american-woman Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 VERY INTERESTING READING FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONTINUING YOUR AFFAIR http://www.affairrecovery.com/files/31Reasons.pdf Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 VERY INTERESTING READING FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONTINUING YOUR AFFAIR http://www.affairrecovery.com/files/31Reasons.pdf Is this going to be a rerun of this earlier thread on the same thing? Link to post Share on other sites
BetrayedMM Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Sure, why not expose folks to different ideas from all different perspectives and let them weigh things out for themselves? I say considering the reasons to NOT have an A is a topic of discussion that should not be suppressed. That being said, can you counter with 31 reasons to have an affair? Link to post Share on other sites
herenow Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I read some of the other thread and I just have to say that there are 31 reasons and not all of them will apply to everyone. Without reading the whole thread, it looked like many were focusing on just one of the reasons. What about the other 30 reasons. My question is, how many reasons does one need to realize that in most cases an affair causes pain for everyone involved? Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I read the whole 31 reasons, and I found it to be an interesting read. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 my number one reason to stop/stay out of an affair? Self-respect. Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I can probably write a book like : 31 reasons to start an affair.. Link to post Share on other sites
EnigmasMuse Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I can probably write a book like : 31 reasons to start an affair.. I think that would make for a good post then. Link to post Share on other sites
Pyro Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 VERY INTERESTING READING FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONTINUING YOUR AFFAIR http://www.affairrecovery.com/files/31Reasons.pdf The book should be titled: "31 diseases you can get from having an affair". Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 The book should be titled: "31 diseases you can get from having an affair". Nahh.. come on now.. people don't get a STD every time they scr*w a MP... geezzzz... Link to post Share on other sites
Pyro Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Nahh.. come on now.. people don't get a STD every time they scr*w a MP... geezzzz... True, but the risk is always there. Link to post Share on other sites
Owl Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 LOL Lizzie! Start the thread...I'm looking forward to it! That would be hilarious to read! Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 LOL Lizzie! Start the thread...I'm looking forward to it! That would be hilarious to read! I agree. I would love to read that. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 True, but the risk is always there. No it's not. My MM and I are sexually exclusive, and have been for a long time. How does that differ from any other sexually exclusive relationship in terms of STD risks? The fact that he was (and is legally still) married to someone else is going to increase the risk exactly how? It's hardly like the clap was going to leap out of his W's handbag and mug him in the kitchen! They're called SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED diseases for a reason - you have to have sex with the infected person to catch them. No sex, no disease. (Not that I'm saying she has any diseases; I'm saying IF she did it still wouldn't matter. He'd have to have had sex with her to catch it.) Link to post Share on other sites
Pyro Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) No it's not. My MM and I are sexually exclusive, and have been for a long time. How does that differ from any other sexually exclusive relationship in terms of STD risks? The fact that he was (and is legally still) married to someone else is going to increase the risk exactly how? It's hardly like the clap was going to leap out of his W's handbag and mug him in the kitchen! They're called SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED diseases for a reason - you have to have sex with the infected person to catch them. No sex, no disease. (Not that I'm saying she has any diseases; I'm saying IF she did it still wouldn't matter. He'd have to have had sex with her to catch it.) He is still married to her. What makes you think that he isn't out screwing other gals too? He tells you that he isn't so that makes his word believable? Has he told his W about you? It only takes having sex with the wrong person once to get the disease. Edited February 1, 2008 by Pyro Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 He is still married to her. What makes you think that he isn't out screwing other gals too? He tells you that he isn't so that makes his word believable? Has he told his W about you? It only takes having sex with the wrong person once to get the disease. He has left his W. The kids are with him. I know he is sexually exclusive with me - I won't go into that here because it would be TMI. Yes he has told his W that there is "someone else" - she chose not to believe him. She still thinks they will get back together once his "silliness" passes. There is no risk in this case. Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 He has left his W. The kids are with him. I know he is sexually exclusive with me - I won't go into that here because it would be TMI. Yes he has told his W that there is "someone else" - she chose not to believe him. She still thinks they will get back together once his "silliness" passes. There is no risk in this case. Life is a risk. So there fore when people walk out the door everyday there is a "risk" of something happening. So to think one is free from a "risk" of any kind is deluisonal thinking IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Life is a risk. So there fore when people walk out the door everyday there is a "risk" of something happening. So to think one is free from a "risk" of any kind is deluisonal thinking IMO. Absolutely, of course there's a risk, there's risk involved in breathing even. Relatively - no. There's no more risk involved in that than there is in breathing. If you want to get pedantic. I was talking relatively, in the spirit of the post I was referencing. Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Absolutely, of course there's a risk, there's risk involved in breathing even. Relatively - no. There's no more risk involved in that than there is in breathing. If you want to get pedantic. I was talking relatively, in the spirit of the post I was referencing. Carry on. Link to post Share on other sites
