I am the other woman

[rainbow]

wow! that is all I can say. I don't think I made myself clear in my previous post. Yes I am involved with him, but I know it's not right. At least not now. Extramartial affairs (in my opinion) stem from a lack of balance of power within a marriage. One spouse is submissive and one is dominant. It was probably like this when you first met the person, they exlemplifed who you weren't - that's what you loved about them. "It takes two to go the route of divorce. Every deceiver needs a denying spouse. Every denier protects and encourages a decieving spouse. that way you both subconsciously maintain Deadlock and avoid confrontation. Each goes on and does their psychological thing. You deceive and I'll deny. When the marriage cracks, the past games of deception and denial are exposed. " (this is an actual excerpt from the book "Crazy Time" by Abagail Trafford.

 

So I do not believe the Other Person (man or woman doing the cheating) is the cause of someone's crackup. They are maintaining the couple's deadlock. These are relationships that never had or slowly lost the balance of power. You need to share that balance, that what compromise is all about. Both parties are responsible for letting it disappear. "It is usually the submissive one who goes outside the marriage. the dominant one hangs on to the realtionship - not for what is was but for what it was supposed to be."

 

So, I do not blame myself for where my friend is. "In on the the most thorough studies of divorce, the California Children of Divorce Project, Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly found that most people in their study of sixty families had endured years of emotional starvation and abuse before deciding to seperate."

 

I truly do not believe (at least not this man) that he is having the best of both worlds. It is agony. Living 2 different lives, feeling responsible as a father and breadwinner for so long and then feeling selfish for wanting to be happy when he knows nothing will change. The denier (dominant spouse) does not want to talk, or hear what they do wrong. They do not believe they ever do wrong. It is the deciever (submissive spouse) that is at fault.

 

I went all through this ... it is the largest, deepest, darkest, lonliest place to be. I feel compelled to be his friend and listen to his fears. I have not "seen" him, but still talk to him b/c I know how hard it is. Making that decision. You are all probably right. We will not be together, but I will always remember him as the one who held my hand in the darkest time of my life.

[bark]

I understand your pain. Here you are, now available, and the love of your life remains undecided. The thing about "deadlock"--this avoidance of decision , action and confrontation--applies inside and outside a marriage. In fact we appear to have a triangular deadlock, here--you, your lover and his wife. All three of you are in a holding pattern., waiting to see who will make the first move. Sadly for you, it's a holding pattern I expect your lover will not exit.

 

The reason I loved your last post is that you make no apologies. This is a real relationship to you--one weighted down by joy, sadness, expectation, pain and frustration. When it comes to the "other man" or "other woman" there's frequently an empathy deficit. Extramarital affairs are stigmatized so much by so many that people either don't grasp, or don't care to grasp, that these are real relationships with real people with all the passion, heartache, joy and despair of culturally approved relationships like marriage.

 

In short, adulterers are people, too.

 

I wish you the best. I feel your heartache. I know what you're going through. Believe me, I know.

[lostforwords]

In short, adulterers are people, too

 

flicks her lighter and holds the flame up in the air......swaying it slowly back and forth.... back and forth.....

 

ok ...... as you can see im just trying to lighten things up a lil..... case well spoke tho

[bark]

girl, you're a hoot.

[lostforwords]

[rainbow]

I have received so much opinion on my situation from friends and my mother. she knows, the only one in my family that knows my secret. she was the one 6 yrs ago that wasn't strong enough to stay gone. she actually confessed to my father of her "sin". (i am raised italian / irish cathloic) so many morals. but she went back - actually got divorced . my father was devasted for yrs. suicide attempts. she could not handle the guilt. even us kids (older brother and sister and myself couldn't understand it) felt like she tore our family apart.

 

she is now remarried to my father, got back together at my wedding in Jan 2000 and remarried in 01. she is miserable. same problems same man, different ring different house. same crap. never dealt with anything. she lost the love of her life. I see her pain and she sees mine. We are both opposites in the awful triangle. I see no one is a winner.

