The Spiritual Root of Cheating

[Deusdrum]

"Deviance is behaviour, beliefs, or characteristics that are likely to generate a negative reaction in others."

TheDivine- I never claimed that because i learnt it in school that it is correct, but come on. If you want to argue with the dictionary about a definition, than by all means. I am using the term as it is accepted (at this point) by people who use it in the field of social sciences. Obviously, especially in this area, there are varying theories, etc etc. For example, i asked my prof the very first class if there could not be such a thing as positive deviance, like someone who had won the lottery. In the interest of studying the subject though, it needs to first be defined, and the definition needs to be agreed upon at least for the duration of the course. He did mention that there were sociologists who did believe deviance could be positive, however, we did not touch upon it, as most sociologists studying deviance went basically by the definition above.

A lot of it has to do, i think, just with the convenience for people being able to understand each other and compare studies etc. by everyone having a clear understanding and agreement on the terms, so that they are able to 'speak the same language' from an academic point of view, when discussing and debating between one another, and also to make it easy to compare findings etc.

I am not suggesting that the stigma associated with the label is a good thing. I am all for people being free to live, and make choices without being judged, punished etc. for them, so long as it does not intentionally infringe upon the wellbeing of another. I appreciate where you are coming from, but at this point i think we are really splitting hairs over it.

You are free to define 'deviance' for yourself of course. i am just going by the definition as i have come to understand it. Part of the course dealt with the social constructionist perspective, which indeed does ask who is it that defines what is deviant, and what is not?

In many cases, laws for example, may be written by those who would benefit by them (tax breaks, for example), not because they are necessarily upholding some moral standard or in the interest of keeping society safe, as many would assume (and which should be the case) is the purpose for making a law. It was actually a very big part of the picture, and rightfully so. Why is something considered deviant, while other things are not? Again, it has a lot to do with cultural context.

You disagree with the pretty basic definition above, then hey, you are welcome to do so. I don't see how it could be interpreted as biased, as it does not touch upon specifics, but is more a general, objective-overall statement. Regardless,

OneLove . ~

P.E.A.C.E.

I think it's worth noting that the OP also claims that homosexuality is increasingly evident because we have arrived at the "lowest level".

""these phenomena are evident in our times more than ever before because we've arrived at the "lowest level" of discerning the breaking of the vessels.""

In this context, it is portrayed in a negative manner. Using the word 'deviant' is only part of it.

[Dragonfly1]

It would appear that Yonex83's thread has been well and truly hijacked.....poor Yonex83.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly1

It would appear that Yonex83's thread has been well and truly hijacked.....poor Yonex83.

What is that supposed to really mean?

Originally Posted by arive nan

I think it's worth noting that the OP also claims that homosexuality is increasingly evident because we have arrived at the "lowest level".

""these phenomena are evident in our times more than ever before because we've arrived at the "lowest level" of discerning the breaking of the vessels.""

In this context, it is portrayed in a negative manner. Using the word 'deviant' is only part of it.

Thank you. This is what I'm trying to say. The context in the OP is clearly a negative one. I don't see how you can gloss over it. I'm being accused of hijacking the thread or breaking the peace for pointing it out.

Originally Posted by Deusdrum

"Deviance is behaviour, beliefs, or characteristics that are likely to generate a negative reaction in others."

TheDivine- I never claimed that because i learnt it in school that it is correct, but come on. If you want to argue with the dictionary about a definition, than by all means. I am using the term as it is accepted (at this point) by people who use it in the field of social sciences. Obviously, especially in this area, there are varying theories, etc etc. For example, i asked my prof the very first class if there could not be such a thing as positive deviance, like someone who had won the lottery. In the interest of studying the subject though, it needs to first be defined, and the definition needs to be agreed upon at least for the duration of the course. He did mention that there were sociologists who did believe deviance could be positive, however, we did not touch upon it, as most sociologists studying deviance went basically by the definition above.

Again, I acknowledge the definition you've learned, but it's absurd to pretend that the issue isn't debatable just because the Oxford dictionary gives us one definition or that your professor pitched something similar. I'm not interested in appeals to authority. I accept your view as ONE view, not THE view. Okay?

