Embar wrote:The person who is cheated on is never at fault for the decision to cheat. Never.
That should not be taken as the person who is cheated on didn't in some way contribute to the dynamic in the realtionship, however the way one chooses to handle problems in a relationships is soley the responsibility of the person making the choice.
You started out saying, "Blaming infidelity on anyhting other than the person who commits it is a dishonest portrayal of why infidelity happens.".
Now you are saying something different. Taking responsibility for making a final decision does not mean someone else isn't responsible for the "why". The person being cheated on can be responsible for "why infidelity happens." (see below)
Embar wrote:I'm sure you wouldn't say that it is ever excusable to smack around a partner because of what he/she says or does in a relationship.
Smacking someone around is always a direct action against someone. While cheating on someone can be the same thing, it isn't always. For example, I wouldn't equate cheating on someone who is emotionally disconnected from the relationship with smacking someone around. You might be cheating on the person because they just don't give a damn.
Agreed 100% Klast. If you want to play the field, fine, just don't do it while you're married. And if you're gonna be unhappy unless you play the field, fine, own up to it.
But I also see where Embar is coming from too. We've made serious commitments. The religious issues of swearing before God aside, we all stood in front of our friends and family and promised the world to our women. And what I think Embar was saying is that you're almost sounding casual about that commitment, though I don't personally think you are. To throw that all away because you've met someone you really want to fuck doesn't sound like honor either.
So I'm of the mind that if there's any possible way to honor that commitment in such a way that both parties can be happy, it should be fully explored. That's what I took Embar's point to mean, and I don't think that anyone here is advocating betraying someone's trust, or staying in a relationship that's obviously not going to work.
I can only speak of my own experiences, but I look back at my couple of almost-indescretions and see them for what they really were, some impulse for self-sabotage to take a really good thing and totally fuck it up. Kind of like "Hey, my life is wonderful, how can I ruin it?"
So it's painfully easy to throw something like that away. Much easier to lose than to keep. If you have something real and tangible, then fighting to keep that will always be my personal first choice.
Last edited by Freecare Spiritwise on Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Klast Brell wrote:I feel odd using a word like honor, but it's part of the equitation to me.
If you cheating on your partner is a dishonorable act. Ending your relationship with your partner, then starting a new relationship with someone else lets you keep your honor.
Infidelity is a choice made by one person in a relationship, regardless of what the dyanic is. So blaming infidelity on anyone other than the person who cheats is misguided.
Two people contribute to the dynamic in a relationship, but the way one handles issues that come up in a relationship is 100% the responsibility of the person making the choice.
Let me ask you this Lurker, is there anything that happens in a relationship that justifes infidelity?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Lurker wrote:Smacking someone around is always a direct action against someone. While cheating on someone can be the same thing, it isn't always. For example, I wouldn't equate cheating on someone who is emotionally disconnected from the relationship with smacking someone around. You might be cheating on the person because they just don't give a damn.
Here's where I disagree. I do believe it's an apples-to-apples comparison. Both are cases of stupid action and both are rationalized away daily. It's no less dishonorable/asshole-ish to betray someone's trust because they're emotionally disconnected than it is if they're attentive and loving. If someone is emotionally disconnected, then why the hell are you not dealing with that directly. There's always counseling, and if that comes up short then you shouldn't be in the relationship.
People should be responsible for their own actions independent of other people's actions. If I betray someone's trust it's because I'm an asshole, not because they had that coming. Hurting someone is hurting someone, whether it's emotional or physical. And from all the messed up things I've seen in this decently-long lifetime, emotional pain is every bit as painful (if not moreso) as physical pain.
Free,
I was talking about a situation where one party to the relationship is so removed that they are both the cause of the problem and no emotional pain is caused them. Not common but not unheard of. I was giving an example that didn't fit the smacking someone around analogy Embar laid out.
Embar wrote:Infidelity is a choice made by one person in a relationship, regardless of what the dyanic is. So blaming infidelity on anyone other than the person who cheats is misguided.
Two people contribute to the dynamic in a relationship, but the way one handles issues that come up in a relationship is 100% the responsibility of the person making the choice.