 

But I truly was happy to see a man's side of it. Not everyday I can go up to a man and say Hey have you ever cheated thought of leaving....

 

My therapist is great. thank god I go and vent on every wed. it is my salvation. I am going through a very difficult healing and growing process. it is very scary to not know where I will be next week next year etc. People around me know about my divorce. Only divorced people get it. If you have never experienced this kind of loss- not just of your spouse but hopes and dreams people don't have sympathy esp. if you leave. Grief is real but support only comes if it is stemmed from death. rituals, prayers, people cook for you, call you. divorce is taboo, women think you will steal their men and people in general are scared to death its contagious.

 

The fact is divorce is all around us, effects all races and genders and only with understanding who you are and what you want and need and not just what you can constantly give to someone else do you finally begin to understand what love - true love is. it is give and take - a balance of power. I won't stop until I get it. and won't settle for anything less.

 

Just when I think I've felt the deepest pain in all of this it hurts just alittle bit more. I also think that if you do the "work" to heal and try and learn that the second time around would be great. People I feel who remarry and divorce again are the ones who didn't do the work and blame the old spouse for all the problems.

 

I miss my husband, he is a good man. I am mourning him too. that I wasn't the person he needed me to be. I wish I could have. I tried. Some days I feel really great and strong and then like now as words blurr through my tears it is so dark and lonely. and I know I am supposed to heal by myself and do this and that but I am so emotionally drained from the death of my marriage and my lover. I know it will get better, I am just a very impatient person. I am rambling, but it's nice to know that everyone who has posted didn't chop my head off.

 

Becasue in third world countries I would have been stoned to death.

[EnigmaXOXO]

Rainbow,

 

As much as you and your mother love each other, I wish she had been in the right frame of mind to set a better example for you. Even though you and your siblings were young and did not understand completely what was going on, what happened in your family "did" affect you more than you probably realize. Knowing mother’s secret now as an adult, you have finally been able to put the pieces together…the shouting, the fighting, father’s severe depression, and the eventual melt down of your entire family unit which probably led to your feelings of insecurity.

 

They have done studies on small infants which prove that even babies become emotionally stressed when there is tension in their environments. All of us, no matter our age or understanding, react to negative stimuli in our environments. Parents who argue can interfere with their children’s normal development. Their immune systems are affected and their ability to fight off illness can be lessened. Inability to understand or cope with the stress around them can keep children from learning to adjust to changes in life as they get older. More importantly, the legacy your mother has left you has probably skewed your perception of what constitutes a ‘healthy’ relationship and supportive family environment.

 

It might explain why you have fallen into this cycle of pursuing one unhealthy relationship after another. It’s all you know, and subconsciously we are drawn to that which has become ‘familiar’ to us.

 

I am so glad you are continuing your therapy sessions. Hopefully you will find the strength and support you need to fly solo for awhile. Perhaps once you have finally discovered who you are “outside” of a relationship, you will be better prepared to make healthier choices for yourself in regards to the kind of partner you choose in the future.

 

Relationships are not supposed to become “power struggles.” It’s about mutual respect, compromise, teamwork, communication and honesty. It’s out there waiting for you, but you first have to learn how to recognize it and not allow yourself to be tempted to settle for anything less simply because it feels ‘oh so familiar.’

[rainbow]

Your comments are very uplifting. Thanks. Yes, I definately did not have the "perfect" family growing up...father drank socially and was a jerk to my mother. I ended up marrying the same man, ironically. So did my sister (her first marriage to an alcoholic only lasted 2yrs.) and now I see my sisterinlaw miserable cause my brother is a jerk when he drinks. You can't tell me it's not hereditary. I don't believe it for a second. I was raped 16 years ago while I was drinking. I know it wasn't my fault, but I am very conscious today of not letting it get the best of me. I know I have alot to figure out. It is so amazing how you begin to realize all of this as you get older. It's ashame that we make all the mistakes and f ups first before we figure it out.

