There are two kinds of wrongdoers: wrongdoers who do wrong while believing that they are doing right, and wrongdoers who do wrong while knowing that they are doing wrong. Plato denied that there were wrongdoers of the second kind; the Platonic view is that wrongdoers are just people who are mistaken about what is right, not people knowingly doing what is wrong. Many wrongdoers seem to share this view; on examination, they turn out to believe that they are not doing wrong at all, that what they do is permissible, justified, acceptable, and nothing to be ashamed of (Aaagh! I mean, 'nothing of which to be ashamed').
Balderdash! I am a liar, cheat, and adulterer. What I do is impermissible, unjustified, unacceptable, and shameful. I have no wish to salve my conscience by pretending otherwise. I was not tricked or misled into my current obligations to wife and family. I cannot claim to have gone into things blind. And by betraying those obligations I am not engaged in some worthwhile project, of value sufficient to outweigh my commitments. No - I am a liar, cheat, and adulterer; a wrongdoer. I am not proud of this, but ashamed. Perhaps I am proud to be ashamed - once we go meta, all bets are off. But I would hate for anyone to read this blog as if it were written by someone who believes that what he is doing is right. I am a wrongdoer. What I do is wrong. I know that what I do is wrong. And yet I continue to do it, because it is fun, even though wrong. That is why they call it temptation.
Candy's approach, as expressed in her forthright attack on me in recent comments seems to me like that of a good defense attorney - I should plead to the lesser charge, strike a deal to get the others dropped, explain that, while I did do these naughty things, I did them in the nicest possible way, treating my lovers as they would want to be treated. Though I can see the technical merit in this position, it leaves me quite unmoved. I cannot bring myself to treat my lovers better than I treat my wife, and as I do not treat her as she would wish to be treated, and also treat her very shoddily, I am not about to shore up my virtue by treating my lovers as they would wish to be treated, or to treat them as well as they deserve. I do not think I am admirable for behaving like this - I think I am a first-class shit. But that is no more than to say that I am a liar, cheat, and adulterer - and that is news from nowhere.
One of my readers praised Candy recently, and I enjoy Candy's comments also. So I have asked if she would like to contribute posts on occasion. I await her response. Perhaps she would rather not be associated too closely with a man who not only does wrong by fucking women other than his wife, but compounds the wrongdoing by treating the women he fucks extramaritally just as badly as he treats his wife.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
i hope that merely posting on this blog does not amount to being "too closely associated with [LCA]" -- that is certainly something to be avoided by the likes of me-- an insecure, vulnerable, schoolmarmish kind of woman. The kind of woman who corrects pornographers' grammar, and criticizes adulterers' ethics.
ReplyDeleteBut it just doesn't make sense. LCA writes that (1) fucking other women and (2) lying to his wife are wrong. He also says that (3) lying to the other women he fucks in transparent and cruel ways is wrong. He argues, however, that (1) and (2) justify (3).
He feels he deserves to feel like a shit too. And, of course, he is kinda proud of this. At least, he seems to say, he (4) treats himself, his mind, his intelligence, his ethical sense, like shit too. Do (1) and (2) also justify (4)?
I'm not sure what the justification could be. It is not a logical justification--the math involved is mighty peculiar. How is more cruelty and dishonesty and self-debasement preferable to less? How does being unkind to the "other women" atone for, or follow from, his improper treatment of his wife? Does it make him feel better? Does turning himself into shit expiate some of his guilt for behaving like shit? Does it give pleasure somehow to treat others badly, make him feel more ethical?
This isn't reason. It is the logic of the litterer-- a person who throws garbage on the sidewalk because the street is already dirty, and so one more piece of garbage makes no difference to him. And the "other women" are the street, dirty not because of anything they have done, but because he has chosen to fuck them when he shouldn't. And he is the dirty street too, because he's made a decision that cannot be justified, in conventional terms, as 100% ethical and rational and good and of a piece--.
And let's face it, if his wife knew about (3), would it *really* make her feel a lot better about (1) and (2) to know that he is also unkind to some of the other women he fucks? It certainly would not if, for example, she knew one of the kind of lies he tells is that he is or will be constant to one of them, intimating to her he is capable of loving her, or of caring more than he does, when he does not and cannot. (He admits in his prior discussion with Ms.Anonymous that this is sometimes what he does.) And what kind of person would his wife be if this knowledge comforted her? Perhaps one who deserves the treatment she receives? But LCA says this is not the case.
So perhaps the justification is a practical one: Perhaps LCA lies for convenience, to manipulate, and to avoid confrontation. Perhaps he lies because he wants what he wants, and he can't admit to himself or anyone else that this is what he really wants and what he really is--a man who lives to have a lot of sex with multiple women (and men?) Perhaps there is no place in his real, respectable, conventional world for someone like that. Perhaps such men are not considered admirable or desirable in his world and wouldn't get as many women to fuck them. And perhaps LCA would prefer to seem admirable and desirable in order to get women, including his wife, to fuck him?
So the reason is not logical, not ethical, not rational. It is not a man of reason's reason. It is something personal. Some anger or guilt or sense of weakness or incapacity, somes pain, some hatred, distrust, or disgust or whatever. Some desire to seem better and stronger than he is, so his wife won't leave him and more women will fuck him. Put your own reason in here, i'm growing fatigued of listing 'em.
I hope, reader(s) of this blog, who must number in the single digits by now, that you will forgive me if his real reasons do not interest me. The fucking is far more interesting. And, after all, the sensual world, and sex, and joy itself, are important. Very important. LCA does sound like a great fuck. But he might be a better fuck, and seem a less empty person, if he acted like he knew the difference between feeling like filth himself, and treating other people like it.
On the other hand, some people are into that.
Because anal sex is enjoyable, being a shit is a good thing? Dude. It's called a *metaphor.*
ReplyDeleteAnd if you are entirely beyond the realm of reason, then that pretty much means there's no talking to you on the subject, right? So I might as well be writing ishkibibble abpoius poiung ssoiiobn here.
But, yes, you do claim a kind of justification for lying to your lovers. It was a based on your sense that telling your lovers the truth would somehow degrade your wife or commitments to her by treating your mistresses "better" than her.
But your wife and your mistresses are not in the same situation-- you cannot compare them. Your wife surely stands in a very different position--at a minimum, she is part of your everyday life-- and receives your attention, time, and resources, and has a children and a home with you, in a way that your mistresses do not. Moreover, because of this, telling your wife the truth would be costly both emotionally and practically--to her, to you, to your family. Telling your mistresses? Not so much. And treating third parties honorably would neither hurt your wife, nor degrade her. So i still don't copy.
Anyway, aren't feelings about anal sex a bit complicated? It's fun in part because it's dirty and forbidden and sensual and can be difficult. Because there is surrender implicit in it. On the other hand, i'm not much into shit. And i think my lover wants to give me an enema, something i've never experienced in an erotic context, but which i am curious about. Have you done this LCA?
Psychology 101: LCA you have a whole lot of anger towards women. Examine your relationship with your mother. It all originates there.
ReplyDeleteMy mother? Well, my therapist has been over that territory quite thoroughly, and there is no doubt that at least some aspects of my condition reflect maternal influence. But I do not believe that I have much anger towards women. I do not get off on humiliating or degrading women, or hurting them. It is of course open to anyone to respond by pointing out that this simply means the anger is masked, or sublimated - and perhaps so. But once 'anger' ceases to mean anger, all bets are off. I love women, rather than hating them.
ReplyDelete