Live from the Pathway Studios in Johnston proper. You are live from the path.

And you're listening to live from the Path returning from the Pathway studios here in Justin Proper. I you know, I never checked to see whether I could there's an improper part of Justin. I don't know. I think the outskirts have been swallowed up by other suburb estates. Beaver, I think Yeah. Over there. Yeah. That's improper. We we we live mostly in the improper area. Oh, that's true. That's true. We're the the broadcast the broadcast studio as well as Dan's house are in the improper area, Justin. Yes. Yeah. Alright. Fair enough. Alright. Here we go. We got caught on the show tonight. Hey. So I came across I don't even remember where I saw this article, but it was a

it was so oh, I know. It was it was on it came up on my news feed. That boy, I get a I I started using the Google News app. Mean, I I get some weird stuff that shows up there. Greg Hudson, what do you use for a news app? No. I just have a a just a series of 12 websites that I go to daily just to kinda double check some stuff. So I I decide to decide. I don't let Google tell me. Oh, you don't you don't use a curated list? You go through and pick stuff out? Okay. I do. Okay. Fair enough. Dan, how do you take in the news? I'm I'm a little on the radio, little on the I'm more of a Fox News guy than like a CNN guy. Right. Because I get mad at the CNN people

and I sometimes get mad at the Fox people too, but yeah. I'm mostly mostly probably radio driving around. But I have some stuff on the web. CNN people. Everyone gets mad at the CNN people. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Fair enough. So anyway, I got into an article came up and it was the the title of the article was why we need to challenge the culture of monogamy and I thought, boy, I like I I didn't realize this was discussion that was going on out there. Although, I I I swear that I saw something very similar come up either last year or, like, three years ago, like, a a strong discussion about this. Yeah. And so I started perusing the article,

and I have some strong reactions to it, as you might imagine. Mhmm. But but I was just interested in your guys' thoughts. Are there are there any are there any things to seed here? Or basically, how should how do you react if if you were talking to someone, say, coffee shop style and they said, hey, check this out. Here are my thoughts of monogamy. Good friend of yours. Like, I don't know. How do you react to such a thing? So well, I'll I'll go I'll read the article and we can kinda talk through the premise and and and see if we can glean some wisdom there. Sure.

And then what else did I I oh, I know. That's we're finishing, a study in Axis last week and, there was something just, like, it was almost a throwaway thing that happened with Paul. He's he's on his way to Rome and, like, this is after he after they get done kinda crashing the boat and make their way onto land.

And they're they're walking up he's he's walking up on his way from, like, Naples up to Rome and the brothers that are in Rome, like, hear about him and they come and they come to visit. And, like, see, I I it was it was super cool though because he says, they come to meet him and it says and Paul was encouraged and then he just kept right on trucking. And it was like on in the grand narrative acts, it's like a very small thing. But, like, I I kinda hung on that for a while and I walked away with, like, two major, I don't know, two major things that I thought I need to do more of and have a kind of a greater reliance on in relation to that very thing. And so I'll, I'll talk about that too. Maybe see if you guys can let me know, like, does that does that ring true for you, or do you you feel like, I'm gonna pull too much out of something small? But we'll we'll hit that briefly.

And then, and then we do have some advice, from dear life from the path people got problems. I did not prove them, but we'll we'll pull some stuff out of the old mailbag, and we'll see what happens. Okay. Right on. Alright. So anyway, let let's start with this article. So this is from vice.com. It's the title of the article was why we need to challenge the culture of monogamy. Relationship norms are so pervasive, they've led to flawed science.

It says this, as someone who identifies as polysexual, and I'm not Greg Hudson definition. I believe well, should I put it delicately or just hey. It's Internet radio. Just keep yourself Christian. Multiple sexual partners. Okay. Fine. I think that's gonna be it. Okay. Alright. Hanging out there. Alright. She knocks on many doors. That that was the filter that went through my head when I read that word. Sure. Okay. Okay. Good. They get around. Yes. She says, I've often experienced negativity from those who don't think outside of how their how their relationships function. At times, this judgment has come from those close to me. You're just slutty or your man is okay with that, really? Are things I've heard over and over again, not to mention the times people have tried to rat me out to my primary partner for what they think is cheating.

Because of these kinds of reactions to who I am, I've always felt that our society isn't built for people like me. And according to newly released research, it turns out the norm of monogamy is so pervasive, it extends past the realm of our social interactions and into the field of science. Oh, these people just want everyone to be polyamorous is one of many negative sentiments researcher Terry Connolly of the University of Michigan heard Michigan heard when she submitted a study for review that contained positive findings about consensually non monogamous relationships. When researchers present results that show that monogamous relationships are better than non monogamous relationships, they are perceived as less biased and as better scientists than if you have the nerve to present data that shows that non monogamous relationships are better. Connolly, who studies gender and sexuality, told Vice, if you do that, you are perceived as being biased and a worse scientist overall.

Vice reached out to Connolly to talk about the resistance she's come up against in her research and about the strong roots of monogamy in Western culture. So, like, it sounds like it sounds to me that the core premise is to say, we can't even study this thing fairly because in the Western mind, monogamy is thought as inherently better and so we are interpreting data through a false lens because we carry that strongly carry that bias with. Is this something like the core accusation here? Yes. Yeah. That that's like their this person's interpretation

of the interpretation, though. I mean, could she'll throw words around like science and data and then and then say she doesn't like how it's interpreted. Well well, data doesn't lie. Right? I mean, the data's the data. Yep. You you know, so I I well, see, I'm I'm probably proving her point. I'm already bent against her thinking, well, you're just trying to bend us toward you and I'm thinking, no. You're wrong. So So so I think the one of the core things because, I mean, that's a right thing to consider. Right? Is there an inherent bias in the way that we are looking at data? But one of the you have to be careful when

you say, like, we we find this this is pervasive. I mean, the possibility certainly is that it's pervasive because it's accurate. Right. Right? Like, just because it's it happens all the time doesn't mean that everyone is blind. It could actually be that most of the most of the people are looking at it correctly and you're not. All of these people are saying one plus one is two. I think it's three. They're just biased. It's like, no. One one plus one still equals two. I mean That's right. You know, You know, you're just trying to justify your a lifestyle that you're you're living. Right. So just because we use the words and and here's the deal. This is this is not even getting into what her reaction to the data is. This is just in in general, just because something is pervasive or just because you use words like pervasive, which have a they do have a negative connotation to it. No one says, hey. Ice cream is pervasive here.

If they say, we got a lot of ice cream. And so, like, you've actually done that, you've built in, you've taken a case that tries to make a a scientific case for something, and you've actually loaded it up,

with the way that you're describing and so, yeah, I think I think people need to recognize their own biases and I might start with you, and just recognize that I have them, but, like, I'm biased in a way because I believe it's true. I've already established some things in my life, I just believe these things. And, yeah, I will look at them through that bent because I like, I stopped arguing about that a long time ago. This is my lens. So, anyway, here's they asked her some questions. She said, why why did you decide to get involved in this type of research? She says, I was interested initially in how the prospect of being in a relationship could lead to negative health behaviors and sexual health behaviors, specifically not using condoms. As I got further into it, I didn't really get the sense that relationships were bad even though my research was showing that when you're in a relationship, you're rest less likely to practice safer sex. So I thought I should dig a little deeper than that. As I thought about it more, thought maybe it isn't relationships per se that are causing people to avoid condoms or not practice safer sex, but it's a monogamous agreement. Over time, I decided I should focus on how monogamy can have negative implications for sexual health.

