Are you serious? Really?

[KathyM]

I've never really found a good argument for why cheating in marriage is worse than cheating in general. Especially since a divorce is attainable. The ability and want to be monogamous can be present without a contract and since there is nothing making a marital contract unbreakable, I can't imagine being married to be what stops someone from infidelity anymore than a simple verbal agreement would stop someone. You're either a person of your word or you're not. If you're not a person of your word without a contract, there isn't a contract that will make you into one. Yet people are always acting like infidelity within a marriage is somehow worse. Its the same act either way. Whatever emotions drove the WS to cheating doesn't hinge on a contract. Whatever pain it causes doesn't hinge on a contract. The contract won't prevent STDs or make it so the relationship can't end in the event of infidelity. Really what is that contract for when it comes to infidelity? I think if you really want to talk about preserving marriage, fidelity shouldn't be part of what the agreement is about.

There are two schools of thought that I can see as to why fidelity should be honored in a marriage. One is the religious concept. Most people do have some type of religious beliefs, and just about all religions that I know of have the principle of marriage as being a holy state, created by God, who meant that it be between a man and woman, and who created the directive of faithfulness within a marriage. Marriage is a bond, both legal and emotional, and sex is a very important part of that bond. The sexual act is a means of bonding with someone, and that bond is supposed to be kept only between a husband and wife in order to preserve and keep the marriage united and the bond strong. The other school of thought on fidelity, without regard for the religious aspect of it, is that sex is a very intimate act, which is a bonding act, which ties two people emotionally and physically together. To be breaking that bond to engage in that experience with someone else is to dilute the bond that keeps the relationship together. When someone is bonding with another person outside of a marriage, they are not bonding with their spouse. A soul can only have one mate. If a married person is bonding with someone outside of the marriage, then they are not available to bond with their spouse. The connection with someone outside the marriage interferes with the connection within a marriage. Cheating in a marriage destroys the bond between a husband and wife. It does considerable damage to the marriage, which most marriages cannot survive. Once the bond is broken and the trust is no longer there, it is extremely difficult to get back.

[sally4sara]

There are two schools of thought that I can see as to why fidelity should be honored in a marriage. One is the religious concept. Most people do have some type of religious beliefs, and just about all religions that I know of have the principle of marriage as being a holy state, created by God, who meant that it be between a man and woman, and who created the directive of faithfulness within a marriage. Marriage is a bond, both legal and emotional, and sex is a very important part of that bond. The sexual act is a means of bonding with someone, and that bond is supposed to be kept only between a husband and wife in order to preserve and keep the marriage united and the bond strong. The other school of thought on fidelity, without regard for the religious aspect of it, is that sex is a very intimate act, which is a bonding act, which ties two people emotionally and physically together. To be breaking that bond to engage in that experience with someone else is to dilute the bond that keeps the relationship together. When someone is bonding with another person outside of a marriage, they are not bonding with their spouse. A soul can only have one mate. If a married person is bonding with someone outside of the marriage, then they are not available to bond with their spouse. The connection with someone outside the marriage interferes with the connection within a marriage. Cheating in a marriage destroys the bond between a husband and wife. It does considerable damage to the marriage, which most marriages cannot survive. Once the bond is broken and the trust is no longer there, it is extremely difficult to get back.

 

I'm sorry but all the talk about god and souls and I begin to feel discussion is pointless for the lack of rational thought.

Romantic marriage is new. Newer than a christian god. People mated up for a spell long before there was some pastor to reside over their ceremony.

 

For trust to be broken one has to make a promise and break it. You don't get that I'm suggesting the only way to keep marriage attractive to future generations is to remove that which effs it up - the breaking of promises. I always say don't promise what you can't deliver and its pretty obvious that most people cannot deliver on a promise for fidelity even with a contract. If marriage is to survive it has to do what everything else that survives does - adapt, evolve. What the shape of that becomes won't always be the traits you want to see. We're running out of people to deny the right to marry so soon, the last trick we've got to making marriage attractive to people is the elitism of it, the barring if specific people from the ceremony of marriage. Once a group gains the right to marry they quickly realize it doesn't ensure a happily ever after and the shine wears off. We use to not allow interracial marriage. Now they too can get one and cheat and argue and divorce and squabble over kids and property! Wooo hoooo! Next up gay folks. After that everyone will know that contract doesn't ensure a damn thing that can't happen in a relationship without a contract only forgoing a contract is a bit easier legally.

