Are you serious? Really?

[silktricks]

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.

 

Although I don't disagree with a single thing you've said here, this is the "ideal" of love, and doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with life. I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that because you have an affair it means you don't love your partner. That idea is very convenient. It's convenient at a lot of levels for a lot of people, but what it isn't is accurate. There are a lot of reason for people's actions, we are very complex creatures. To assume that we complex for all things, but simplistic in love is not accurate.

 

There are many layers to love and anger can be sliced and diced into the mix pretty readily. Anger is one of the motivating factors of affairs for a number of people. If you are angry at someone it doesn't mean you don't love them, but it CAN mean that you will strike at them in a way to hurt them the worst way you can.

 

There are people who cannot get sex at home. They love their spouse, but are also sexual creatures, so they have an affair.

 

Those are just two examples of reasons people who though they love their spouse might have an affair. They just don't count the long-term possible cost of what they do. People aren't cut and dried, and although the examples I've given haven't handled their situation in an honest and upright manner, we aren't discussing what is honest and upright - but rather is it possible to love someone and still cheat.

[sally4sara]

Although I don't disagree with a single thing you've said here, this is the "ideal" of love, and doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with life. I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that because you have an affair it means you don't love your partner. That idea is very convenient. It's convenient at a lot of levels for a lot of people, but what it isn't is accurate. There are a lot of reason for people's actions, we are very complex creatures. To assume that we complex for all things, but simplistic in love is not accurate.

 

There are many layers to love and anger can be sliced and diced into the mix pretty readily. Anger is one of the motivating factors of affairs for a number of people. If you are angry at someone it doesn't mean you don't love them, but it CAN mean that you will strike at them in a way to hurt them the worst way you can.

 

There are people who cannot get sex at home. They love their spouse, but are also sexual creatures, so they have an affair.

 

Those are just two examples of reasons people who though they love their spouse might have an affair. They just don't count the long-term possible cost of what they do. People aren't cut and dried, and although the examples I've given haven't handled their situation in an honest and upright manner, we aren't discussing what is honest and upright - but rather is it possible to love someone and still cheat.

 

Please read again. I said nothing about the want to have sex with others indicating you don't love your partner. I never even said taking on a second, sexual relationship must mean you don't love your spouse. all I said was that lying to them and sneaking around hoping they never find out means you don't love them.

 

And the love I described has everything to do with my life at least. It isn't some impossible ideal because I live it everyday. Damn sure if I one day find myself unable to continue monogamously within my marriage, my husband will be the first to hear of it before any outside sexin' goes on. He will have all the info he needs to decide what if any kind of relationship he wants to have with me from that point on even if it means I don't get my cake AND the ability to eat it too. That is unselfish love. That is real love.

[nyrias]

That's not really true that most marriages end in divorce after 4 years. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. That means 50% of all marriages stay together. I know many married couples whose marriage has withstood the test of time. I am one of them. Humans are supposed to be more evolved in their thinking than animals. They value things that are above their mere basic needs or physical needs. There is no reason in the world why sex within the boundaries of a marriage has to be boring. It's only as boring as a person makes it.

 

"supposed to be" is the most useless argument on the internet. Human are "supposed to be" living healthy life styles too. What is the obese rate in the US? The catholics also says we are not "supposed to" use birth control and you know how that turns out.

 

So 50% of the marriages stay together great. But 1 in 2 is really not great odds if that is one of the most important aspect of ones' life. Would you buy a house knowing that it has a 1 in 2 chances of collapsing with no option for an insurance policy?

 

While "there is no reason in the world why sex within the boundaries of a marriage has to be boring", there is also no reason why one cannot do something about it when it becomes boring.

 

A person does not have to cheat to get out of a marriage, you know.

[nyrias]

And the love I described has everything to do with my life at least. It isn't some impossible ideal because I live it everyday. Damn sure if I one day find myself unable to continue monogamously within my marriage, my husband will be the first to hear of it before any outside sexin' goes on. He will have all the info he needs to decide what if any kind of relationship he wants to have with me from that point on even if it means I don't get my cake AND the ability to eat it too. That is unselfish love. That is real love.