I I kinda wanna stop there. Like, this is where, I I was I reading through the article and I thought, okay, maybe I can learn something. I'm looking at things in a potentially skewed manner. And then I got here and I I I frankly couldn't get past this premise. Yeah. Did anything else jump out at anybody? No. I think the I think the the evidence that she brings forth that what does it say right here? Oh, even though my research is showing that when you're in a relationship, you're less likely to practice safer sex. I think I think this is gonna speak to the heart of what we're gonna talk about later on the argument here. Alright? If there's an understanding between a monogamous couple

that you two will remain, faithful to one another, true to one another here, there's literally no reason to practice safer sex. I mean, in the sense that in in the sense of excuse me. I wanna be careful about this. In the sense of worrying about STDs, worried about sexual trans I'm not talking about pregnancy, things like that. I'm really referring just to, sexually transmitted infections. And, barring some extreme circumstances,

I mean, you know, we have always heard about, blood transfusions, things like that that go on gone awry and diseases can be transferred in that way. But basically, for ninety nine out of a hundred people here, if you're a monogamous relationship and, neither of you have an STI to begin with, you are less likely to practice safer sex, but that doesn't make the research valid that you're doing regarding that. So that kind of jumped out to me. Yeah. So and I guess I I would even challenge in that situation that we'd even stop using the term safer sex. It's not unsafe. Yeah. Right. It's not unsafe for my wife and I to have unprotected sex. Right. It isn't. We neither of us have said said STIs. Mhmm. I mean, are the choices we make around

how we practice either wanting to get pregnant or not are are a legitimate conversation among couples but, like, it's just it's not fair to quantify what we do as unsafe. There's nothing there's nothing unsafe about it and so, like, to even label it that as, oh, when you're a monogamous relationship, you don't practice safe sex. I'm like, well, I I I would reject the definition of what's safe. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And that's and, frankly, I I couldn't get past it because I thought, like, like, there's this this whole loaded section is about, hey, like, it's causing people to have unsafe sex and I thought, well, good night. I just I've just I'm not with you. I can't even agree to the definition of why this isn't safe. We've been doing it for years. It's been fine.

Can't agree on the starting facts. It's gonna make this conversation more difficult. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Alright. So he says, I I decided I should focus on how monogamy can have negative implications for sexual health. I did a study initially where we said non monogamous people were more likely to practice safer sex in their encounters outside their primary relationship. So so here's the thing is is, again, you're using words weirdly. What you're saying is is that you're putting yourselves in situations of which the sex is implicitly more risky, of which you then must take additional steps to try to make it safer. You know what I'm saying? So, like like, you it's not it's not fair to say, hey. I we are safer because we are having sex with multiple people. You've actually introduced risk into your sex life

because you're having sex with multiple people. Look, people if that if you're not in a monogamous relationship for it, like, potentially, you do not know as much about them and it brings risk that otherwise, I don't have having been married to my wife for fifteen years. And so, like, again, it's just if we wanna deal with data and facts here, that's fantastic. That's not what we're doing though, like, is not a this is not a factual conversation that she's having. Certainly. Mhmm. Alright. We had someone talk about how they thought it was irresponsible to promote, hold on a second. And also oh, yeah. We we met a huge amount of resistance for those findings from the viewers. Basically, implication that it's safer, people are having safer sex outside of monogamous relationships. We had someone talk about how they thought it was irresponsible to promote this. We had someone talk about how we knew we know gay male relationships deteriorate into non monogamy. We're like, deteriorate?

That's a really loaded word. Yes. I feel like you'd be familiar with the loaded words because people had such a negative reaction to it, I thought we should study it more. We continued to find a level of animosity in reviews that was unparalleled by other research I've done even that on other sexuality topics. And so again, like, if you're saying, like, people are having such a negative reaction, it's because you're not you're not really telling the truth here. Like like, you've because of the the words you've choose the words you've chosen to describe the situation and what I would consider a poor definition of safe sex, yeah, that's why they're having a bad reaction. It's not because, oh, I implicitly hate like, there's reasons that I think you should not be in a polyamorous situation, but it's not because I'm

not I mean, if I'm redacting to the data cleanly, it's because the data tells me that you actually shouldn't be doing that. It's a risk to you. Alright. So it continued and said, what sort of negative terms do you see coming in coming up in scientific studies that show a bias against non monogamy? But I don't think anyone was intentionally being hostile, it's just they were created with a monogamous frame. There's the one thing I can agree to you. Mhmm. Yes, they were indeed created and they do have that bent in them. Literally created. That's what I'm saying, like, she has unintentionally said something that I completely agree with. Congratulations to her.

Even just the general structure of relationship scales is about your partner being singular singular. So if you are in a consensually non monogamous relationship where you have more than one partner, you already are having to make a choice. What partner should I talk about? Oh, they're talking about how you go about the study. Like, you have to choose somebody. If you have, like, three and you have to answer a question on behalf of your partner, then you have to select one. And so they're saying even the way that you framed questions causes you not to be able to answer honestly or holistically, which is true. That is a problem when you're collecting data. Right? If you've assumed a norm and you're not asking questions that fit within that, yeah. So, I mean, I would agree with that that that would be a bias in the question. I think the the right reaction to that would be, do do I care? You know, I'm I'm am I asking the question within the confines of a monogamous relationship? I don't consider like, is it possible that the vast majority of people don't consider your multi partner relationship something that they're they're looking for insight on, and so they don't particularly care to make that distinction, which is likely true. It's not a bias. It's just we don't don't care. It's not part well, it's not what they're looking for. Well, they don't think about it. There's this and certainly through the lens of monogamy, I mean, but that's pretty much the entire argument the author is making here. We're all doing this through the lens of monogamy and therefore,

we cannot really have an unskewed, non biased opinion here because we're all going through the frame of and through the lens of something that she is really challenging at this point. I mean, that's the title of the argument. Yep. So, anything any opinion that anybody has,

any opinion that anyone else has automatically is almost invalid. So let me ask you this though, do we do we not run the same risks as followers of Jesus? Just just broadly, right? Like, you you have a lens, you say, look, this this is the way that this is how the world works, this is this is the true way things are. Someone comes up and says, hey, I like I gotta I think you're biased toward this thing. I mean, isn't the answer, yeah? I mean, everyone's got bias. There's no one's completely neutral about anything. So the answer is partially yes, I would say. Because but but, I mean, I think the term using the term bias implies that it is a blindness as opposed to a willful choice. I am not biased in the fact that I look at the world from a Christian worldview.

I have studied the worldviews. I have come out saying this is the one that is true and so I look at the world through that lens willfully not because I'm, blind to something else, it's because, from

from basically, I've come to the decision that this is the way to look at it. Yeah. And so I think that is a difference is that the way that she uses bias implies that that you just we don't you just recognize, don't which I think is true in in some of the questions and stuff that she was talking about. But, like, I think you gotta be real careful that you don't let that that word jump out of a cage and run the streets and be something that it's not. Delaborate versus unknowing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Alright. Let's oh oh, she she mentioned even the term cheating is used academically and infidelity and all these words that are fairly loaded.

Yeah. I suppose you're not cheating if you've given open permission. Yes. That's I think that was her point. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Which I suppose that then just doesn't apply. We would see the term non consensual, non monogamy as being more neutral alternative. Sorry. I laughed at that phrase. That's funny. I mean, it's not gonna fit on a bumper sticker, it certainly got a little je ne sais quoi to it.

No doubt. There's also the offended party who would have been cheated on. I just felt like we're not approaching the topic of cheating very scientifically if those are the words we're using. Also true I mean, again, if you're asking from a science scientific thing, the the cheating implies an emotion. It implies, a reaction to the monogamous relationship that maybe didn't exist. So, like, there is something here.

The question is whether it's a relevant to the conversation and whether anybody cares. She seems to be thinking in a non scientific, way though in this sense. I believe the argument she's making is that, she's hanging out with one of her non monogamous consensual partners. Yeah. And then someone sees her out at a bar and is like, hey.

