Post by mirrororchid on Dec 16, 2022 7:06:30 GMT -5
The start of this essay series is found here.
johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/insanely-long-proofs/
In 1799, Paolo Ruffini proved that there was no general solution using radicals for polynomial equations of degree 5 or more. But his proof was 500 pages long! ... later Niels Abel gave a proof that was just 6 pages long, so most people give the lion’s share of credit to Abel.
With this, I give you my Ruffini version of trying to explain the obvious:
FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, makes people sexless.
Forsaking your spouse makes the marriage sexless.
When it comes to any aspect of life, we do not seem to mind outsourcing. We eat at restaurants, go to spas for massage, go to therapists to discuss our deepest fears, play golf and grab drinks with friends.
You can go to professionals for any number of these services and no one should really bat an eye. Absent a history of infidelity, a spouse should not be unduly concerned if these professionals are the opposite sex.
In the right context opposite sex friends may not arouse concern either, lunch at McDonalds, having drinks at teh company party, dance lessons with a classmate, etc.
Switch the context just a hair and you end up in areas where folks get nervous.
Seeing that same lunch friend or classmate at a night club just by happenstance while waiting for your spouse to arrive and having drinks or dancing together may spark just a moment of jealousy/fear/panic for the spouse five minutes later.
It's not the drinking or the dancing that's the issue. It's the proximity and the isolation.
Put this pair of friends in that night club at a round booth table and have them sip drinks at opposite ends? Questions may arise in the spouse's mind.
Seated side by side, in the middle of that same round booth? That may escalate to "WTF?!!!"
The scene in the first Batman movie where Bruce Wayne sits at the head of a ridiculously long conference table with his date at the far, far opposite is comedic but illustrates how unsexy and distant such a dinner would be. Wayne didn't mean for it to be hostile, but it could convey such a shunning.
Some people (former Vice President Mike Pence) expanded such a state yet farther. He avoids dining with women without his wife there. He won't even sit at teh head of the Wayne manor conference table.
Now Mr. Pence is a devoutly Christian man to an Nth degree many Americans find... eccentric.
The insistence on appearances of absolute propriety and ethical behavior could telegraph a sordid past of infidelity he steers clear of, a lack of trust in his own self-restraint, or a misogynistic view that women are repugnant temptresses to avoid unless armed with teh shield of the woman you love by your side.
I suspect Pence's propensity is fueled strictly by his adherence to his faith and a swish to convey airtight integrity. Lord know we commonly see politicians who break societal norms. He may treasure his ethical armor to an obsessive level, but such adamance serves a purpose in his line of work.
What appearance is he trying to convey? I've not see anyone explain it except through a lens of devotion to his marriage. He won't be seen in any photos having any interactions with women mistaken to be intimate in nature.
Any intimacy with the opposite sex is for marriage only. This is a man FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, on steroids.
Mrs. Pence is set. Zero suspicion need arise.
He has forsaken all intimacy with women, except with her.
He appears to wish to make it crystal clear that not only is he endlessly faithful, the very possibility of it happening is that of any given proton disintegrating into a neutral pion and positron.
Is this the standard all of us should adopt? When we forsake all others, it says nothing of those others being only the opposite sex.
Mr. Pence will not forsake other women for various activities if his wife is there.
Why is his wife being there the "hall pass" to have dinner with Nikki Haley when he could do so readily with Ron DeSantis, no escort required.
What is to be feared with Haley that is not possible to happen with DeSantis.
How can these rule be about anything but sex?
Dancing or having drinks with the opposite sex are commonly avoided as these are common rituals of courtship. They are the stereotypical choices of activity preceding goodnight kisses, or more.
Golf, hiking, and paintball, less so.
Lunch at the work cafeteria or working on a car together, less than that.
I don't know how much more I need to describe my observations of common societal behavior to get to my point that the HAVE and HOLD vow is about sex. You can give bro-hugs without issue. You can hug your amicable ex-wife. You can bear-hug your gay/lesbian friend you've known since college.
