[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nor do I.

Then, what exactly has been your point?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nor do I.

Then I don't understand what you're arguing here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Said Dick Cheney to George Bush as he pricked each of their fingers.

If you make hard, fast rules in a relationship, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's better to just realize that things can, and do, happen. However, you rarely can get the paste back in the tube, so all involved have to deal with the consequences. All I've ever asked is that they try to do what's best for all of us, and I'll do the same.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Then I don't understand what you're arguing here.

My argument is simple.

If you believe cheating:

Is to be expected.
Is human nature.
Is something you claim to not enforce any rules about.

Then what you have is an open marriage.

Note the complete and utter lack of the term polygamy in this recap. It's not part of my argument.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you make hard, fast rules in a relationship, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's better to just realize that things can, and do, happen. However, you rarely can get the paste back in the tube, so all involved have to deal with the consequences. All I've ever asked is that they try to do what's best for all of us, and I'll do the same.

While I'm sure there are instances where banging someone you're not married to is "what's best for all of us", they are outnumbered by the "****ed up for all of us" variety by about a million to one.

[Laminar]

In an open marriage, participants are free to pursue outside relationships with the understanding that it won't (or at least shouldn't) affect the primary relationship. Shaddim said that although he hasn't set any hard and fast "rules," infidelity would hurt and would have a negative effect on their relationship.

I suppose the difference between saying, "You're not allow to cheat on me" and "If you cheat on me I'll probably be hurt and our relationship will change" is splitting hairs, really.

[subego]

Exactly.

Just in case you think I'm pulling the "obtuse subego" routine. I'm not the only one who isn't seeing a real difference.

[The Final Dakar]

[Shaddim]

The difference is subtle, but is there, and deals with the typical subconscious response a person has when they are told they can't do a specific thing. Throughout my teenage years I was constantly told what I couldn't do, and generally it made me more interested in participating in the illicit activity. Since realizing this, I've all-together stopped telling anyone that they can't do something potentially harmful or hurtful, I'll usually just explain that it could be a very bad idea and discuss the probable consequences with them. This bypasses the subconscious "trigger" and creates understanding (in most cases) without them having to experience the negative results firsthand. The direct product is empathy, without regret.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you make hard, fast rules in a relationship, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Don't fnck the baby sister/pool boy seems like a reasonable hard, fast rule to me. I'm sure there are a few more.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The difference is subtle, but is there, and deals with the typical subconscious response a person has when they are told they can't do a specific thing. Throughout my teenage years I was constantly told what I couldn't do, and generally it made me more interested in participating in the illicit activity. Since realizing this, I've all-together stopped telling anyone that they can't do something potentially harmful or hurtful, I'll usually just explain that it could be a very bad idea and discuss the probable consequences with them. This bypasses the subconscious "trigger" and creates understanding (in most cases) without them having to experience the negative results firsthand. The direct product is empathy, without regret.

If only conservative parents could figure this out.

"Don't do that!" "Why not?" "Because I said so!" ...that just doesn't work.

[subego]

As an adult, I'm fine with using "don't do that" as a placer for "should you do this immensely horrible thing to me, I'm going to react as if you did something immensely horrible".

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The difference is subtle, but is there, and deals with the typical subconscious response a person has when they are told they can't do a specific thing. Throughout my teenage years I was constantly told what I couldn't do, and generally it made me more interested in participating in the illicit activity. Since realizing this, I've all-together stopped telling anyone that they can't do something potentially harmful or hurtful, I'll usually just explain that it could be a very bad idea and discuss the probable consequences with them. This bypasses the subconscious "trigger" and creates understanding (in most cases) without them having to experience the negative results firsthand. The direct product is empathy, without regret.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If only conservative parents could figure this out.

"Don't do that!" "Why not?" "Because I said so!" ...that just doesn't work.

I'm not sure what sort of children you both have, but explaining to a 5 year old the pros and cons of touching the shiny exhaust pipe on a just parked motorcycle isn't easy. Nor do I have the time for it.

However "No Nintendo DS for 3 weeks" works wonders.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'm not sure what sort of children you both have, but explaining to a 5 year old the pros and cons of touching the shiny exhaust pipe on a just parked motorcycle isn't easy. Nor do I have the time for it.

