Morals, why does it seem that a lot of people don't care to follow them anymore?

[Diaforetikos]

THE WORD MORAL IN THIS TOPIC REFERS TO LAW OR RULE.

Morals, ideas given to us by a form of authority that we should follow.
During America's efforts in 'Nam, Americans seemed to become more individual (there were efforts before this, but none were as drastic as Vietnam). The idea of listening to "The Man" was no longer cool. People wanted peace. The best way to get it was to show authority that no one can tell anyone what to do. This was good for a while. Then the idea slowly died away from the hippies, and it was passed on to the common folk. The idea of "Who put you in charge?," became famous.
The Bible was the first to get looked at with eyes of personal authority. All the rules in it were pissed on by people desiring to be free. Then laws began to arise. The laws summed up to mean that no one wants to be told what to do.
If you weren't part of the government, your rules meant nothing. Your morals were "your morals." This idea of being free began to take on a more selfish mask. Instead of looking out for everyone's wellbeing, people only cared about themselves. The idea that "I'm the boss of me" grew and took over the minds of many. It is still with us to this day.




I wanted to touch on this topic a little more. Morals were a big thing in this country, but that has changed. The word moral barely exists in our vocabulary. I know almost everyone on this forum could care less about morals and laws, but I have a feeling they were put there for a reason.

Without morals, authority falls down the drain. Leaders wont be leaders anymore because no one wants to put in the effort of being shut down. Yes, the fall, rise, or steady streak of  leadership is a topic all its own, but it does link with this topic. No one gives a shit about others anymore. People think everything is OK to do as long as its not hurting someone. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I summed up America's only moral.

I wanna talk not only about morals, but why the authority in which they are from aren't followed. The morals that people debate everyday. If this topic is too broad, just give the word and I'll narrow it down to a more specific topic.

I'll start with premarital sex. People say its fine. Why? I believe its horrible. If you can't keep your hormones in your pants until after the wedding, then I'm sorry for your weakness in self control. But don't go hating me because I'm trying to be positive with this idea. Again, the ideas off hatred towards morals like this come from selfishness. I am not judging, and I am not hating on anyone who has already done it, but for the people who actually thinks its alright, I don't see why. The idea of premarital sex isn't the big deal for me. The big thing with me is the reasons why it isn't being followed. It was an idea set for a good reason. It was also given out by an authority figure from long ago. I don't see anything wrong with following these kind of morals.

Please give me your thoughts.


I'm gonna get if for this one. Haha

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

You've got it backwards.
Morals haven't gone anywhere.  If they have you'd have MORE killings, MORE theft, MORE rape.
NYC alone has had LESS killings, LESS theft, and LESS rape than it's had in decades.  You saw that right?  Decades, as in plural.  As in 20+ years.  Sounds like people are practicing the law there.

The big difference comes when you look at the common broken laws.  Jay walking.  Not stopping at a stop sign and instead doing a rolling stop.  Downloading music or movies.  "Victimless crimes" they like to call them.  Years ago NYC was full of prostitutes - 42nd avenue was a god damn filth hole.  It's clean as a whistle today.  My old high school was a dead end, you know how many people I know in high school still alive?  Yeah, it's easier to name the dead ones.  Now it has one of the best programs for education in the entire city.

It's the dangers of knowledge.  The "apple" if you will, the fruit of the tree of knowledge - yes I know the legend doesn't say apple, but you know.  Anyway, you say premarital sex.  One I think that topic would be better all on it's own.  Two, there's no rule against it unless you follow a particular faith.  I for one am not religious, and the law has never told me I can't have it.  No rule.  Sure at one time there was a rule - but this is a better debate on it's own.  Mainly because it will totally take this thread over and undermines the adult mind.

The reason people "don't" follow authority, is because it's so much easier to hear about it.
In the 50's, you didn't hear what the "cool kids" were doing in mainstream.  In the 70's, everything was still sugar coated.  It was the 80's that actually popped the bubble on that one, when mainstream actually fell into the "cool kids" actions and "immoral" behavior - sure you had movies like easy rider before hand, but the 80's made waves and waves on it.  Nowadays we have documentaries on PBS about meth heads.  You hear things now.