What about Jimmy? Yeah. Alright. Hey. What about Jimmy? You're cheating here. So and she's like, hey. We need to talk about this more scientifically. The situations and scenarios that she's describing are fundamentally non scientific because they are social interactions when drinks are afoot. Well, so but I think she's saying that as we've, as relationships are studied, we are asking questions that,

otherwise exclude her from being able to answer correctly. It's I mean, here's what's difficult. It's like if you're somebody who's created such a such, like, a jacked up framework

in your circumstance that then the questions no longer apply to you, really, I'm not sure that's the problem of the normative questions. Like, you you seriously can't you can't word or gather data with such a wide open frame, to to to, like, not have a parameter. Like, you can if you're gonna gather data like that, really, what you're saying is, like, hey, look, we wanna hear from people who fit this criteria. If you don't fit this criteria, we're not saying that you're not a person or that whatever you're doing isn't going on. We're saying we don't care about it. It's it's not what we're studying here and so because otherwise, like, think of the Dan, you've spent many years in ministry. Think of how people get themselves in trouble. Oh. Right? Think of the wide range here and so, like, you'd never be able to answer to ask any qualitative, question. You'd always just to be like, the question is, number one, what the heck were you thinking? What did you do really? And then, like, there could be a crazy expanse of answers. And so, like, you just can't gather data that way. And so, like I mean, what she's saying may be noted. I'm just not sure it's all that

relevant or that it's not intentional. Like, people aren't saying, I I I wanna know everything. They're saying, look, we're asking questions about monogamous relationships. So she wants she wants to clarify the questions better. Right? I mean, like Yeah. She doesn't wanna say, have you been cheating? She wants them to ask, how many partners do you have? Or something like that. That's that's right. I mean right. Yeah. And and so she's really spending a lot of time being hung up on that when it's like, well, so you know? I I feel she's also trying to I I think she wants to, besides needing some validation, I think she also wants to have, her feet in multiple doorways here,

in the sense of this. When you're dating in the world today, chances are, you got multiple partners. You got multiple people you're dating. You're dating this person. You're dating this person. You're dating this person here. If you go on a date

and, and sleep with someone and then you go on a different date, sleep with another person here Yep. In the in the casual days, it's you're not cheating on anyone. Right. That's that's I mean, in the in the worldly sense, that's just not happening. That's just you're not committed to one. That's right. Yeah. Committed to you. So, it sounds like she just wants to be dating, but then she wants this label. Well, I still have this, full time, like, partner or whoever it might be. But it sounds like all she really wants to do is date. Alright, with one of her dates being a little bit more significant than another. Just so you can answer the questions that they're asking on the scientific surveys a little bit more clearly. Yeah. What? Yeah. I mean, that that's the core that's core of the concern, right? She's saying, basically, how we collect data does not represent me or people like me and so you will always now here's she's right in this, you will always then collect data that reaffirms a position,

that doesn't include that perspective. That's true. Mhmm. That is true and it it is a risk on how you collect data and so it is a completely reasonable question of, is this a relevant distinction? But you have to be willing to accept that people will come back and go, no. We we don't we don't actually care to know the details of that within the types of things that we're studying. Well, especially, I mean, I think, practically, this is what I'm speaking about. Practically,

in a realistic and a very straightforward fashion, what she's describing is exactly what I described. You just wanna date a lot of people and maybe call one of those dates you've been going on Yeah. A more committed relationship here. And yet she wants to add another category and have research and data to really study this kind of category that's disgusting. That's right. When this, practically speaking, it already exists. It already exists. Yeah. Just I just like to go on dates with lots of different people. Yeah. I mean So and and and this is kind of her niche. Like, she's like, well, we wanna study it more and we wanna ask the questions. Okay. Great. I I don't know that that caused me to say I need to rethink monogamy.

She just wants to be considered more mainstream Yeah. Is seems to be her issue. You know? She wants she doesn't wanna be the lower end of the data. Yeah. Or the ignored party, the part that says, look, we actually don't care about your situation. It's it's it's yeah. Now here's the thing, I I I think we can get that. I could totally get that, right? Like, everyone wants the thing that you're doing. You don't wanna feel like you are outside of the Yeah. So I totally get that desire. I mean, one of the questions you have to reasonably ask yourself is, like, hey, am I outside of the norm? And it and do am I reacting to that in the proper way? Because, like, I mean, sometimes that's perfectly cool. And then sometimes, like, the norms are good. Like, the norm is at the right barometer and you're a little bit outside of it and maybe it should cause you to think about what you're doing. And, like, I mean, that's that's your that's your life, brother, to to react to how you want, but, like, it's what you can't do is you can't, you're not gonna change the norm really unless you're trying to say, we just want to be represented in this, but, like, people are so niche. Like, there's people are so unique in how in how they sin and how they serve and, like, all kinds of stuff. Like, you're just not gonna be able to represent everybody and all their uniquenesses

in a dataset. Like, it's just it's just that, like, there's nothing that expensive that covers the the amount of, eccentricities of people. She said, sometimes I felt like people, or here's a question to her. Sometimes I felt like people think there's a finite amount of love that you can give. That's to say they think that if you're seeing or sleeping with someone else, that means you love a primary partner less. And the reaction was, I'm amazed that we're generally finding that non monogamous people are doing a little better in relationships.

These are small sex, so I'm not saying that it's a way to go for everyone, but it's really kind of amazing given how much stress there is on any sort of non traditional relationship. You've got stigma, you don't have a lot of norms to adhere to throughout the course of the relationship, non monogamous people are still doing well in these relationships and they're happy. If anything, it's a sign of resilience among those communities. Again, so I got stuck here again. Gray cousin, what are you laughing at? Oh, no. Continue bar. And so I got stuck here again because, like, I was super interested in this part. He says, oh, they're doing well. Great. What do you mean? Like, how do you how do we gauge well? And that's Yeah. Would be a hard thing to to say Surface level. That's right. It it would be a difficult thing to answer.

Ignore monogamous, non monogamous. It's just like for people couples are doing well. Like, what do mean by that? Like, how how do we gauge how people are doing well? Because that'd be super interesting. And, like, there there isn't anything qualitative here to say, like, hey. There's an index that says, you know, their amount of jealousy or, you know, their comfortable comfortability with their partner hanging out with somebody opposite sex or, like, whatever. Maybe I care about what they're maybe I don't agree or disagree with how they measure it, but, like, I actually don't even have a concept of how they're measuring it and how we came to the conclusion that actually it's better. Oh, it says right here, doing a little better in relationships. Is that not quantitative for you enough? No. It is not. It not quantitative enough. It says right here, a little better. Maybe they just ask a guy. They say They're not getting in arguments because they're just talking about the weather and Will and Grace. You know? That mean they're they're they're just they're they're surface level relationships,

and and you rarely have real problems with surface relationships because you just go the other direction. There's some conflict. I guess I'll go have sex with this person. That's right. You can just move on. Yeah. You don't have to resolve that. And by next week, you've forgotten about it. You can have lunch again, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't feel like a break because you weren't committed to them anyway, really. Exactly. So I guess that would appear to be better. Okay. I don't know how much of a a long range longitudinal study that we've done on this particular subject, though. So this little better still seems a little shifty. It does. I mean, it's it's just like you asked a guy and say, like,

Mary and Brian and and Ted and Craig, how do you think your relationship amongst each other is doing? And they're like, well, a little better than Greg. Well, then check it off. I I'm I'm That hopefully, they've got something. But, like, I I would it was at least grossly underrepresented here. It would be interesting. It would be super interesting to read. I'd I'd be super I'd be interested to see, like, what how do you even measure their sense of how well they're doing? And, like and if you're awarding extra points for not having norms

and for, there being a stigma to it, like, that's not really fair. Like, you're saying, hey, we wanna make sure that this is properly represented and because we agree with their plight, we give extra points. It's like Mike scoring on Secular Solomon. Like, it's not it's not a fair scoring system. Alright. I'm a skip a bunch of the stuff in the middle unless unless anybody had anything that they'd read in the article that they loved. No. It's alright. Okay. And was this concept of monogamy being ingrained in Western culture, does that come from religion or this idea of paternity?

She says, I think it definitely comes from religion but the interesting part is that it affects people who aren't religious. We, as a culture, are brought into the Judeo Christian concern with paternity, and that has sort of fed into a culture of monogamy. But now people have a problem with extricating themselves from that culture monogamy. It has become so pervasive that taking religion out of it by someone not being religious doesn't really take out the bias of monogamy. I wonder so here's here's what I wonder about that, it's because the the the

thought then is is that the religious framework has then kind of set up this thought that monogamy is good. Yeah. Someone has obviously been proselyzing to the Dolphins. Am I wrong? They are monogamous, right? I I Dolphins? Yeah. The football team. To me. The mammal. Sounds good. So anyway,

so so if the thought then is that, so if that was true, I wonder why then, say, the religious culture has done so poorly at indoctrinating us on, say, staying married after such a thing has occurred. Right? So, like, like, if that if that force is so strong that it's completely changed our under and that it is to blame, if you wanted to use the word blame for our understanding monogamy, how do we speak to its complete lack of, ability to sustain marriages in the culture? Well, that's more recent development, though, too. I mean, you go back a hundred years, the divorce rate is not fifty percent.

