moral dilemma

My hero, while embedded with a U.S. military unit in Africa had a one night stand with a nurse and never saw her again.

Years later he fell in love with a woman who turned out to be the one night stand's sister who now has a pair of twins of whom the hero is the father.

All three adults are aware of the situation.  The mother wants the father involved with  his children and blieves she loves him, the lover wants to get married to the hero. It was suggested they all live together which would obviously raise Morman-like complications.

How can the father raise his kids, marry his lover and what happens to the mother?

Comments

  • Living together? Every woman reading will think not believable.

     

    Let them live on the same street, area.

  • The entire thing sounds unlikely. Questions need to be asked.

     

    My hero, while embedded with a U.S. military unit in Africa had a one night stand with a nurse and never saw her again.

     

    A nurse in the US military? Some other kind of US nurse in Africa? A native African?

     

    Years later he fell in love with a woman who turned out to be the one night stand's sister who now has a pair of twins of whom the hero is the father.

     

    There are billions of people on the planet, what are the chances of him meeting her sister? Not to mention then falling in love with her. But read your line back a few times. It could mean that the first woman's sister has a pair of twins. BTW, that means four children. 2 x 2.  You need to think very hard about how you write. Just how old are these kids anyway?

     

    All three adults are aware of the situation.

     

    How does he know it's her sister?

     

      The mother wants the father involved with  his children and blieves she loves him,

     

    What? after all those years? And it sounds as if he may have run out on her.

     

    the lover wants to get married to the hero. It was suggested they all live together which would obviously raise Morman-like complications.

     

    I would assume Mormans would have no problems with it, they are raised in that way, or they would not do it (but few of them have more than one wife, anyway, nowadays.) Most other women really really would not want such a relationship. 

     

    How can the father raise his kids, marry his lover and what happens to the mother?

     

    Well it's your story, you have to decide that, but to me it sounds as if it would be better as a situation 'comedy'. Or as it used to be called in the UK, a Farce.

  • This is not a moral dilemma.

     

    This is a logistical dilemma.

     

    As Em_Press said, no woman will buy the idea that they all lived together in one big house and were collectively happy about it.

     

    I am told that there exist FLDS communities in which a man will maintain multiple households (i.e. on the same street) but it should be stressed that polygamist societies are doomed to failure due to the weaking of society through the necessary expulsion of excess boys. So this is also not an ideal solution.

     

    From a moral perspective, well, loving and leaving the nurse was his first problem, now wasn't it? No dilemma, simply a moral failure. In moral terms, since you raised the question, he needs to man up, marry one of these women, and take financial responsibility for raising the all three children.

     

    But given the problem as laid out, and since you asked about a moral dilemma: there is no moral solution. As Kevin said, you can make it a farce; alternatively, you can make it a tragedy. There doesn't seem to be much ground for a happy ending.

  • so sad you story

  •  

    As Em_Press said, no woman will buy the idea that they all lived together in one big house and were collectively happy about it.

     

    It often depends on how a person is brought up. If they think that is normal then they will see nothing wrong with it. But very often such societies also frown on contact with the outside world so their communities don't discover it's not normal.

     

    I am told that there exist FLDS communities in which a man will maintain multiple households (i.e. on the same street) but it should be stressed that polygamist societies are doomed to failure due to the weaking of society through the necessary expulsion of excess boys. So this is also not an ideal solution.

     

    Huh?

     

    From a moral perspective, well, loving and leaving the nurse was his first problem, now wasn't it? No dilemma, simply a moral failure. In moral terms, since you raised the question, he needs to man up, marry one of these women, and take financial responsibility for raising the all three children.

     

    Indeed.

     

    But given the problem as laid out, and since you asked about a moral dilemma: there is no moral solution. As Kevin said, you can make it a farce; alternatively, you can make it a tragedy. There doesn't seem to be much ground for a happy ending.

     

    Always a shame when people ask a Q then don't return to answer the replies.

  • perhaps with this story can be of much help


  • kevinlomas wrote:

     

    As Em_Press said, no woman will buy the idea that they all lived together in one big house and were collectively happy about it.

