Sorry, but even though I'm recently divorced from a leech of a man who cheated on me, this is pathetic. I agree with Miha, that marriage is a traditional behavior, which often causes a lot of problems in the modern era, but those who attack the practice simply might be trapped in the ideological roots of marriage and don't understand how to make it their own.
After all, it IS a purely human act, so it is what WE make of it.
Or, perhaps, Mr. Scrader is just too much of a sissy to realize relationships with others typically ALL have painful elements. That's the thing about intense love, "ehh" love and even just "likes." He honestly sounds like a 19-year-old frat boy trying to justify sticking it in anything that moves. Here's where I get pissed though:
"Marriage partners often act as if they own each other so they try to control each other and get insanely jealous. (This should have an italicized "Some" inserted at the beginning of this sentence as well)
Some people may do best with only one romantic partner for life, but even they would be wise never to pledge themselves to only each other romantically until death. (WHY? Because of the possibility of getting your feelings hurt?)
"Some people have their No. 1 romantic relationship with one person for decades but also enjoy close friendship and pleasurable sex with other persons and do it honestly and openly."
"The rule of no sex for couples outside marriage often breeds lies, cover-ups, heavy frustration, boredom, violent jealousy ...
And guess what? SOME people PREFER to only have sex with one person at a time. They DO exist. I was with the same person for nearly a decade and not ONCE did I ever even touch my flesh to another. I didn't WANT to. So does that make me a sap caged by an empty vow?
The writer's line of argumentation in this letter degenerates from "yeah marriage isn't great all the time," to "you will both screw other people and either lie about it or tell the truth." No matter what though, it WILL end in catastrophe-about as mentally disgusting as watching two miserable people stay together unnecessarily.
Perhaps Mr. Schrader should fill his writing with more "some"s and "a few"s when addressing such a complex activity as entering into a mutual agreement to be faithful to another. It makes biological sense and psychological sense, just as much as NOT choosing to do so. It sucks he's encountered nothing but, in his opinion, bad marriages throughout existence, but an acknowledgment that good ones are out there might improve his credibility a tad. Plus, if he ever changes his mind and wants to tie the knot (who knows??) he may regret the words that left all the guest's seats empty.
If the priest had abused OTHER victims? "Monte eventually won a lawsuit that exposed his assailant," you wrote, but did this guy admit to any other criminal behavior with clergy children? Just curious if the author found any resolve or comfort in meeting others with similar pasts...
Tenpin, whom I assume considers him or herself a champion for the arts seems to be a bit closed-minded when it comes to acceptable mediums of expression. Makes me wonder whether this person would say artists utilizing other alternative or mixed media also "only care about themselves," or tell a sculptor or performance artist that their creations aren't valid simply because they were produced on a canvas. Tattoo artists use skin as a canvas. Some artists work with leather, and some even use nothing more than candy and the human body to create beautiful photographs. (Oh, wait, that's not done on a canvas, so it must not be acceptable)
What's probably most interesting is that every SINGLE piece of art is created by a self-centered person. He or she has something to share and wants to show their skills in expressing it.
If anything, pin's comment simply adds legitimacy to the question in Mr. Bear's article about whether graffiti constitutes "art." One simply has to look at the maelstrom of colors and balance of crisp and blurred lines to realize, though it may not be the viewer's favorite style, it IS beautiful.
I think it's interesting that some of the very first examples of human expression were nothing more than pigments smeared on cave walls (which I'm pretty sure didn't BELONG to anyone save for mother earth, and weren't bought a effing Hobby Lobby). Would Tin be willing to say the carvings at Mt. Rushmore constitute vandalism as well?
"God, why didn't the sculptors just buy a gigantic canvas instead of carving all over mother nature's property?" Funny how the rules bend.
A mon avis, spray painting other people's belongings creates simply beautiful works that EVERYONE can enjoy by simply walking to work, school or with a date. Good luck buying a canvas large enough to warrant the attention of everyone down the block. Don't get me wrong, I know there's the occasional "F-you" crudely scrawled across train cars and buildings, but for the most part, graffiti artists (yes I said artists)create some beautiful displays.
Perhaps a look at the paint itself rather than the surface on which it's applied might not make graffiti so annoying to some.
Wonderful picture from a seemingly wonderful event!!