 

My mom may have stepped outside the marriage but she stayed inside that marriage for so long in hell. The only thing she did wrong was not leave and stay out. I love my dad don't get me wrong but he is very needy and dependent and put me through hell when I lived with him after my mother left. It affected me I know. the crazy thing is I am the only one in my family who deals with problems. after my parents got remarried my sibblings and my father act as if those years never happened. it's crazy. no one ever apologizes in my family we just act like nothing happened. that's what me and my husband did. and that's what my lover and his wife do.

 

Definition of INSANITY : Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a diferent outcome....

[lipglossboost]

Originally posted by moimeme

Some of us think that it is incumbent upon people to do no harm to others, even if it means sacrificing their own desires to accomplish that. Some of us think that the sort of selfishness exhibited in remarks such as yours is a highly undesirable quality in humans.

 

 

 

 

[font=times new roman][color=red]Exactly.[/color][/font]

[bark]

And if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger's character.

 

Unfortunately, not all of us inhabit the morally perfect, ambiguity-free world in which you reside, lipglossboost.

 

Nor do all of us believe that it is permissible to attack others for expressing minority views merely because the poster believes in doing no harm. I always run in the other direction when someone wants to clobber me with their virtue and morals.

 

Sometimes stated good intentions and superior moral posturing can be used as weapons of domination and control-- both on these boards and elsewhere in life.

 

Just one morally imperfect guy's opinion. So please, discount it.

 

But I hope you feel better...

[rainbow]

These unrealistic, one-sided views of the "perfect world" are exactly why marriages/relationships stagnate. These morally "correct" people have made the rest of us afraid to approach them with our problems or views. They do not even try to understand where the "screwed up" come from.

 

Is the quote that you love so much the same thing you would say to your best friend or someone who was doing something that you didin't approve of.

 

I am not a homosexual but I have good friends who are. I have no morals behind it. I can not judge them. Bark is right, we did not kill anyone. At least we have tipped the scales alittle in our marriages to wake up the other party that everything is "not just alright". Some people will never admitt that their are problems in their marriage, even sacrificing their own happiness to keep it the way everyone believes it should be.

 

We all assume to much in this life. And assuming everything will be ok, you can be ASSURED it won't. That's when these people are hit over the head saying "I don't know what went wrong, I thought we were happy." These people are lazy in my opinion. To lazy to figure it out and hide behind social morality. I would not want to live in your shoes with small and limited views of this world.

 

ARTICLE CLIP FROM "THE MARRIAGE TRAP"

even though marriage doesn't seem to make Americans very happy, they keep getting married (and remarried). Kipnis' essential question is: Why? Why, in what seems like an age of great social freedom, would anyone willingly consent to a life of constricting monogamy? Why has marriage (which she defines broadly as any long-term monogamous relationship) remained a polestar even as ingrained ideas about race, gender, and sexuality have been overturned?

 

 

Kipnis' answer is that marriage is an insidious social construct, harnessed by capitalism to get us to have kids and work harder to support them. Her quasi-Marxist argument sees desire as inevitably subordinated to economics. And the price of this subordination is immense: Domestic cohabitation is a "gulag"; marriage is the rough equivalent of a credit card with zero percent APR that, upon first misstep, zooms to a punishing 30 percent and compounds daily. You feel you owe something, or you're afraid of being alone, and so you "work" at your relationship, like a prisoner in Siberia ice-picking away at the erotic permafrost.

 

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE http://slate.msn.com/id/2087897

 

I am sorry but I'm staying on Bark's side. Not just becasue his opinions and ideas are opposite of most, but b/c he can see more than one view even if he doesn't agree. Something I think this forum lacks.

[lipglossboost]

Originally posted by bark

And if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger's character.

 

Unfortunately, not all of us inhabit the morally perfect, ambiguity-free world in which you reside, lipglossboost.

 

Nor do all of us believe that it is permissible to attack others for expressing minority views merely because the poster believes in doing no harm. I always run in the other direction when someone wants to clobber me with their virtue and morals.

 

Sometimes stated good intentions and superior moral posturing can be used as weapons of domination and control-- both on these boards and elsewhere in life.