     

    It often depends on how a person is brought up. If they think that is normal then they will see nothing wrong with it. But very often such societies also frown on contact with the outside world so their communities don't discover it's not normal.

     

    Skoob_Ym: Okay, I should have specified that in the first-world nations of this present day, one would be hard pressed to find a properly raised and neuro-typical woman who would willingly endure the indignity of living in the same house with a woman who was the mother of one or more of her husband's children.

     

    I am told that there exist FLDS communities in which a man will maintain multiple households (i.e. on the same street) but it should be stressed that polygamist societies are doomed to failure due to the weaking of society through the necessary expulsion of excess boys. So this is also not an ideal solution.

     

    Huh?

     

    Skoob_Ym: FLDS == An offshoot of Mormonism, in which polygamy is still practiced. Since boys and girls are born in roughly equal ratios, in order for some husbands to have many wives, others must have none at all. Simple mathematics.

     

    In order to prevent the emergence of a disgruntled underclass of unmarried young men for whom there are no wives (the wives of their generation having been taken by older men as plural wives), the young men of marriage age must be expelled from the community. It is a common practice in FLDS culture, for example. Fortunately, the FLDS are few, despite their polygamy.

     

    From a moral perspective, well, loving and leaving the nurse was his first problem, now wasn't it? No dilemma, simply a moral failure. In moral terms, since you raised the question, he needs to man up, marry one of these women, and take financial responsibility for raising the all three children.

     

    Indeed.

     

    But given the problem as laid out, and since you asked about a moral dilemma: there is no moral solution. As Kevin said, you can make it a farce; alternatively, you can make it a tragedy. There doesn't seem to be much ground for a happy ending.

     

    Always a shame when people ask a Q then don't return to answer the replies.

     

    Skoob_Ym: Well, he might have read them... And, one can hope, absorbed our words of wisdom.

     

    One should also note that one's sexual fantasies seldom make interesting reading for others and are not a good basis for a plot, unless one is specifically writing pornography for pornography's sake, and even then one must be a good writer in order to create a worthwhile tale. Not that one would encourage such a thing, but I don't judge.

     


     

  • As Em_Press said, no woman will buy the idea that they all lived together in one big house and were collectively happy about it.

     

    It often depends on how a person is brought up. If they think that is normal then they will see nothing wrong with it. But very often such societies also frown on contact with the outside world so their communities don't discover it's not normal.

     

    Skoob_Ym: Okay, I should have specified that in the first-world nations of this present day, one would be hard pressed to find a properly raised and neuro-typical woman who would willingly endure the indignity of living in the same house with a woman who was the mother of one or more of her husband's children.

     

    There are many pockets of peoples and individuals who happily live like that. Just as one example I will mention Mormons also, even though they no longer insist that they have to, or get kicked out of the communities. Don't judge what you think as the same as what other people think. Apparently 16% of Americans approve of it.  https://www.polygamy.com/       

     

    I am told that there exist FLDS communities in which a man will maintain multiple households (i.e. on the same street) but it should be stressed that polygamist societies are doomed to failure due to the weaking of society through the necessary expulsion of excess boys.So this is also not an ideal solution.

     

    Huh?

     

    Skoob_Ym: FLDS == An offshoot of Mormonism, in which polygamy is still practiced. Since boys and girls are born in roughly equal ratios, in order for some husbands to have many wives, others must have none at all. Simple mathematics.

     

    That never used to be the case and in some countries it still is not and in others there are more females than males. Simple statistics :-) The women do have a choice you know, including who they shack up with, but not all polygamists are Mormons or even in the USA.

     

    In order to prevent the emergence of a disgruntled underclass of unmarried young men for whom there are no wives (the wives of their generation having been taken by older men as plural wives), the young men of marriage age must be expelled from the community. It is a common practice in FLDS culture, for example. Fortunately, the FLDS are few, despite their polygamy.

     

    I would think hardly any at all. What do the expelled do? Set up their own villages? Or go door to door with leaflets?

