited October 31, 2000).]

Country Guy,<P>Good point! The divorce rate is pretty low in Saudi Arabia, but I wouldn't want to be a wife there. <P>Bystander, <BR>I really don't have any "data". I have my experience and those of my girlfriends. I have one very close friend whom I consider to have exceptionally high ethical standards. She has never cheated on any of her boyfriends. She used to do the total honesty thing too, but swears that, without exception, anything she told her boyfriends about her past would be thrown up in her face at some point in the relationship. She just got sick of it after awhile. Telling them did nothing to increase intimacy in the relationship.<P>With her current boyfriend, she absolutely refuses to discuss her past. She is comfortable with the fact that the person she was THEN (whatever it happens to be) is not the person she is now. So confident, that it does not even bear discussing. You are right that I have not fully recovered my self-esteem. When I do, I will be able to whole heartedly believe that the person I was then is not the person I am now. It has nothing to do with the another person's opinion. It has everything to do with what many people (men or women) would do with that information. I don't care how enlightened they are. There is no doubt in my mind that no matter how virtuous I am today, there would always be a small seed of doubt in their minds if I told them. I've done my time in that hell. I'm too good a person to spend the rest of my life proving anything to anyone except myself. It would be living a lie to be setting a place at the table for the ghost of my old self if I'm not that person anymore. Anyone who pushes for info about my past will be itchin' to be dumped.<P>I'm currently avoiding a relationship because getting a PhD takes alot of time. That, and I will be moving from here after I finish. For once, I'm going to find a job where *I* want to work, and buy a house, do all that stuff without messing with the negotiation that would be required with a serious relationship. It has also been my experience that the men in my life expect support for their goals, but aren't willing to reciprocate. Oh well. Most of the time it doesn't make me mad anymore. I've accepted that this is the way the world is. I can sit here and gripe about it, or I can just live my life. I'm a smarter person now because of my experiences. Smart enough to realize that things really aren't equal in many ways. <P>Divorce and child custody just happens to be about the only area where women have an unfair advantage. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with either gender having an unfair advantage. I don't agree with any laws that make it easier to divorce.<P>Mrs. O,<BR>You know, I don't really feel like my ex-H was married to me either. I do believe people make mistakes in marriage. I beleive that it is extremely difficult to be true to one's vows--all of them--for a lifetime. There are very few exceptions in my mind where divorce is warrented. The majority of divorces occur due to pure selfishness and laziness, IMO.<p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited October 31, 2000).]

Hi TS,<P>You knew I had to jump into this sooner or later. Actually, I agree with just about everything you have said. However, I agree with CG that some of what you are noting is not really a change of morals but a lack of response to those who seem to have few.<P>Thought I would just toss this saying into the discussion (since it really isn't a debate, yet ) Out here on the "Left Coast" we have a saying: "You can be so open minded that your brains fall out."<P>To my way of thinking that is where we are. We are unable to "discriminate" or "judge" anymore, because that would not be civilized. Yet, in my book "discrimination" is the mark of intelligence. The only issue is what are you using as a discriminate. Integrity, honesty, commitment, humility, would be very good basis for discrimination in my book, but I am in the minority these days. So are those of you who have posted. But then you all are aware of the cost, that must be paid when these attributes are missing. <P>I do think many people know what is right and what is wrong. They have morals in that sense. But many also know they can get away with things that in past time society might have used as a method of "discriminating" whether they were worth being around or not.<P>It really does come down to accountability and I think CG pointed out that few people really are in our mobile society. I won't touch his anology of male dominated "acceptable standards" vs. what we have today. But it is important to know that somethings are better (most women would agree) and somethings are worse (we've lost structure and order).<P>I don't think the underlying causes of this decay are new (remember the Victorian age, caused by syphillis (sp), or even the AIDS scare), people just have more freedom. I don't know if one can put the genie back in the bottle barring some major event such as a very contagious disease.<P>Must go. Very good thread TS.<P>JL<P>