 

If you want to get married on with religion as part of the mix thats on you but with so many religions, marriage cannot be about religion unless everyone who gets married practices the same faith. It still won't turn a bonobo into a gibbon. Discussing this on the platform of religion is insulting to everyone who is not of your faith.

 

Souls! Fer pete's sake! If souls existed and they could only have one mate infidelity would be impossible. Clearly this soul business is faulty.

[KathyM]

Clearly....but why?

Because we live in a society of instant gratification. A lot of people nowdays don't value the sanctity of marriage. They value their own needs and desires, and as soon as those needs and desires are not being met, off they go to the divorce lawyer or to the arms of somebody else. A lot of people nowdays are selfish. Their needs are of prime importance to them, and they will put those needs ahead of their children, their spouse, and their marriage. Looking out for #1. Not willing to work at it to resolve problems or issues in a marriage, or making a half-assed effort to resolve them, and then throwing in the towel. As soon as it's broken, it's tossed aside, rather than making any real attempt to fix it. Used to be that people considered marriage to be a permanent thing. Nowdays, they think it's just as long as things are going good. Well, marriages have their rough patches, their ups and downs, and there will be bad times. It's inevitable. If people are going to give up during the bad times, and not value their marriage enough to stick it out during those bad times, then the divorce rate will continue to climb. The thing is, people don't realize that bad times are going to come in their second marriage as well, and their third. People aren't as willing to stick it out in the bad times or work on the problems or issues in a marriage. They want instant gratification, and if they aren't getting that, they move onto the next person. They are not willing to work through problems anymore.

[KathyM]

I'm sorry but all the talk about god and souls and I begin to feel discussion is pointless for the lack of rational thought.

Romantic marriage is new. Newer than a christian god. People mated up for a spell long before there was some pastor to reside over their ceremony.

 

For trust to be broken one has to make a promise and break it. You don't get that I'm suggesting the only way to keep marriage attractive to future generations is to remove that which effs it up - the breaking of promises. I always say don't promise what you can't deliver and its pretty obvious that most people cannot deliver on a promise for fidelity even with a contract. If marriage is to survive it has to do what everything else that survives does - adapt, evolve. What the shape of that becomes won't always be the traits you want to see. We're running out of people to deny the right to marry so soon, the last trick we've got to making marriage attractive to people is the elitism of it, the barring if specific people from the ceremony of marriage. Once a group gains the right to marry they quickly realize it doesn't ensure a happily ever after and the shine wears off. We use to not allow interracial marriage. Now they too can get one and cheat and argue and divorce and squabble over kids and property! Wooo hoooo! Next up gay folks. After that everyone will know that contract doesn't ensure a damn thing that can't happen in a relationship without a contract only forgoing a contract is a bit easier legally.

 

If you want to get married on with religion as part of the mix thats on you but with so many religions, marriage cannot be about religion unless everyone who gets married practices the same faith. It still won't turn a bonobo into a gibbon. Discussing this on the platform of religion is insulting to everyone who is not of your faith.

 

Souls! Fer pete's sake! If souls existed and they could only have one mate infidelity would be impossible. Clearly this soul business is faulty.

Pastors didn't create marriage. Christianity didn't create marriage. God created marriage, and it has been there since man and woman were created. Most religions, not just Christianity, believe that God created marriage. Without religion involved, it is only a legal and emotional contract, not a holy contract. But like I said, even if you don't consider religion to be a factor in a marriage, or you don't believe or have any religious beliefs, the fact is that sex is a bonding experience that, when done with others outside of the marriage, dilutes and damages the bond with the spouse. It's not just a broken promise or a breach of contract. It's a turning away from the spouse and damaging the connection with the spouse, because it is making the connection with someone else.

[sally4sara]

Pastors didn't create marriage. Christianity didn't create marriage. God created marriage, and it has been there since man and woman were created.

 

Just for laughs, how long ago was that?