Let me ask you this Lurker, is there anything that happens in a relationship that justifes infidelity?
In a perfect black and white world, a person unhappy in a relationship would leave before starting new attachments. In reality, there's sometimes a lag and overlap. Taking responsiblity for a decision does not equate to being the cause. I'm sure you wouldn't say that a woman who left a husband that beat her up was responsible for destroying the marriage just because she decided to leave.
Yes, she's responsible for leaving the marriage. (I would say the marriage is already destroyed from the physical abuse though, not from her leaving it) It's a choice she had to make for her own survival. Are you saying that people who commit infidelity are doing so because they fear for their lives? C'mon Lurker, don't go down an Rsakian path here.
And you dodged my question... is there anything that ever justifes infidelity?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar wrote:Are you saying that people who commit infidelity are doing so because they fear for their lives? C'mon Lurker, don't go down an Rsakian path here.
If anyone is playing the role of Rsak here it's you for taking the analogy so literally.
Embar wrote:And you dodged my question... is there anything that ever justifes infidelity?
I did answer it. Nothing "justifies" infidelity because even in the extreme case I set out the person should just leave before forming other (even temporary) attachments. That isn't the same as saying that the person who cheats is always the cause just because they make the final decision. The cheater isn't always the "why" in your "why infidelity happens" equation.
I don't think religious vows are a good enough reason to stick with someone after infidelity. If the vows were sacred to begin with, it wouldn't have happened.
No, you have to stay IN the marriage, even if they cheated! Marriage is 'a holy bond between god and a couple'. You and your abusive partner split - that means you broke the holy bond! *sounds like scare tactics made by men who wanted the world to be as they saw fit*
FEAR RULES
Didn't your mama ever tell you not to tango with a carrot?
You guys got that from my post? All I was suggesting was that a vow is a promise, and in this era of personal irresponsibility a promise doesn't mean much these days. Till death do us part? Yeah, sure, whatever. In sickness and in health? Ok, sure, at least while it's convenient. They're just words right?
I wasn't meaning to suggest that marriage vows be some prison whereby you keep getting fucked over to please some higher power. Not at all. More like if people took their promises seriously, there'd be far less infidelity. But certainly I don't fall into the "god demands that you stay miserable to keep your promise" camp.
So for the record, mostly I think people who cheat on each other should be out playing the field and not pretending they want anything serious. A relationship like any structure has to be maintained. For most doomed marriages that I've seen, the writing was on the wall long before there was any infidelity. Usually there was never much honor and respect to start with. So hopefully I'm not sounding incongruent with saying that something of real value should be taken as seriously on day 1,000 as it was on day 1.
EDIT: And I shouldn't have opened my big mouth and mentioned the religious vow (though I did use the word 'aside'). A vow is simply a promise and I don't know anyone who tied the knot without some sort of promise. Even my atheist friends had some kind of ceremony and promised their wives something. So the promises you make either have value to you or they don't. And the only fear a person should have of not honoring their promises is the fear of being a low-life asshole and having to look in the mirror every day and see a low-life asshole looking back.
So the people in your life either have value to you or they don't. And the only fear a person should have of not valuing the people in their life is the fear of being a low-life asshole and having to look in the mirror every day and see a low-life asshole looking back
Harlowe wrote:I don't think religious vows are a good enough reason to stick with someone after infidelity. If the vows were sacred to begin with, it wouldn't have happened.
Ok, how about "spiritual vows". Are they enough? Forget about religion, if you promise to stick by one another when the life is easy and the life is hard... what does that say about a person that gives up only when the life is hard? Does that vow mean that a person can give up on the commitment only when it's inconvenient to continue the commitment?
Remove religion all together... remove the "sacred" part of it... will you give up on a marriage because of the failure of your partner?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Turn that around, you mean a vow of fidelity to someone else only means something when it's convenient and easy? When life gets hard it's okay to overlook that "spiritual" or "sacred" vow of fidelity? Personally, I don't consider infidelity "life getting hard". I think that's utter bullshit if a cheater uses that as something to hold over the other person's head "but honey, you said better or worse, this is just the worse part". I am pretty sure that the majority of people going into a marriage aren't vowing to stay with someone through infidelity. "LIfe getting hard" to me (and I believe I am not alone in this) would be financial, medical, emotional, family or relationship issues that do not cross the line into cheating or abuse.