Chapter2 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I assumed this was going to be a link shaming people who have ever participated in an affair but I'm glad to see that it wasn't. This is an excellent article and I couldn't argue with any of the reasons. I couldn't see the truth in some of these reasons when all I could see was the tree...this is a lot of the forest I was unable to see when I was involved in it. It's a shame, so much wreckage could have been avoided had my vision not been so impaired. Thanks for sharing it:) Link to post Share on other sites
BetrayedMM Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Yes, it's all "just the facts ma'am". Advocating affairs in the face of the facts is an amazing display, and speaks for itself, doing far more good than harm. Keep it coming! Especially the denials about how STDs operate, and the folks who beg for it! Educate yourself. It is a matter of life and death. Be sure you are not misled by those who are only trying to justify their own actions, your life is more important than their feelings about themselves. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I read some of the other thread and I just have to say that there are 31 reasons and not all of them will apply to everyone. Without reading the whole thread, it looked like many were focusing on just one of the reasons. What about the other 30 reasons. My question is, how many reasons does one need to realize that in most cases an affair causes pain for everyone involved? OK, taking them in order: 1. your mate is not the problem, your mate just shows up the problem in you: This may be true in some cases, but is certainly not in others. No one asks to be in an abusive R. No one deserves it. To blame the abused person for being abused is just ludicrous - that certainly is the MATE who is the problem. (Yes, the abused may enable, particularly over time where the relationship has developed into a pattern - but the abused is never the CAUSE. No one can MAKE someone else abuse them.) 2. you lose your brains, heart and courage in an affair: Or you find them. If your M has been fatal to your development as a human being, the "bright colours" can awaken in you a new life that far surpasses the old mediocrity, that allows you to reclaim your brain heart and courage and break free of the creeping death that was your M. "No place like home" is not necessarily a bad thing - escaping from a prison or a concentration camp is life enhancing, not life depleting. 3. decisions made during As are emotional and irrational: No more so than during any period of change. It's perfectly possible to sit down with a counsellor or trusted friend and talk things through rationally. Same as when a parent dies, you lose your job, or you discover a serious health problem. Emotions happen. How we handle them matters. 4. People almost always "affair down": Not in my experience - both lived and observed experience. "Affairing down" is something I've observed only once or twice; in most cases it involves developing the confidence to go for the partner you truly deserve, rather than one you settled for in your insecure youth. 5. you'll stunt your growth: Many people have As because their Ms are stunting their growth, and the A allows them to self-actualise. 6 your affair will destroy their lives: The author's starting point is to dismiss - with neither evidence nor argument - the "rationalisation" offered by some APs that their partner would be better off if the M was to be abandoned, and then states - with no evidence - that instead it would wreck their lives. While probably both scenarios are possible - that some lives may be wrecked, while others would be better off should the M be abandoned - to state that it's ALWAYS one and NEVER the other with no evidence (besides the strength of conviction of the voices inside one's own head) doesn't make it so. It merely makes one doubt the basis of the argument. More to follow - this post long enough for now. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 7. It is a trap: This point takes as its point of departure "research done on affairs" without stating what the research is, that shows "there is seldom a positive outcome". The only research named is on second marriages being more likely to end in divorce than first marriages, but this is not specific to As and the sample for that study may in fact not have included ANY Ms that started as As, so this really is abuse of statistics. Any social scientist or statistician would blow their nose on claims like this - "phoney science" with no academic or scientific merit. The claims being made cannot be substantiated as the "evidence" cited relates to something else entirely. 8. Don't call it love: This is argued on a false dichotomy between "love" and "romanticism", largely based on tropes from literature and movies. Taken to its logical conclusion, no R which started out as a LDR, or with lovers too young or too poor or too anything to consumate their desire / marry immediately is doomed because its based on "romanticism" rather than "love", whereas M is excluded from that because of course in M no one is ever kept apart from their spouse by circumstance, leading to unfulfilled desire? What planet does this guy live on? This argument would take merely a single contrary instance to shoot down, and of course there are many such examples. Speaking in absolutes and decreeing them to be Rules is simply setting oneself up for ridicule. 9. When little or no passion is experienced, people may think the marriage has failed and head for the exit, when it's merely moving on to the next phase: Or the marriage has failed. Some Rs that become Ms are founded only on the rush of passion, and once that goes there really is nothing beyond it to sustain it - no common values, no shared interests, no commitments. Why try to keep something alive on artificial life support when it's already decomposing? Not ALL marriages are worth saving. When a marriage HAS failed, it's far better IMO to recognise that and move on. 10. Romance is a drug, itt keeps one fixated on the future and not living in the present: This is as true of As as it is of any R - no more, no less. To imply that it's toxic MERELY BECAUSE IT OCCURS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN A is at best disingenuous. 