 

Just one morally imperfect guy's opinion. So please, discount it.

 

But I hope you feel better...

 

 

I was merely stating an opinion, based on my own experiences. No one is perfect, myself (and yourself,) included. I discount no one's opinion, and I was not aware that this forum was about 'taking sides'. I thought it was about honesty, (apparently something some people cannot handle.)

 

And if you would care to address me personally in the future, my name is Lexi. Have a good day.

[EnigmaXOXO]

My most valuable teacher in life has been the examples set by others…

 

I am still trying to learn why so many people are so horribly offended by integrity and morality. It's almost as if people are repulsed at the mere mention these days...as if recoiling from some horrible image reflected back at them in a mirror.

 

As antiquated as these ideals may seem to some, to me, those I’ve met who embrace these virtues are still able to accept their own reflections. They do not hide in shame, rather are more likely to welcome the light of constructive criticism instead of running away from what they perceive to be unfair 'judgment.' I watch them live more fulfilling lives, free from the burdens of guilt, shame and regret. They seem to value themselves and others more highly, enjoy their lives, and do not have to expend so much time and energy trying to hide or defend their true natures from themselves and others.

 

On the other hand, I have come to know many people who have lost sight of those qualities within themselves and are desperately trying to reclaim them. In comparison, they seem to live complicated lives riddled with unhappiness, confusion and overwhelming problems. They are constantly reaching out for help, no longer able to find their own way or make their own decisions. While they try earnestly to accept who they are and what their lives have become, they are never truly content. They still relentlessly pursue the approval of others because they are unable to let go of their own guilt and stop judging themselves.

 

We humans are not perfect. Like everyone else, I also walk somewhere down the middle of that road. But when faced with an obstacle or a difficult life decision, we all have to choose for ourselves which path is the best way around. For me, given the examples presented in my life, I would prefer to follow those who have taken the higher, more difficult, road because they have met with a happier end. But in our passing, I will always respectfully yield the shortcut to regret, guilt, and confusion to those better equipped for the more painful journey.

 

I may be a morally suppressed coward, but I’m still a damn happy one!

[amerikajin]

The success of a marriage is ultimately defined by the two people in it.

 

Nevertheless, adultery isn't without consequence. Infidelity damages trust, and it is the premise of trust upon which marriage rests.

 

My guess is that 50 percent of marriages - and probably even more - involve some infidelity at least once. Kinda makes us wonder about how realistic it is to assume that both partners will remain faithful.

 

Having said that, at the time a marriage begins, I think it is an expectation that each partner will remain committed to each other...is that not the case? I think it is also assumed that in order for two people to be committed to each other, they reserve for themselves their intimacy...is that not also the case??? I understand fully the fact that reality often has a way of affecting what goes on between two people over time, but that doesn't change the initial expectations that have been present since the beginning of the relationship. I think that if you change those expectations, then you're in effect admitting that your marriage, as you originally understood it, is a failure. And I think that's the real consequence of adultery, though I guess it can be seen as a symptom of failure rather than the cause of it. It is for this reason that I tend to think that even in cases of adultery, a marriage is still salvageable if the two partners can find a way to get back to that commitment.

 

The one judgment I will make about the original poster is that she should not be interfering in another person's marriage - period. By doing that, you're not allowing your lover and his wife to get at the real issues in their relationship. As I said, what goes on in YOUR marriage is one thing; what goes on in ANOTHER marriage is frankly none of your damn business. You have no right to make judgments about the viability of their marriage, regardless of what your lover tells you. You can wait and be there for him, but you cannot enable him and aid and abet the dissolution of their marriage. What one decides to do with his or her own spouse is something that they'll have to deal with, but to meddle in the affairs of someone else is clearly out of bounds, and there's simply no ambiguity there - I don't care who says otherwise. That's just simply a matter of respect.

[moimeme]

Bark's remarks were aimed at me. You just placed yourself in the line of fire by agreeing with me.