"That's really hot; if you touch it it WILL hurt you!" doesn't work?

Maybe my kid is more reasonable (or cautious) than most, but taking the time to explain why has been extremely successful for my now six-year-old daughter.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'm not sure what sort of children you both have, but explaining to a 5 year old the pros and cons of touching the shiny exhaust pipe on a just parked motorcycle isn't easy. Nor do I have the time for it.

However "No Nintendo DS for 3 weeks" works wonders.

I shouldn't have to spell this out, but I will.

Raising a child in an extremely conservative home can be - and is, many times - damaging. Telling a teenager that they can't do something without any explanation helps nobody. The specific examples that come to mind would be sex, drugs, alcohol, and dating.

The reason why sex ed is so critical is because it explains the facts to teenagers about why unprotected sex is dangerous. On the other hand, the conservative Christian route is to say "sex is sinful until marriage" and leave it at that, with nothing about STDs and pregnancy...or on a deeper level, the emotional connection that one may experience and not necessarily be prepared for at a younger age.

The same goes for drugs and alcohol - saying "don't do it" is just going to make it enticing to a kid being pressured into those things, whereas explaining the actual effects of substances and substance abuse can go a long way toward educating kids about why things like meth and heroin are highly addictive and ruin lives very quickly.

I throw dating in there because banning a 17-year-old from dating is going to make them more prone to sneaking out to go on secret dates...which means they may be making really poor choices about who they're going out with...which can have catastrophic results.

I grew up in an incredibly restrictive home environment, where everything was monitored and nothing that wasn't on a very straight-and-narrow path was allowed. The only reason I turned out as normal as I did is because I took the responsibility to educate myself about what sorts of things should be avoided and why choices I made were important and should be made carefully. Most kids aren't so smart (literally - I'm not going to deny that my IQ is above average). My cousin is below-average intelligence. Her parents weren't even as restrictive as mine, but their choice to not educate their daughter about the realities of life and why certain things are dangerous has had absolutely terrible results. She narrowly avoided a felony after she was caught selling Adderall with an older neighbor. I'm pretty sure the only reason her charge was knocked down to a misdemeanor several months after being charged with a class D felony is because she's only 18 and it was her first offense. I'm also quite certain that had her parents been more active in their role, teaching her how to make right choices, this never would have happened, and she wouldn't have a criminal record at such a young age.

Teaching your kids why something is wrong or bad and why something is good or the right decision is crucial. Otherwise you're just throwing them to the wolves.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I shouldn't have to spell this out, but I will.

LOL. Write a book. Everyone on the planet can then follow your advice and we'll have a fair, fun, sugar-free world where no child ever gets hurt, plays any sports, rides a bike fast or throws a ball.

How old are your kids?

[andi*pandi]

There are times in your child's life when there isn't time for why. When they're 16 that's different. But you can tell them the why and they may not listen.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

There are times in your child's life when there isn't time for why.

Hmm.

I've *always* tried to make it clear to my daughter that there was a good reason for everything, from the very beginning. (I always figured that even if she didn't understand the reason, she would understand from the tone and the explanation that there WAS a reason, and this would help her deal with the situation.) Or to make it clear that I didn't know the reason, if I didn't, or if I thought it was stupid that things were the way they were, but couldn't change them.

I've felt it might give her a good feel for judging for herself if something was okay to do, or not. So far, it seems to work.

If the urgency demands action, I try to make a point of explaining afterwards why.

This might not work with all kids, or it might work with our kid because we've always done it this way; I don't know.

It might not work with her when she's twelve and into puberty. (Hell, all bets are off then, anyway.)

[andi*pandi]

Well, explaining why after the fact is sometimes helpful, but if a toddler is wandering into danger, and you say, COME HERE, you want them to come, not stop and ask why, while the freight train/loose dog/aliens get closer.

We are all doomed when they hit the teen years. My 10 yr old is already quite the wise guy. His current schtick is being incredibly literal.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"That's really hot; if you touch it it WILL hurt you!" doesn't work?

Maybe my kid is more reasonable (or cautious) than most, but taking the time to explain why has been extremely successful for my now six-year-old daughter.