 

It is just semantic and definition. Let's call your definition of love "true love", and let's define the "chemical" kind, with just romantic feelings and affection, "chemical love".

 

No conflict anymore.

 

Does "true love" as you defined it exists? I doubt it given the high divorce rate and the individualism prevalent in this country. Surely it must exists in some small percentage of people. After all, given 300M people, anything can happen.

[sally4sara]

It is just semantic and definition. Let's call your definition of love "true love", and let's define the "chemical" kind, with just romantic feelings and affection, "chemical love".

 

No conflict anymore.

 

Does "true love" as you defined it exists? I doubt it given the high divorce rate and the individualism prevalent in this country. Surely it must exists in some small percentage of people. After all, given 300M people, anything can happen.

 

That's cool. I never believed myself to be anything but a small percentage of the much larger group called people.

For further reading on how to enact the standard of marriage my husband and I practice, read "The Hagakure" with emphasis on what it is to be a retainer.

[wheelwright]

And the love I described has everything to do with my life at least. It isn't some impossible ideal because I live it everyday. Damn sure if I one day find myself unable to continue monogamously within my marriage, my husband will be the first to hear of it before any outside sexin' goes on. He will have all the info he needs to decide what if any kind of relationship he wants to have with me from that point on even if it means I don't get my cake AND the ability to eat it too. That is unselfish love. That is real love.[/QUOTE]

 

If 'real' love is the unconditional kind, your partner may want you to have your cake and eat it.

 

If he loves you like that.

 

We are talking about possessive love here I think. You assume he doesn't want you to have sex with others, and you are probably right. Why is it that he would find that difficult? He wants his rights to you exclusively.

 

I would hazard that this is because he is afraid of losing you if you enjoy yourself like that with another. Which strikes me as reasonable.

 

But the idea of losing people pre-supposes some kind of ownership.

 

I don't really like the idea of deceit in these circumstances, but I find it understandable when people tie themselves into (culturally prescribed) ways of being owned which ultimately prove untenable.

 

Cake eating may be partly about ego, but then so is M.

 

It's the parts of a M or an A which are not about ego which are more interesting. Love, transformation, support, compassion, passion, honesty.

[sally4sara]

If 'real' love is the unconditional kind, your partner may want you to have your cake and eat it.

 

If he loves you like that.

 

We are talking about possessive love here I think. You assume he doesn't want you to have sex with others, and you are probably right. Why is it that he would find that difficult? He wants his rights to you exclusively.

 

I would hazard that this is because he is afraid of losing you if you enjoy yourself like that with another. Which strikes me as reasonable.

 

But the idea of losing people pre-supposes some kind of ownership.

 

I don't really like the idea of deceit in these circumstances, but I find it understandable when people tie themselves into (culturally prescribed) ways of being owned which ultimately prove untenable.

 

Cake eating may be partly about ego, but then so is M.

 

It's the parts of a M or an A which are not about ego which are more interesting. Love, transformation, support, compassion, passion, honesty.

 

I suppose this is possible in some relationships and in some cases may be part of the standard in which a couple begins. But we began and still currently practice monogamy without strife. So most of what you're assuming here is wildly off the mark. This comment about "loving me like that" loving me like what? seeing as the lifestyle you're talking about here isn't relevant to my marriage, has not ever been and it is in now way something I'm simply assuming. I think I may have confused you by stating that IF my partner and I did deviate away from a monogamous agreement it would be one unhidden or not at all because lying and sneaking have no place in love.

 

Unconditional love is another topic altogether and one I'm unsure exists. There are lots of conditions under which I would not continue a relationship so the circumstances of a relationship involving love is very conditional to me. The closest to unconditional love I can identify is loving someone enough to lose them when you're unable to continue in the conditions they wish to live under. Such as not being able to continue being monogamous with your spouse while they are not able to continue in a non monogamous relationship. You love them enough to let them know of your impending weakness so they may move on rather than doing the "whoops! hope they don't find out!" route. Or conversely, choosing to leave a relationship where your partner cannot be monogamous and because you love them unselfishly, you don't want to force them to live a life they will eventually crumble under and feel a failure over.

