Love & Cheating

[Catz Part Deux]

1. :lol: yes, women like O'Donnell who wanted to be a Senator and Palin (who wants to be President) believe that women shouldn't leave the home :lamo that's why they don't run for office.
2. the reason you make that error is that you make the same mistake the feminists do. letting a husband lead the family =/= being subordinate/lesser. yes, women are supposed to submit their desires, dreams, etc to their husbands... and husbands are supposed to submit their desires, dreams, etc to their wives. it's a two-part bargain.

Oh, so women are also the head of the family? It's funny. The Southern Baptists failed to mention that men needed to submit.

i would rather suspect you do. which is why i'm surprised at your cherry picking. let us expand Ephesians 5, of which you cited one verse:

Women submit, men love. Different roles, right? one is subordinate. The other isn't.

bit more two sided, eh? heck, if anything the onus laid on men is more difficult to fulfill than that laid on women.

Stop pretending that there aren't 2000 years of religious history forcing the issue of female submission and subordination.

I don't want submission in my relationship. I want partnership.

gosh gee willickers, that sounds almost like the serving-of-each-other-thing

Really. Where are men told that women are the head?

nope, i'm trying to point out that the feminist movement distorts that doctrine and then spends its' time attacking a strawman.

If there is distortion, it originated with the church itself and its treatment of women.

ummm, where have I ever claimed that they haven't? heck, the New Testament is replete with cases of women who are wealthy, women who run businesses, women who host worship services in their homes...

Then what is the crap about women needing to be stay at home? Have I misunderstood your point?

um. yeah; that's sort of the point. it isn't until work was transported away from the home itself that we see a significant division of labor vis-a-vie the raising of children become woven into gender roles.

I don't believe raising children should be woven into gender roles.

seriously. you know better than that.

I do?

 

[cpwill]

Oh, so women are also the head of the family?

no, but the role of wife and mother is also not any kind of 'lesser'

It's funny. The Southern Baptists failed to mention that men needed to submit.

:shrug: then it's not my fault if they failed to read their bibles. besides, I'm a Methodist

Women submit, men love. Different roles, right?

different roles absolutely, but look at how men are to love. they are to serve their wives, they are to lay down everything for their wives, they are to honor their wives and love them as much as they love themselves. the model that husbands are expected to meet is Christs' sacrifice for the church (Christ, the guy who washed feet? died on the cross? that guy). that's a pretty severe standard to live up to.

Stop pretending that there aren't 2000 years of religious history forcing the issue of female submission and subordination.

stop pretending that Christianity isn't responsible for the notion that men and women are inherently equal.

I don't want submission in my relationship. I want partnership.

it sounds like what you want (or, perhaps, what you will get) is tension.

Really. Where are men told that women are the head?

nowhere. where are women told that it's their responsibility to sacrifice everything even to the point of laying down their lives for their husbands?

really, it's similar to our own checks-and-balances model of government (an interesting insight i hadn't thought of before).

If there is distortion, it originated with the church itself and its treatment of women.

i won't argue that there are churches that distort this teaching. that's no excuse for the feminist movement to screw women up more by doing so as well.

Then what is the crap about women needing to be stay at home? Have I misunderstood your point?

evidently.

:lol: my wife left college (which didn't interest her) to have our first son. it may interest you to know that I care more about her going back and finishing her degree than she does.

I don't believe raising children should be woven into gender roles.

whereas i would suggest that each gender has it's own particular roles when it comes to the raising of children; each has parts that it needs to fulfill. my wife could not teach my son how to be a good man nearly as effectively as i can. i could not teach a daughter how to be a good woman nearly as effectively as she could. i teach my children how a husband is supposed to love and take care of a wife and family through my example, she teaches them how a wife is supposed to love and take care of a husband through the same.

I do?

yes. you do. you know enough about me to know better than to sling accusations around.




on this topic, a fairly good article on the Christian approach.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm replying to both of you, Cpwill and Catz - on general topics you both are commenting on and how I think of them, not line for line per your posts.

Head of the house?
What does this phrase mean, anyway? What dignifies someone as 'the head of the house?'
Is the 'head' the person who calls all the shots? Earns the most money? Balances the checkbook and decides where the money will go? Has the highest education? Has the most promising future-career outlook? Is the most capable of maintaining the home?

