Are you serious? Really?

[donnamaybe]

But what is the rationale for sneaking around instead of dealing honestly with the marital problems? Oh, yeah. That self serving thing.

[wheelwright]

But what is the rationale for sneaking around instead of dealing honestly with the marital problems? Oh, yeah. That self serving thing.

 

Could be. Many WSs say as much.

 

Could be not wanting to hurt but needing to connect with someone.

 

It will be different in each case anyhow, the important thing is the reasons are given, and we understand more when we read them.

 

Anyway, one of my points is that the rationale whereby cheating is wrong because it involves lying to a loved one doesn't stack up.

 

Unless you begin to elaborate on the argument about why lying about cheating hurts so much. Then you get the real reasons.

 

As can be self-serving. Why does the WS want to behave in this way?

 

Back to the issue of they need something not in the M, but are unwilling to give the M up etc.

 

So, why don't they just give the M up?

 

Attachment, cowardice, kids and money. Sometimes they love the BS, or if not admire them and feel in bondage anyway.

 

These are very powerful reasons not to divorce. Only love for the BS would stop the cheating though, until the cheating threatened loss of the other factors.

 

Or until the WS remembered they loved the BS.

 

M Love =

commitment only (empty love)

commitment+intimacy (companionship love)

commitment+intimacy+passion (the whole shebang)

 

Doesn't matter which kind of love the WS remembers, they'll stay.

 

BS will know which kind.

[donnamaybe]

Just who is it that you're trying to convince, dahling?

 

You read my mind.

[silktricks]

Why? It is certainly the truth.

 

If by conscious, we mean a psychological force that prevents people from cheating (or hurting others), then obviously many do not have it (or enough of it, if we can define it as a continuum, as opposed to 0 or 1)

 

It is pretty self-evidence from the fact that LS exists.

 

Did you mean conscience???

[silktricks]

Anyway, one of my points is that the rationale whereby cheating is wrong because it involves lying to a loved one doesn't stack up.

 

Unless you begin to elaborate on the argument about why lying about cheating hurts so much. Then you get the real reasons.

 

 

Cheating is wrong for more reasons than lying to a loved one. The lies are merely a portion of the hurt. What doesn't follow from that statement is your argument that the sole reason for the pain is a bruised ego.

 

However, lying about anything to your partner is IMO an action that is destined to create distance and eventually break apart the union. Lying hurts. It hurts the liar and hurts the person being lied to.

[Owl]

Could be. Many WSs say as much.

 

Could be not wanting to hurt but needing to connect with someone.

 

It will be different in each case anyhow, the important thing is the reasons are given, and we understand more when we read them.

 

Anyway, one of my points is that the rationale whereby cheating is wrong because it involves lying to a loved one doesn't stack up.

 

Unless you begin to elaborate on the argument about why lying about cheating hurts so much. Then you get the real reasons.

 

As can be self-serving. Why does the WS want to behave in this way?

 

Back to the issue of they need something not in the M, but are unwilling to give the M up etc.

 

So, why don't they just give the M up?

 

Attachment, cowardice, kids and money. Sometimes they love the BS, or if not admire them and feel in bondage anyway.

 

These are very powerful reasons not to divorce. Only love for the BS would stop the cheating though, until the cheating threatened loss of the other factors.

 

Or until the WS remembered they loved the BS.

 

M Love =

commitment only (empty love)

commitment+intimacy (companionship love)

commitment+intimacy+passion (the whole shebang)

 

Doesn't matter which kind of love the WS remembers, they'll stay.

 

BS will know which kind.

 

WW...I get that you feel that your affair was in some way justified by your perception of the state of your marriage prior to you starting your affair.

 

What I don't understand is whether or not your H shared that same view...whether or not you communicated your view on the state of the marriage to your H clearly before you started your affair.

 

Did your H have any actual reason to suspect that if things didn't change...you were going to take the action you took?

 

What did you do to try to fix the marriage, correct the situation....BEFORE starting an affair?

 

See...in your subsequent posts, it sounds to me as though your H hasn't accepted that the marriage is truly over even now. He's still trying to "woo you" back into a relationship. That leads me to believe he never felt that the "M was dead" even though you did. What, other than the affair, did you do to try to ensure that he clearly understood how you felt, and what the possible outcome would be if something wasn't done to revitalize the marriage?