 

And it doesn't have to be about effing even though that is the main theme of this thread. It could be a geographical issue. they must live over here while you cannot happily live there with them. It could be a political thing; Hell! a political and geographical issue if they want to live somewhere that has a government you cannot tolerate. for others it could be about career goals. One half having already realized their career dream or owning a business that cannot be moved when the relationship began - then the other partner gets offered their dream job halfway across the globe. Where some would squabble and guilt trip till someone caved, I only see a lack of love.

[wheelwright]

 

Unconditional love is another topic altogether and one I'm unsure exists. There are lots of conditions under which I would not continue a relationship so the circumstances of a relationship involving love is very conditional to me. The closest to unconditional love I can identify is loving someone enough to lose them when you're unable to continue in the conditions they wish to live under. Such as not being able to continue being monogamous with your spouse while they are not able to continue in a non monogamous relationship. You love them enough to let them know of your impending weakness so they may move on rather than doing the "whoops! hope they don't find out!" route. Or conversely, choosing to leave a relationship where your partner cannot be monogamous and because you love them unselfishly, you don't want to force them to live a life they will eventually crumble under and feel a failure over.

 

And it doesn't have to be about effing even though that is the main theme of this thread. It could be a geographical issue. they must live over here while you cannot happily live there with them. It could be a political thing; Hell! a political and geographical issue if they want to live somewhere that has a government you cannot tolerate. for others it could be about career goals. One half having already realized their career dream or owning a business that cannot be moved when the relationship began - then the other partner gets offered their dream job halfway across the globe. Where some would squabble and guilt trip till someone caved, I only see a lack of love.

 

I agree with all of the above, and like your way of stating the case.

 

Can I ask why for you monogamy is a condition for the R?

[sally4sara]

I agree with all of the above, and like your way of stating the case.

 

Can I ask why for you monogamy is a condition for the R?

 

Because I've seen enough variation within the definition of marriage from the traditional to know what is most common to any one person is not the rule for everyone else. Marriage seems and equal opportunity for any style to sink or swim. In the US, we are yet again examining the right to marry and who has it with same sex marriage. And here on LS we hear of marriages that weathered sexual betrayal and remained in tact. Plus in the past year or so we've seen more posts about marriages where there is no expectation for monogamy than I remember there being back when I first came here. I try to include them all as viable options even if I have little experience with them because I don't believe any of them carry a guarantee for everyone.

 

I just know I've never seen hidden behavior or a lie that came from a place of love.

[SoleMate]

Folks, your posts are so confusing I can't even tell which of you are the sarcastic BS and which are the snarky OW! Please try to be more clear!!

[KathyM]

"supposed to be" is the most useless argument on the internet. Human are "supposed to be" living healthy life styles too. What is the obese rate in the US? The catholics also says we are not "supposed to" use birth control and you know how that turns out.

 

So 50% of the marriages stay together great. But 1 in 2 is really not great odds if that is one of the most important aspect of ones' life. Would you buy a house knowing that it has a 1 in 2 chances of collapsing with no option for an insurance policy?

 

While "there is no reason in the world why sex within the boundaries of a marriage has to be boring", there is also no reason why one cannot do something about it when it becomes boring.

 

A person does not have to cheat to get out of a marriage, you know.

Allright, let me rephrase: Humans are supposed to be more evolved than animals, but their behavior is often no better than animals. How does that sound? The divorce rate is pretty high, for sure. I can't stress enough the importance of choosing wisely when selecting a spouse. Someone with a history of responsible, moral behavior, and good values. Someone who is a match with you, that you will have a better chance with in a long term marriage. And also the importance of keeping the marriage healthy and investing time in the relationship on a continuous basis so that the marriage will withstand the inevitable difficulties that come around in life. Also, the importance of making it work--working through the problems--getting help from a counselor or pastor when needed. Not giving up. And I would agree with you that people can work on their sex life together to keep it interesting and satisfying. And yes, I do know there are many reasons why people get a divorce. I believe cheating ranks among the top of that list.