My husband works and earns very good money - does that make him the 'head of the house?'
I do everything else: take care of the kids, pay the bills, grocery shop, mow the lawn, care for all the vehicles - all that stuff. Things that are 'traditionally' females (like sewing, cooking and cleaning) as well as things that are 'traditionally' male (like lawn-care and house-maintenance) and I'm in college as a full-time student.

So - does that, then, make *me* head of the house?

I think it's a draw - and personally I don't actually care. We're both tired at the end of the day and everything gets done by the end of the week - there's nothing that's a necessity that goes undone, even if it means we have to help each other out - or fold laundry together.

Religion and women's roles:
I believe that all religions are sculpted *be men* - and not inferred by God(s) - to exude control and power over others.
In the Bible a story that relates to this from God being done *to a man* is in Genesis where God specifically tells Adam not to question beyond what he's been taught. . . and God discourages Adam's curiosity (this is ever *before* Eve was put into the picture).

I don't want submission in my relationship. I want partnership.

It sounds like what you want (or, perhaps, what you will get) is tension.

Per this exchange of thoughts - my view is that tension comes from *not being on the same page* - If two people feel the same way about something then they'll likely get through it more smoothly.
This could be a traditional gender-based relationship or this could also happen in a 50/50 relationship.

The unevenness when two people have two different thoughts, opinions or philosophies is where most of my marital tension came from - I assumed one thing, he assumed another - and we never actually talked about it. (So I guess that also pans out to be communication-issues).

But, at the end of the day - **** still just has to get done, like it or not. The children have to be parented, the house has to be cleaned, auto problems must be fixed, food must be prepared and money must be earned - *who* does it doesn't matter so much as *that* someone does it.

You know (wandering away from the heavy issues) - I was humored when I read a news article about a woman, who was a stay at home mom, who wanted to get a cell-phone for herself. But the store wouldn't sign her up with a contract because she didn't actually *work* and thus didn't earn her own money.
She complained (paraphrasing) "Just because I don't work doesn't mean I can't pay the bill for service!"

Women fought HARD for decades to be *their own* financial support - without *having* to have a man to help them through life. And now that we legally *have it that way* other women are complaining - I guess this proves that you can't please everyone.

When my husband deployed he signed a waiver - a legal document which gave me the authority to take care of business in his name while he was gone and I used that thing endlessly - not for *all the wrong reasons* or personal, selfish ones . . . but to straight out issues that came up with his truck, bank account and other such things.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

no, but the role of wife and mother is also not any kind of 'lesser'

Tell that to me when it isn't being used as an excuse to constrain and limit women's choices and opportunities in life.

:shrug: then it's not my fault if they failed to read their bibles. besides, I'm a Methodist

The Methodists apparently have a fairly modern perspective on this subject that wasn't shared throughout the last 2000 years by the majority of Christians. That's nice, but hardly makes your case.

different roles absolutely, but look at how men are to love. they are to serve their wives, they are to lay down everything for their wives, they are to honor their wives and love them as much as they love themselves. the model that husbands are expected to meet is Christs' sacrifice for the church (Christ, the guy who washed feet? died on the cross? that guy). that's a pretty severe standard to live up to.

In my opinion, both partners should be willing to do this. I wouldn't hesitate to lay my life down for my family members and spouse.

stop pretending that Christianity isn't responsible for the notion that men and women are inherently equal.

Well, there's the ideal, and then there's the reality. In reality, Christianity has cultivated substandard roles for women for the majority of its history.

it sounds like what you want (or, perhaps, what you will get) is tension.

That has not been my experience in this relationship, and we've been together 3 years. We've never had a real fight.

nowhere. where are women told that it's their responsibility to sacrifice everything even to the point of laying down their lives for their husbands?

We have to be told to do this, seriously? :roll: I risked my life during my pregnancy with my son. It was a no-brainer.

really, it's similar to our own checks-and-balances model of government (an interesting insight i hadn't thought of before).

I don't believe that gender-based checks/balances are needed in my relationship. If they are in yours, well, that's your call.

i won't argue that there are churches that distort this teaching. that's no excuse for the feminist movement to screw women up more by doing so as well.

