[Robert Urbanek]

While watching an episode of MASH, I noted Hawkeye using the word “relationship” to describe his social life. Given that the show was set during the Korea War, the word seemed misplaced.

As I recall, the word “relationship” only became common during the early 1970s as part of what I would call “aspirational dating.” Before then, you had boyfriends, girlfriends, you were “serious” or were engaged. Often, you married your high school sweetheart or the first person you had sex with, or you got married if your girlfriend got pregnant.

The sexual revolution brought the attitude of “I can do better than this” and “There’s a whole world of people out there. I shouldn’t settle for someone less than I deserve.” The increase in college attendance also increased the waiting time for commitment, as you could now choose a potential mate from a larger, more cosmopolitan group of people.

The word “relationship” was a tool of moral relativity. There was nothing wrong with dating a long string of people. They were just “relationships,” none demanding exclusivity or commitment.

I am sure there are some who will disagree with my assessment. I welcome their input.

[late]

moral relativity...

The opposite of moral objectivism. But there is no objectivity...

Put simply enough for you to understand, your Christian values change over time, as their culture changes. Which is the result of their situation changing.

Since abortion is always a part of this stupidity, the Church said the spirit entered the body at the Quickening. But, after a thousand years, when abortion was developed, that changed.

So did god change his mind, or did the Church simply want more soldiers for their wars?

What a marriage is has changed a few times over the centuries.

Lastly, it also implies relativists have no morality. Which is childish. When I say childish, we're talking angry 5 years old kind of childish.

[Rich]

Well as a conservative I've always accepted the natural order of things before "The Liberals" came along and messed everything up. So I've always tried to learn from my social betters that God put on the planet to be role models for the rest of us. For example for me its very important to preserve the existing order against usurpers, Henry Tudor, Henry VII, arguably the founder of the modern English state, is a particular role model in that regard. And of course there's William of Orange heroic resistance against the bed ban baby.

When it comes to sexual morality I've also tried to learn from my social and moral betters. I have a number of particular roles models when it comes to sexual morality. Henry VIII the founder of the Church of England, I have to confess I was a little bit squeemish about the wife killing, I guess my lower class roots have made me vulnerable to these new fangled liberal ideas. Anyway as a compromise I thought well if I don't marry the women I have sex with, then I won't have to kill them. I know its a bit of a weesly liberal cop out, but hey none of us are perfect. Other notable role models for me in sexual morality are George IV and Edward VII. From modern times I've looked up to Prince Andrew and even Prince Harry in his earlier days.

Just to add on that last point, I have great respect for her majesty, our Queen. I've always been told that prince Andrew is her favourite son, so I've always assumed that when it comes to sexual morality he is the role model that she wants us men, her loyal and devoted subjects, to follow.