 

 

 

the fact is that sex is a bonding experience that

 

Not always or we wouldn't have something we call a one night stand.

 

 

when done with others outside of the marriage, dilutes and damages the bond with the spouse. It's not just a broken promise or a breach of contract. It's a turning away from the spouse and damaging the connection with the spouse, because it is making the connection with someone else.

 

And I ask again.....what does marriage have to do with this? If the act of sex itself creates a bond and sex can be had without getting married, cannot this bond be damaged by infidelity without a legal contract? If having sex with someone who is not your first sex partner dilutes and damages the bond created by having sex with your first partner what part of a marital contract protects this bond you're talking about? Are you saying that whatever bond sex with a contract creates is like and extra super vacu-seal bond the likes of which sex without a contract could only dream of creating? Come on, you know better. If sex creates a bond it does so with or without a contract so infidelity outside of marriage is just as bad as infidelity within marriage. So we come back to perhaps marriage shouldn't be about attaining someone's promise of fidelity. Something more intrinsic to our being would be better.

[KathyM]

Just for laughs, how long ago was that?

 

Do some research on the subject, if you actually want to know about it.

 

 

 

Not always or we wouldn't have something we call a one night stand.

 

Allright, maybe I should clarify that to be affairs create an emotional bond that is diluting and damaging to the bond with the wife.

 

 

And I ask again.....what does marriage have to do with this? If the act of sex itself creates a bond and sex can be had without getting married, cannot this bond be damaged by infidelity without a legal contract? If having sex with someone who is not your first sex partner dilutes and damages the bond created by having sex with your first partner what part of a marital contract protects this bond you're talking about? Are you saying that whatever bond sex with a contract creates is like and extra super vacu-seal bond the likes of which sex without a contract could only dream of creating? Come on, you know better. If sex creates a bond it does so with or without a contract so infidelity outside of marriage is just as bad as infidelity within marriage. So we come back to perhaps marriage shouldn't be about attaining someone's promise of fidelity. Something more intrinsic to our being would be better.

Cheating on a bf or gf is also damaging the bond that they have. When you make the bond with somebody else, you break it with your spouse/SO. Marriage is about forming a union between two people. A spiritual, emotional, and physical union. A sexual relationship with your spouse is an important part of that union. It bonds the couple together emotionally and physically. When they are bonding with an AP, they are diluting and damaging the bond with their spouse.

[rafallus]

Not always or we wouldn't have something we call a one night stand.

Release of neurotransmitters, oxytocin, etc. proves you otherwise. One night stands don't prevent this from happening.

 

I've never really found a good argument for why cheating in marriage is worse than cheating in general. Especially since a divorce is attainable. The ability and want to be monogamous can be present without a contract and since there is nothing making a marital contract unbreakable, I can't imagine being married to be what stops someone from infidelity anymore than a simple verbal agreement would stop someone. You're either a person of your word or you're not. If you're not a person of your word without a contract, there isn't a contract that will make you into one. Yet people are always acting like infidelity within a marriage is somehow worse. Its the same act either way. Whatever emotions drove the WS to cheating doesn't hinge on a contract. Whatever pain it causes doesn't hinge on a contract. The contract won't prevent STDs or make it so the relationship can't end in the event of infidelity. Really what is that contract for when it comes to infidelity? I think if you really want to talk about preserving marriage, fidelity shouldn't be part of what the agreement is about.

Therefore, if you're not a person of your word, why even agree to contract you know you won't be able to fulfill in the first place?

[sally4sara]

Release of neurotransmitters, oxytocin, etc. proves you otherwise. One night stands don't prevent this from happening.

 

For all that bond is worth if you never see them again yeah? Some bond! Maybe if they used Fixodent for lube? But if we're going to talk about interpersonal bonds, our capacity for doing so is an average of 150 loved ones. More people than that and you stop being able to remember why you're connected to them enough to consider them a loved one. These 150 will create electrical activity in the brain similar to and in the same place as mother will have for her child when it cries. Funny thing though, no one ever talks about the bond forged between a second child diluting and damaging the bond made with their first child. Or that the ability to make a new friend diluting or damaging older friendships. Being close to a grandparent doesn't make it harder to be close to your birth parent. And I remember feeling a distinctly deeper love for my husband than my first serious boyfriend. One could argue the more people you love, the better you become at loving people - to the point of 150 anyway.

