Affairs

[Kramodlog]

The title of the thread is Affairs.

An Affair is cheating on somebody. It is lying to your partner about who you share yourself with.

If you're talking about an agreement between all parties involved, that's not an affair.

No I'm talking about ending the hypocrisy that leads to affairs existing. We should stop glorifying something that a lot of people can't perform (fidelity). There would be a lot less strife if we just accepted that some people need to fool around or have multple partners.

These are my thoughts on the subject, to answer BG's question.

 

[Kramodlog]

Oh, god, just to annoy you of course, like everything else. Just drop it, please.

I just answered his post and yours, what is wrong with that?

 

[Janx]

No I'm talking about ending the hypocrisy that leads to affairs existing. We should stop glorifying something that a lot of people can't perform (fidelity). There would be a lot less strife if we just accepted that some people need to fool around or have multple partners.

These are my thoughts on the subject, to answer BG's question.

That's likely a different social problem from actually having affairs. There would be a lot less strife in the world if those people who had that urge didn't lie to their partners about it and instead exited their current monogamous relationship. I don't care about you sleeping around. I care about my spouse sleeping around because we both swore an oath not to do that to each other.

A factor to consider, is that people ARE possessive, territorial beings. Just like animals. All the agreeing about open relationships doesn't stop the fact that somebody gets their feelings hurt. All the social change and counseling in the world ain't gonna change our emotional biology that when we think we're in a relationship, it's exclusive.

I don't think I'd be interested in any brave new world where people didn't give a rats arse to relationships.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Zig Zigler has a segment on this topic from one of his 7 habits sessions.

this guy's at this nice hawaiian hotel for a conference and Zig sees him looking all melancholy looking over the balcony.

Zig asks how he can be blue in the face of all the natural beauty.

Guy says it's because he's worried about what his wife might be doing while he's out.

Turns out,t he guy met his current wife by way of cheating on his ex-wife.

The lesson being, a guy who cheats, cheats again or distrusts his partners.

As the Aggie saying goes "An Aggie never lies, cheats or steals nor tolerates those who do."

Well then that lesson is wholly bunk. I've cheated yet won't do it again nor do I have any trust issues. What dood is doing - and so is anyone who follows this logic - is taking behavior in one segment of life and applying it to another, different segment. That's silly. A guy who cheats on his wife may cheat you in business but he also may not. A guy who never cheats on his wife may take your money and run. How one behaves in a personal relationship does not always dictate how they'll behave in a business environment.

Basically it's a simplistic view that's easy to accept because it makes us feel smart. It's not smart, of course, but that's what you get with useless platitudes. 'A cheater always cheats' is a great way to unfairly judge someone and then justify whatever negative behavior you put forth toward them because of it - and that's all it is: justification to treat someone poorly or as somehow lesser than yourself. Very little in this world - and even less when it comes to human behavior - is black and white.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I am pretty stuffy as a person, however I have been the source of an illicit affair in 1987, a woman who it turned out was getting married to a high school buddy.

 

[Janx]

Well then that lesson is wholly bunk. I've cheated yet won't do it again nor do I have any trust issues. What dood is doing - and so is anyone who follows this logic - is taking behavior in one segment of life and applying it to another, different segment. That's silly. A guy who cheats on his wife may cheat you in business but he also may not. A guy who never cheats on his wife may take your money and run. How one behaves in a personal relationship does not always dictate how they'll behave in a business environment.

Basically it's a simplistic view that's easy to accept because it makes us feel smart. It's not smart, of course, but that's what you get with useless platitudes. 'A cheater always cheats' is a great way to unfairly judge someone and then justify whatever negative behavior you put forth toward them because of it - and that's all it is: justification to treat someone poorly or as somehow lesser than yourself. Very little in this world - and even less when it comes to human behavior - is black and white.

The whole point of such social standards is to outcast people who don't conform to certain social standards. Because a guy who cheats with his wife who is allowed to remain in polite society may in turn try to seduce my wife into cheating with him. By casting him out, the herd is protected.

I agree, the metric is simplistic. Odds are, there are two kind of cheaters (obviously an extreme dichotomy). The guy who kind of fell in love with a new person without ending it with the old one. And the sociopath who has no regard for others feelings and is happy to manipulate people to get what he wants.

Generally, I want those sociopaths identified, and excised as they are harmful to society because they are causing harm to others.