How can they screw women up by pointing out the obvious. Trust me, this didn't start with feminism. Feminism is a reaction to the distortions and mistreatment, not vice versa.

:lol: my wife left college (which didn't interest her) to have our first son. it may interest you to know that I care more about her going back and finishing her degree than she does.

That's great. College did interest me and I enjoy working. I'm tired of men blaming me for the failure of the family. I'm pretty sure that my job didn't cause my ex-husband to cheat on me, but it did give me an emergency parachute when he kept repeating the behavior.

whereas i would suggest that each gender has it's own particular roles when it comes to the raising of children; each has parts that it needs to fulfill. my wife could not teach my son how to be a good man nearly as effectively as i can. i could not teach a daughter how to be a good woman nearly as effectively as she could. i teach my children how a husband is supposed to love and take care of a wife and family through my example, she teaches them how a wife is supposed to love and take care of a husband through the same.

Interestingly enough, I've known some good men who came from single parent homes (of both gender, and learned these things from their parent). My ex is no a good role model, as men go, which leaves that responsibility on my shoulders. I do the best I can given the lack of a penis.

In reality, being a good man isn't much different from being a good woman. It means honoring your promises, being ethical, being trustworthy, supporting the people you love, and doing the best you can to treat people decently. I think we overcomplicate this stuff.

yes. you do. you know enough about me to know better than to sling accusations around.

I think your attempt to blame feminism for this nonsense is bull****, but I still like you personally.

 

[Goshin]

Tell that to me when it isn't being used as an excuse to constrain and limit women's choices and opportunities in life.



The Methodists apparently have a fairly modern perspective on this subject that wasn't shared throughout the last 2000 years by the majority of Christians. That's nice, but hardly makes your case.



In my opinion, both partners should be willing to do this. I wouldn't hesitate to lay my life down for my family members and spouse.



Well, there's the ideal, and then there's the reality. In reality, Christianity has cultivated substandard roles for women for the majority of its history.



That has not been my experience in this relationship, and we've been together 3 years. We've never had a real fight.



We have to be told to do this, seriously? :roll: I risked my life during my pregnancy with my son. It was a no-brainer.



I don't believe that gender-based checks/balances are needed in my relationship. If they are in yours, well, that's your call.



How can they screw women up by pointing out the obvious. Trust me, this didn't start with feminism. Feminism is a reaction to the distortions and mistreatment, not vice versa.



That's great. College did interest me and I enjoy working. I'm tired of men blaming me for the failure of the family. I'm pretty sure that my job didn't cause my ex-husband to cheat on me, but it did give me an emergency parachute when he kept repeating the behavior.



Interestingly enough, I've known some good men who came from single parent homes (of both gender, and learned these things from their parent). My ex is no a good role model, as men go, which leaves that responsibility on my shoulders. I do the best I can given the lack of a penis.

In reality, being a good man isn't much different from being a good woman. It means honoring your promises, being ethical, being trustworthy, supporting the people you love, and doing the best you can to treat people decently. I think we overcomplicate this stuff.



I think your attempt to blame feminism for this nonsense is bull****, but I still like you personally.

.... Said the Naughty Nun In Knickers.... :mrgreen:




While I think most women are better than most men at nurturing-type stuff, Gender roles are not absolutes. I'm WAY better at raising kids than my ex-wife. The proof of the pudding is how the one of ours I kept and raised is turning out, versus how the two she had later (w/ later hubbies) and raised are turning out.

One of these days my son is going to owe me a BMW for not letting her have custody of him.

 

[cpwill]

I'm replying to both of you, Cpwill and Catz - on general topics you both are commenting on and how I think of them, not line for line per your posts.

Head of the house?
What does this phrase mean, anyway? What dignifies someone as 'the head of the house?'
Is the 'head' the person who calls all the shots? Earns the most money? Balances the checkbook and decides where the money will go? Has the highest education? Has the most promising future-career outlook? Is the most capable of maintaining the home?

if i can say how we break it down; i handle the foriegn policy, she handles domestic policy; we do fiscal policy together, but given that I'm more interested and organized in that area, it generally turns into I make a plan and she makes modifications to it.