 

Therefore, if you're not a person of your word, why even agree to contract you know you won't be able to fulfill in the first place?

 

Pretty much yeah. And if folks can't find a different thing to promise in marriage I believe it will fall out of favor. As it stands now, most folks' marriage was only good for stimulating the economy. Weddings and divorce can be pretty expensive.

[linwood]

Funny thing though, no one ever talks about the bond forged between a second child diluting and damaging the bond made with their first child. Or that the ability to make a new friend diluting or damaging older friendships. Being close to a grandparent doesn't make it harder to be close to your birth parent. And I remember feeling a distinctly deeper love for my husband than my first serious boyfriend. One could argue the more people you love, the better you become at loving people - to the point of 150 anyway.

 

Well said.

 

I`m so tired of the "If you cheat you don`t love your partner!" fallacy thrown around here constantly.

[sally4sara]

Well said.

 

I`m so tired of the "If you cheat you don`t love your partner!" fallacy thrown around here constantly.

 

I do think if you cheat you don't love your partner. But the part of it that makes it so unloving is the lying and sneaking way more than the sex. Sex is what we do married or not, but you don't lie to and hide stuff from a partner. You lie to and hide stuff from the cops and enemies who would use the truth against you.

[linwood]

I do think if you cheat you don't love your partner. But the part of it that makes it so unloving is the lying and sneaking way more than the sex. Sex is what we do married or not, but you don't lie to and hide stuff from a partner. You lie to and hide stuff from the cops and enemies who would use the truth against you.

 

Considering your words then a one night stand or short fling would`t rise to the level of "not loving your partner"?

 

Considering also that I often lied to and betrayed my mother about many important things is it correct to say I didn`t love her?

[rafallus]

For all that bond is worth if you never see them again yeah? Some bond! Maybe if they used Fixodent for lube? But if we're going to talk about interpersonal bonds, our capacity for doing so is an average of 150 loved ones. More people than that and you stop being able to remember why you're connected to them enough to consider them a loved one. These 150 will create electrical activity in the brain similar to and in the same place as mother will have for her child when it cries. Funny thing though, no one ever talks about the bond forged between a second child diluting and damaging the bond made with their first child. Or that the ability to make a new friend diluting or damaging older friendships. Being close to a grandparent doesn't make it harder to be close to your birth parent. And I remember feeling a distinctly deeper love for my husband than my first serious boyfriend. One could argue the more people you love, the better you become at loving people - to the point of 150 anyway.

 

As for children, it does!

 

I've experienced it first hand as youngest of 3 children, I've also dealt with family of 8 children, and noticed that oldest ones ended up deeply resenting their mother. Still cried at her funeral though, she was one messed up woman - that was a long story. Still point is that they had to fight for her attention, and quite obviously none got as much, as if it were her only child. Same with affair - I simply refuse to believe that affair has no impact on bond with husband/wife, on the very same, and obvious, grounds.

 

With children there is also factor, that as they grow they can do more and more on their own, so in a way, they don't need as much immediate care (not including punishments when they go out of line, obviously).

[sally4sara]

Considering your words then a one night stand or short fling would`t rise to the level of "not loving your partner"?

 

Considering also that I often lied to and betrayed my mother about many important things is it correct to say I didn`t love her?

 

Depends on the disclosure prior to that ONS.

 

You were a child and unpracticed at love. As well, children are mini sociopaths. Most of us out grow the selfish motivations and justifications of our childhood. Not to mention some parents are unpracticed as well and make no room for the truth by using violent reprisal.

[rafallus]

Considering your words then a one night stand or short fling would`t rise to the level of "not loving your partner"?

 

Considering also that I often lied to and betrayed my mother about many important things is it correct to say I didn`t love her?

 

Love is overrated.

 

Some folks really love to spread propaganda that "love conquers all". No, it doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if many cases of cheating/OW would stem at least partially from that "love conquers all" belief.

 

Also, there is no one universal definition of love, so it can be easily adapted to meaning which is most convenient for one to currently discussed point.

[linwood]

Depends on the disclosure prior to that ONS.