So, I mean, this is a fairly recent development from the nineteen sixties, the sexual revolution where no fault divorces. And this is all part of societal, development over the last, really, sixty years. So, I mean, it it still it still applies. Yeah. But if we're talking about she seems to be describing, like, the last two thousand years, it's ingrained.

Well, for 1,960 of those two thousand years, yeah, it was pretty ingrained, the monogamy. It's really been the last sixty years where things have changed a bit. So what you're saying is as we've added more partners, our happiness has decreased. I don't She said it was a little better. A little better, Dan. I know. But that's what Griggs was saying then. Started you know, the revolution Mhmm. Is when all the divorces started happening. I mean, yeah. I mean, that is Maybe that's when they figured out you could have multiple folk. They said, I'm out. I'm out with this thing. Multiple folk and Doesn't that aren't they adding to the divorce count, these multiple folk? I said, they're not getting married. Never mind. Yeah. But They they are here this is how this is where the right definitions come in. They are having safer sex and their relationships are more successful successful because they're not getting divorced because they're not getting married. There it is.

There's a distinction. I don't I was reading the article. I don't think she used the word polygamy one time. No. She is polysexual. Uh-huh. But she didn't say polygamy here. Right. Right. Which and I think we have two different things. If we're talking about monogamy, there's two different ways to go. There's the monogamy and polygamy. Yeah. But she's not talking about that different dichotomy. We're talking about monogamy and polysexual

attitudes, just multiple sexual partners. It appears that, she's not about the marriage. Like, that's that's not what she wants. She wants I don't even know. Ben Dan, what do you think she wants here? I mean, let's besides the data and and she wants to be studied. Alright? I I think I think that's that aspect. What else does she want? She just wants to feel good about her life choices of having sex with everything she can have sex with. Yeah. It reminds me of an article that came out just a couple days ago on on Fox News, .com

of a a gal who was had, you know, was celebrating breaking away from purity. And, actually, it seemed like I had read that a couple years ago too, but it but it was dated two days ago. So and it was just this great celebration of of, you know, this religion has suppressed us and and made us shame. It's a culture of shame, she kept saying, and how shameful people felt until you had to break through that and you didn't feel shame anymore with multiple partners and, outside of marriage. So

I I think they're they're kind of related there. She just doesn't wanna feel the shame, the guilt. I mean, perhaps, but that'd be from other people here. I don't feel like she feels, like, personal shame for what she's doing here. I think there's some validation in there that she wants some validation, maybe. Maybe some scientific value validation. But I don't know. I mean I think she says she doesn't feel shame, but she really does. That's why she stop protesting this too much. Maybe. Yeah. It's upset, I don't know but Yeah. I mean, you're you're right. I I think there's not a there's not a way of knowing but, like, if you really didn't care what everyone else thought Yeah. Then why are we talking about

you being upset about what everyone else thinks? Exactly. You know what saying? So, like, I like like I said, sometimes sometimes living outside of the norm is a is a lonely place and it may be the right place to be. Some like and if you're if you're if you're firm that this is fine and you don't need someone else's validation, then why are we then why are we seeking it? And if you're just asking that, hey, we wanna level the playing field and the data that we're getting, I mean, again, I I it's I think it's an interesting discussion. I'm not sure it's a it's not all that relevant. Most people aren't in your situation. They're not asking the same questions. They simply don't care. Yeah.

So yeah. I'm I'm a practical guy, like talking about what's happened on the ground. Yep. Alright? Let's not be in the clouds. What's on the ground here? So let's talk about, what does she want? So options. She wants to be married to multiple men. Alright. So we got some polygamy. Maybe she wants that. I don't feel that's what she wants. Yeah. Don't think so. I don't think that's what she wants. So it's not about the marriage itself. Okay.

Maybe she just wants to date a lot, like I was saying earlier. So she's, she just goes and date with this guy, then this guy, then this guy, and she wants to be comfortable with that here. But it sounds like she wants something more than that, though. Let's just use it, let's let's get the middle. She's living with a guy. She has a relationship with a guy but she also wants to go on dates. It sounds like that might hit it closest to the head on what we're talking about, what she wants. She wants a more committed relationship with someone, so let's say she's living with a guy. Yep. And then while she's living with that guy though, she wants to feel comfortable going on dates with other guys. Or at least having sex with other guys. So, like, kind of an open relationship thing. Yeah. Yeah. And she wants people to be okay with it. Yeah. Yeah. Not judge harshly and ask the right types of questions on the on the relationship surveys to capture her experience. Yeah. But I also feel like even in that situation, the experience of her going out on a date and there's all sorts of people at the bar saying, what about Jimmy? I feel that's still a rare thing that that's not happening that much. Yeah. I would be surprised. I mean, here's the thing, how close of friends are they that know you and Jimmy and don't know that you're in this type of relationship? Yeah. True. True. It seems like we have to find that real sweet spot of I don't know you well enough, like,

just a sheer acquaintance Yeah. That you happen to see a movie Tuesday. Yeah. It's this this this scenario

that she's coming up with, it seems very rare. So I think it's not just about, like, individual people. It's more about society validating. I think that's ultimately her desire and she wants that validation through scientific study to determine that, yes, their relationship are a little better, which she said and I don't know. I mean, I don't know why you'd want the validation to this, biased paternal religious society anyway. Yeah. I mean, you're seeking affirmation from the wrong group of you. I mean, here's the deal, I don't I don't I don't seek the affirmation of of people who completely reject my belief system. Why would I want it? It doesn't it doesn't it simply doesn't mean anything to me. And so, I mean, I I think we have seen that culturally where, like, there's just a desire to say, hey, look, I want you to affirm this, like,

heaven's sake, why? What does it matter to you whether I affirm it or not? But I think from you from your standpoint as a Christian, as a believer here, you have no interest in in mandating someone to follow your beliefs. I think this lady is much more firm on, yeah, I would love to eventually mandate or at least, make this a part of society for forcing everyone to recognize. Ben Fusch, you don't wanna wreck you don't wanna force people to embrace Christianity because that's not Christianity. That's right. Alright. However, I think she digs forcing people to recognize her relationship much more than you force dig forcing people to recognize Christianity. Yeah. I would say. That's the tone. Or at least to force the the language that's in my survey. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Well, anyway, I I don't know. Like, there was so this did actually, I checked the byline. This did come out a year ago, and it just happened to repopulate on my news feed. And there was a guy that reacted at the same time from a from an article on Psychology Today and he said, lately, there's been a lot of talk about the fact that monogamy is an outdated, unrealistic and suffocating institution.

After all, we're told human beings simply aren't wired to have only one sexual partner. It's unnatural, unworkable, unrealistic. Additionally, even though it's natural to be attracted to other people, when these feelings arise, people tend to feel guilty or worse yet, that there's something wrong with them, their partners or their marriage. This too, we're told, is the unfortunate side effect of believing that monogamy is the gold standard for relationships. We're also asked to consider that our life expectancy is now much longer than it was in the past. Having sex with only one partner over many decades is likely to become boring and predictable, lacking the passion, sizzle, and intrigue that only a new relationship can deliver. Novelty and variety are the juiciest turn ons, they say. Plus, lest we forget, life is short. We need to feel passion. We need to feel alive. A new person can break the monotony of routine and bring us back to life. No wonder infidelity is rampant. Time to rethink monogamy, they opine. But I say, not so fast.

I've been a marriage therapist in the trenches with on the brink couples for over three decades. I'm a regular witness to the fallout of rampant infidelity. I'm here to tell you that infidelity rocks the very foundation upon which a marriage is built. Betrayed spouses experience PTSD like symptoms. They can't eat, sleep, think, or function. In cultures where infidelity is more accepted, we're told this extreme reaction doesn't occur. That's another reason we should adopt less parochial views about affairs. Here's what I say to that. We don't live in those countries. We live here. Mhmm. When people decide to have affairs to feel more alive, their partners end up feeling like a part of them has died. And while I agree that feeling attracted to people other than your mate is completely normal, even inevitable, it doesn't mean you have to act on it. We have many feelings over the course of our lifetime that we choose not to act on for a variety of reasons. We may not be in control of what we feel, but we certainly are in control of what we do with our feelings. I think it's fine if two people in a relationship wish to expand the definition of their marriage to include other sexual partners. But the catch here is that in my experience, it's rarely the case that both people are equally enthusiastic about this plan. Typically, if the notion of establishing an open marriage comes up, one person wants it and the other vehemently does not, then what? Another observation. In contrast to the current thinking that suggests that novelty and variety are the root, at the root of passion and eroticism and hence a valid reason to rethink infidelity, Many of the couples in my practice appear to need to feel safe and secure before they can let themselves go sexually.