[silktricks]

As can be self-serving. Why does the WS want to behave in this way?

 

Back to the issue of they need something not in the M, but are unwilling to give the M up etc.

 

So, why don't they just give the M up?

 

Attachment, cowardice, kids and money. Sometimes they love the BS, or if not admire them and feel in bondage anyway.

 

These are very powerful reasons not to divorce. Only love for the BS would stop the cheating though, until the cheating threatened loss of the other factors.

 

Or until the WS remembered they loved the BS.

 

M Love =

commitment only (empty love)

commitment+intimacy (companionship love)

commitment+intimacy+passion (the whole shebang)

 

Doesn't matter which kind of love the WS remembers, they'll stay.

BS will know which kind.

 

WW, this portion of your post sounds to me like you are trying to find reasons why your MM chose to not leave his marriage to be with you. You chose to leave. He chose not to. Just accept the fact that you may never know the "real" reason. Maybe whatever he told you was the truth (sorry, I don't remember, if you posted it). Maybe it wasn't. Maybe you were a distraction, maybe he really loved you. maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.

 

There are a lot of reason people do and don't do things. A "good" reason for me, may mean nothing to you.

 

I've got to admit that I found the very first line of this portion of your post highly amusing. A's can be self-serving???? I would state categorically that A's are ALWAYS self-servin g

[PatFinkle]

Obviously because he thought she was good enough for him to have an affair with but not good enough to dump his wife for.

 

I mean how difficult is that to understand?

[nyrias]

Did you mean conscience???

 

Yes. Sorry. Typing error-free isn't my strong suit.

[nyrias]

I opt for C..."none of the above".

 

And I thought that I thought poorly of humanity...the way you describe us as a species, sounds like we'd be best off all drinking the cool-aid and hoping to rendevous on Shoemaker-Levy, leaving the planet to be inherited by the octopi and squid.

 

Well, that is of course assuming you have the © choice. The nature of cheating is that that choice is always denied to the BS, by definition.

 

In the grand scale of things, I don't think we are that much superior to the dinosaurs. They ruled earth MUCH longer (in MILLIONS of years) than the duration of human civilization (a few thousand years).

[Owl]

Well, that is of course assuming you have the © choice. The nature of cheating is that that choice is always denied to the BS, by definition.

 

Well, this was in direct response to your comment:

The question is which type of cheaters do you "prefer"? The first type is clean cut, easy to hate, and once discovered, you can (prob no other option) just leave.

 

You asked what I preferred...implying a choice. Ask a silly question...

 

 

In the grand scale of things, I don't think we are that much superior to the dinosaurs. They ruled earth MUCH longer (in MILLIONS of years) than the duration of human civilization (a few thousand years).

 

If people were capable of living/thinking daily on that kind of timescale/level, that might almost be useful and applicable.

 

The key difference between us and dinorsaurs (as far as we know) and any other animal this planet has seen is that we have the power of choice. We're rational, thinking creatures, capable of employing logic, reasoning, and even self-sacrifice when required in order to resolve issues. We're able to extrapolate possible results of our choices without being required to actually having been through that decision prior to being required to make the choice.

 

Better? Dunno...but we are who we are...and we oughtta make the best of what we are, don't ya think?

[nyrias]

The key difference between us and dinorsaurs (as far as we know) and any other animal this planet has seen is that we have the power of choice. We're rational, thinking creatures, capable of employing logic, reasoning, and even self-sacrifice when required in order to resolve issues. We're able to extrapolate possible results of our choices without being required to actually having been through that decision prior to being required to make the choice.

 

True freedom of choice is an illusion. Go ask the compulsive gambler, or alcoholic.

 

Secondly "able to extrapolate possible results of our choices without being required to actually having been through that decision" means that we can predict consequences. It does not necessary means that we have morals.

 

The fact that a cheater can perfect predict the pain of a BS does not mean that he cares.

[donnamaybe]

Yes, it may be more difficult for someone with lesser impulse control, such as an alcoholic or a gambler, to not drink or gamble. BUT - they can still choose to not drink or gamble.

 

I have read studies indicating that for a long time cigarette smoker to stop smoking is as difficult as a heroin addict to quit heroin. Why are there so many people, then, who have quit smoking?

