It’s About Making Babies!

The old “Kung Fu” TV show was perhaps the best non-denominational exposition on ethics that I can recall in the mass media.

Several of the wisdoms imparted to Kung Fu student Kwai Chang Cain still seem true today. One was “From frugality comes generosity.”

Say no. Often.

What brought this one to mind was the insight Seth Godin shares, about saying “No”. Frequently.

A business strategy

Seth is a Marketing guru. He is popular, his books widely read, and his common sense applies to business – and everyday life. Seth doesn’t game the system, he understands it, he works it – and takes a path that avoids the pitfalls and traps of get-rich-quick schemes.

Sound ethics

Saying no to loud people gives you the resources to say yes to important opportunities.

I have worked projects that the company won – that I felt we should have passed by. A project should bring revenue to the company. It should also increase experience and skill levels of those involved, it should conform to quality standards that the company expects from all, and should be respectful of resources – no wasted effort, no promises to meet ill-conceived schedules, no demands for overtime when the effort was ill-conceived. Saying “no” might have let the project be redefined in a way that saved the customer money and time, improved functionality of the product, and rewarded those working with success and respect, as well as financial reward.

Frugality

Frugal means to be economical in the use of anything, sparing. You save up your food, your money, your time, your possessions.

And thus you have the assets to use, when generosity, giving freely, is appropriate.

Parenting

Any parent must realize, that teaching a child to ask for things does not mean granting all – or even most – requests. Not only do you waste family resources, you harm the child with unfair expectations, you warp his sense of the value of things, and you hamper his development of ethics, fairness, and balance. Plus, you create a self-centered bully.

Mating.

But what about your mate? When dating – should anyone agree to every request? Certainly not. Should you even ask for everything? Not if you don’t want to come across like a self-centered bully.

What about later, as a handfasted or married, or othewise life-mated couple or family?

Family life is very much about responsibility. We fall into patterns, this one makes breakfast, that one does laundry on Sunday night. This ad hoc sharing becomes expected – a responsibility. The tasks and gestures, the participation and activities become expected, and the one taking the lead on that task or activity becomes responsible for managing any changes. There is little room here for “no”.

Except.

Nagging – attempting to coerce a partner to do something or agree to something, using repeated requests, reminders, and annoyance. This is disrespectful, and is, in Seth’s terminology, a “loud voice”. Nagging is disrespectful, if one isn’t a parent, and is ineffective as a tool for teaching or training even then.

Seldom, but at times, then, “no” should always be an acceptable answer between mates.

Just a persona note – I consider all fund raisers to be “loud voices.” Most fund raisers are even less efficient than the US Government, for “hand us money, so we can help someone.” If they really wanted to help, let them produce something salable for fair value.

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that what you learn directly from a person is never sufficient. You have to allow for the considered judgment of people you respect, you have to take into account how other people in the other’s life view that person.

Avoiding people that are experienced and skilled at dating is an easy call – unless you want *nothing more* than a perpetual dater or a sex adventure. If you accept the fact that people don’t change, or at least, won’t change in a direction that brings a couple closer together, then picking someone that dates and dates and finds dates and dates others – has to be an easy call. A dating fiend will always be a fiend, and will continue thinking that life is a series of dates.

Online marriages

When I hear that one in eight married people today met online, I have to wonder about the breakdown. On the one hand, by filling out a profile, and by selecting a candidate based on a profile, the people involved might well be paying attention to character and discipline – deliberately selecting a mate, instead of a date.

I wonder about the couples that met online – how many relied on others to ‘verify’ their prospect? Is there a correlation between couples where both filled out a profile honestly and ability to stay married? How often does an honestly completed profile correlate to someone inexperienced and unskilled at dating?

Avoid the liars and gamers – the daters

Obviously the perpetual dater will be trying to game the system. Sites like AdultFriendFinder.com and others show there are plenty of people looking for sex adventures, rather than a mate. Sorting out the gamers and fibbers – as in “Must Love Dogs” – will be crucial to picking a mate, someone to share a lifetime with, someone to build a family with. Actually, MLD was pretty consistent and harsh about those that fake their profile not finding something lasting. Even if Must Love Dogs is a .. ahem .. chick flick.

In MLD, ultimately, the non-dating leads (Diane Lane and John Cusack) meet through friends. The casual acquaintances – the “pretty” prospects – for each turns out to be a shallow dater.

And I noticed that in MLD, the ones with the happiest prospects in their relationship – were attached to animals. One more measure of healthy emotional attachments. Not a key to success, but an important element – the ability to emote and relate is critical, not the animals themselves.

Old time mate-picking

Paul Harvey has a radio news program. In years past he tracked and honored couples married 70 plus years. Many of those couples started life in rustic and rural communities. They shared a small home, with few social contacts, for many of their early years. And many of them knew the other by reputation long before they came together to court and date. Their families knew each other, their small communities knew all about each of their families. And back then, before the mid-1960′s introduced “free love”, before the nightlife made popular by swing bands in the 1940′s and rock music and WWII veteran’s independence from parental control, people lived for a “reputation”.

The “reputation”

At one time, a reputation for engaging in sex outside marriage, for acting or dressing provocatively, for using vulgar language – could set one outside the bounds of “good families”.

The concept of “good family” and a modest reputation are the exception today, rather than the norm that they once were. Instead of the majority of social contact in the community being activities in the local church, under the discerning eyes of elder (disapproving!) women and the pastor, most of us live lives influenced by crass commercialized activities – designed to promote sales to singles instead of promoting families.

Reputation is about like the word “love”. Simple to define – what others think about a person. Yet it becomes a study in social conventions and community values to identify all the connotations of what a reputation can mean. A reputation develops and grows. A reputation becomes known to others. A reputation includes various qualities of character and choices of companions and activities. And all this will often be summed up in a “good reputation” or a “bad reputation”.

The goal

If the goal of bringing someone into your life is to have good sex, or “never be lonely again”, then you likely aren’t going to be looking closely at a prospective partner’s background.

If you really want a life-mate, someone to build a home and family with, then you cannot afford the time and distraction – and probable hurt – of getting “involved” with someone unsuitable. Which leads back to whether a prospect has a good character, a good reputation, and healthy emotional bonds.

And do you enjoy being with that paragon of virtues?