[Kitsune77]

Just because they don't cheat? Fault or not, immoral or not, humans are masters of this planet and penguins .. they dont even have air-conditioning when they need it.

 

i don't think "not cheating" is the most important quality humans should improve. I think "not killing each other" may rank higher.

There is so much serious damage going on in the world, that this obsession about romantic relationships reflects a self centered, bored society.

And for the record , I do not believe monogamy is natural.

Sorry to TJ here.

[donnamaybe]

There is so much serious damage going on in the world, that this obsession about romantic relationships reflects a self centered, bored society.

And for the record , I do not believe monogamy is natural.

Sorry to TJ here.

Oh, the irony!

 

The bolded describes a serial cheater to a 'T'

[donnamaybe]

But the idea of losing people pre-supposes some kind of ownership.

I made a thread in marriage and life partnerships all about this concept. I certainly hope you will take a look and respond since NO ONE who constantly tosses out this "ownership" theory had the gonads to do so as of yet.

[Severely Unamused]

There is so much serious damage going on in the world, that this obsession about romantic relationships reflects a self centered, bored society.

And for the record , I do not believe monogamy is natural.

Sorry to TJ here.

 

There are a lot of other things that reflect a self centered, bored society. Probably because we live in a self centered, bored society.

 

I don't see that ever changing, despite all the dramatic talk. Do any of you?

 

And how can one threadjack the second most aimless thread I've ever seen on the internet?

 

That's cool. I never believed myself to be anything but a small percentage of the much larger group called people.

Exactly. Who really cares about the larger group? We live in an individualistic society amirite? Edited August 2, 2011 by Severely Unamused

[Lostinlife4now]

Originally Posted by RepairMinded

No, you actually don't think that. What you're all about is having an unhappy, sexless marriage; cheating with other women to find sexual satisfaction, but you know that's not really how you want your life to be; and because of the conflict of feeling yourself "forced" to do something you know is wrong, have reacted by going on a "crusade" to "prove" that, because YOU feel yourself "forced" to cheat, then cheating per se must be OK, no matter who does it, and no matter why they do it.

 

Rather than just face up to the obvious reality that something is seriously wrong in your marriage--not necessarily all your fault--leading to a lack of sex--and you cheated out of physical need--but nevertheless that's a messed-up place to be in your life. Because what you've described--a sexless marriage over a period of at least six years that you apparently don't have the ability nor the balls to leave, and to which you've now responded by becoming a serial cheater yourself--is something that you can't figure out how to fix, probably because it can't be fixed at this point. Yet you're too much of a coward to just get divorced, or remain celibate, or at least continue to cheat but acknowledge that it's not some ideal state of affairs just because you happen to be experiencing it.

 

This sounds about right to me.......

[donnamaybe]

Originally Posted by RepairMinded

No, you actually don't think that. What you're all about is having an unhappy, sexless marriage; cheating with other women to find sexual satisfaction, but you know that's not really how you want your life to be; and because of the conflict of feeling yourself "forced" to do something you know is wrong, have reacted by going on a "crusade" to "prove" that, because YOU feel yourself "forced" to cheat, then cheating per se must be OK, no matter who does it, and no matter why they do it.

 

Rather than just face up to the obvious reality that something is seriously wrong in your marriage--not necessarily all your fault--leading to a lack of sex--and you cheated out of physical need--but nevertheless that's a messed-up place to be in your life. Because what you've described--a sexless marriage over a period of at least six years that you apparently don't have the ability nor the balls to leave, and to which you've now responded by becoming a serial cheater yourself--is something that you can't figure out how to fix, probably because it can't be fixed at this point. Yet you're too much of a coward to just get divorced, or remain celibate, or at least continue to cheat but acknowledge that it's not some ideal state of affairs just because you happen to be experiencing it.