     

    From a moral perspective, well, loving and leaving the nurse was his first problem, now wasn't it? No dilemma, simply a moral failure. In moral terms, since you raised the question, he needs to man up, marry one of these women, and take financial responsibility for raising the all three children.

     

    Indeed.

     

    But given the problem as laid out, and since you asked about a moral dilemma: there is no moral solution. As Kevin said, you can make it a farce; alternatively, you can make it a tragedy. There doesn't seem to be much ground for a happy ending.

     

    Always a shame when people ask a Q then don't return to answer the replies.

     

    Skoob_Ym: Well, he might have read them... And, one can hope, absorbed our words of wisdom.

     

    One should also note that one's sexual fantasies seldom make interesting reading for others and are not a good basis for a plot,

     

    Explain 50 Shades then ...  In fact explain almost everything Mills & Boons churn out. ("Her bosom heaved.")  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Erotica-Genre-Fiction-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=275040   How about a large section of the internet's contents?

     

    unless one is specifically writing pornography for pornography's sake, and even then one must be a good writer in order to create a worthwhile tale.

     

    That applies to any fiction, but tell that to even mainstream publishers.

     

    Not that one would encourage such a thing, but I don't judge.

     

    BTW. No one mentioned sex or pornography.

  • This is very nice and very good

  • To prevent a new rainbow:

     

    "Should not happen" and yet it does. I've done some very light research on FLDS communitites as a corrollary to some studies of the LDS (who, BTW, have not practiced polygamy since 1890). Every FLDS community, without exception, practices the expulsion of surplus boys.

     

    The teen boys are sent off to seek their fortunes, "Nice knowing you, now be out of town by sunset, and don't come back." Presumably some (a minority) convince women to join them and form FLDS communities of their own; others assimilate into mainstream society as best they can.

     

    One should further note that the FLDS number around 6000 - 8000 in most estimates. A very tiny faction.

     

    The LDS ("Mormons"), as noted, stopped in 1890 with the Proclamation. Thus the LDS do not fit my qualifiers of "the first-world nations of this present day, one would be hard pressed to find a properly raised and neuro-typical woman " since 1890 can hardly be called "Present day."

     

    On the other hand, Kevin, if you can convince your wife and several other women that such an arrangement is the Cat's Pajamas, then more power to you. Please film the moment when you suggest it to your wife, however, as it promises to be a dramatically explosive video...

     

     

  • ---------- snip -------

    One should also note that one's sexual fantasies seldom make interesting reading for others and are not a good basis for a plot,

     

    Explain 50 Shades then ...  In fact explain almost everything Mills & Boons churn out. ("Her bosom heaved.")  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Erotica-Genre-Fiction-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=275040   How about a large section of the internet's contents?

     

    unless one is specifically writing pornography for pornography's sake,

    ----------- end snip -------

     

    And that is why I finished the sentence with "unless one is writing pornography for pornography's sake." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

     

    As for how that pertains to the question at hand: The original poster was clearly posting the plot of his sex fantasy, and not of a novel that he intended to write. Hence my comment.

  • To prevent a new rainbow:

     

    As if you could.

     

    "Should not happen" and yet it does. I've done some very light research on FLDS communitites as a corrollary to some studies of the LDS (who, BTW, have not practiced polygamy since 1890). Every FLDS community, without exception, practices the expulsion of surplus boys.

     

    But what has such expulsion got to do with the subject?

     

    The teen boys are sent off to seek their fortunes, "Nice knowing you, now be out of town by sunset, and don't come back." Presumably some (a minority) convince women to join them and form FLDS communities of their own; others assimilate into mainstream society as best they can.

     

    Well that's nature for you.

     

    One should further note that the FLDS number around 6000 - 8000 in most estimates. A very tiny faction.

     

    Indeed, hardly worth talking about.

     

    The LDS ("Mormons"), as noted, stopped in 1890 with the Proclamation. Thus the LDS do not fit my qualifiers of "the first-world nations of this present day, one would be hard pressed to find a properly raised and neuro-typical woman " since 1890 can hardly be called "Present day."