I agree, TS...my husband while not lazy....was truly pretty self-centered. I believe he as always "there" for me in our marriage and worked at making it better, etc.(except the last few years)...it's just that he wasn't really committed in the long run. And committment by it's very nature implies that it will be for the long run. <P>Also, Just Learning, not only is there a cost for those who don't hold to the moral values you mentioned; unfortunately there is a cost for those of us who do. I used to think that maybe my standards were too high. I don't think that anymore....I've compared them to the ruler (for me the Bible) and they are pretty much in line (no I'm not perfect). The price we pay for holding to these standards and not swerving at every bump in the road is sometimes walking alone. And it's hard to walk alone. We were meant for companionship. <P>So for now, I get that from God mostly and from places like this board. I now know I'm not alone or weird or too strict to hold to the beliefs I do. I'm proud and happy to meet other people out there who also hold to and wish for these moral structure to once again be part and parcel of the very fabric of our daily lives.<P>Thanks all.<BR>Aloha,<BR>Mrs.O<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Mrs.O (edited October 31, 2000).]

Mrs.O,<P>"The price we pay for holding to these standards and not swerving at every bump in the road is sometimes walking alone. And it's hard to walk alone. We were meant for companionship."<P>You are oh-so-right. Whenever I'm mustering up the courage to stand my ground on some principle or other, I remind myself that it will probably mean I get to be alone for awhile. <P>The no-sex-before-marriage principle is my latest. I have no idea how long I'll be abstinent, but I'm absolutely sure I will remain so until I decide I want a committed relationship again. There are so many people who feel otherwise, that I feel like a freak now. <P>Hi JL,<BR>Yea, I agree that I (as a woman) don't want to go back to the good 'ol days for alot of reasons. I like your take on things about it being a no-no to have certain standards of discrimination. I used to be one of those people who thought it was some kind of crime to "judge" people for their actions. I'm less concerned about what people have done in their past than what they are doing in the present though.

Hi TS,<P>You said something that I would like to expand on: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I'm less concerned about what people have done in their past than what they are doing in the present though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think what people have done in the past and what they are doing now are very important. (I know a touchy subject for you ). But think about it for a second.<P>The past and present are always "indicators" of the future. It is like at an extrapolation problem. However, having said this let me expand.<P>If someone has done something in the past that was bad, and they are doing bad things in the present, then it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to predict that the future isn't going to be so great either.<P>Now take the case where someone has done something bad in the past, but is now leading an exemplary life. My expectation for the future is that they have learned from their past and they are very likely to lead an exemplary future.<P>What about the opposite, someone has been a good person all of their life, but currently they are doing bad things. What about the future?? Hard to predict right? Well, are there circumstances that suggest that things will be better, or worse? One needs to look at that.<P>What about complex situations? Someone was pretty normal, mostly good, then had a bad period, but now is living a very good life. Got to believe that the bad patch was a "glich" and the person has learned from it. Prediction: a good person in the future. But if similar circumstances occur that occured during the bad patch, I had better be prepared.<P>I guess what I am telling you is that a single data point is of limited use. Two or more data points are of much more use. However, the one that carries the most weight is the latest data point. (In agreement with your statement. )<P>But to make an informed decision, as many data points as possible are useful. So the past does count, but in perhaps a nonlinear way. Just depends on how "discriminating" you are with the data.<P>I guess you could view it as a time weighted marching extrapolant.<P>Now I will go answer your other question.<P>Good talking with you again, you sound so much better.<P>God Bless,<P>JL<BR>

Excellent post, TS, very thought provoking. You are obviously a very intelligent and insightful person.<P>I have little to add to your original thread, but I do want to echo Popeye in saying that you and I all all of us here can set the example. That's perhaps why we have experienced what we have experienced. We know first hand the cause and effect of today's slacking morals, and it is up to us to be strong.<P>I too am walking alone, but I don't feel bad in the least about it--yes, I am very lonely and struggling to raise my child by myself, but I understand now that this only means that I am the one who has become stronger. And I do feel blessed, not devestated.<P>

<BR>TS:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You are right that I have not fully recovered my self-esteem. When I do, I will be able to whole heartedly believe that the person I was then is not the person I am now. It has nothing to do with the another person's opinion. It has everything to do with what many people (men or women) would do with that information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You don't get it both ways.<P>Your concern that information about your past would be held against you belies your concern about others' views. Your self-esteem is still in the tank (because of what your exH did to you); as a result, you're still stuck in a mode of other-validation.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There is no doubt in my mind that no matter how virtuous I am today, there would always be a small seed of doubt in their minds if I told them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>As opposed to the large seed of doubt you plant in censoring your past?<P>I get the feeling that deep down you don't really believe in redemption. But you will, eventually.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'm too good a person to spend the rest of my life proving anything to anyone except myself. It would be living a lie to be setting a place at the table for the ghost of my old self if I'm not that person anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>On the contrary, you're too good a person to deny your next husband your life story, to tell him all that you've learned from your mistakes, and to share with him the triumph of rising from the wreckage left by your exH.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Anyone who pushes for info about my past will be itchin' to be dumped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>When you reach the point of self-validation, your partner won't have to push you. You'll push yourself to disclose your past.<P>Bystander