It's not newness and uncertainty these couples are after. It's the comfort of familiarity, the transparency of genuine communication. Those are the real aphrodisiacs. Remember, this is Psychology Today. This isn't Christian Post. Yeah. Impressive. I mean, obviously, the guy said he's he's okay with you to having an open marriage if you can get it to work out. Obviously, not a Christian, at least representing here. But either way, Psychology Today. And to the question of whether passion fades over time, perhaps it does. That is, of course, unless couples are intentional about keeping passion alive. Long lasting sexy marriages are not about hormones, they're about skills. Yes. You bet they are. People need skills to navigate love's dry skills.

Your wife is very skilled. Tricky. Yeah. Furthermore, in relationships where there are children involved, I always find it curious that whenever the topic of having multiple sexual partners in marriage is broached, there's never a mention of how feelings of jealousy or simply working out the kinks in a new marital arrangement might destabilize the marriage and how, in turn, this might impact the couple's children. Erotic exploration has its cost. I wholeheartedly agree that monogamy isn't easy. Nothing in life worth having ever is. And considering the alternatives, I still think monogamy with all of its imperfections is the best thing we've got. No, I I thought that was pretty well said. Yeah.

Yeah. I think I think it goes back to honesty at the beginning here. If, this, Allison who wrote the article, he, claims that polysexual is who she is. Alright? Yep. As in, it's not the action of, oh, I really just, wanna have multiple partners, and date other people, sleep with other people here. No. She claimed in the in her article that this is who she is. Right. Which means if you're entering in a monogamous relationship at the beginning, a marriage, you're not being honest from the very beginning because you don't want a marriage. Mhmm. You don't. Right. You've you've you've settled. Yeah. And it's think there's something untrustworthy about people that settle like that. Yeah. Because it's somewhat

false from the beginning without establishing parameters not establishing parameters, establishing trust, which is about who you are, what you believe. And, yeah, I think, I I think in the end, she really doesn't wanna be married because marriage is

fundamentally monogamous. You don't want that. No. That's true. Hey. And sorry. I was reading I got a hold of the of the actual, study. And so I I think maybe they did try to get to this in the data. It says,

a scale measuring investment identifies partners as less invested if they respond affirmatively to the affirmatively to the item. It is likely I will date someone other than my partner in the next year. CNM individuals, CNM means, whatever, chosen non monogamous, may well already be dating another person or seeking another relationship while being fully committed to another partner. The passionate love scale from 1986, Hatfield and Sprecher, includes the item, I'd get jealous if I thought my partner were falling in love with someone else. This item is based on the assumption that less jealousy about a third party is equivalent to less passionate love.

However, researchers have found that CNM individuals may actually experience positive effect in response to a partner finding a new relationship. For example, a partner may feel happy when a loved one is finding joy in other relationships, so that's where they're getting a little better. True. So if they can feel where I might be upset to find that my wife may be entertaining, seeking the company of other fellas, they would be like, oh, well, at least my partner is happy and that makes me happy. So they're a little better than me. I'm dealing with mine unhealthily. That's the that's the assumption. Again, I I just feel like you've turned reality on its face there and kicked it a couple times. Plus the jealousy data. I don't know. I I just I don't I don't know. Know, like, I what's the implication that that jealousy is implicitly bad? Because what what it says is that, like, I care about something enough

that I do not like it when it is being when someone else is is taking it from me or, like, or that I do not get the benefit from the thing that I expect I would. I suppose that there's an inherent selfishness to it but I don't know that that's particularly bad either, that's the nature of the commitment. Alright. I'll have a look at more of the data.

Frodo. Yeah. Yeah. That's it with that one. I don't have any other respect. I don't know. I don't know. Overarching oh, okay. So wait wait. Go back to my original question. Someone comes up to you, good friend of yours, and basically says what our friend Allison has said. I don't know. What what are your reactions over coffee? For personal life decision? Yeah. Personal life decision. Say Hey. Want more scientific data. No. No. Yeah. They they don't care about the data. They're just saying, hey, look, here's the deal. I'm

I I think this is the right way to go. I I you know, your marriage is fine, I'm glad that you love it but, like, I I really think this open thing is is the way to handle it. I think he'll be more happy, I think it's it's a little better. Are they already married or not? Are they a single person? No, single person. They've just decided things haven't been working out and they think it's because they've been trying to over commit. They just wanted life a little bit better. It's Dan, you're welcome to start if you want, only

because it's just I'm trying to Right. Right. Picture a possible scenario where this will come up. It seems rare. However, Dan, what do you think? Well, I I would tell him that, you know, god put principles in place to protect you, and and you may not be smart enough to see that right now or or or understand it, but, you will be ultimately much happier in the long term if you follow God's standards and go monogamous. Yeah. Monogamous. I think, and that would be the

the certainly the Christian answer. That would be bad. If it's a non Christian person here Well, I'd tell them they need Jesus first and then Well, yeah. Absolutely. Within that context. But I'm just thinking just to just for the sake of things, just from a purely worldly standpoint, it's, I'm really having trouble thinking of what this person wants. So they're gonna come up to me, just this random 24 year old. I just wanna share with you about my life, friend Greg. Alright. Friend Greg, here's what I'm thinking here. I'm not seeing anyone right now. I'm not married, never been married here, But here's what I really want. Yeah. Here's what here's what I think is gonna work out best. Alright. I want monogamy,

but I don't. K. I want someone who I can love and trust completely. But I want to I can use the word cheat because Alison doesn't care for that term. That's right. But I want to have an open

relationship and sleep with other people. Alright? While I'm doing that. While while I'm in this committed relationship. Yep. I will probably say what you are desiring is is very unique

and what you are desiring is nearly unobtainable. Alright? The chances of you actually achieving what you really want, like, very, very specifically. So, I mean, if I'm just a worldly if I'm worldly Greg, I'm just like, why don't you dude, I just date a bunch of people, sleep around. I mean, that's what worldly Greg would say.

Okay. Fair enough. Hold on. But actual hold on. I'm just saying worldly Greg here. Alright. There's ways of doing this. Yes. Exactly. I mean, it sounds like that's what you really, really want. And I would probably say, it sounds like you just wanna sleep with a bunch of people. So why don't you just go ahead and do that? Now that's worldly Greg. Actual Greg would say, this is not a good idea. This is not, the best way to proceed only because, damn, the kind of things you said. First off, let's just focus from a safety standpoint. Let's start from that if we really, really wanna focus on safer sex, Greg. But because they're not in the monogamous relationship, they have safer sex. More condoms. You forgot. I did not forget. You forgot. I felt that that, was a semantic differentiation and distinction that I've subtle I soundly reject. As do you, Benfus. No. I do. That's I was I was talking to worldly Greg. Oh, Hey. I'm I'm back to regular Greg now. Okay. Sorry. Regular Greg here.

Regular Greg is saying, first, certainly what Dan said here. I mean, Jesus is the obvious answer here, but but also, it's it's it's not a safe it's not a safe world you're living in, and therefore, have to take actions that are safe and just, freely having sex with loads of people. That's just not that's just fundamentally not safe. And that's something that worldly people and non worldly people and, and and Christians could agree with. Right? Yeah. Right. Yeah. I I kinda look at the whole thing a lot like like the hurricane thing. Right? There are, godly principles put in place for purity to protect us.

In a hurricane, you have government officials saying all kinds of warnings. You need to evacuate. You need to get out of your house. You need to protect yourself. You need to you know, they're they're given specific advice. And there's always people laying back on, you know, I don't think I really want to. I think I I wanna go my own way. I I wanna stay home. I think I can weather the storm. Whatever it is, whatever the reason is, they ignore all the advice. And then the hurricane comes, and then the rain comes, and then the rivers rise, and then their houses are flooded. Then And they're on top of the roof, and they're angry saying, why didn't the government help me?