In the 30's there weren't commercials going on about how you wouldn't steal this or that, so don't steal a record.  Today, we have those commercials saying don't download music or movies.  In the 60's you didn't have a massive anti drug campaign during children television - you do now.  You didn't have blood soaked violence where you can sleep with prostitutes and tear peoples spines out in videogames in the 80's.  Now. You. Do.
The world looks a hell of a lot bleaker than it did some time ago.

Just like some time ago.  When Elvis was swinging his hips and blacks and whites were starting to *gasp* intermingle, the world then, looked a lot bleaker than it did some time ago.

It's the moral evolution.  You find it everywhere after major generation events.  Things alter and change.  And every generation looks to the past and talks about how they have nothing to look forward to.  And every generation hears the ones before say that about their own, and believes it.  It's all bull.

Your grandchildren's generation won't be any better or worse set as far as morals and ethics go.  We just won't recognize the shift.  Like our grandparents don't with our time.  Remember, it used to be rude to walk down the street with a young lady, that was a virtue and a moral that was very important.  They would be hussies.  Whores.
Because good virtue, ethics, and morals dictate - and I do mean dictate - that they walk with a male relative, or do not walk at all.  And when they started to walk with other men, let alone by themselves - I can tell you, rest assured, someone looked at that and said "God damn it, there just aren't any morals left in the world"

 

[Sic Semper Tyranosaurus]

I'll start with premarital sex. People say its fine. Why? I believe its horrible.

Marriage is a societal construct with regulations and norms that vary from society to society and decade to decade. http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4166/eng101kq8.gif[/img] The rule against premarital sex is so popular because a woman who isn't a virgin is (to our lizard brain) probably carrying a child that isn't ours.

I'm gonna get if for this one. Haha

And you'll deserve it all! :cheers:

 

[Diaforetikos]

It's the dangers of knowledge.  The "apple" if you will, the fruit of the tree of knowledge - yes I know the legend doesn't say apple, but you know.  Anyway, you say premarital sex.  One I think that topic would be better all on it's own.  Two, there's no rule against it unless you follow a particular faith.  I for one am not religious, and the law has never told me I can't have it.  No rule.  Sure at one time there was a rule - but this is a better debate on it's own.  Mainly because it will totally take this thread over and undermines the adult mind.

Thats all I needed to hear for that part. I'll continue that topic some other time.

What you have said sixty still shouldn't excuse a society from being immoral. Our culture cares less and less. It use to be mandatory to wear your work clothes tucked in and ironed. I see people everyday with wrinkled shirts, their button up shirts not tucked in, and there wearing white socks. This isn't a super big deal, but just a small change is still a change. We don't care anymore.

Others countries hate us for many reasons. Some people in other countries hate us because we are immoral. No care or concern for anything. Just live life and die.

And you'll deserve it all!  :cheers:

Hahahaha, thanks.  :lol:

 

[Kav]

People think everything is OK to do as long as its not hurting someone. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I summed up America's only moral.

Uh, yeah?? That makes perfect sense. What's wrong with that?

 

[Zekallinos]

It's the moral evolution.  You find it everywhere after major generation events.  Things alter and change.  And every generation looks to the past and talks about how they have nothing to look forward to.  And every generation hears the ones before say that about their own, and believes it.  It's all bull.

I have to agree with that. Today, people's moral is just different. Nowdays, it's somewhat "It's immoral to not have the freedom of doing what we want". This includes premarital sex, the muslim fighting for their rights (here in Quebec it's quite a fuss), any older religious stuff (driking, talking against god, etc). Moral is not an absolute, it's made up by people and (usually) agreed by the majority. It is bound to change overtime. And today, change made it so that humility, reservation and all that are no longer in their high place as before.

 

[FlippyD]

Morals... I want to agree with you, and that people nowadays are a bit colder and bitter than they used to be (just comparing the behavior between my high school class and the current one :down but your examples are off.

Just because someone had sex before getting married it doesn't mean they're immoral, just immoral to your specific belief. I think what you want to consider is morals held by the majority, and the majority of people don't believe in your moral. It has nothing to do with weakness or a way of "sticking it to the man" (unless you're doing it to piss off your parents or something.) And, I think people acting bitter and like assholes is because of the increased feeling of helplessness and angst. The world's becoming a whiny little emo prick.