 

This sounds about right to me.......

Me as well.

 

No one is FORCED to stay in a R they don't like. But when someone is being lied to they ARE forced to live a lie.

[Lostinlife4now]

Me as well.

 

No one is FORCED to stay in a R they don't like. But when someone is being lied to they ARE forced to live a lie.

 

 

 

 

Amen donna..............

[mickleb]

That banished RepairMinded quote made perfect sense to me, too. Wonder why it was banished?

 

Anyway, personally, I'm disgusted to see dogs compared to cheaters on here. Dogs are awesome!

 

x

[Memphis Raines]

That banished RepairMinded quote made perfect sense to me, too. Wonder why it was banished?

 

Anyway, personally, I'm disgusted to see dogs compared to cheaters on here. Dogs are awesome!

 

x

 

thats the thing as well. anyone going over to the "other" forum will have pissy people flagging them all the time. so its a safe haven of sorts for people that cheat and sleep with other people's spouses.

 

so I post over here thinking, to myself anyway, that this should be a haven for those that have had to deal with people like that.

 

guess the "others" have a place. The rest do not.

[nyrias]

That's cool. I never believed myself to be anything but a small percentage of the much larger group called people.

For further reading on how to enact the standard of marriage my husband and I practice, read "The Hagakure" with emphasis on what it is to be a retainer.

 

Sure, you are one of the few.

 

How about your husband? Do you know for sure he is one of the few too? The sad fact is that many cheaters look like saints before they are discovered. Hence all the disbelief expressed by BSes after D-Day.

[donnamaybe]

Sure, you are one of the few.

 

How about your husband? Do you know for sure he is one of the few too? The sad fact is that many cheaters look like saints before they are discovered. Hence all the disbelief expressed by BSes after D-Day.

Ah, and now we have the age old attempt to instill doubt. "How do YOU know your H doesn't cheat?"

[nyrias]

Allright, let me rephrase: Humans are supposed to be more evolved than animals, but their behavior is often no better than animals.

 

The second part "their behavior is often no better than animals" totally agreed. We *are* animals with a little logical reasoning abilities added.

 

First part .. not sure whether we are "supposed to" this and that. Who is doing the "supposing"? I don't believe in absolute behavioral standards. If you look across cultures, standard can be very different.

 

I am not saying *I* don't believe cheating is wrong. But i think it is not very useful, and certainly NOT practical to assume it would be the standard of all humans. Paying lip service is one thing. Really living by a principle? Not practical to expect most people will do.

 

I only believe in cause & effects, actions & consequences.

[silktricks]

Please read again. I said nothing about the want to have sex with others indicating you don't love your partner. I never even said taking on a second, sexual relationship must mean you don't love your spouse. all I said was that lying to them and sneaking around hoping they never find out means you don't love them.

 

And the love I described has everything to do with my life at least. It isn't some impossible ideal because I live it everyday. Damn sure if I one day find myself unable to continue monogamously within my marriage, my husband will be the first to hear of it before any outside sexin' goes on. He will have all the info he needs to decide what if any kind of relationship he wants to have with me from that point on even if it means I don't get my cake AND the ability to eat it too. That is unselfish love. That is real love.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy that your definition of love is the only one. Every kid on the planet (and most adults as well) will lie at least on occasion to someone they love. It's wonderful that you and your husband have such unselfish love, but most people are not that perfect - most people will stretch or shrink the truth at times. Sometimes to save face, sometimes out of fear, sometimes out of anger, sometimes probably for reasons I haven't even considered. They still have real love, even though it doesn't meet your criteria.

[nyrias]

Ah, and now we have the age old attempt to instill doubt. "How do YOU know your H doesn't cheat?"

 

Yeah, it is age old because it poses a good question. In fact, didnt a lot of BSes swear it will never happen to them, until D-Day?