And it's because, well, you ignored all the advice. You know? You you you ignored how to stay safe. It wasn't it wasn't through, wearing, safe boots in the hurricane. It was to stay away from the hurricane. Go away. Get away. Get out of there. Mhmm. And, we want the boast. We want we want everything. We wanna stay home and and and have the excitement of the storm and not have the effects of this of the storm. Right. You know? And and it's like, it just doesn't work that way.

Alright. Dan says your love is a hurricane. Yeah. And plus I like your song. I like it. Your love is a hurricane. Last last comment on this, back to the people who are outside living in the nonmonogamous world or having safer sex because I think the implications we discussed was people within a relationship are not having safe sex only because there's no reason to and when it comes to STDs and whatnot. Right?

So, I think what what Dan just described there regarding, when everyone's telling you the same thing, everyone's telling the same thing. Alright. If you got a hurricane coming, here's what you need. You gotta get out. You gotta get Get out. Get out. You gotta do this. And this is coming from professionals, coming from experts. And since all experts agree on the one thing, the more sexual partners you have, the higher your risk for all these things happening regardless of whether you're using ceft safe we're using condom, whether you're safe techniques with insects.

It doesn't matter. Your risk is fundamentally greater than a person who is in a monogamous relationship here that, that are true to one another.

And what she did when the article was that clever play of words here. She said people outside, who are doing multiple partners, who have multiple partners here Mhmm. They're engaging in safer sex than people not. And so using her definition of, like, condoms and whatnot, that is correct. But that's not the larger picture. The larger issue is which is safer? Yeah. Which is safer? She said engaging in safe sex practices. That's not the necessarily the question. She's using a plain words to, achieve her point when the larger question is which is safer?

Yeah. And and everyone agrees secular, not secular, doesn't matter. Having multiple sexual partners regardless of safe technique is much unsafer than having a monogamous relationship. Yeah. And you notice actually that now that I'm thinking about that, like, it's a it's a skew of, well, maybe I'll say this differently. It it it reveals the source of value. Like, remember, when I was just talking about the the underlying data and the scale,

but the evaluation was, do I feel joy? Am I happy? Right? Like and so it it really it says that my it it it centers, happiness as the epic, the thing that everything otherwise then is built around. And so, am I would I be unhappy

If I committed to a relationship, a long term relationship, would I be unhappy if that person started dating someone else? Yes, I would be unhappy. If I was otherwise, in, like, a non committed relationship and that person started seeing someone else, I would be less unhappy because I wasn't committed to them and so because my happiness is paramount, it's better to have not committed. Basically,

opposite of it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. It's the opposite of that says it's better not to just not take the risk, because then you will be more happy because it won't bother you so much that the person that you weren't committed to is stepping out on you. You find yourself often rejecting Bill Shakespeare? I do. Good. I do. Alright. And this affirms that. I and so and so I I guess and I I suppose then that that makes that makes sense, right? Like, when you make that when that's the center,

I mean, it just seems it seems screwy, and it denies that there are I think it mischaracterizes our understanding of what happiness is. Right? Like, it it says there's no such thing as a mature happiness. Right? There's not inherent happiness

in a sustained relationship. And here's the thing, is they would never know that because you didn't commit to it. Like, it's the it it's the sustained benefit of monogamous relationship on, like, internal peace and happiness on being with the same person for forty years, they will never know because they reject that it could be better and they don't trust the opinion of the person who says it is because they're the one that sells. So, like, it's actually unanswerable, like, you you are it's it's two two boats clashing in the water,

of which you cannot resolve because both of them mistrust it. I would mistrust the other side and say, look, you didn't try this. So how can you tell me that it's better? That seems risky. They're like, well, yeah, but what you're doing is stupid. This is much better and I and they wouldn't know because they didn't try what I did. Difficult. And here's the deal. The the a Jesus' worldview solves that because then I say, look, Jesus knows better. I don't have your your opinion is irrelevant to me and this solves the problem here. But, like, where you can't agree on that, you're simply you're like I said, you're throwing boats to water. And, like, I I don't know that that resolves itself because the they're inherently conflicting and, they the never the two shall meet. You're never gonna know because you went the one direction rather than the other in your life. That's right. It's just and it's gonna be impossible. Yep.

Alright. Well, good. We're changing the world here. Let's let's let's go to some advice. Dear life from the path, There's this woman I've known since I was a child. She's a Jehovah's Witness. I'll call her Beatrice. Good one. She comes by my house every so often to share pamphlets and talk about her religion. She's a casual friend of my mother's who I live with, so I feel I have to let her inside when she's at the door. If it were anyone else, I'd say a polite, no. Thank you. Goodbye and shut the door. But because it's Beatrice, I'm roped into listening to her spiel. More often than not, mom's not even at home when Beatrice comes over with her pamphlets because they work similar hours. And each time I find myself trapped into listening to her jabber away while I politely smile and nod. Not only am I non religious, but I'm a member of the LGBTQ community. And I know for a fact that Beatrice shunned a family member after he came out as gay. I don't wanna keep pretending I'm interested in listening to her script or even talking to her in general, but I also don't wanna ruin my mother's friendship with her by offending her by being honest. Is there a polite way to tell Beatrice that with all due respect, I don't wanna hear about her pamphlets, and she should come by to discuss them only when my mom is home, or must I continue to smile and nod politely like I always do?

Yeah. I mean, I felt like you did alright here. Yeah. If if you don't wanna talk to Beatrice, don't talk to Beatrice. Say, look. I'm not interested. Right. Yeah. Seem like a problem. It it's it's not yeah. That's not on you. I mean, here's the deal. Beatrice probably doesn't think highly of you already, so, I mean, it's not I wouldn't wouldn't be worried about offending her. Yeah. Exactly. And, frankly, I are they different pamphlets? How many different pamphlets does she have? She have a wide variety? The Watchtower. Watchtower magazine. Yeah. So many pamphlets. Yeah. Like, every month, there's new one, isn't it? Watchtower.

Yeah. That's true. They put a Jesus is printing them off in, San Jose or wherever, somewhere in New Mexico. They're getting after it. Yeah. Yeah. I I wouldn't, I mean, all other things aside, I wouldn't sweat this. Look, if you don't wanna talk to Beatrice, just when she knocks the door, say, look, I'm just I'm I'm flat out not interested. My mom will be home at six. I'll see you later. Yeah. It's it's it's time to go ahead and come out of the closet with your friend. Yeah. That'll take care of it. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. There you go. Come out of the closet as in, come out as gay or come out of the closet that you want to, not talk to her anymore? Well because she's been hiding that too. I'd I'd do both. Do one at one one at a time and and,

you know, if you have to pull the gay card, pull it out. Two big surprises for you. Gay? Yeah. Boy. Hannah, I don't wanna talk to you. And then you can binocular on Beatrice and watch her go nuts at her house and say, by the way, I like caffeine. Was that a situation? Aren't they big caffeine people too? Oh, I don't know. I can't remember. Oh, man. I switched to decaf. Am I becoming a Jehovah's Witness? Maybe I'm No. That's the Mormons. I cannot recall. I know it's Mormons. I can't recall what to do with the kingdom's all. Well, tell tell tell them that you like the, the holidays and, you like to give blood. Yeah. There you go. There you go. I accepted blood. I mean You say the pledge of allegiance and yeah. I That's right. There you go. But, no. I I thought of, like, four different methods of how to how to stop this situation from occurring here, and I think we covered three of them. But the fourth, I think it's always a good opportunity to have a counter pamphlet.

I love counter pamphlets. A pamphlet on, blood transfusions? I have counter pamphlets are great. Alright? Because Do you have some? I mean, I mean, are you prepared with such a thing in your house for all kinds of situations? Microsoft Publisher can make trifolds so easy. Just wanna throw that out there. Take this. Kungsten, what would it take for you to produce a series of counter pamphlets for the for the folk? For what's name the subject. I'll hop on it. Okay. Alright. I'll I'll I'll come up with a list. We'll put them on the we'll put them on the website. People can use them as they see fit. A line of counter pamphlets for life in the path. Alright.