 

Please elaborate, I`m not sure I understand what you mean by "disclosure prior to…"

 

You were a child and unpracticed at love. As well, children are mini sociopaths. Most of us out grow the selfish motivations and justifications of our childhood. Not to mention some parents are unpracticed as well and make no room for the truth by using violent reprisal.

 

Nope, I was also an adult when I did these things. My parents were`t physically abusive.

It`s simply that many things that were of immense importance to her were trivial at best to me an often if I had not "betrayed" her wants it would have impacted me and/or her negatively.

 

Within the confines of your previous statement the only conclusion is that I did not love my mother.

 

I`m not trying to harass you Sally I`m just trying to understand how, since we know "love" is a chemical reaction in the brain, a person must be out of love with one person in order to engage in sex with another.

Cheating is cold, callous, selfish, disrespectful and many many other negative things but I fail to understand, and no one has been able to show me why it means the cheater no longer loves his partner.

There is simply no evidence for this belief.

 

It would seem from the plethora of despondent heartbroken remorseful WS`s we have here on these boards alone this belief is simply a fallacy.

 

Love is overrated.

 

Some folks really love to spread propaganda that "love conquers all". No, it doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if many cases of cheating/OW would stem at least partially from that "love conquers all" belief.

 

Also, there is no one universal definition of love, so it can be easily adapted to meaning which is most convenient for one to currently discussed point.

 

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

[silktricks]

I`m not trying to harass you Sally I`m just trying to understand how, since we know "love" is a chemical reaction in the brain, a person must be out of love with one person in order to engage in sex with another.

Cheating is cold, callous, selfish, disrespectful and many many other negative things but I fail to understand, and no one has been able to show me why it means the cheater no longer loves his partner.

There is simply no evidence for this belief.

 

It would seem from the plethora of despondent heartbroken remorseful WS`s we have here on these boards alone this belief is simply a fallacy.

 

 

It's a convenient belief for many - and let's face it convenience trumps accuracy at least 99 times out of a hundred.

[Memphis Raines]

 

its ridiculous.....

 

wrong, what is ridiculous is people like you thinking you are justified in your cheating.

 

 

If I remember correctly I think one of the BSers here was even a physical abuser....Can you imagine?

 

" I mean I know I brained him a cast iron pan but c'moooon......HE RUINED OUR MARRIAGE BY CHEATING.....Hes the bad guy; poor me I'm the victim...............now wheres my beating stick"

 

LMAO...... WHAT?!??!?!

 

 

LOL, what?? You may get a very small number, count them on one hand, of people here that would condone physical violence no matter what the circumstance.

 

 

Now if many people think that way so be it. But if they are going to go casting stones they should be prepared to take a pelting as well....and they are very easy targets.

 

well lets see, I never hit my wife, always initiated the affection, watched our young children while she was able to go out with friends and blow off steam, was happy to do so to give her a break.

 

did I occasionally leave the toilet seat up? sure, but never cheated, hit her, or disrespected her in any way. She just wanted strange. Simple as that.

 

so I'll cast the stone if I like.

 

 

 

If you dont want to get pelted....throw no stones

 

sounds like the true cheaters' lament to me. With a side helping of justification.

[Memphis Raines]

I have never been cheated on. Nor would I. How does cheating benefit anyone?

 

ask StoneCold. He, and in this thread, stated how it benefits him.

[Memphis Raines]

To Monogamy...really? Get off your moral high ground and come down to reality!! Most marriages end in divorce after 4 years! Most humans are not equipped to be monogamous over the course of a long term relationship, or marriage.

 

then the solution is easy. for those that don't believe that, don't get married and leave those alone who do believe in committment.

 

Americans are so caught up on "Cheaters" and forget that all mammals including humans are not capable of having one sexual partner forever!

 

speak for yourself.

 

 

It is so misguided to think you marry and you close the door to other relationships that involve sex, love and friendship!

 

wow, I did just that, closed the door. Depends on the person. If you can't do it, fine. But others can.

 

 

Open relationships in marriage are the answer and alot of couples have stayed together because of coming to terms with a common element in all marriages...BOREDOM, LACK OF INTIMACY!! So Hall passes and Kitchen passes do work, but dont discount it, or begrudge it just because its not mainstream or socially acceptable.