Remove clothes from any of those while administering the same hug? Suddenly a lengthy conversation is called for. (probably about football, if it's the bro hug)
For all the condemnation of them, divorce, to my knowledge, is almost never caused by "emotional affairs". Physical connection is essential to a marriage being declared dead. When emotional connection is the offense, underlying issues are commonly identified and addressed. The divorce will be a result of careful analysis or reasons behind teh affair and a methodical decision that the two spouses have irreconcilable differences.
If a spouse HOLDs anyone in a sexual manner, sometimes no further conversation takes place before papers are written up. The reasons behind the divorce may be myriad, but the trigger was HOLDing someone else. That is the universally agreed upon detonator.
As for HAVE, I'm not sure how far back in history the expression goes but we know what we mean if a woman says, "I had that guy a few weeks/,month/years back."
You dated? You took a class he taught?
No. Absent context, if you "had" somebody, you shared bodies.
The instant destruction of a marriage by HAVing another person, not your spouse, illustrates the meaning behind the arguably vague promise to HAVE and to HOLD. The violation of vows by HOLDing or HAVing another in a sexual manner makes it clear that when you promise to HAVE and to HOLD your spouse, you are speaking about that which cannot be done with anyone else.
Were you to refuse to LOVE, HONOR, or CHERISH, your spouse, folks could see a marriage in terrible trouble.
For some reason, refusing to HAVE and HOLD a spouse is seen as merely a symptom of failing at one of the other THREE rather than a violation in itself.
Were you to LOVE, HONOR, and CHERISH your spouse to perfection, refusing this fourth commitment you made, of your own free will, would still be 75% fulfillment of vows.
That's a C.
A healthy, strong C.
Maybe not the level of effort refusing spouses think they have made in the marriage?
The part about FORSAKING ALL OTHERS when it comes to sex has a magnificent PR department. It is ubiquitously understood.
The team responsible for enlightening engaged couples that they are about to promise to have sex, until death do you part, needs a bigger budget.
NEXT: Forsaking All Others, 'Til Death Do We Part
johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/insanely-long-proofs/
In 1799, Paolo Ruffini proved that there was no general solution using radicals for polynomial equations of degree 5 or more. But his proof was 500 pages long! ... later Niels Abel gave a proof that was just 6 pages long, so most people give the lion’s share of credit to Abel.
With this, I give you my Ruffini version of trying to explain the obvious:
FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, makes people sexless.
Forsaking your spouse makes the marriage sexless.
When it comes to any aspect of life, we do not seem to mind outsourcing. We eat at restaurants, go to spas for massage, go to therapists to discuss our deepest fears, play golf and grab drinks with friends.
You can go to professionals for any number of these services and no one should really bat an eye. Absent a history of infidelity, a spouse should not be unduly concerned if these professionals are the opposite sex.
In the right context opposite sex friends may not arouse concern either, lunch at McDonalds, having drinks at teh company party, dance lessons with a classmate, etc.
Switch the context just a hair and you end up in areas where folks get nervous.
Seeing that same lunch friend or classmate at a night club just by happenstance while waiting for your spouse to arrive and having drinks or dancing together may spark just a moment of jealousy/fear/panic for the spouse five minutes later.
It's not the drinking or the dancing that's the issue. It's the proximity and the isolation.
Put this pair of friends in that night club at a round booth table and have them sip drinks at opposite ends? Questions may arise in the spouse's mind.
Seated side by side, in the middle of that same round booth? That may escalate to "WTF?!!!"
The scene in the first Batman movie where Bruce Wayne sits at the head of a ridiculously long conference table with his date at the far, far opposite is comedic but illustrates how unsexy and distant such a dinner would be. Wayne didn't mean for it to be hostile, but it could convey such a shunning.
Some people (former Vice President Mike Pence) expanded such a state yet farther. He avoids dining with women without his wife there. He won't even sit at teh head of the Wayne manor conference table.
Now Mr. Pence is a devoutly Christian man to an Nth degree many Americans find... eccentric.