Institutional biases are widespread. I still object to referring to homosexuality as a negative deviation just because other people CHOOSE to have those kinds of reactions to it. In that case, sociology's definition of "deviant" is simply an enabling factor, and not holistic one.

BTW, I too have been in the university system. I have seen plenty of students disagree with teachers and the system, and I am one of them. Established biases and norms only remain until someone challenges the status quo. Women weren't allowed to be in certain programs 100 years ago because sociology and progressive politics stated that women have a defined social function and letting them have the positions that men have were deviations.

Similar evolutions are still ongoing and the way homosexuality is referred to in the very academic discourse itself is part of that. There are embedded biases and to pretend that it's not questionable is naive.

Originally Posted by Deusdrum

A lot of it has to do, i think, just with the convenience for people being able to understand each other and compare studies etc. by everyone having a clear understanding and agreement on the terms, so that they are able to 'speak the same language' from an academic point of view, when discussing and debating between one another, and also to make it easy to compare findings etc.

I agree with you, but that doesn't make the language acceptable or accurate. Calling black people ******s was part of the vernacular not too long ago in history. Then it was negros. Then it was black people. Now the PC thing to say is African-American (or whatever country you're in). The discourse of prejudice can shift toward a more neutral discourse that permits more accepting attitudes. It takes time but it happens. Homosexuality is one of the last bastions where hateful discourse is still an acceptable part of the vernacular, like when people call something that is annoying "gay" with a negative connotation.

Originally Posted by Deusdrum

I am not suggesting that the stigma associated with the label is a good thing. I am all for people being free to live, and make choices without being judged, punished etc. for them, so long as it does not intentionally infringe upon the wellbeing of another. I appreciate where you are coming from, but at this point i think we are really splitting hairs over it.

I'm not really splitting hairs. I have a very firm belief in what the word "deviant" means in a holistic sense. I acknowledge the academic meaning but I do not see it as free of the lay-person biases embedded in that word. It is still comparing something normal to something abnormal, two subjective values. Claiming they are objective is, again, naive.

On the other hand, it is you who are pitching an accepted definition and acting like it's just the way it is.

Originally Posted by Deusdrum

You are free to define 'deviance' for yourself of course. i am just going by the definition as i have come to understand it. Part of the course dealt with the social constructionist perspective, which indeed does ask who is it that defines what is deviant, and what is not?

That's a useful question to ask, definitely.

Originally Posted by Deusdrum

In many cases, laws for example, may be written by those who would benefit by them (tax breaks, for example), not because they are necessarily upholding some moral standard or in the interest of keeping society safe, as many would assume (and which should be the case) is the purpose for making a law. It was actually a very big part of the picture, and rightfully so. Why is something considered deviant, while other things are not? Again, it has a lot to do with cultural context.

I am not sure how this applies to what we are talking about. No laws in North America describe homosexuality as deviant at this time. Gays are equal under law.

Originally Posted by Deusdrum

You disagree with the pretty basic definition above, then hey, you are welcome to do so. I don't see how it could be interpreted as biased, as it does not touch upon specifics, but is more a general, objective-overall statement.

It's not objective at all, which is what I am trying to tell you. Academics may ascribe objective values to you, but they are a community of humans just like any other community, and they are subject to the same scrutiny. They are not free from being questioned by the virtue of being academic authorities.

Language changes over time regardless of what the academics wish.

In any case, I don't like academic debates like this because they are too heady. I was pointing out an obvious negative connotation in the OP and if you don't see the same connotation then oh well. I see it as plain as day and I will not be quiet about it.

[Dragonfly1]

Originally Posted by Silvergirl

What is that supposed to really mean?

The thread title....." The spiritual root of cheating"..... it has deviated from this topic to deviance......thats all I meant.....nothing sinister intended, just a comment.

[Silver]

I didn't imply it was sinister.

So what do you think about all this?