I think it's a draw - and personally I don't actually care. We're both tired at the end of the day and everything gets done by the end of the week - there's nothing that's a necessity that goes undone, even if it means we have to help each other out - or fold laundry together.

and dishes. she cooks; i clean, she starts to get two year old ready for night time. i finish and take to year old to the bath while she feeds two month old, then she puts two year old down while i burp and change two month old; it's kind of a dance

Per this exchange of thoughts - my view is that tension comes from *not being on the same page*

in a relationship, tension comes from many things; but i think primarily from "me getting mine". if your approach to your role (male or female) is based on what they should or should not be or do for you rather than what you want to be able to do and be for (how you want to serve) them... then you will never be ale to truly put them first, and your relationship will suffer for it. if your drive is to make sure the other doesn't rise above you; then all they will ever see is you pulling them down.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

.... Said the Naughty Nun In Knickers.... :mrgreen:

While I think most women are better than most men at nurturing-type stuff, Gender roles are not absolutes. I'm WAY better at raising kids than my ex-wife. The proof of the pudding is how the one of ours I kept and raised is turning out, versus how the two she had later (w/ later hubbies) and raised are turning out.

One of these days my son is going to owe me a BMW for not letting her have custody of him.

This is exactly why courts should stop with the bias that women should always get custody of the kids. My ex-sister in law is exactly the same, I wouldn't entrust that woman with a cat. My brother got 100% custody, and should have.

 

[Orion]

This is exactly why courts should stop with the bias that women should always get custody of the kids. My ex-sister in law is exactly the same, I wouldn't entrust that woman with a cat. My brother got 100% custody, and should have.

Your first sentence contradicts what follows. The bias can't be complete if men are still gaining custody.

I think the person most suitable should get custody, whoever that happens to be. At the same time, it is often women who were stuck with the kids by default, so judges tend to take their side even if the women are not the most ideal. Its hard to tear away a child from what is familiar.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Your first sentence contradicts what follows. The bias can't be complete if men are still gaining custody.

I think the person most suitable should get custody, whoever that happens to be. At the same time, it is often women who were stuck with the kids by default, so judges tend to take their side even if the women are not the most ideal. Its hard to tear away a child from what is familiar.

Both of you said the same thing.

It is true that in many areas men are still presumed to be incapable and it's often just defaulted to the mother.

Yet at the same time other areas of the country have come away from that, thankfully.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Your first sentence contradicts what follows. The bias can't be complete if men are still gaining custody.

Bias doesn't mean that there will be a 100% outcome of children being placed with mothers. It just means that courts in the U.S. are heavily weighted in the woman's favor. And they are. Men have to go to exceptional lengths to get full custody of their children in this country, and that's wrong. And your paragraph confirms my statement. Women aren't "stuck" with children...in the U.S., they get the custody, the child support money, and often, alimony. For many women, the kids come with a paycheck. And, dads are just as familiar as moms in many families.

 

[digsbe]

This is exactly why courts should stop with the bias that women should always get custody of the kids. My ex-sister in law is exactly the same, I wouldn't entrust that woman with a cat. My brother got 100% custody, and should have.

I wish I could thank this again. My ex-aunt was given custody of her and my uncle's daughter. They didn't give the father partial custody until they found out she was living with a drug dealer (meth kitchen) in which she STILL has custody (partial). The courts don't realize what they are doing to the children.

 

[Goshin]

I wish I could thank this again. My ex-aunt was given custody of her and my uncle's daughter. They didn't give the father partial custody until they found out she was living with a drug dealer (meth kitchen) in which she STILL has custody (partial). The courts don't realize what they are doing to the children.

You're correct.

It is almost impossible to take a mother's visitation right away. She practically has to be a devil who publically states that she wants the worst for her children to accomplish it.

Contrariwise, non-custodial fathers often lose their visitation rights for relatively small things.

 

[Psychoclown]

My wife is often amazed by my ability to read people, especially to recognize crazy, unstable, trouble makers right off the bat. I tell her a big part of it is looking for red flags. When you see a woman who does not have custody of her children, that's about the biggest, brightest red flag out there. A woman pretty much has to be on the same level as the worst meth addicted, disease riddled whores out there in order for the courts to even consider not automatically giving her custody of the kids. Completely messed up.