 

[Stardust]

It's not that we've lost sight of morals.  They've just changed.  My grandma thinks that if a man and a woman are together, they must be having sex.  In this mindset, men and women can never be friends.  This seems ridiculous now (or at least to me).  We're not as professional as we used to be because we need to show people our personality.  There are so many people now that you can't just blend in or you'll be seen as replaceable.  We are obtaining a greater need to stand out.  We are, essentially, adapting to our environment.

 

[rey meustrus]

Ah, what I like to call the "Good Old Days Syndrome."  Because something happened in the past and we can look at in with 20/20 hindsight, it always looks better than the present.  We are able to understand how things worked back then, and because we are removed from the environment we are able to objectively analyze it and determine that it's not that bad.  This is not the case with the modern day.  Because we are in it, we observe it subjectively, trying to figure out what is wrong with it because we want to figure out what we can change for the better.  At least, that's why some people would be searching for flaws.  Most start out that way, but if the goal isn't kept in mind most will get side tracked preaching about the "wrongs" of our generation, our "moral depravity," and how much better things used to be...in the Good Old Days.

And what exactly is the standard for morality?  Yours?  Morals are, by definition, subjective.  One point of religion is to get as many people as possible to believe in the same set of morals, and even then there is conflict within the faith as to what parts of the rules apply, and when.  Law as we see it in our varied systems of government is the materialization of a collective morality, determined by vote in democratic systems, and there will always be those that do not agree with this collective.  However, I will say something of this "morality" that you speak of, and this "weakness in self control."

What is self control?  Is it simply the act of not doing something?  It can be said that one is controlling themselves when, as perhaps a monk, he isolates himself from all contact with women, becoming entirely celibate.  The monk grows his own food and lives a very simple life, seeking enlightenment or another such spiritually powerful concept.  But perhaps he is not controlling himself.  Perhaps he is controlling his environment to remove the temptation.  If a man has a law to say that he cannot be lustful, that law may prevent him from doing so--but is that self-control?  Is it meaningful to a person's strength (or weakness) if his environment has changed, and not his individuality?  I would propose that the greatest example of self-control would be in the slums.  A man is surrounded by prostitutes and loose women.  He is in the middle of gang wars.  The only reliable means of sustenance is involvement in drug trafficking.  He has every opportunity to lie, cheat, steal, and kill.  This is where self control is most meaningful, should he choose to live without following any of those opportunities.  In a sheltered world, your actions are only as meaningful as they are better than society.

Unfortunately I chose to use some dirty metaphors in my post.  Please excuse the rampant sexism of my statements, that they assume the greatest moral dystrophy comes from women, taking no meaning from the women themselves other than as sources of immorality; it was easy, but hardly appropriate of me.

 

[Diaforetikos]

What is self control?  Is it simply the act of not doing something?  It can be said that one is controlling themselves when, as perhaps a monk, he isolates himself from all contact with women, becoming entirely celibate.  The monk grows his own food and lives a very simple life, seeking enlightenment or another such spiritually powerful concept.  But perhaps he is not controlling himself.  Perhaps he is controlling his environment to remove the temptation.  If a man has a law to say that he cannot be lustful, that law may prevent him from doing so--but is that self-control?  Is it meaningful to a person's strength (or weakness) if his environment has changed, and not his individuality?  I would propose that the greatest example of self-control would be in the slums.  A man is surrounded by prostitutes and loose women.  He is in the middle of gang wars.  The only reliable means of sustenance is involvement in drug trafficking.  He has every opportunity to lie, cheat, steal, and kill.  This is where self control is most meaningful, should he choose to live without following any of those opportunities.  In a sheltered world, your actions are only as meaningful as they are better than society.

I believe in having self control no matter what situation. I have friends who drink constantly. Borderline alcoholics. I hang out with them all the time, party, chill, whatever. They drink in front of me. I have been tempted to have a taste many times. I put myself in an environment where I could lose my self control and fall into something I don't think is right. But I have never had a drink. I can't. I try to be stronger than that. Any belief that I will break my self control is just a mindset that I must break. If people think, "You will lose self control, everyone does," I don't believe them. I can't my morals set my life. I am weak if I can't control myself.