[Dragonfly1]

Well I think the thread had gotten off track gone down a route that isn't what the OP intended at all.
My thoughts on it are:
The original post had absolutely nothing to do with deviance, it was just and example of a form of sexual orientation other than what society in general class as the 'norm' ie, heterosexual sex between a man and a woman for procreation.
It has nothing to do with the word deviance as defined. To me the OP is stating that spiritually we are all one; but because we have been separated into male and female in the human form, it has confused us because we are all part of the one (spiritually) so it would seem the 'human' confusion in sexuality is because we somehow recognize our connectedness, regardless of our genital orientation. When the OP said deviance it wasn't meant as a slur, it was an expression of the differences in sexual behaviors.
People may cheat (or not necessarily cheat but be attracted to many different people male or female, we recognize the beauty in all our fellow humans and we are attracted to some more than others but we still look even when attached to another exclusively) because spiritually we recognize each as ourselves truly are, that is, pure love; and that sex is a way of expressing that connectedness to self.....So is cheating really cheating or just a natural spiritual desire to connect with oneself on any level?

[Deusdrum]

TheDivine - What is your definition of deviant then? I don't mean what is deviant, i mean, what does the word itself mean?

When did i ever say that it was THE truth? Show me where? I acknowledged already, it is within the context of the course i took on deviance within the established academic field, which was in fact, questioned within the course itself from every possible angle. Obviously everyone has an opinion on what or what is not deviant to them.

I have not read the OP so i am not commenting on that. When did i ever say it was not questionable? Your putting words in my mouth that i haven't written. You don't like the established accepted definition? Fine. Im not pitching anything. Im saying that is the definition as given to me in the course i took on deviance. WHERE AM I PITCHING ANYTHING!?!?!

You are confusing things when you speak of "there are no laws describing homosexuality as deviant.." deviance does not mean crime. People who believe in UFO's are considered deviant to other people. Witches were considered deviant, in the 1700's and burnt at the stake. Who is more criminal or wrong in this picture? Obviously the establishment who tortured and burnt them, not the witches themselves, who were, at the time, considered deviant.

You are putting a moral judgment upon the word, but you seem to be missing my point. Deviant is not a judgment upon someone, it is an acknowledgment that one group has a negative reaction to another group, for whatever reason, whether right or wrong. That is all. That is where the objectivity comes, of necessity, if it is to be studied at all.

My personal opinion? Deviant, from deviate, to deviate from a norm. What is normal? Whatever the majority believes it to be. Does that mean it is right? NO!!!!!!!! NOT MY POINT AT ALL!!!! Terms must be understood if you are to be able to study anything. Deviant does not = criminal/bad, normal does not = lawful/good. If you had read my second post, i thought i was clear. You seem to be putting a lot of moral judgments in there, that were not present.

Again, what is your definition on deviant? In your own words?

-EDIT- Regarding the (now read) original post; im not sure i see how homosexuality has anything to do with cheating. As for male/female qualities, I believe there are masculine men who may be gay, and effeminate men, who may be straight. I think we all have both male and female qualities withnin us individually. Part of what the secret of alchemy was getting after, was to unite these properties within ourselves, to become whole. In my opinion, outer relationships are not the right focus on the way to become whole, though i do believe that they are helpful for growth. Sexuality is kind of, in my view, neither here nor there, in relation to the subject of becoming whole again, it is simply a preference one naturally has, in my opinion.

Another subject from my deviance class, individuals with a male body, who consider themselves female, or vice-versa. I'm not sure why it matters what a person considers themselves, so long as they are comfortable with that identity. Not sure what you mean by 'breaking of the vessels' either. As for the root of cheating, id say, getting bored/frustrated with one partner, may be one reason. In women, cheating tends to be considered in terms of intimacy, emotional closeness. For men, (again, generally speaking) they could care less about if a woman is close friends with a guy, so long as she doesn't sleep with him. The sex part for men (statistically) is the deciding factor.

I can reference this, if i need to, though it will be a bit inconvenient to look up again. Suffice it to say, i know some will disagree about the men/women cheating thing, but there have been surveys/studies done which have come back with this, im not saying it is 'truth' but based on the information i have been exposed to, and look into, it is a *general* pattern that comes up consistently in *some* studies. Of course, individually, there will be a great variance from one person to another.

[Silver]

That was rather articulate, Dragonfly1. Sure would be nice if the OP showed up to make his own comments. (Sometimes we start things we can't finish, when things heat up unexpectedly and/or takes off in directions we weren't expecting.)