 

I think a lot of people are unable to depend on themselves to be their own moral compasses. Some people post here needing their views to be approved because they haven't the courage of their convictions. I suspect sometimes in these 'moral' issues, they are looking to external approbation since they are unable to find it within themselves - perhaps because they feel guilty and are trying to assuage that guilt by finding a chorus of yea-sayers.

 

When people don't leap to applaud whatever it is they hope to have approved, they turn on those who disagree and claim they are being 'attacked' when the attack is really coming from within. If you are lying to a spouse and cheating on a spouse, you can concoct rationalizations for this from here to the next millennium, but something inside will still be telling you that what you are doing is wrong. You can try to drown it out by yelling at others, but it's unlikely to work. You have to face yourself and acknowledge that you are actually doing something wrong. This doesn't mean you can't forgive yourself, but the annoying little feeling in the pit of your gut won't leave you alone no matter how much you assail those who don't go along with your rationalizatons and justifications. What this means, ultimately, is that you are indeed a decent person who is not acting in congruence with your own beliefs. If you truly didn't care, or truly believed you were in the right, you'd be calm and peaceful in your convictions and undisturbed by the opinions of others.

 

This is neither an 'attack' nor is it directed specifically at any one or more people. It's my opinion on these situations; we have seen many, many of them, after all, and we will continue to see many more of them, I am sure.

[jenny]

i suppose i see morals <or ethics, for me> as a living, growing entity. when we gather new information, we make the necessary adjustments in thought, and this process never ends. part of the joy of forums is that one is invited to confront new views and think of the people behind them.

 

i am definitely among those who have been judgmental about this issue in the past, but i think this thread, bark's posts in particular, have made a fundamental change in my thoughts.

 

i don't mind that my convictions change. i like the challenge of facing my ignorance. at this particular moment, i value forthrightness, accountability, and empathy. i feel as though i have enough empathy in me for both bark and his wife. this is not a man who is self-satisfied and pleased by these events, he is struggling with a basic human need to communicate and love.

 

i do like codes of conduct; but they are man-made, and, as such, situational, contextual, and fluid. i could not presume to tell a soldier what he should or should not do in battle, for example, because i know nothing about what is happening in that culture.

 

i feel the same way here - i can't imagine living a passion-free life; for me it would be dystopic. nor can i imagine the pressure it must be to have children and weigh them in your decisions.

 

and, when it comes down to it, i like his posts. he's funny and creative. if i knew him in real life i would never judge him and trust he would not judge me for things i have done.

 

so this is now my new testing ground for being judgmental: if i knew them in real-time, would i say the things i am saying?

[moimeme]

That a person live a passionate life does not trump obligation to others. Somehow, there is a popular mythology among those who perhaps would fancy themselves bohemian that 'freedom' is the necessary and sufficient reason for allowing oneself to neglect others' hearts.

 

And to make it perfectly clear, I was not talking specifically about Bark at all. He and Rainbow are symbolic of thousands in similar situations.

 

There is a tendency in humans to want to bestow white hats and black hats. I am not of that ilk. To me, everyone wears grey. An abusive man can be a loving person and have wonderful qualities. Someone who ditches a partner unannounced may well have deep unresolved issues and pain and need sympathy. Someone who has had an affair may well have done so for reasons to do with all manner of internal issues and I have been slanged soundly for taking that side in the past.

 

There are no white hats. It is unreasonable to need to wear a white hat. It is more honest and certainly better for one all-round to acknowledge that one's hat is grey and perhaps even torn and ripped in a few places and to live with and fully explore that than to bend oneself into knots to pretend the hat is white.

 

It isn't really necessary to redefine ethics for every situation. Rather it requires knowledge and self-awareness to recognize and deal with the incongruities between one's fundamental values and one's behaviour. To deny or ignore the incongruities blocks avenues to growth.

[jenny]

i think that's it, exactly. i AM talking about bark specifically, and you are talking about morality generally.

 

i'm with you on the incongruity thing - to suggest that people are either 'good' or 'bad' is quite bizarre.

 

beyond that, i actually have no idea at all what you are talking about. giggles, all of a sudden there were Manichean hats and hearts everywhere. who was suggesting that people were white or black hats?