Back on topic... The morals I speak of are common morals. The ones this country held before gangs and mass murders were a huge deal(I know murder isn't new, but the rise of it wasn't big until the 70s I wanna say. I'm probably wrong.) Not my own personal judgments. I may seem a little extreme. I guess I expect too much.

As for the change in time, I see how it would effect what morals we have. I just think people don't care anymore. So as time went on, so did our carelessness for others. What if a man wearing a T-shirt and shorts went to a court case, and he hes the one on trial? Morals like such seem to be gone. That moral was put there for respect issues. Its not gone, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened anytime soon.

I'm young, so I don't know how it really was way back when.

People think everything is OK to do as long as its not hurting someone. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I summed up America's only moral.

Uh, yeah?? That makes perfect sense. What's wrong with that?

We have no care for others. We just let people live their life. Our mindset has gone from, "I wanna help that guy," to, "He can do what he wants. It ain't hurting me." The guy is about to get jumped for making a wrong choice. Someone didn't help guide him. If he doesn't want the help, then thats fine. His choice, but ask or try.

Small gestures to help people. I guess our beliefs(not religious), are gone. So helping people do what is right depends on who is helping them. Some might see there situation as not that bad. Others may say thats horrible, and others my think the person is a genius. We had more of a common moral. Some were stronger than others, but they were there. We have become so divided, we fucked ourselves over in a way. Like I said, I expect too much.

 

[Stardust]

We just let people live their life.

Here's the key phrase.  We let them live their life.  We don't tell them how to live their life as much as before.  It's their life, their choice.

 

[Sic Semper Tyranosaurus]

Back on topic... The morals I speak of are common morals. The ones this country held before gangs and mass murders were a huge deal(I know murder isn't new, but the rise of it wasn't big until the 70s I wanna say. I'm probably wrong.) Not my own personal judgments. I may seem a little extreme. I guess I expect too much.

Yep. It was all tips of the bowler hat and kind words to ladies until the 70s came around with its birth control and its bad pants.http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5688/emot911np9.gif[/img]

http://unkemptgroogles.googlepages.com/gangs.jpg[/img]
Let us not forget the world's first gang war, started by Jonas "Hot Funk" Johanson in 1974.

P.S. I am being sarcastic.

P.P.S. You are dim, naive, and far too old for your age.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

What if a man wearing a T-shirt and shorts went to a court case, and he hes the one on trial? Morals like such seem to be gone. That moral was put there for respect issues. Its not gone, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened anytime soon.

What in the hell does your dress attire have to do with "morals"?

Wasn't it a good moral to have, if you didn't judge a book by it's cover?
Wasn't it a good moral to have, if you didn't condemn someone for personality?

I went to court twice most recently.  The first time I was found guilty of assault, I wore a tie.  The second time it was turned over, thrown out the window - and I wore a stained pair of jeans, converse sneakers, and a t-shirt depicting a metal band from Sweden with lots of fire in the design.  Thank god "good morals" don't = a dress code, else I'd have been guilty the entire time.  The false witness, he wore a god damn suit and tie, so I guess he had better morals even though he lied under oath, whereas I told the truth - even minorly incriminating truth, admitting to striking the "defendant".

The Native Americans could very well have had fine morals.  They kept to treaties signed and words promised while better dressed and fully clothed people gave them smallpox and other diseases by way of purposely infected blankets.

Morals isn't what you wear on the outside.

 

[Zekallinos]

\We have become so divided, we fucked ourselves over in a way. Like I said, I expect too much.

This part is true. The individual rights are beginning to prime over the collective rights. You often have to accomodate a very small minority at the cost of the majority. But again, this is simply a different moral, priming for freedom and all that. Truth be told, what is wrong with wearing this clothes or that clothes? It is simply we who decided that you look better, more professional when you wear a full suit. But a full suit is just another invention of the designers is it not? What if, by tomorrow, a brand new exotic suit with weird ties and ribbons came into the market and became common place in business relations? Does that mean it is immoral, that we let ourselves lose self-control?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

You often have to accomodate a very small minority at the cost of the majority.

I can be pulled aside and be searched randomly at an airport, have my privacy and private belongings invaded.  To protect more people than I add up to.

I can be given a citation for playing my music loudly, because it is bothering the neighbors, who add up to more people than I do by my lonesome.

Can I have a few examples where the minority wins out against the majority, in a true sense?