 

and this coming from someone who developed a relationship with a man, while you yourself are in an open marriage.

 

And when this other man decided to do EXACTLY what you preached above, and leave a relationship with you because he decided it was time to move on because having sex with the same person started to get boring.

 

So basically you are complaining that the man you chose to help betray his wife is doing EXACTLY what you are preaching here.

 

And basically what you are saying is its human nature to cheat, but someone better not do it to you.

[reboot]

Nice to see one of the hydra remains.

 

/sarcasm

[Severely Unamused]

You dont know jack amused...you're talking about somebody you dont even know.

That goes both ways.

 

But let me guess....just because they dont conform to popular opinion they are insignificant right? .... because they are outnumbered they should just tow party lines right unamused? .....and you know so much more than them oh learned one... give me a break

Funny, I don't remember that being in my little tirade.

 

Here's a question for all the posters in this thread: Do you think that the people who proclaim themselves as "morally awakened", and "differing from the norm", do so to stroke their own egos? To make themselves feel different and special, cleverer than the masses? Perhaps some people just can't handle the fact that they are just another cow on the cattle farm. Probably not you personally, Cold boy.

 

I don't believe these questions to be off-topic, on a thread that is moving in the loosest of directions.

 

I'm not here to surprise you with twists and turns and if I fail to "entertain and educate" you... that aint my problem....

 

As for repair minded... I nailed that goof to the wall too many times...I'm done with him.

 

If you think I'm at war with BSers here.....thats on you...But let me guess...you are a newly minted BSer so you are about as reasonable as 15 yr old adolecent...so its no wonder you think I'm at war with BSers.

Overly-dismissive mock condescension because I don't sing your praises.

 

...anyways this is starting to become a thread jack

I'm not going to continue with this silliness. I would hope that you do the same.

 

Love is overrated.

 

Some folks really love to spread propaganda that "love conquers all". No, it doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if many cases of cheating/OW would stem at least partially from that "love conquers all" belief.

 

Also, there is no one universal definition of love, so it can be easily adapted to meaning which is most convenient for one to currently discussed point.

I agree rafallus. Love is a physiological adaption to aid in human reproduction, at its most physical, and a metaphysical construct at its least physical. There are certainly more important things in life.

 

If you go to the OW/OM board as I have done, you will find some very curious definitions of love. There are women on that board, that hold love in the highest of esteem. Some have used romance novels, films, and songs, as their inspiration to define love. That isn't the best idea in reality. Especially with the prevalence of love martyrs in fiction.

 

Some of them have (self-admittedly) stated that they are emotionally vulnerable and weak. As have some of the WSs over here. I would imagine that the "love conquers all" idealogy would be quite appealing if this were the case.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Severely Unamused

[Spark1111]

Because people no longer have to have a lifetime partner to survive. Individuals can live very comfortably on their own and that combined with no understanding of the value of a long term partnership and the lazy, throwaway, spoilt attitude that is becoming more and more prevalent, means people are no longer willing to work as hard or as long at something for rewards that they may or may not reap.

 

The entitlement to having everything they want laid on a plate that so many seem to feel - not just on LS - will prevent them from learning humility, compassion, respect and regard that is essential for a happy and successful long term, committed relationship.

 

This I agree with!

 

Want me to remain monogamous? You do too.

 

Want me to love and cherish only you? Through richer and poorer, in sickness and health? Well, then you have to abide by those rules too.

 

Want to have sex outside of marriage? Give me the same permission.

 

Want to dissolve us? Let me know. It'll hurt, but at least, it is honest.

 

So you want me to remain faithful, but you can cheat with others?

 

Selfish, selfish, selfish, and sooooo unfair.

[sally4sara]

Please elaborate, I`m not sure I understand what you mean by "disclosure prior to…"

 

Sure. Say my husband takes on a new client and upon walking into their office the first time he is dumb struck by the receptionist. He finds the more he has to drop in on this client and interact with this lady, the weaker he gets despite being happy in our marriage. The urge builds in him and reaches a desperate level because he knows we've been living a monogamous life and without it I may not wish to remain in a relationship with him.