 

It isn't really necessary to redefine ethics for every situation.

 

it is for me. i change because of the people i meet, the people i hurt, the people i would consider my friends. it's not a polar change, i don't er...get a dichotomous hat with each exchange, but i do rethink things a great deal. and i would assume that my ethics in a war, or if i was starving, or if i had children, would be considerably different than they are right now.

 

finally, i don't know where this is coming from:

 

Somehow, there is a popular mythology among those who perhaps would fancy themselves bohemian that 'freedom' is the necessary and sufficient reason for allowing oneself to neglect others' hearts.

 

giggles! prejudicial language! and it's only 9 in the morning! i'm happy to be wrong, however. if you can show me how this is connected to the thread or arguments in any way, i will retract my claim that this is a rhetorical tactic to detract from the argument by insinuating a strange hasty generalization about pseudo-bohemian culture and ethics.

 

if it was a shot, i'm just not doing that anymore. there is no need. the growing concern about textual bullying is worrisome to me, and i'm working to modify my tone as to not alienate anyone. these are my ethics; i don't expect you to follow them; but i want to be upfront about this stuff from now on.

[moimeme]

who was suggesting that people were white or black hats?

 

Didn't say anybody was.

 

giggles! prejudicial language! and it's only 9 in the morning! i'm happy to be wrong, however. if you can show me how this is connected to the thread or arguments in any way, i will retract my claim that this is a rhetorical tactic to detract from the argument by insinuating a strange hasty generalization about pseudo-bohemian culture and ethics

 

jenny giggles:

 

nothing that you, or for that matter pretty much anybody else, says here is new or different. People make remarks which twig me to all the past times I have heard similar remarks and my reaction/opinion. I write based upon my general impressions of the situations because they mirror situations that occur again and again. I criticize opinions or ideas not because they are held by any particular individual, but precisely because they are held by many and therefore in the public domain.

 

My views on 'freedom' and 'individual rights' and how people use those to excuse their inhumanity to othes were formed long before I knew you existed and have not changed because you exist or because of anything you say. It is simply that, every now and then, a poster will trigger me to write down my ideas or opinions about the issue. You did that in this instance.

 

I suppose I could start a brand new thread each time I have a thought to toss in so that the juxtaposition of my post and someone else's does not in any way connote that my answer is aimed particularly at them. However, since my thoughts are about the general theme of the thread, it seems counterproductive to do so.

 

so chill. I don't care a flying flip about what any one person thinks or how they live unless they are in my personal life and trangressing upon my life in some way. You are welcome to think me a fool or worse if you base judgements of people on the words you see on these pages. It has no effect on me. What's Ryan's sig? :"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

I once knew a bunch of people who thought I thought ill of them because I didn't go drinking with them. I explained that I just didn't like to go drinking much. They took it personally. I will never understand this.

[lipglossboost]

Originally posted by moimeme

 

nothing that you, or for that matter pretty much anybody else, says here is new or different. My views were formed long before I knew you existed and have not changed because you exist or because of anything you say.

 

I feel the same way, moimeme, and I will never understand why, in a public forum where people are asked to post their opinions about situations are then attacked by other members for those opinions. It makes no bloody sense.

 

We are a diverse group of individuals who all have something to contribute, and we are here out of a desire to help one another. That does not always mean telling people they made no mistakes, that everything will be okay, or the myriad of other things they want to hear.

 

If someone asks my advice, I am honest, straightforward, and have their best interests in mind. If I see them about to walk into a volcano, I will tell them so. Whether they take my advice, or whether anyone else here agrees with my advice is of no concern to me.

 

I will also never understand how it is helpful to the original poster for us to argue amoungst ourselves. We have different lives, different opinions, and different experiences, and you know what ...? That is OK. That is the way it should be.