     

    Some Mormons do still practice polygamy. Seeing as their rules are not actual laws, any faction can break away and keep up old traditions or even start new ones. It is a cult when all said and done. I would suggest that in actual law, the marriages are not valid anyway. They are living in what is called 'Sin.'

     

    On the other hand, Kevin, if you can convince your wife and several other women that such an arrangement is the Cat's Pajamas, then more power to you. Please film the moment when you suggest it to your wife, however, as it promises to be a dramatically explosive video...

     

    We have no interest in such events, but that is not saying whatsoever that there are not millions who are, and they do not have to be married to do so.

     

    Here's and extreme example

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UixdcBdOjNM

     

    And here is a map    

  • And that is why I finished the sentence with "unless one is writing pornography for pornography's sake." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

     

    Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it? Why otherwise bother?

     

    As for how that pertains to the question at hand: The original poster was clearly posting the plot of his sex fantasy,

     

    A great deal of fiction is based on fantasies of all manner. I would suspect even James Bond is. Stories come out of peoples' heads.

     

    and not of a novel that he intended to write. Hence my comment.

     

    Why would the OP broach that subject on a self-publishing site then? And seeing as the OP has not returned, perhaps we will never know.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    And that is why I finished the sentence with "unless one is writing pornography for pornography's sake." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

     

    Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it? Why otherwise bother?

     

    Nope. A lot of people write fiction in order to make a living!

     

     


     

  • Nope. A lot of people write fiction in order to make a living!

     

    That may happen to some. Good luck to those who do. But some people write for creation's sake, and then some people may say, "You should get that published." Some people can be too kind at times ...


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Nope. A lot of people write fiction in order to make a living!

     

    That may happen to some. Good luck to those who do. But some people write for creation's sake, and then some people may say, "You should get that published." Some people can be too kind at times ...


    You shouldn't have used the phrase "all fiction" in your original statement!  Smiley Wink

     

     

  • Why not? Should I have included all non-fiction?  Smiley LOL

     


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Why not? Should I have included all non-fiction?  Smiley LOL

     


    Read again what you originally wrote: "Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it?"

     

    No...not "all" fiction is written for the sake of writing it. Every novel you will find sitting on bookstore shelves was written by an author who got paid for their work (a primary reason for having submitted their work to a publisher in the first place) and who either makes a living at doing so or supplements their income by writing. 

     

    Even self-published authors, almost by definition, are not writing for the sake of writing...otherwise they would just file their work away and go on to their next story. The need to see their work out in the world means that they want more than just the satisfaction of having created it.

  • Read again what you originally wrote: "Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it?"

     

    Yes, and? And then some get paid for it. Many do not, but that never stops people writing. Self-satisfaction being their only reward.

     

    No...not "all" fiction is written for the sake of writing it.

     

    And you know why they wrote it the first place then?

     

    Every novel you will find sitting on bookstore shelves was written by an author who got paid for their work (a primary reason for having submitted their work to a publisher in the first place) and who either makes a living at doing so or supplements their income by writing. 

     

    And for every one of those there are 1000s who do not sell a thing, and often never even try to, but nevertheless continue to write, for the sake of it, because they enjoy doing so, often never even finishing, or even when finished, forgetting all about it and getting on life and trying to earn a living from their 'real' job.

     

    Even self-published authors, almost by definition, are not writing for the sake of writing...

     

    And there are many who write and do not even bother trying to self-publish because they may not feel it good enough. (I know a few exceptional writers who refuse to let many people see their work at all!) In fact there is still a stigma attached to SP.

     

    otherwise they would just file their work away and go on to their next story.

     

    And many do, or not bother again, even.

     

    The need to see their work out in the world means that they want more than just the satisfaction of having created it.

     

    They do, yes, but you are discounting all those who write for a hobby, and only for their own satisfaction.

     

    You mention published writers, but how about this as an example of that not being a good example of how many people write and why?

     

    When telephones were newish, a phone company asked a polling company to find out what people thought about phones. Their expensive research was trashed as useless because they only rang people up to ask them.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Read again what you originally wrote: "Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it?"

     

    Yes, and? And then some get paid for it. Many do not, but that never stops people writing. Self-satisfaction being their only reward.