If he keeps this struggle to himself and pursues physical intimacy with this woman secretly, he does not really love or respect me. I am merely a possession of his because he denies me full knowledge of the state of my marriage with him. Two people cannot truly be partners if one of them hides from the other in some weird owner role or like that of a ruler. I may never find out, but from that point on we are no longer partners. The partnership is a facade. It continues but he does not know if it is only because he has cut me out of the loop or not.

 

But say instead he comes to me and tells me what he is going through. It is possible his ability to come to me and share this struggle lifts the burden from him and the sharing only deepens our emotional connection to the point he no longer sweats bullets over going to that office anymore. OR he tells me he cannot hold off anymore and must get with this woman and knows it means he is not the man for me but he loves me enough to not selfishly lie and keep me in a relationship that doesn't measure up to my expectations. Or as some other folks might do, they find a compromise in the middle via some lifestyle choice to see if it is manageable to them.

 

Nope, I was also an adult when I did these things. My parents were`t physically abusive.

It`s simply that many things that were of immense importance to her were trivial at best to me an often if I had not "betrayed" her wants it would have impacted me and/or her negatively.

 

And this is where love ends. The concept that YOU get to decide what is really important beyond what others feel is important while claiming you love them. Sure. You love them in the same capacity a dog loves its human. You love what they provide to you. You love the way they meet your needs. You love spending time with someone who provides things you need. But it is a selfish, childish love that isn't really love. Dogs do a great job of mimicking and behaving in a way we like to identify as love, but they don't actually love. They use, albeit, jubilantly.

 

Within the confines of your previous statement the only conclusion is that I did not love my mother.

 

Yes, I don't believe you do love her if you're deciding what of the things she really cares about are worth respecting and giving the truth to. Lying is a control measure and the idea that you get to control so much for other people in your life hampers your ability to really love.

 

I`m not trying to harass you Sally I`m just trying to understand how, since we know "love" is a chemical reaction in the brain, a person must be out of love with one person in order to engage in sex with another.

Cheating is cold, callous, selfish, disrespectful and many many other negative things but I fail to understand, and no one has been able to show me why it means the cheater no longer loves his partner.

There is simply no evidence for this belief.

 

I'm not trying to harass you either. I just don't think love is simply a chemical reaction in the brain. In fact, I don't think the chemical love is really love at all but self serving gluttony that can only benefit if it aids in the creation of real love. We can see what parts of the brain have the most electrical activity under different stimulation. We can identify the feel good chemicals that aid us in creating real love after those chemicals slow down or stop. But it isn't chemicals that make us want someone else to be happy, healthy, and assured. And wanting those things with nothing more to gain than seeing someone else happy is what love is. It doesn't seek their happiness with trickery. It doesn't only want their happiness so long as it doesn't inconvenience us. And sometimes love means you end the partnership because your presence will in the long run make their happiness impossible even if right now leaving with cause them pain. For instance, putting a child up for adoption when you know the state you are in will be deficient and harmful.

[sally4sara]

Because people no longer have to have a lifetime partner to survive. Individuals can live very comfortably on their own and that combined with no understanding of the value of a long term partnership and the lazy, throwaway, spoilt attitude that is becoming more and more prevalent, means people are no longer willing to work as hard or as long at something for rewards that they may or may not reap.

 

The entitlement to having everything they want laid on a plate that so many seem to feel - not just on LS - will prevent them from learning humility, compassion, respect and regard that is essential for a happy and successful long term, committed relationship.

 

The introduction to needing to marry to survive arrived with the concept of slavery. The concept of owning another person. Prior to that we still needed other people to survive but not one singular someone to survive. The original style of marriage created the need for women to marry. Before it they were as capable of meeting their own needs as anyone else was and neither marriage or monogamy had anything to do with it. Marriage became the only way to procure food, shelter and safety where before it these things were shared freely within your tribe without the need for monogamous partnering.

[donnamaybe]

but it isn't chemicals that make us want someone else to be happy, healthy, and assured. And wanting those things with nothing more to gain than seeing someone else happy is what love is. It doesn't seek their happiness with trickery. It doesn't only want their happiness so long as it doesn't inconvenience us.

perfectly stated!