The thing is most times when people say a line like that, they confuse it.
A man's word is protected by free speech - even though it was extremely offensive to everyone who saw it.  Is his rite a small minority costing the majority?  Because your not hitting his free speech, or his ability to say it - but rather the ability to say anything once deemed offensive.  Artistic expression, power of opinion, the very different and very basic styles of freedom of speech are now thrown in - and that applies to everyone.  Your including everyone's freespeech there - not a minorty, or a majority, but a singular universal.  I don't know if this would've been your or anyone's example, but I know last time I had asked for an example in another thread, and this scenario was the one given, mistakingly by someone believing this one comedian's rites superseded everyone else's.  Not realizing it was a very basic universal rite, applying to even themselves on the internet.

 

[Diaforetikos]

I don't want everyone to be told what morals to listen to and I don't want anyone to dress a certain way. I was talking about dress code in the court room because it was respectful to be dressed nice. Don't ask me why it was, it just was.

P.P.S. You are dim, naive, and far too old for your age.

I think i am too. Thats what America does to you. I still have my fun though and I don't judge. I just ask questions. People just take it the wrong way.

Here's the key phrase.  We let them live their life.  We don't tell them how to live their life as much as before.  It's their life, their choice.

So you would have a man die knowing with a little help, you could have saved his life? I am not talking extreme and I also do mean force help onto the person. Just help him if he wants. Just ask, if he says no, his loss. And where did I mention anywhere that I want people to be told what to do?

Thanks all for posting. This is the kind of reaction I was hoping to receive.

 

[ringtail]

Touching on the topic of premarital sex vs. self-control; I'm a virgin and I never gave myself up to someone. Why? Because I have morals, ones I've rooted deep inside myself since I was young, by my parents and by myself. I could have had sex, and honestly, I would've made a big mistake and probably would've regretted it. I would've spoiled my first time with someone I didn't love, and that means a lot to some people, but not everyone. Which I understand. But, things like this are why some pig-headed people exist in the world, men and women. Not to be harsh, but its true and I don't mean it for everyone, just some people. So, don't take it into defense when I say this about sexually deviant people, but some people are just plain sick, and if they HAD morals, some self-control, and respect for others, then maybe society wouldn't be so horrible as it is lately.

People who have sex for fun... could lead to far worse things. Plus, if you watch all these young people, or older, in relationships having sex like rabbits before they get married, don't you notice that a majority of those relationships fail and were pointless to pursue to begin with? Mostly because people get bored of each other and screwed themselves over; wasting time. Not to mention, it leads to things that people aren't ready for; babies, diseases, and so on. Why? Because people don't care. Which is a whole new topic in itself. I don't know how many chicks I've met, know, and heard of going to get an abortion, using it more as a means of birth-control than really needing it, just so they can go back out and have tons of sex again. And why? What is it doing for you, pleasing you for a few minutes of your life, is that all some people want to live for, whats the honest point in that? Nothing, as far as I can see, I guess I don't look at things like most people do. I'm glad for that.

Even before I followed a faith, I held onto my v-card for personal reasons. I'm glad to say I have self-control, though most people will think it's ridiculous, or pointless to say so, but I'm glad I kept it in my pants. Plus, waiting, makes it better, in my opinion. If you have sex before marriage, then you do get married, would you expect more out of your spouse? The experience wouldn't be as great, if only you had waited? Its something I feel is important, I know many of you will disagree that's fine, just don't bash me for voicing my opinion. Take it or leave it. People NEED morals, I think. And not just for sex, for a lot of things. It's annoying to see how careless, lazy, and disrespectful society is turning into. Is it so hard to have good morals?

Sorry for pulling a topic out of a topic, just thought I'd give my two cents on something. C:

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I don't want everyone to be told what morals to listen to and I don't want anyone to dress a certain way. I was talking about dress code in the court room because it was respectful to be dressed nice. Don't ask me why it was, it just was.

I was pulling on it because of the perception people have.
It wasn't about respect, it was about fitting a mold.

If someone says your a criminal you will try to prove your not.  Perception to the eyes of the court , look like a thousand bucks, and why would you be the guy stealing?  Look impressive, and you become impressive.  Look like a criminal, and you become a criminal.  It was never about respect, it was about fitting in with the aristocracy, to appear more like them.