 

We are way too quick in this day and age to use excuses to remove personal responsibility.

[nyrias]

Yes, it may be more difficult for someone with lesser impulse control, such as an alcoholic or a gambler, to not drink or gamble. BUT - they can still choose to not drink or gamble.

 

I have read studies indicating that for a long time cigarette smoker to stop smoking is as difficult as a heroin addict to quit heroin. Why are there so many people, then, who have quit smoking?

 

We are way too quick in this day and age to use excuses to remove personal responsibility.

 

No one said this is an excuse to remove personal responsibility. But one cannot deny the effects of brain chemistry.

 

And i can ask the same. Why are so many people who cannot quit smoking?

 

The answer is simple. Brain chemistry varies.

[Owl]

OK, so in all of this, I've completely lost the intent of the conversation....what was your point in all of this, Nyrias?

 

Some people will cheat. Agreed.

 

Some people will be devestated by a cheating spouse. Yep.

 

So...what's left to say?

 

The "why" or whether or not it should have been expcted or could have been avoided...that's something that pretty much everyone is going to have to work out on their own case by case situation.

[donnamaybe]

No one said this is an excuse to remove personal responsibility. But one cannot deny the effects of brain chemistry.

 

And i can ask the same. Why are so many people who cannot quit smoking?

 

The answer is simple. Brain chemistry varies.

Or they just don't try hard enough. Some people are lazy, and that includes emotionally.

[Crabbies]

I'm curious as to why people sleep with other people outside their marriage.

[Crabbies]

Why does the spouse think the one who is having sex with another person is doing it?

[nyrias]

Or they just don't try hard enough. Some people are lazy, and that includes emotionally.

 

Sure. In fact, laziness (a kind of self-serving behavior) makes a lot of sense. Dumping a spouse or going thru a divorce is a lot of work. Having an A, even with all the secrecy, probably (to many, but not all) is a lot less effort.

[sally4sara]

Nietzsche would be turning over in his grave, if he saw, what happened to his philosophies, and who used them for their own "convenience".

 

Have you forgotten where we are posting? I suppose I could have said Cioran, but then - who would have known I was marveling over Nyrias' overweening nihilism? Nietzsche is the common man's poster child for nihilism.

 

Now lets get reeaaall pretentious about some LS posting!

[nyrias]

I'm curious as to why people sleep with other people outside their marriage.

 

Just from this site, i gleamed many possible reasons from no sex life from their spouses, to the desire to seek variety.

[donnamaybe]

Just from this site, i gleamed many possible reasons from no sex life from their spouses, to the desire to seek variety.

I thought we had deduced that it was a lack of conscience and laziness.

[Crabbies]

"People sometimes like variety. It's as simple as that..." Lord Lambton

[donnamaybe]

"People sometimes like variety. It's as simple as that..." Lord Lambton

And if they have to lie and sneak around to get it, they're pretty damn pathetic.

[wheelwright]

WW, this portion of your post sounds to me like you are trying to find reasons why your MM chose to not leave his marriage to be with you. You chose to leave. He chose not to. Just accept the fact that you may never know the "real" reason. Maybe whatever he told you was the truth (sorry, I don't remember, if you posted it). Maybe it wasn't. Maybe you were a distraction, maybe he really loved you. maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.

 

There are a lot of reason people do and don't do things. A "good" reason for me, may mean nothing to you.

 

I've got to admit that I found the very first line of this portion of your post highly amusing. A's can be self-serving???? I would state categorically that A's are ALWAYS self-servin g

 

I spent a long time wondering about first bolded. I have accepted this fact! I agree with the maybes. That's what I was left with.

 

I wonder in which ways As are self-serving, in a way which Ms would be considered not to be?

 

Altruism after all depends on one's viewpoint, in much the same way as its opposite.

 

Are we to consider Ms which involve a plethora of emotional lies and half-truths, dysfunctional (but often witty and intimate) moments, faking stuff for the sake of social graces and so on as in some way more altruistic than As?

 

I don't honestly like to think of any of my Rs on the self-serving - altruistic scale. The meaning in them comes in another form. Though my behaviour may exhibit these qualities at times. And with human error included.