As such, I beg to disagree with the notion that teaching moral behavior as a series of do or do nots is a bad idea if it creates aversion pathing away from those elements of life which do not contribute to our well being. But that it is equally dangerous to suppose that, once those conditions are recognized, we must be defined in our paths that we don’t see anything -but- the dangers.

A woman in a bar that gets drunk is not stupid for being drunken but for being in a bar, alone, without companions to make it enjoyable as well as safe. You want the TIME to make something like walking a few kilometers a day, you recognize that being in the bar getting drunk is an indulgence of the pain of injury or frustration rather than ‘walking it off’, treatment.

A lot of this can be taught only when done early because it is something that only the very young can imprint without noteable purpose, just expectation. Today, like yesterday and the day before that, we will walk out our front door and turn a given direction on a street, only to open it again coming the other way. Because we just do. Until the mind is old enough to imprint a sunset. Or a friendly neighbor’s dog. Or the rush of running through grass. Those small moments being what we seek as trust and coherence when hurting. Not drugs or alcohol.

I also have a great deal of trouble with blanket definitions of flaws in people’s habits and personal behaviors as being decision based as much as they are pathed-out trends.

A person who is used to eating a little on their own schedule (as many kinds can again be trained to do very well) will get thrown off their stride when forced to a schedule which regiments their eating and then forces the ‘shared experience’ to be set around fixed portions of calorie dense food and time allocated purpose. Where this occurs among strangers or in some other stressed environment, you end up with poor = urgent eating habits just to get away from the merged-herd sense.

Additionally, some people are metabolically optimized to a feast famine cycle which both exercises their bodies to the point of beginning to lose muscle density and then ‘clean’ of accumulated food product, feeds them to refill the metabolic tank. This is why a lot of people who do hard physical work do so on a basis of wanting to get it done before feasting. It probably goes back to our HG days and specifically the need to return with food that is fresh rather than gorging and falling into digestive torpor.

Finally, I would say that those who inhabit bars are not all the lonely exploitationists looking for a common motive to push the barrier of denial or accept the stress of excess in themselves as the stereotype image might seem to suggest. Anymore than a pretty young woman who becomes a nude model is truly a slut.

Where you seek a common bond of experience and the streets are empty and desolate after nightfall even as work isolation consumes much of your daily life, you party hearty, not in an attempt to defuse your experience of pain or frustration, but to maximize what is left of your freetime as your native personality suggests in the return of a subliminated need to share the moment, be it as hunter or willing prey.

A woman raised in awareness of her own beauty may either live in fear of it’s loss as the acceptance of others diminished interest or in excess awareness of it’s leverage as a means to be superior to others ‘while she can’. And we think of her as a carpetbagger on the hunt. Respected but still less than attractive.

Yet a woman who simply /is/, as a function of experiencing the moment in it’s innocence as much as expression can be infinitely more appealing in her simpleness despite a lack of ‘moral awareness’ as the limits of a non-existent defense/advantage psychology. To her the adventure of being treated to the moment’s experiece is it’s own stimulation to an ever higher trusting state from which the road thus-far is pleasant and her acceptance as a sexual creature being brought to heat of display is neither unnatural nor suggesting of danger.

Because it isn’t among those who see it for what it is.

What is sad is that, in a society which has no Etruscan orgies among friends of common trust and dignity, there is no outlet of sharing her sacrifice in pleasure as a shared feast of the senses for all. Thus you have a magnificence turned cheap by the very anonymity in which, yes, she is ‘completely safe’ yet not a gift to herself or to those who brought her to the moment. But simply a commodity whose vulgar use is as visually singular in it’s mass availability as it is ultimately untouchable and cold.

If anything, your words should not teach us that ‘situational ethics’ are the outer boundaries of who we may safely expect to be. But the vergence of will and desire across an inner horizon that suggests who we want to be.

‘Should’ in this instance is but an acknowledgment that -can- is dependent upon the will of society. To maintain the chaotic rhythms by which ‘norm’ is a transient blessing of detachment from the swing of the pedestal between modals of asceticism and hedonistic bliss.

All things in moderation, including moderation. Is the moral efficiency of an organism for whom the stopping of the pendulum of /want/ as a vector of submission to ‘should’ is akin unto death.

KPl.