People who have sex for fun... could lead to far worse things. Plus, if you watch all these young people, or older, in relationships having sex like rabbits before they get married, don't you notice that a majority of those relationships fail and were pointless to pursue to begin with?

Notice that chefs cook a lot of food, and often get bored with the same taste.  It's not pointless, it's anything but pointless.
"Love", that is relationships with a certain amount of dependency, take care of a very basic set of natural desires.  One being companionship, two being breeding, and the third is -yes- fun.  Humans need to have companionship, we crave it.  We need to settle our urge to procreate, though we're taught at such a young age not to.  We distort our nature there.  Even animals in the wild have fun and play games.

Even if I wanted to be really sleazy about it, and take very bad scenarios it's still never a waste, it's a learning experience.  You hit against different pitchers to get better if your a pitcher for baseball, you shoot against different people if your in basketball, you alternate goalies in hockey - it's practice :p.  But seriously.  A relationship is never a waste of time, even if it was just sex, or no sex.  It's called life.  There's thousands of tastes out there, some like vanilla, others think vanilla is boring, and others are afraid to try a rich taste simply because it's different.  A chef may experiment with a new taste, and find it's not suitable - but it's experience, even in a relationship without sex it's experience.






Oh and not to anyone in specific, you do realize that being a virgin doesn't mean you held your self control in check.  Just like not being a virgin doesn't mean that you couldn't control yourself.  Some people haven't had the chance, or were to afraid to take it, and are still virgins - and claim to hold their control, when really they were willing to jump.  Others have self control, and have no guilt or shame over giving themselves to someone for the first time, even if it wasn't a life long relationship.
Self control is like morals.  Eye of the beholder.

 

[Stardust]

Here's the key phrase.  We let them live their life.  We don't tell them how to live their life as much as before.  It's their life, their choice.

So you would have a man die knowing with a little help, you could have saved his life? I am not talking extreme and I also do mean force help onto the person. Just help him if he wants. Just ask, if he says no, his loss. And where did I mention anywhere that I want people to be told what to do?

Me?  I'd certainly helped.  But it shouldn't be required.  For some reason, I had trouble understanding what you were saying, so I apologize if I'm a little off.

I'll give you an example.  In an episode of Seinfeld, the group is arrested under the Good Samaritan Act because they didn't help a person who was being robbed.  They were arrested, and although they were obviously being cruel, I disagree with the law.  You shouldn't force someone to help with laws, or even with morals.  What if the robber had a gun?  There's a reason we have police.  They're trained.  We're not.  I wouldn't hold it against someone if they didn't try to stop a robber, but some people would because of these morals.

I'm going to assume you aren't talking about something that extreme, though.  I have a habit of making extremely harsh comparisons.  Either way, we all have our own lives.  What if someone's mother was dieing in the hospital, and on their way, someone needed help pushing their car.  That person will probably ignore all other problems because there's a crisis in their life, and now everyone who agrees with these morals will think he was just being a jerk and refusing to help someone.  We're not the same.  Our situations aren't the same.  That's why it should be our decision.  Because only we know ourselves.

 

[Diaforetikos]

I guess ringtail agrees with me. I just think America would have more structure if it had stronger morals. I wouldn't want them to be forced on anyone, but just to have a majority of the people believing the same thing would bring a little more balance. But thats a far fetched dream. I have high standards and never let my best stop me from achieving perfection. So I put my goals in high places. But thats me. I have no place to force or let alone want people to be me or think the way I think. Its ridiculous.

Oh and not to anyone in specific, you do realize that being a virgin doesn't mean you held your self control in check.  Just like not being a virgin doesn't mean that you couldn't control yourself.  Some people haven't had the chance, or were to afraid to take it, and are still virgins - and claim to hold their control, when really they were willing to jump.  Others have self control, and have no guilt or shame over giving themselves to someone for the first time, even if it wasn't a life long relationship.
Self control is like morals.  Eye of the beholder.

Eye of the beholder is true. Depends on who wants to believe you. I have a girlfriend, and we asked each other if we should, we both agree it isn't right. We feel we should just wait. We have gotten close to the point in our relationship where we could have made the mistake of having sex, but we both stopped and pulled ourselves together. Your choice if you want to believe me. Eye of the beholder.