Yeah, I'm wondering what's going on that people can't just explain a situation, but need to "lay down the law" to get a point across.

I think a chunk of it is that some folks around here just like being disagreeable (especially with me), for some reason.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

My argument is simple.

If you believe cheating:

Is to be expected.
Is human nature.
Is something you claim to not enforce any rules about.

Then what you have is an open marriage.

Sorry, but that does not compute for me. Research shows that humans are not built for monogamous relationships, and I think you're wrong when you claim Shaddim does not enforce any rules about it. Having to accept the consequence of cheating (»I'll probably break up with you.«) is a hard-and-fast rule, and if you want to stay in a relationship, you have to act accordingly.

Originally Posted by subego 

Note the complete and utter lack of the term polygamy in this recap. It's not part of my argument.

To me it does come across in this way.
It rather seems like you're dinging Shaddim for his polyamorous relationship to two (?) women. I don't think his relationship is based on the same tenets that, say, polygamists in Utah have polygamy is mixed with an unhealthy dose of religious fanaticism and a patriarchic, misogynistic philosophical foundation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Well, explaining why after the fact is sometimes helpful, but if a toddler is wandering into danger, and you say, COME HERE, you want them to come, not stop and ask why, while the freight train/loose dog/aliens get closer.

We are all doomed when they hit the teen years. My 10 yr old is already quite the wise guy. His current schtick is being incredibly literal.

Toddlers are more like pets, really, there's no real capability for analytical process, yet. My little girl doesn't really understand "no" any more than she'd understand a discussion on Icelandic politics. It's my job to ensure she stays safe, and when she becomes more self-aware to gradually bring her up to speed on the whys and hows.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Well, explaining why after the fact is sometimes helpful, but if a toddler is wandering into danger, and you say, COME HERE, you want them to come, not stop and ask why, while the freight train/loose dog/aliens get closer.

Those situations are pretty damn rare, though, and there's almost always opportunity to explain the sharp tone when they're in your arms, shaken and crying from your having yelled at them.

My daughter is a lot more ruffled by the change in tone when my voice gets that urgency or sharpness than by the actual danger she was oblivious to at the time. It's all the more important that I explain why.

Oh, she's a smart-ass too, but on the whole, she does a great job of tricking me into thinking she's pretty sensible for a six-year-old.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sorry, but that does not compute for me. Research shows that humans are not built for monogamous relationships, and I think you're wrong when you claim Shaddim does not enforce any rules about it. Having to accept the consequence of cheating (»I'll probably break up with you.«) is a hard-and-fast rule, and if you want to stay in a relationship, you have to act accordingly.

To me it does come across in this way.
It rather seems like you're dinging Shaddim for his polyamorous relationship to two (?) women. I don't think his relationship is based on the same tenets that, say, polygamists in Utah have polygamy is mixed with an unhealthy dose of religious fanaticism and a patriarchic, misogynistic philosophical foundation.

Indeed, it doesn't. You can say I'm head of the household, because they don't want to handle certain tasks and responsibilities, but I'm not "in charge". It's more like I'm the duly elected representative of a very small, and intimate, republic. What I try to avoid is speaking in absolutes and making comments that can be taken as ultimatums. I don't want them to stay because they feel obligated and/or have no recourse, I want them in my life because I love them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think you're wrong when you claim Shaddim does not enforce any rules about it.

I'm utterly confused. That's Shaddim's own claim

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, but that's their choice. It's not my place to enforce such a rule.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you make hard, fast rules in a relationship, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To me it does come across in this way.
It rather seems like you're dinging Shaddim for his polyamorous relationship to two (?) women.

No, what I'm dinging him for is the claim he doesn't enforce any hard rules, when it's pretty clear he does.

Just as you said: "[h]aving to accept the consequence of cheating (»I'll probably break up with you.«) is a hard-and-fast rule". That's my whole point. I am utterly confused as to where you think polygamy enters into this. I'd say the exact same thing if he were in a monagamous relationship.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm utterly confused. That's Shaddim's own claim

The only rule I've seen in Shaddim's post is that you have to take responsibility for your actions and accept the consequences. Just because his rule is »accept the consequences of your actions« rather than »don't cheat on me«. So I'm still lost at what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by subego 

No, what I'm dinging him for is the claim he doesn't enforce any hard rules, when it's pretty clear he does.