The insistence on appearances of absolute propriety and ethical behavior could telegraph a sordid past of infidelity he steers clear of, a lack of trust in his own self-restraint, or a misogynistic view that women are repugnant temptresses to avoid unless armed with teh shield of the woman you love by your side.
I suspect Pence's propensity is fueled strictly by his adherence to his faith and a swish to convey airtight integrity. Lord know we commonly see politicians who break societal norms. He may treasure his ethical armor to an obsessive level, but such adamance serves a purpose in his line of work.
What appearance is he trying to convey? I've not see anyone explain it except through a lens of devotion to his marriage. He won't be seen in any photos having any interactions with women mistaken to be intimate in nature.
Any intimacy with the opposite sex is for marriage only. This is a man FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, on steroids.
Mrs. Pence is set. Zero suspicion need arise.
He has forsaken all intimacy with women, except with her.
He appears to wish to make it crystal clear that not only is he endlessly faithful, the very possibility of it happening is that of any given proton disintegrating into a neutral pion and positron.
Is this the standard all of us should adopt? When we forsake all others, it says nothing of those others being only the opposite sex.
Mr. Pence will not forsake other women for various activities if his wife is there.
Why is his wife being there the "hall pass" to have dinner with Nikki Haley when he could do so readily with Ron DeSantis, no escort required.
What is to be feared with Haley that is not possible to happen with DeSantis.
How can these rule be about anything but sex?
Dancing or having drinks with the opposite sex are commonly avoided as these are common rituals of courtship. They are the stereotypical choices of activity preceding goodnight kisses, or more.
Golf, hiking, and paintball, less so.
Lunch at the work cafeteria or working on a car together, less than that.
I don't know how much more I need to describe my observations of common societal behavior to get to my point that the HAVE and HOLD vow is about sex. You can give bro-hugs without issue. You can hug your amicable ex-wife. You can bear-hug your gay/lesbian friend you've known since college.
Remove clothes from any of those while administering the same hug? Suddenly a lengthy conversation is called for. (probably about football, if it's the bro hug)
For all the condemnation of them, divorce, to my knowledge, is almost never caused by "emotional affairs". Physical connection is essential to a marriage being declared dead. When emotional connection is the offense, underlying issues are commonly identified and addressed. The divorce will be a result of careful analysis or reasons behind teh affair and a methodical decision that the two spouses have irreconcilable differences.
If a spouse HOLDs anyone in a sexual manner, sometimes no further conversation takes place before papers are written up. The reasons behind the divorce may be myriad, but the trigger was HOLDing someone else. That is the universally agreed upon detonator.
As for HAVE, I'm not sure how far back in history the expression goes but we know what we mean if a woman says, "I had that guy a few weeks/,month/years back."
You dated? You took a class he taught?
No. Absent context, if you "had" somebody, you shared bodies.
The instant destruction of a marriage by HAVing another person, not your spouse, illustrates the meaning behind the arguably vague promise to HAVE and to HOLD. The violation of vows by HOLDing or HAVing another in a sexual manner makes it clear that when you promise to HAVE and to HOLD your spouse, you are speaking about that which cannot be done with anyone else.
Were you to refuse to LOVE, HONOR, or CHERISH, your spouse, folks could see a marriage in terrible trouble.
For some reason, refusing to HAVE and HOLD a spouse is seen as merely a symptom of failing at one of the other THREE rather than a violation in itself.
Were you to LOVE, HONOR, and CHERISH your spouse to perfection, refusing this fourth commitment you made, of your own free will, would still be 75% fulfillment of vows.
That's a C.
A healthy, strong C.
Maybe not the level of effort refusing spouses think they have made in the marriage?
The part about FORSAKING ALL OTHERS when it comes to sex has a magnificent PR department. It is ubiquitously understood.
The team responsible for enlightening engaged couples that they are about to promise to have sex, until death do you part, needs a bigger budget.
NEXT: Forsaking All Others, 'Til Death Do We Part