That's hardly giving up when it's inconvenient.
And again, if a person's spiritual or sacred vows meant anything, they wouldn't do it to begin with. They wouldn't cheat when things got hard. That's a weak excuse imo.
I can say that leaving your spouse is not the easier road. I am certainly fighting an uphill battle now while had i simply stayed married and held fast to my vows I would have had an income, been able to essentially do whatever I wanted when I wanted, bought whatever I wanted within reason, oh and you know my childrens father would be living with us still... But you can't make something work on your own. One person can't save a marriage so sometimes yes, you give up. A person can only fight for something for so long without any kind of support from their spouse, and most of the time people really do stay for all the right reasons, no matter how wrong everything else is.
100% eventually you give up on the marriage because of the failures of not only your partner but yourself, and you're sure to point out to anyone Embar that "the only person who can change you... is you" correct ? You say giving up as if people simply wake up one day and say "eh I've had enough of my marriage" when in reality the struggle to make that choice has probably been coming for years, and one day someone simply wakes up and says "How much more can i possibly take?" and yes, one day enough is enough, and they're gone.
IMO Harlowe is 100% correct, if you meant anything to the other person, if they had faith and love to begin with then the cheating would never have occurred. I could excuse a single infidelity, could move on with my spouse have a family and build a life with that person, but then infidelity sometimes occurs again and I couldn't forgive it a second time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me ?
I have a very hard time with the divorce rate in this country, I wouldn't have filed the divorce personally, i moved in with my parents and I would have been happy for a separation to see if we couldn't work things out but that option was taken away from me, so then i was left with a new choice... be a bitch and deny the divorce, drag it on for awhile, or simply "give in" and sign the paper work he sent me. So i did what I thought was the kinder, gentler thing and i didn't drag it out, i didn't make demands and refuse to give him his divorce, i simply signed the papers and cried when I called to tell him so. If he loved me as much as he claimed, if his words, if my love meant anything to him then he wouldn't have done what he did. People ask why a peice of paper means so much, to mean it means a lot, because it's a physical symbol that represents a deeper commitment, much like wedding rings. In and of themselves those items mean nothing, but they should, and if more people feel the way I do then maybe people who think more like Klast and Free and Embar and they wouldn't cheat to begin with. Sure everyone has thoughts but what separates people from thinking and doing ? someone else normally.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Harlowe, it sounds like you're saying you keeping your word is dependent on someone else's behavior. Is that right?
there are situations where it would be so. If you promise to lend a friend your DVDs of a TV show when you finish watching them, and the next day you and your friend have a falling out. You probably won't be lending your friend the DVDs any more.
In a marriage? That's a tougher one. I could see myself telling Mrs Klast that because she did this and that, I would no longer hold to a promise I made her.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
That's not what I said at all Embar. I am saying if one part of it is a sacred bond and vow not to be broken, then why isn't the rest of it? I am saying a vow is a vow - picking and choosing which parts you should uphold as "absolutely sacred" bonds and which have wiggle room is ridiculous. If one person breaks the contract, the contract is broken. Whether it is deciding to fuck someone else or because they are miserable and want a divorce. I would personally never vow to stay with someone forever in fidelity or infidelty, so it would not be part of my bond with them.
Infidelity and no longer wanting to be married are equal disolutions of the original vow, trying to wiggle "infidelity" into "for better or for worse" is no more noble than sticking abuse into that loop hole.
For some people abuse and infidelity are deal-breakers and as long as that is understood upfront, there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people that stay with cheaters either if you can both deal with it and actually trust them again. But I wouldn't expect it's right for EVERYONE to leave a cheater anymore than it's rational to expect that the right thing for everyone to do is work it out - because you vowed to stay with them no matter what - including them blatantly not keeping their vows.