Secular says, no rule of etiquette demands that you listen to Beatrice's religious diatribes. All you need to say to her is, my mother isn't home and I'm not interested in taking your pamphlets or hearing you preach because your friend or mom's come back when mom is home and be sure to call first. Yeah. See, I'm I'm I'm starting to really think this through and I you can have some fun with this. Yeah. You know, has nothing to be torturous. Just say, here's the deal. We'll I'll listen to you, but let's do Easter eggs together. We're we're gonna decorate Easter eggs. And every every time the issue comes over, it has to be something that they're diet you know, just just plain opposed to and we're we're gonna Flags everywhere. Say the pledge before we we we can talk and and that type of thing. What could someone do? So let's say, Dan, let's say you were going door to door knocking and trying to get people to talk about Jesus. What could they do to you that would be similar? That would be offensive?

Offensive? I suppose, like, if if if, you know, someone took their top off, I'd I'd feel like the need to leave pretty quickly. Okay, that's fair, right? Something something directly that you just can't stand for. Yeah, and it's like, I just just this isn't a good idea. Yeah. You know? Dan runs away going, I can't abide. And then Dan, pull on the Joseph. Good work out of you. That's right. I can't think of anything anyone could say to me, though. She's got an Iowa shirt in her hand. I'm

sorry. It's inappropriate. Yeah. I I guess, like, we just don't run the we don't run the same risks short of them trying to get you to sin. Yeah. I mean, I just don't get offended about stuff. I mean, the Yeah. I mean, she she could they could hand me a beer. I'd probably be like, well, okay. I'll drink it with you. I mean, I'm I'm not gonna shower. If you give me six of them, I'll probably be like, okay. We gotta slow this down, you know. Hey. Can you read that the last sentence from the

the the response once more time? Secular's advice. It says The advice. Yeah. Yeah. She says, all you need to say to her is my mother isn't home and I'm not interested in taking your pamphlets or hearing you preach because you're a friend of mom's, come back when mom is home and be sure to call first. Alright. Read that last part about the counter pamphlet. Is that not in there? No. No. That you made that up. Dang it. That wasn't part of the legit advice. I thought there was a counter pamphlet. No. No. I I It's our ingenious idea. Misheard. Did I mishear? You never said that. You've come up with an idea and then put it in someone more legitimate's mind and writing so that it seems more legitimate to You're it. You're not it. No. That boost. Alright. Alright. Here we go. Dear oh, hey. You know what? I didn't I didn't go over that Paul thing. Hey. So so real quick. So Paul in in Acts wait. Last chapter of Acts, Acts 28.

Paul makes it through he's going to Rome. He knows he's going to Rome. The the the Jesus shows up and tell him he's going to Rome. So he sits in prison for two years. Then finally, he he appeals to Caesar. He's on his way to go to Rome, there's all kinds of problems. A boat shipwreck on Malta. By the way, so I was looking up that term for barbarian. Don't Gergotson, we were talking about this recently. We were. We were talking about Malta four weeks ago. That's right. Four weeks ago. Yeah. So so the the origination of the term barbarian is so the way the Bible used it and way that that, around that time would use it is basically anybody who doesn't speak Latin or Greek. Oh, okay. Right? And so and the reason they call them barbarians is from, like, they they're it's almost like a mockery of them but it's like a their version of what they say sounds like bar bar bar bar like that. Natives. Yeah. No. ESV say something else? It's bar well, the the the the root word is barb is really barbaric. Oh, They chose they chose natives just so as not to be offensive to, like, our modern ears but, like, it isn't even intended to be offensive then.

It's it's just an explanation of a language of which they don't speak Greek or Latin. Anyway Okay. So he gets out of there and he makes his way up over, let's see, to the east West Side Of Sicily and all the way to Naples and he starts walking and, like I mean, it's just it's like a throwaway sentence in here but it says that the brothers came down and they visited him and Paul was encouraged and then Paul continued on to roam. And and, like like I said, there's there's two things that I that I walked away with and I the first one was, you noticed that, like, in that part of Acts, it doesn't say they didn't do anything, like, nothing changed in Paul's life. They didn't give him anything as far as we know. It didn't alter his journey. They didn't keep going with him. Like, it's just they showed up and it said Paul was encouraged and then he kept on his way. And I thought, like, what what that put in my mind was is, one, the power of just being somewhere. And Michael Michael will tell you this. This is Mike and his family are really good at this, and he's he's told me this, like, multiple times. He's like, look, we just we we're the the the Pleasantville Foose just show up. Like, that's what we can do. Like, some we can't do everything but we can be somewhere and so, like, when people leave for trips, they'll they'll be at the airport for ten minutes and then go home. Right? Like, they're they're that that's what they do and so, like, there's something just very strong about being there and, like, I think I I've always have in my mind, I kinda have this expectation is, like, I don't have anything to offer really, like, people have friends around, they got family around and, like, whatever the various situations, like, what am I gonna do? I'm a show up there and, like, well, you're lucky Ben's here. I and then, like, I don't have any wisdom here. I don't have any presence. Yeah. That's right. I'm not bringing anything and I think, what are we gonna go for? But, like,

I I don't know. I feel like that part jumped maybe it's just jumping out at me personally, but, like, it jumps out at me and says, yeah, it's okay. It's just being there is good. Paul's encouraged even though absolutely nothing changes about his life. He didn't get good advice, he didn't get any presents, he's just encouraged that people came and then he keeps heading on and and and goes about his business and ends up in front of Caesar or whatever. And the second thing was is well, I suppose it's a couple of that. One is is to be there and and the second thing is, like, it doesn't take much and you don't have to do much always, like, don't I think sometimes and this is, again, this is probably me, I hesitate simply because I'm, like, what good will it do?

And, you know, may maybe I'll just take the risk and say, look, it'll it may not do any but it may do a lot. And so, like, can I can't we just default with maybe I'll write the letter, maybe I'll make the phone call, maybe I'll show up to the coffee, maybe I'll go to the funeral, maybe I'll go to the airport? Like, what's what we're talking fifteen minutes out of a day, just have your face show up to say, look, I cared enough to drag my behind out to whatever this is. Just and I even if I have no wisdom at all, just to shake your hand, say hello, and leave. And so I I don't know. Like, it's, it could have been just been something that's been hanging with me, but I and and it felt kind of it wasn't, like, the main point of the of acts 28. But it just made me think that, like, there's there's a lot of little things

that, that maybe we feel like we have a high bar we have to to cross. We actually have to be useful but, like, it's it's alright just to be there. And when was the last time you received a hard paper thank you card? I mean, like, really? Not related to, like, gifts and, like, there were gifts and everything. No birthdays, no No. Yeah. Birthdays and and and stuff. Not related to that. Like, real actual thank you card. Dan, same question for you. No. No, I I can't a text. Like, I've got a text, does that Text, emails, no. No. Hard to thank you card. It

it it's work. It would have been work related, like, at my job and probably, like, two years ago. Dude, was that was that more meaningful than a text? Oh, yes. Definitely. A handwritten note? Yeah. Definitely. Dan Hudson, what about you? I don't I don't remember. I don't remember. It's a long It's I mean, it's I I'm a teacher so I get some handwritten thank you cards Yeah. Every year here. And they are some of the most meaningful things. It's just, first off, because, you know, you hear about this generation that doesn't do anything, that doesn't write at all at all, like, handwrite Yeah. Anymore. Handwriting is dead. No one does cursive anymore. Yeah. But there's That's not true, Greg? No. I think it I think it is. No. It is true. For for the most part, which actually makes the thank you cards you do receive and this is and this is actually gift related here. Yeah. When when I give them just like a a letter that I say, hey, good luck, and I give them some advice and whatnot. But sometimes, it is out of nowhere just, hey, it was a great year.

Thank you. Yeah. And Yeah. And they're incredibly meaningful. So to your point, yeah, I should write that letter. Yeah. Yeah. I should just go and show up here. Especially in 2018, I I feel that we're living in a we're so connected and yet we're so isolated.