     

    No...not "all" fiction is written for the sake of writing it.

     

    And you know why they wrote it the first place then?

     

    Fortunately, I know enough professional writers to speak about this. I also know something of the history of writing.

     

    Every novel you will find sitting on bookstore shelves was written by an author who got paid for their work (a primary reason for having submitted their work to a publisher in the first place) and who either makes a living at doing so or supplements their income by writing. 

     

    And for every one of those there are 1000s who do not sell a thing, and often never even try to, but nevertheless continue to write, for the sake of it, because they enjoy doing so, often never even finishing, or even when finished, forgetting all about it and getting on life and trying to earn a living from their 'real' job.

     

    That's true. But you said "all" fiction is written strictly for the pleasure of writing. That is not true. 

     

    Even self-published authors, almost by definition, are not writing for the sake of writing...

     

    And there are many who write and do not even bother trying to self-publish because they may not feel it good enough. (I know a few exceptional writers who refuse to let many people see their work at all!) In fact there is still a stigma attached to SP.

     

    Again, you stated a broad generality that is not true. If you had some something like "much fiction" or "a lot of fiction" or used some other qualifier there would be little argument.

     

    otherwise they would just file their work away and go on to their next story.

     

    And many do, or not bother again, even.

     

    The need to see their work out in the world means that they want more than just the satisfaction of having created it.

     

    They do, yes, but you are discounting all those who write for a hobby, and only for their own satisfaction.

     

    I am not. What you were discounting in your original statement were the large number of authors who write either to make a living or to supplement their income. Or, in the case of many self-published authors, for sheer self-aggrandizement. 

     

    You mention published writers, but how about this as an example of that not being a good example of how many people write and why?

     

    I mentioned published authors solely as a counter-argument for your statement that ALL fiction is written strictly for the sake of having written it. This is patently untrue. People write for a great many other reasons. They write to earn money, they write in order to see their name in print, they write to impress their friends...etc. etc. 

  • Where are we up to? Happy New Year BTW.
    Ron Miller wrote:

    kevinlomas wrote:

    Read again what you originally wrote: "Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it?"

     

    Yes, and? And then some get paid for it. Many do not, but that never stops people writing. Self-satisfaction being their only reward.

     

    No...not "all" fiction is written for the sake of writing it.

     

    And you know why they wrote it the first place then?

     

    Fortunately, I know enough professional writers to speak about this. I also know something of the history of writing.

     

    Note the word 'professional' there, (that sort of comes under the example I gave about asking only people who own phones if they like them) and does the history of writing include those who have never been published and have never even tried? The casual writers, and you can include people who keep diaries in those plus the people with little books of poems. How would that be possible to include in the history?

     

    Every novel you will find sitting on bookstore shelves was written by an author who got paid for their work (a primary reason for having submitted their work to a publisher in the first place) and who either makes a living at doing so or supplements their income by writing. 

     

    And for every one of those there are 1000s who do not sell a thing, and often never even try to, but nevertheless continue to write, for the sake of it, because they enjoy doing so, often never even finishing, or even when finished, forgetting all about it and getting on life and trying to earn a living from their 'real' job.

     

    That's true. But you said "all" fiction is written strictly for the pleasure of writing. That is not true. 

     

    Even self-published authors, almost by definition, are not writing for the sake of writing...

     

    And there are many who write and do not even bother trying to self-publish because they may not feel it good enough. (I know a few exceptional writers who refuse to let many people see their work at all!) In fact there is still a stigma attached to SP.

     

    Again, you stated a broad generality that is not true. If you had some something like "much fiction" or "a lot of fiction" or used some other qualifier there would be little argument.

     

    otherwise they would just file their work away and go on to their next story.

     

    And many do, or not bother again, even.

     

    The need to see their work out in the world means that they want more than just the satisfaction of having created it.

     

    They do, yes, but you are discounting all those who write for a hobby, and only for their own satisfaction.

     

    I am not. What you were discounting in your original statement were the large number of authors who write either to make a living or to supplement their income.