Bystander,<P>"As opposed to the large seed of doubt you plant in censoring your past?"<P>I've learned that people make up their own stories about your life no matter what you tell them. My second H believes that I cheated on my first H. When I told one guy I dated that my first H was a sex addict, he somehow believed the "20 sex partners in a year" was something I exaggerated, not something my first H confessed to. This example only illustrates a bigger point. Unless someone has been through something similar, they have no f*ckin clue. Not that this is something that should be held against them. There is just zero point in explaining it. Do you notice that people who have been through war tend to only discuss their experiences with other vets or trained professionals? There is a good reason. Large traumas should not be put in the hands of ignorant outsiders because there is way too much risk that the person will be re-traumatized. <P>"On the contrary, you're too good a person to deny your next husband your life story, to tell him all that you've learned from your mistakes, and to share with him the triumph of rising from the wreckage left by your exH." <P>I don't need anyone's pity or a pat on the back. I didn't confess and go through everything I did because a "big cookie" was expected at the end of it. I did it to save my marriage. My marriage ended. End of story.<P>"I get the feeling that deep down you don't really believe in redemption."<P>Yes I do, but indirectly. I don't believe the path to redemption is to regurgitate the ugliest parts of my life and "hope" for acceptance. I don't believe that having someone else give me their stamp of "approval" means a damn thing. I am the only one who is ultimately responsible for my decisions and for my existence regardless of their opinion. <P>You still don't get it. Telling someone about my past (IMO) will make it more likely for me to repeat my sins, not less likely. I don't need some new person "reminding" me about my past. I don't care how "good" their intentions are. They aren't my babysitter, and they really aren't in a position to "forgive" me. My ex is the only person who could do that, and he deprived me of that priviledge. So, its gone, over, done with. <P>Something I mentioned in my other post concerning redemption by an outsider...<P>I suppose I'm not surprised by the response coming from (mostly) betrayed. Of course you'd like to know the truth because you don't want to end up with someone who is going to cheat on you. I don't blame you. Even if you decided that they were remorseful "enough" and you decided to take a "chance" on them, it is probably nice to be in a position to be magnanimous about someone else's life choices. Probably would make some feel special to be so, um, understanding, so, well, above it all(?). Then, us lowly betrayers get to feel, what is the word, grateful(?) that someone who hasn't betrayed<BR>will somehow annoint and redeem us with their moral cleanliness(?). No thanks. The only person who can redeem me was my ex and myself. Since my ex chose not to, it is left up to me. Anyone new is well, superfluous to the whole process or maybe even detrimental. <P>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited November 01, 2000).]<p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited November 01, 2000).]

Well this thread has gotten totally off topic. As usual, it has ended up on MY favorite subject these days... sorry.<P>Ok, so we all agree that it seems as though the moral framework in our country is falling apart.<P>One solution, as discussed, is to do whatever possible to influence those around you. This could be implemented in so many ways...<P>Not laughing or joining in on racist, sexist jokes for instance.<P>Don't be silent about things you think are morally wrong. If someone, say a coworker, comes up to you and starts talking about the office honey they are banging (and they are married), say something! <P>As an example, I got into a car with a bunch of my coworkers one day...all men of course. Two of them were ragging on their wives in a really bad way. I'm sure they would have been very hurt if they knew how their husbands talked about them behind their back. I was the only one who said anything. I said something to the effect "do you even realize how lucky you are to have someone who wants to spend the rest of their life with you? Did it ever occur to you how much they would be hurt by the kind of conversations you are holding right now? How disrespectful it is?" The other two men in the car, whom I know are very respectful of women and their wives, said nothing. I got out of the car and walked back into the building. <P>These kinds of things happen everyday. Everyday our character is called into question. Everyday there is probably an opportunity to make a difference in some way.