I think this this paradox is something that people people much smarter than me have spoken to many times. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We are a part of this great, community, not just a digital community, but just actual neighborhood communities, and yet we're so isolated as well. And so when we have those opportunities to do something that stands out, even if it seems so tiny, think it's worth doing. And so even two thousand years ago, Paul traveling up through, through Italy stopping by here, Paul was encouraged. Why? Because he was just there. Yeah. There are people there. And and I have to assume, it didn't say Paul encouraged. It said Paul was encouraged. Right. Yeah. They encouraged him. Yeah. No. I have to assume it was reciprocal. But Well, I'm sure they're excited to see him. Yeah. But, yeah, that that's that's it's gonna happen for both parties. Yeah. Get after it. Yeah. I like that. And I like the the letters, we actually we were talking about this in reaction, like, part of the takeaways of of Acts 28 and, like, about writing writing a letter is, like, it's it's it's, phone calls are good but they they do fade, like, you forget the words, you forget the voice but, like, something you can hold, like, that that serves as encouragement not only the day you're holding it but a week later and a month later and two years later. It's there's something about having something tangible to hold on to and, like, searching back through your text message to find it isn't it's just not it's not quite the same. I wrote I did handwritten I did, like, long form handwritten Christmas cards a couple years ago,

and that was good. It was a cool it was a it was a good exercise and then I got lazy and I couldn't I didn't do it again. But, like, it was yeah, there's just something about and, like, I mean, some of it, like, it's not just a a a nostalgia thing, like, is there's something about it. There's something, like, I've put physical things into a sheet of paper and mailed it and then something that you get to hold and look at and that, that even seeing the seeing your name signed at the bottom or seeing the envelope that it comes in, like, name carries power, your how you treat people carries something very strong with it and so, like, I got plenty of people whose name pops on my phone that I don't even I won't even consider answering but then there's a few people who if I see it on the phone, heck yeah.

I'd And, like, a letter in the mail from them might be good and, like, even to churches actually when we, a couple years ago, maybe a year and a half ago, no, it was two years ago as a church, we sent it we tried to send some encouraging things to other other people, like, whether it be missionaries or churches or whatever. Just writing something down and putting and saying, look, hey, we're we're praying for you. Because, like, that was the, I think we were studying Philippians and, like, that's what it was. It was an encouragement to another church and we thought, well, heck, we could do that. We should do that. Mhmm. And, like, it just anyway, and those those were my takeaways from it and I I thought it was it was relatively minor in the story but, like, I think the implications are pretty, it could be pretty impactful and that even if you change something minor about your day to day life and say, yeah, I'm gonna write the letter and make the phone call, I'm gonna show up to the thing, just know it makes a difference. Yeah. Dang it, Ben Foos. Yep. Makes a difference. You have now changed

casual Hudson policy. Well, bummer. Alright. Because the casual Hudson policy, for example, I'll tell you, three weeks ago, friends came over, just had a baby. Yep. Alright. Had a baby gift for him. Right? Yep. And I don't like writing thank you cards very much. I don't think anyone really likes after a big event where you have to write like a 100 of them. No one So my I give them the gift and then I give them a second gift. It's a blank piece of paper. I say, hey, sign the bottom of that. They're like, okay. And so he signed it. And then I took the paper back. I quickly said I quickly wrote, thank you for the gift, Greg and Kelsey Hudson. And then I folded it up. I gave it to them. And then I said, give that to me. And then they gave it to me and it said, thank you, Greg and Kelsey Hudson. Signed. Zachary. And it was and it was great because it's it's a it's a fun little thing here. Yeah. And yet that actually deprives some meaning from thank you cards. Mean, I could write they could write their own, but I would say you invested in that conversation more than most people would and so I you're probably alright there. I'm probably safe. If you're looking for ways to to to apply, I you might let that one go. There's probably other things you can

That's a that's a Hudson favorite. Okay. You card. What a great secondary gift. Anyway alright. Here we go. Let's finish this out. Dear life in the bath. I'm really upset about something my best friend did involving a cruise that's planned for next February. Because of financial setbacks, we can no longer afford the trip. She went ahead and paid for our cruise. I was so upset I called the travel agent, tried to cancel the trip, but was informed it was nonrefundable. And now we are locked into a cruise that's still going to cost us $1,500 or more in other expenses while we are on the cruise. I like to pay my own way and have never asked anyone for help or money. She said it was a gift, not a loan, and I was being ungrateful. So I finally accepted the gift. Now I'm gonna have this hanging over my head. It's putting us in more financial trouble, so we're trying to get a loan to cover the extra expenses. I don't think I can enjoy the trip now. Am I ungrateful? She's been my best friend for more than forty years and I don't want this to affect our friendship. What should I do at this point?

Yes. I agree with Dan. You're ungrateful. Knock it off. So, like, if you have to get a part time job, put a $100 away a month, you got a year. Right? The next year? February, so you got five months. Oh, okay. Okay. I mean, you know, you can figure out a way. I mean Yeah. I mean, it really bothers you Sell widgets, have a garage sale. I don't know. Rice and beans, as Dan Dave Ramsey would say. Rice and beans for five months and you're gonna live like a king or queen on that cruise, as it were. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, 50 I mean yeah. I I mean, let them pay for it if you want to. How how are the $1,500 more expenses on a cruise? I guess I haven't been on a cruise, but, I mean Excursions and stuff I get there, I assume. Yeah. Just stay on the boat.

You have to do that stuff. Yeah. The extra thing, you're right. But like the maybe it's like Greg said, the transportation to get there. There's very Yeah. Those stupid porter fees, you know, so everybody's gotta pay, like, those random fees and tips and things. Yeah. It adds up, you know. I got two of them. Right? 400 plus 400. So 800 for flights plus yeah, it's probably gonna cost another $1,500, maybe. Worst case, thousand at least. Two of them. Right? Yeah. That's what it sounds like anyway. But, no, that's that's an amazing I mean, I agree with you guys. I mean, it's what a what a great gift and

I have found that well, actually, no one's ever really given me a $1,500 gift or anything. But if somebody offers that, I I believe they mean it. People do not toss around 1,500 gifts lightly. Yeah. Yeah, right. I mean, you've been friends for forty years, like, it doesn't it it doesn't seem to be a person who's, like, intending to actually deceive you and hang this over your head. That doesn't make any sense. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I accept the gift and, you know Write a handwritten thank you card. That's right. That's right. Dear, to whom it may concern. Yeah. I mean, like and I agree. It may take some effort to get the $1,500

and that's a that's a bummer. But, you know, it's not $3 because it sounds like they paid for half of the trip. So, you know yeah. Yeah. Get the job. Get the job, save on Christmas and then use this as your Christmas present, like There you here's the deal. It's like, I'd like, I know $1,500 it frankly, it's just not that much money, to be honest. Like, a part time jog at at at the Taco John's, you you still come up within a reasonable amount of time.

And I'm I'm not sure what the situation is but, like, I mean, in a pinch, $1,500 can be come up with. Ten hours a week, Taco John's. Yeah. $100 after taxes, $70 a week. Yeah. Ten weeks is $700. So twenty weeks, yeah. Yeah. It's not it's not fun but you're gonna that's what you're building for. Yeah. And plus, it sounds like if you've been friends for forty years, they really this sounds like kind of a bucket list trip. Yeah. Yeah. Not like in the death sense, but like, hey, we've always wanted to do this together. Let's do this. Don't deprive the joy of someone offering you a fantastic gift because they wanna spend great time with you. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Alright. Secular oh, shoot. I lost it. This is why Mike does this type of thing. And that wasn't for my wife, was it? Because we're supposed to go on a cruise on a year and a half or so with some friends. I'd like to know if they paid for our cruise.

No. I mean, it does not say. I feel disappointed right now. Oh, man. I lost it. Oh, I feel like, this is absolutely about you. But one more one more point on the cruise. I mean, everything that we talked about and going back to what said Paul encouraged. I mean, this is certainly not a spiritual thing that's happening here. However, your mere presence, being there is encouraging someone else. And I feel like that should be a factor here. Yeah. Yeah. And and that that might cost you a little time and effort, but it's worth it. Absolutely.

Yeah. Yeah. So says, your generous friend acted on impulse without considering the fact that even with her paying your fare, the cruise would still cost you money. Forgive her for her mistake, take the trip, and do your best to enjoy it so you don't ruin the trip for her. They bought a cruise. Darn them all the heck. Last. Alright. You've been listening live from the past. Big thanks to Greg Hudson for joining us this evening. Word. And let's see. You know, we'll we'll do a show as when we darn will, please, hopefully, within the next few weeks. In the meantime, be faithful in the means, and God will handle the ends. You've been listening to Live From The Path.