, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I quote from Spawy Get’s site a comment from Liz.  Liz’s prosaic phosphor glows; she strips away the illusionary pasties of vows and contracts of Marriage 1.0, leaving bare the naked concupiscence for comfort-and-security in distaff value ethics inserted in the back door of marriage by No Fault Divorce.

Liz opines: “I have too much self respect to put up with stuff like that, and if he put up with stuff like that I would lose respect for him too….”

We must read between the lines a little.  Liz won’t tolerate an excess of discomfort caused by her husband’s hypothetically d1ckish behavior and expects him to be as intolerant as she should she act kuntily.  Liz’s ethics assumes that Marriage 1.0 is dead because of the shiv of No Fault Divorce.  The Marriage 1.0 emperor has no clothes in Liz’s view (heh)–this is value-based ethics.  Since there is no longer enforcement of marriage vows, an economic law of the jungle ethical system must needs be erected.  For women, this system is based on security (against financial ruin, STD’s, etc.) or on tingles as the driving (heh) force.

Men, of course, must needs respond rationally to the reality of Marriage 2.0 in a way that gives us access to sex and financial protection from raising someone else’s bastage and from cash&prizes following from frivorce.

In the end, we have ethics based on violence and the law of the jungle.