[moimeme]

then attacked by other members for those opinions

 

I think, and don't understand why, that when someone says 'I disagree with your opinion' or 'I think your view is wrong', they hear 'you are bad and stupid for having that thought'. It's 'the sin, not the sinner' - some people seem completely unable to detach the two. To them, seemingly, the sin IS the sinner and to dislike one implies disliking the other as well. I'm not one of those people, except in a very few cases and these involve matters of world affairs, not interpersonal affairs.

 

Recently, a friend forgave me for something, saying "I disapprove of the action, not the individual". I nearly wept since this sort of point of view seems so rare these days.

[jenny]

mk; fair enough. agreed. and when i see any instance of the person, not the idea or the concept, being attacked, no matter how subtly, ill call it. all negative and judgmental adjectives will be used next to the action, not a person or people.

 

so, for example:

 

Somehow, there is a popular mythology among those who perhaps would fancy themselves bohemian that 'freedom' is the necessary and sufficient reason for allowing oneself to neglect others' hearts.

 

could be edited to:

 

"some bohemian types believe that 'freedom' is the necessary and sufficient reason for allowing themselves to neglect others' hearts."

 

or

 

Apparently, as long as a man gets to fulfill his own selfish needs, albeit at the cost of others' feelings, people should be happy for him, according to our poster.

 

could be edited to:

 

"these actions have painful consequences"

 

or

 

Some of us think that the sort of selfishness exhibited in remarks such as yours is a highly undesirable quality in humans.

 

could be edited to:

 

"selfishness...highly undesirable quality in actions according to some moral systems"

 

 

it seems to me a reasonable supposition in these lines that you are judging the person or people.

 

obviously, you are under no obligation to do this. this is my system, not yours, and i respect that. i have no problem with opposition, and i think it's vital to represent different points of view equally. i do not take it personally but i am beginning to understand that many people do.

 

and i like your idea of focusing on the 'sin' - or, in my system, 'action against accepted code of behaviour.' i think there is less chance of people taking it personally if we do not focus on the person.

 

the problem with prejudicial language in logic, of course, is that attaching moral value to a claim has no evidence-weight at all and it tends to distract from the points being considered. does it have a value that i do not understand in your system? does it serve an emotional need? i'd like to understand.

 

 

cheers, j

[moimeme]

o jenny (giggles)

 

thanks for the editorial remarks

 

ever so kind of you to assist me in this matter

 

I'll take your opinion under advisement.

 

Tell me, is there a fallacy to do with patronization? I'd love to read about it.

[bark]

Alas, all things must end.

 

I'm both a LS producer and consumer.

 

As a consumer of LS wit and wisdom, I'm satisfied. The range, depth and insight represented by many of the posts was extraordinarily helpful to me in my alienated spouse crisis. That crisis has abated and things are substantially improving with my spouse. I thank all those who helped me and my family.

 

Unfortunately, as a LS producer, the verdict is mixed. I believe that morally dissonant voices are suppressed in many threads in the name of a moral authoritarianism that frequently expresses itself, in jenny's memorable words, as "textual bullying".

 

The "moral" bullying is even more insidious because the posters deny that they bully anyone or suppress moral dissidence by attacking, in the name of virtue, the dissident's character.

 

What I've observed during my brief time at LS is that some posters , if a post threatens their morally correct world view, assault the offending poster's character. This is a form of genetic fallacy: a morally deficient poster has morally deficient views. A flawed character makes flawed arguments. That has happened to me a number of times.

 

I don't like this moral orthodoxy or tyranny of virtue, and I believe that if this "moral authoritarianism" continues to dominate, consumers, especially of the infidelity threads, will go elsewhere. People won't seek counsel if all they hear is how worthless or selfish or defective they are because they're unfaithful or are considering becoming unfaithful. Many people lack the self-mastery that many morally correct LS posters apparently possess.

 

I tried, with limited success, to humanize these "bad" people because I'm one of them. For that, I will apologize to no one on these boards.

 

It's time to move on.

[jenny]

i did not not mean it that way - i was actually trying to point out how posters might get confused, and was careful not to use any demeaning adjectives. i'm actually dead sincere about this; i think it is becoming a real problem.

 

i can tell from your last post that we have agreed to disagree here.

 

cheers, j