11. What about integrity: This assumes that everyone shares the author's moral perspective on right and wrong. Not everyone marries in church and says those same vows. Not everyone marries for the same purpose. Not everyone shares the same views on the sanctity of marriage. People who are in marriages they entered into for "convenience" reasons - for tax purposes, for visas, so the children would not be looked down on as "illegitimate", etc - may see no compromise to their integrity in engaging in an A. One cannot assume there is a shared moral framework when there isn't, and then hold people accountable to something they did not subscribe to. It is not their INTEGRITY being compromised by engaging in an A, but it may well be their IMAGE in the eyes of others. 12. Intimacy: The conclusion is a non sequitur. The author argues that in marriage there is pressure to sameness rather than difference, therefore in sharing - knowing the outcome is likely to compromise closeness - greater intimacy will result. This assumes (a) that where there is tolerance of difference - whether in M or A, since not all Ms are as smothering as the author paints, nor are all As as tolerant of difference - that any "closeness" is superficial rather than "true", a claim not backed up by either evidence or argument; (b) that in a M partners will forge ahead in the face of reduced closeness and put themselves on the line anyway, with a view to ultimate, "true" intimacy at some mythical future date. This denies the equally plausible outcome of M partners simply not sharing because of the anticipated judgmental response and withholding of closeness, and intimacy being prevented. There is no necessary outcome towards intimacy - in fact, based on the argument, it's likely to be the exception rather than the rule. And © that where there is perseverance in the face of adversity, the prize is so much shinier. This directly contradicts the earlier argument (8) about "romanticism vs love" where any R grounded in initial adversity is brushed aside as being unsustainable and naive. Major logical inconsistency - similar to the argument in (10) where the future focus of "romance" is dissed because it undermines the present, while the argument of (b) is that M is so great precisely because it trades off a present gain for a far greater future prize! The author can't have it both ways, and disparage something when it suits but hail it has wonderful at other times for convenience. That kind of "logic" would fail even at high school level! Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 13. It's a drug: The author claims that we use sex to "wimp out" on pain because of the chemical boost it creates. That's an argument against sex, not against As. Is he proposing sexless Ms? Didn't think so. So why is sex a "drug" in an A, but not in a M? He doesn't say. I'd guess his reasoning, like most of the rest of his reasoning, is "because I say so", or perhaps "because the fairytale of my choice says so". Doesn't hold, as a logical argument. 14. Don't project: The point here seems to be that you can't second guess what your family would prefer, which seems a double-edged sword to me. If you can't second guess others, then it makes exactly as much or as little sense to argue one way or the other. This is simply a non-argument, nonsensical and pointless. 15. your actions will not result in long-term happiness, love or acceptance: The point seems to be to go to some metaphorical "waterfall". This might be a religious metaphor, or it might be a psychological one. Either way, the point holds as strongly for Ms as it does for As - if someone's looking for love outside of themselves but can't love themself, it doesn't matter whether in the context of a M or an A they still have the same pathology. This has nothing specific to do with As, unless the author is arguing that it's somehow not a problem to be co-dependent (or the pathology of your choice) within a M - a view that the mainstream scientific / mental health community would not endorse. Another pointless point, this one. 16. In an affair, your lover is not the one you would choose if you were on your own and single: Another sweeping statement easily enough proven wrong by even a single contrary example. And, of course, there are many. Yes, some MP may choose OPs to make good on the deficits in their M; but others don't. Others re-meet their "soulmate" after having lost them previously due to circumstance. And still others only realise over time and with maturity what it actually is they want in a partner - not what they've settled for because that's what opportunity delivered at the time - and so when that presents, then yes, the lover they encounter is exactly the one they'd choose if they were on their own and single. Some people divorce so that they can be "on their own and single" when they take up with the new person, and others engage them in an A. The author's argument is fallacious. 17. If God says it, why does it have to make sense to you: Well it doesn't, and nor do I have to heed anything that doesn't make sense to me because someone else's religion thinks I should. Perhaps this applies to the members of the author's sect / church / religion, but it certainly can't be held to apply beyond that to people who don't share the same premise. 18. the problem isn't your spouse: This is a repeat of the first point. Perhaps the author got so confused by his own convoluted "logic" that he didn't notice he was repeating himself. Or perhaps like a student on a test he needed to come up with the right number of points on the list, so he started fluffing the same ones out and pretending they were new ones. Sorry - you only get the mark once, insofar as it's worth a mark at all. And it wasn't - not the first time around, nor the second. Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I still don't see any reasons in there to have an affair, just ones to go ahead with a divorce. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts