666 karma · joined April 21, 2022
Cracked me up
E.g.:
> A wife ought not to make friends of her own but enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him
> a virtuous woman ought to be most visible in her husband’s company and to stay in the house and hide herself when he is away.
> If therefore a man in private life, who is incontinent and dissolute in regard to his pleasures, commits some peccadillo with a paramour or a maidservant, his wedded wife ought not to be indignant or angry, but she should reason that it is respect for her which leads him to share his debauchery, licentiousness, and wantonness with another woman.
For me this paints the picture of a fearful, unfaithful husband who lacks confidence.
I don't know about the validity, but I love how Germany (as one of the richest countries in the world), is used in this comparison.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/driver-switches-places/
That "too many days in a row" is the critical part in this piece of advice in my opinion.
It might seem pendantic, but I believe it's always worth the time to replace "correct" with "better models" in such descriptions. Not doing it muddies the water and some folks might start to believe today's scientific models are "correct". Not professional scientists, but laymen like me.
> Perhaps you are ascribing a more holistic view to the idea of what someone “does”.
I think nothing is left for another person to love if you take away everything they do, have and how they appear. Because that is all you can ever know about another person.
But I now understand what you wrote as "I love you now, as you are, as a person and not just any one particular thing you do" and to that I agree.
Edit: I think I misread "anything" as "everything"
What is left of a "person" to me if excluding those?
Different from a claim that there are none.
Also be a nuisance to everyone