     

    And you are discounting the perhaps even greater number who do not write for those reasons. It's akin to those who paint  just for recreation and to chillout and rarely even hang them in their own houses. Although at times decades after they have died people may start to take a cash interest in their output.

     

    Or, in the case of many self-published authors, for sheer self-aggrandizement. 

     

    You mention published writers, but how about this as an example of that not being a good example of how many people write and why?

     

    I mentioned published authors solely as a counter-argument for your statement that ALL fiction is written strictly for the sake of having written it.

     

    In the beginning that possibly applies to all those who take up writing, perhaps at school as I did, and the rare ones who stick at it and are good at it may end up selling some. But if you know the history of some writers of books, they were often pro writers of other things already. Journalists for example.

     

    This is patently untrue. People write for a great many other reasons. They write to earn money, * they write in order to see their name in print, they write to impress their friends...etc. etc. 

     

    Not all of them do. But perhaps US people are more commercially inclined? But I would agree with that statement  * since the advent of almost free self-publishing that is all that some desire, and many should not bother!


     


  • kevinlomas wrote:
    Where are we up to? Happy New Year BTW.
    Ron Miller wrote:

    kevinlomas wrote:

     

    Fortunately, I know enough professional writers to speak about this. I also know something of the history of writing.

     

    Note the word 'professional' there, (that sort of comes under the example I gave about asking only people who own phones if they like them) and does the history of writing include those who have never been published and have never even tried? The casual writers, and you can include people who keep diaries in those plus the people with little books of poems. How would that be possible to include in the history?

     

    Again, you said "all fiction," which includes professional authors.

     

     

     

    What you were discounting in your original statement were the large number of authors who write either to make a living or to supplement their income.

     

    And you are discounting the perhaps even greater number who do not write for those reasons. It's akin to those who paint  just for recreation and to chillout and rarely even hang them in their own houses. Although at times decades after they have died people may start to take a cash interest in their output.

     

    Doesn't matter. I have no doubt that there are many who write for the sheer pleasure of it. But I will remind you for the umptieth time that you said that all fiction is written solely for the pleasure of writing. 

     

     

    I mentioned published authors solely as a counter-argument for your statement that ALL fiction is written strictly for the sake of having written it.

     

    In the beginning that possibly applies to all those who take up writing, perhaps at school as I did, and the rare ones who stick at it and are good at it may end up selling some. But if you know the history of some writers of books, they were often pro writers of other things already. Journalists for example.

     

    Certainly, some were. But that really does kind of beg the question a bit: they were still people who were writing professionally before they turned to fiction. And when they did so, for the most part it was in order to sell a book and not for the sheer artistic pleasure of having written it. But there are a very great many authors who wanted to write fiction professionally from the beginning and set out to do just that. And they wrote absolutely anything that would sell, from fiction to non-fiction. There are even scores of historical examples. Two come to mind immediately only because I have been recently rereading some of their works: O. Henry and Edgar Rice Burroughs. Both began writing strictly in order to earn money at it. The original ambition of many of my author friends was to be professional writer. This was a goal they pursued from the get-go.

     

     


     


     

  • I think that the real answer to this entire discussion is that everyone writes (fiction or nonfiction) for different reasons. Some write for the sheer pleasure of writing...and these people, for the most part, we never hear much from. Some write for the status it enables them to claim...even if they themselves are the publishers. Others write in order to make a living, or to at least supplment their income. And others may fall somewhere in between. 

  • This is what I originally said "Don't people write all fiction for the sake of writing it?"

     

    A usual glib remark that's resulted in the usual extended discussion.   Smiley Very Happy

     

    Granted some established professional writers may have been commissioned to create further work, or have a ready fanbase waiting to buy, or both, but they are the tip of a huge iceberg and I am sure you know that. What was the first thing they wrote before they thought of trying to sell it though? Do you know that? Of everyone?

     

    One late great writer, on having his first book published and sell very well, was then asked by his publisher if he had anything else to hand, and he said "funny you should ask that ..."

     

    But I think we are viewing the subject from opposite ends.

Sign In or Register to comment.