Shaddim wrote that »[i]t's not [his] place to enforce such a rule« (emphasis mine), i. e. he specifically referred to the rule »Don't cheat.« (which in his relationship does not exist). Instead of »Don't cheat.« one of the fundamental principles of his relationship is »Accept the consequences of your actions.« Of course, you can disagree with that, but I think you criticize Shaddim unfairly in this regard.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The only rule I've seen in Shaddim's post is that you have to take responsibility for your actions and accept the consequences. Just because his rule is »accept the consequences of your actions« rather than »don't cheat on me«. So I'm still lost at what you're getting at.

I'm not understanding it either, just like I don't understand Laminar's passive-aggressive display in the Car Talk thread, trying to irritate me by attempting to look down his nose while making cryptic comments. Folks around here are getting more and more crotchety as the years go by.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not understanding it either, just like I don't understand Laminar's passive-aggressive display in the Car Talk thread, trying to irritate me by attempting to look down his nose while making cryptic comments. Folks around here are getting more and more crotchety as the years go by.

What I always liked about nerdier hangouts like this one is the live-and-let-live vibe, that no matter our differences, we respect each other. Very often, many of the more controversial members do have very interesting stuff to contribute. To give one example, Rob, for all his failings, does have a hand for manually restoring things.

Personally, I'm trying to stick to the Vegas rule (as a poster and also as a mod) so that disagreements I have in the PL do not spill over into the other forums.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not understanding it either, just like I don't understand Laminar's passive-aggressive display in the Car Talk thread, trying to irritate me by attempting to look down his nose while making cryptic comments. Folks around here are getting more and more crotchety as the years go by.

Fortunately, bringing me up a different, unrelated thread is much less passive-aggressive than just sending a PM and asking what the deal is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Fortunately, bringing me up a different, unrelated thread is much less passive-aggressive than just sending a PM and asking what the deal is.

Actually, continuing this exchange this via pm if necessary is a good idea, please try to keep this on topic. </Darth Vader mod voice>

[Shaddim]

Aww, it was getting interesting. The thing is, I don't recall doing anything to cause the butt-hurt.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, I'm wondering what's going on that people can't just explain a situation, but need to "lay down the law" to get a point across.

There's also the fact that if you rely on laying down the law and saying no to your child all the way through late adolescence (something I've seen in a LOT of families where I come from), your child moves into adulthood, leaves the family home, and has little to no independent decision-making skills of their own, because mom and dad made all the choices for them without giving them an alternative.

Those are the kids who, at thirty, are still calling their parents asking for help doing things like buying airline tickets, finding a new apartment, or choosing what preschool to send their kids to.

[Laminar]

Shifuimam: Do you think anecdotal evidence is a solid foundation for the sweeping generalizations you're making?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Bingo. Of my family - extremely conservative evangelical Christian household with all the associated "no's" and "laying down the laws" present - I seem to be the only one, to this point, that decided to sow my proverbial oats by the "no" wayside. The other siblings pretty much toed the line and seemed to have turned into happy, productive, functioning, and yes, deeply religious members of society, and incidentally they're all more successful than I, at least as determined by your generic financial/career metrics. So I suppose I should consider shif's statements all completely wrong, then?

In today's breaking news story: there is no black and white answer to this particular issue, shocker

[subego]

I honestly am missing what is so bloody offensive about what I'm saying here. I might be wrong, and I may be continuing an incorrect argument because it hasn't been made clear to me where I am mistaken.

My point is purely and simply "do something to me and accept the consequences" is equivalent to "don't cheat on me".

Why this (to me, utterly obvious) statement is pulling ad-homs, I have no ****ing idea.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Bingo. Of my family - extremely conservative evangelical Christian household with all the associated "no's" and "laying down the laws" present - I seem to be the only one, to this point, that decided to sow my proverbial oats by the "no" wayside. The other siblings pretty much toed the line and seemed to have turned into happy, productive, functioning, and yes, deeply religious members of society, and incidentally they're all more successful than I, at least as determined by your generic financial/career metrics. So I suppose I should consider shif's statements all completely wrong, then?

The kids I grew up with who all stayed in their little bubble and let mom and dad make their life decisions for them have perfectly happy lives. By generic metrics, they're probably more successful than I am.

I would argue, however, that life can be much fuller and richer when you step outside that bubble and realize that there are other ways to live your life than the way you think Jesus wants you to.

Do you think you'd be better off had you stayed inside your Christian bubble upbringing, or do you think maybe you've found a more fulfilling life than your siblings, albeit with its own set of challenges?

I should also clarify my original point - it's not that kids should disobey their parents, leave the conservative world, etc. universally. It's that parents should at least explain to their kids, particularly in adolescence, why it's a good idea to make this or that choice. You shelter your kids enough, and they end up lacking basic critical thinking skills, because they were never forced to make their own important choices. Does this happen all the time without variance? No. Does it happen quite a bit? Yeah, I think it does.

In today's breaking news story: there is no black and white answer to this particular issue, shocker

There are rarely black and white answers to anything. That's my point. Give your kids the tools to understand the why behind their choices, not just "because I have to" or "because the Bible tells me to".

[Spheric Harlot]

^ Agree with the last part.

Originally Posted by subego 

I honestly am missing what is so bloody offensive about what I'm saying here. I might be wrong, and I may be continuing an incorrect argument because it hasn't been made clear to me where I am mistaken.

My point is purely and simply "do something to me and accept the consequences" is equivalent to "don't cheat on me".

Why this (to me, utterly obvious) statement is pulling ad-homs, I have no ****ing idea.

"If you hit me, I will kill your family" and "Please respect my humanity and don't hit me" and "don't hit me, or you will land in jail" may have functionally identical results, but they are vastly different statements, with very different implications of responsibility, and very different incentives for complying, and very different attitudes towards personal freedom.

Phrasing *is* important (for kids, too, BTW).

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Phrasing *is* important (for kids, too, BTW).

"NO!" works far better with my son than "Please don't do that, or you'll suffer 3rd degree burns and I'll have to drive you to the hospital.".

That "cool Dad" bollocks where you pick him up and throw him over your shoulder while tickling doesn't get the message across. I've tried.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

"NO!" works far better with my son than "Please don't do that, or you'll suffer 3rd degree burns and I'll have to drive you to the hospital.".

That "cool Dad" bollocks where you pick him up and throw him over your shoulder while tickling doesn't get the message across. I've tried.

My previous post:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Those situations are pretty damn rare, though, and there's almost always opportunity to explain the sharp tone when they're in your arms, shaken and crying from your having yelled at them.

My daughter is a lot more ruffled by the change in tone when my voice gets that urgency or sharpness than by the actual danger she was oblivious to at the time. It's all the more important that I explain why.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The kids I grew up with who all stayed in their little bubble and let mom and dad make their life decisions for them have perfectly happy lives. By generic metrics, they're probably more successful than I am.

Well if they have perfectly happy lives, and if you don't, and they're also better off by my "generic metrics", then I would say they're definitely more successful than you are.

I would argue, however, that life can be much fuller and richer when you step outside that bubble and realize that there are other ways to live your life than the way you think Jesus wants you to.

Do you think you'd be better off had you stayed inside your Christian bubble upbringing, or do you think maybe you've found a more fulfilling life than your siblings, albeit with its own set of challenges?

I think being in or out of "that bubble" has zero bearing whatsoever as to how fulfilling, full, or rich one's life is. I have trouble imagining why you would ever think that's the case. Just because you may choose to enjoy the personal freedom of, say, having webcam relations with random online studs, has no bearing whatsoever on how fulfilling one's life may be.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Just because you may choose to enjoy the personal freedom of, say, having webcam relations with random online studs

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well if they have perfectly happy lives, and if you don't, and they're also better off by my "generic metrics", then I would say they're definitely more successful than you are.

I think it's almost impossible to judge how satisfied somebody's with their life, looking at them from the outside.

Also, success isn't matching anybody else's (let alone "generic") metrics; it's living up to YOUR OWN goals and standards.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, success isn't matching anybody else's (let alone "generic") metrics; it's living up to YOUR OWN goals and standards.