 

[liblady]

see, i think that's our problem. we've been taught that we have to pursue this Great God Perfect Happiness, that someone else will Make Us Happy; that they will be the Perfect One For Us, our One True Love or whatever. it's crap.

we have been raised to be instant-gratification-seeking ingrates who expect / demand that another do something for us, which is completely antithetical to how a successful relationship based on reality works. if you want a successful relationship you both have to be mature enough to realize that your happiness and joy will be a complete byproduct of you seeking to do that something for them. But our parents never taught us this, they became the Divorce Generation instead because they, too, were too busy chasing their Perfect Personal Gratification :roll: of course our relationships are going to be F*****d.

thanks baby boomers; another way you've screwed this country up.


Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before

oh bull****....the part about baby boomers. WE make our own decisions about our lives.

 

[cpwill]

yeah, and the baby boomers have consistently made bad ones; and dragged their kids into it.

nurture is a factor.

 

[liblady]

yeah, and the baby boomers have consistently made bad ones; and dragged their kids into it.

nurture is a factor.

oh stop. my parent divorced when i was 8, i've been married for 32 years. baby boomers only did what their parents wished THEY could have done, leave bad marriages. is selfishness involved? you bet. but only for the people who were already selfish.

 

[scourge99]

Monogamy isn't just about the two people in the marriage. It's about the little people who are dependent on both of those people to be stable, consistent, and PRESENT.

And for those people who don't have 2 "little people" or have long since raised and released them into the wild?

It's about the fabric of the entire community.

This is about hysterical.

How many times per day (per year?) Do you take into consideration the "fabric of the community" when making decisions on how you maintain and run your relationships?

Monogamy, to date, provides the most stable and supportive environment for raising children.

As compared to??
Parents who cheat on one another?
Parents in an open marriage?
A single parent?
Gay parents?

From my reading, the sexual partner(s) of the parent(s) has NOTHING to do with what the children need. Its about having adequate guidance and support for the little ones. It doesn't matter who the parent(s) **** behind closed doors.

Infidelity destroys people....and it's not just the sex...it's the lying, hiding, skulking, and scumbaggery that comes along with those people who are so entitled that they believe that anything is acceptable as long as they are sexually gratified.

Lying, hiding, skulking, and scumbaggery are poor actions to take for any type of social relationship, marriage or otherwise.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

My wife is often amazed by my ability to read people, especially to recognize crazy, unstable, trouble makers right off the bat. I tell her a big part of it is looking for red flags. When you see a woman who does not have custody of her children, that's about the biggest, brightest red flag out there. A woman pretty much has to be on the same level as the worst meth addicted, disease riddled whores out there in order for the courts to even consider not automatically giving her custody of the kids. Completely messed up.

I feel somewhat the same way about men who don't have at least partial custody of their kids. It's a major warning sign to me if a guy doesn't work to have a relationship with his kids.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

And for those people who don't have 2 "little people" or have long since raised and released them into the wild?

Then it matters less, but it still has an impact, especially if they have kids. Your kids don't stop being your kids just because they're adults. Having your parents relationship fall apart is just as painful when you're 21 as it is when you're 12. I have friends who have been through this.

How many times per day (per year?) Do you take into consideration the "fabric of the community" when making decisions on how you maintain and run your relationships?

I'm a mother who was married for 12 years. I considered this daily.

As compared to??

The alternatives.

Parents who cheat on one another?

Aren't monogamous.

Parents in an open marriage?

Aren't monogamous.

A single parent?

Absolutely. I'm a single mom, there has definitely been an impact on my kids because of my divorce.

Gay parents?

Sexual preference has nothing to do with monogamy. Monogamy means two people in an exclusive, permanent relationship. Gay partners can be monogamous.

From my reading, the sexual partner(s) of the parent(s) has NOTHING to do with what the children need. Its about having adequate guidance and support for the little ones. It doesn't matter who the parent(s) **** behind closed doors.

Yeah, I don't know what you've been reading, but you're mistaken. Two parents in a stable relationship = best outcomes with kids.

Lying, hiding, skulking, and scumbaggery are poor actions to take for any type of social relationship, marriage or otherwise.

Pretty hard to cheat without doing those things.

 

[scourge99]

Then it matters less, but it still has an impact, especially if they have kids. Your kids don't stop being your kids just because they're adults. Having your parents relationship fall apart is just as painful when you're 21 as it is when you're 12. I have friends who have been through this.

A parents relationship falling apart is probably difficult for the kids, no matter how old the kids or how the relationship fell apart.

Are you claiming that if something is emotionally painful to others then it should be illegal for such an act to occur? Or merely that, in your personal opinion, someone shouldn't do such things?

Or is the sexual element your only cause for complaint?

How many times per day (per year?) Do you take into consideration the "fabric of the community" when making decisions on how you maintain and run your relationships?

I'm a mother who was married for 12 years. I considered this daily.

The sexual relationships of a person have no effect on the "fabric of the community". The community has no need to stick its nose into or regulate the sexual relationship choices of others.

You are free to criticize, defriend, disassociate, etc, those who make those choices if you so choose.

Monogamy provides the most stable and supportive environment for raising children [as compared to] the alternatives.

What are the alternatives you are referring to?

Sexual preference has nothing to do with monogamy. Monogamy means two people in an exclusive, permanent relationship. Gay partners can be monogamous.

I agree.

From my reading, the sexual partner(s) of the parent(s) has NOTHING to do with what the children need. Its about having adequate guidance and support for the little ones. It doesn't matter who the parent(s) **** behind closed doors.

Yeah, I don't know what you've been reading, but you're mistaken.

What precisely am I mistaken about? Be specific.

Two parents in a stable relationship = best outcomes with kids.

Its "best"/"better" as compared to WHAT??????

Lying, hiding, skulking, and scumbaggery are poor actions to take for any type of social relationship, marriage or otherwise.

Pretty hard to cheat without doing those things.

I agree.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

I do not believe in love. Look at our fathers generation. They married young because it was the way they were told to do things. How many of them actually were in love? Few. And this resulted in many having affairs. We all get our influences by the people we grow up looking at. And if our parents were cheaters and not in love. Then the youth will be like their parents or the way most adults are. And if people feel that we are into instant gratification look who is talking.

 

[roguenuke]

I do not believe in love. Look at our fathers generation. They married young because it was the way they were told to do things. How many of them actually were in love? Few. And this resulted in many having affairs. We all get our influences by the people we grow up looking at. And if our parents were cheaters and not in love. Then the youth will be like their parents or the way most adults are. And if people feel that we are into instant gratification look who is talking.

I don't agree with this, at all.

I honestly think that there are definitely children who understand how much cheating by one parent hurt the other, and from that, they decide that they don't want to be like that parent. It is similar to those children who see one parent being an alcoholic or a parent who isn't involved in their lives. Those that see the bad things that come from these behaviors, I think, are more likely to try to not be like that parent.

And I certainly believe in love. I believe that some people are capable of being in love with more than one person and others are only able to ever love one person during their life.

Now, I do think a big problem with cheating comes from instant gratification. Most people who cheat probably feel bored with their relationship, either sexually or emotionally. Some might be no longer in love with their spouse but others really do still love their spouse. Both groups need to communicate this with their spouse and the couple could then decide if they want to work on their relationship or if it would be best for them to find someone else to be with. I think the best option for most couples is to try to work on the relationship (if there is no abuse going on), but not every couple.

Some people probably shouldn't have been together to begin with, not because they don't love each other necessarily, but because they just aren't compatible. This is why living with someone before agreeing to marry them is a good thing. It allows people to get a better idea of if they will be able to deal with each other's idiosyncracies. Along with this, couples should talk to each other about what they honestly expect from the other, including kids, sex, financially, support, spiritually, and so many other facets of life. Now some of these things may change as they get older, but that should be talked about when/if it does. Now these are ideal things for couples to do, but I'd say that couples who don't communicate well, are those most likely to have to worry about one or both partners cheating.

 

[jambalaya]

There was a time when most people were not very sophisticated sexually. We didn't have porn available 24/7 on the internet. Nobody was clued in on what they might be missing. This was especially true of women. Now we are bombarded with sexual images, and videos of people having sex in all kinds of ways and people are intrigued and look at their own sex lives as boring. Cheating is about getting more sexual fulfillment out of life these days than it is with love. If all of us didn't have all of this stimulation and examples of how ****ty our love lives and sex were we it would be easier to stay committed. Through movies, books, commentary and whatever we are fed very unrealistic examples of how our lives should be.