Phew !!! My standards are really low.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why this (to me, utterly obvious) statement is pulling ad-homs, I have no ****ing idea.

Everyone's on edge, a simple oversimplification seems to cause many people around here to turn into Sandy McVagerson for no reason (except to show that they're tool boxes who can't carry on a basic conversation in a civil manner).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Those situations are pretty damn rare, though, and there's almost always opportunity to explain the sharp tone when they're in your arms, shaken and crying from your having yelled at them.

My daughter is a lot more ruffled by the change in tone when my voice gets that urgency or sharpness than by the actual danger she was oblivious to at the time. It's all the more important that I explain why.

Oh, she's a smart-ass too, but on the whole, she does a great job of tricking me into thinking she's pretty sensible for a six-year-old.

Girls also seem to be sharper at an early age and generally have more common sense.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I think it's almost impossible to judge how satisfied somebody's with their life, looking at them from the outside.

I agree that you can't really make an accurate assessment of someone else's life and personal happiness, since you're not them. I do think that people who refuse to leave a sheltered existence are missing out, though.

Also, success isn't matching anybody else's (let alone "generic") metrics; it's living up to YOUR OWN goals and standards.

Devil's advocate here, but if your goals and standards are abominably low, I don't think you can really call that success...

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well if they have perfectly happy lives, and if you don't, and they're also better off by my "generic metrics", then I would say they're definitely more successful than you are.

I think being in or out of "that bubble" has zero bearing whatsoever as to how fulfilling, full, or rich one's life is. I have trouble imagining why you would ever think that's the case.

You know, what comes to mind is the attitude that people have toward Americans who never visit another country. Sure, you might have a perfectly happy life never leaving your home town and exploring what else is out there, but the experiences you have visiting Italy or Japan or Sweden or wherever can't really be matched by your relatively sheltered life in whatever city you might call home in the US.

I do think that one's life can be far more fulfilling by leaving one's comfort zone. I rather pity the kids who were in my high school graduating class and haven't extended their lives beyond marrying high school boyfriends, popping out babies at 19 and 20, and staying exactly where they were when they were children. Just because you're not unhappy in your current life doesn't mean you can't be happier if you take some risks and push yourself to be something different.

Just because you may choose to enjoy the personal freedom of, say, having webcam relations with random online studs, has no bearing whatsoever on how fulfilling one's life may be.

Bahahahahahahahahhahahaahhaa.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I think it's almost impossible to judge how satisfied somebody's with their life, looking at them from the outside.

Also, success isn't matching anybody else's (let alone "generic") metrics; it's living up to YOUR OWN goals and standards.

Thank you for re-stating my point, without all my nuanced subtlety

[gradient]

So 42% of voters here have so far stated that they would chose a machine over a human being. What fresh hell is this.

[subego]

You could say 58% would send someone to prison for their own amusement.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Devil's advocate here, but if your goals and standards are abominably low, I don't think you can really call that success.

When do standards cease to be "abominably low"?

A million dollars? Work time/free time balance? Children? Jesus? Spending your time doing things you love?

Have you seen "The Big Lebowski"? Would you consider The Dude a failure?

I do think that one's life can be far more fulfilling by leaving one's comfort zone. I rather pity the kids who were in my high school graduating class and haven't extended their lives beyond marrying high school boyfriends, popping out babies at 19 and 20, and staying exactly where they were when they were children. Just because you're not unhappy in your current life doesn't mean you can't be happier if you take some risks and push yourself to be something different.

I agree entirely with this. But do you see the discrepancy with what you wrote earlier?

You have different standards and goals for yourself, and a different perspective. Who are you to judge their success by your goals?

I have a friend whose goal is to make enough money to retire comfortably at fifty.

My goal is to continue living comfortably, doing what I love doing.

Are my standards lower than his? i happen to love my work. I also spent my childhood and teen years living abroad, traveling, and seeing the world.

If we both achieve our respective goals, who is more successful?

I have a kid I absolutely adore, but no longer live with her mom. Add that into the equation. How does our relative "success" measure up now?

Now consider that I may never find Jesus as My Personal Saviour. Is that a failure?