 

[Janx]

I am pretty stuffy as a person, however I have been the source of an illicit affair in 1987, a woman who it turned out was getting married to a high school buddy.

Sorry for using you as an example, but it may illustrate a counterpoint to [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]'s concern

As he seems to indicate society should be OK with people conjugating willy-nilly and that we aren't that evolved yet socially to accept that, consider that we have evolved such that it is also not socially acceptable for me to be mean to Scott for his past action.

Meaning that society is willing to give such behavior a pass, more so now, than in the past.

Even while still advocating a more "puritan" viewpoint on the matter of excessive co-mingling.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's likely a different social problem from actually having affairs. There would be a lot less strife in the world if those people who had that urge didn't lie to their partners about it and instead exited their current monogamous relationship.

Unless the problem is the false need for controlling people'S sexuality in the first place. Not sleeping around.

Have you considered that people are conditioned to think sleeping with other people is bad?

I don't care about you sleeping around. I care about my spouse sleeping around because we both swore an oath not to do that to each other.

But who said you need to sware an oath about monogamy to be with someone? What is the origine of that? Why is monogamy important? Why accept a limit on your freedom and clearly wanting to limit the freedom of your wife?

A factor to consider, is that people ARE possessive, territorial beings. Just like animals. All the agreeing about open relationships doesn't stop the fact that somebody gets their feelings hurt.

I love generalization.

All the social change and counseling in the world ain't gonna change our emotional biology that when we think we're in a relationship, it's exclusive.

And I am talking about changing culture. The first step is to stop making excuses. We wouldn't of had the sexual revolution, liberation of women, civils rights for blakc people, etc, is we just accepted the status quo.

I don't think I'd be interested in any brave new world where people didn't give a rats arse to relationships.

When did I say that? I think the problem is that you believe that controlling the sxuality of someone means you care about that person.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

The whole point of such social standards is to outcast people who don't conform to certain social standards. Because a guy who cheats with his wife who is allowed to remain in polite society may in turn try to seduce my wife into cheating with him. By casting him out, the herd is protected.

And what about the guy that made a mistake once and would never try to seduce your - or anyone elses' - wife? He should be cast out as well? That's the problem with this. You hurt decent folks out of a selfish and silly fear. You really don't trust your wife enough to spurn another man's advances? That's on you, bro. Not your wife, not the imaginary man - you. And it's not fair to either of them.

Basically the whole thing is dumb. 'Someone who bangs a married woman they aren't married to will steal your money if you go into business with them.' Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: break one moral 'law' and you'll break more. Let's apply that to something else, then: A man who jaywalks is a man who will slit your throat. Break one law and you'll break another - no matter how unrelated - right? Silly. It's just silly.

I agree, the metric is simplistic. Odds are, there are two kind of cheaters (obviously an extreme dichotomy). The guy who kind of fell in love with a new person without ending it with the old one. And the sociopath who has no regard for others feelings and is happy to manipulate people to get what he wants.

Generally, I want those sociopaths identified, and excised as they are harmful to society because they are causing harm to others.

The problem is that your solution in no way differentiates between the two. If someone cheats, they're a sociopath. Well, at least that's how they'll be treated. 'A cheater always cheats' doesn't leave any room for redemption. Simple is stupid and it's terribly unfair.

Just like people who cheat should think about how they'd feel if they were cheated on, people who judge and damn others without trying to understand them should think about how they'd feel if they were to find themselves ostracized after making one mistake.

 

[Janx]

Unless the problem is the false need for controlling people'S sexuality in the first place. Not sleeping around.

Have you considered that people are conditioned to think sleeping with other people is bad?

Because it is bad. When you sleep with someone, you sleep with every STD person that person has slept with.

Being promiscuous is tactically a bad idea just from the goal of avoiding spreading disease.

More families would rather their SO not bring home a box of Herpes or have to slice off a part of the income to pay for extra-marital child support.

More people equate emotional bonding and exclusivity to sex than don't. So it really bothers them when they find out their partner has been forking the secretary after work.

These are fundamental principles of modern society.

So you might think of having sex as no more emotional than playing racket ball with somebody. But I highly doubt most people do.

Or to look at it slightly differently. Once somebody is having sex with you because they are in love with you, the chemical chain of stuff triggers emotions that would upset them if you didn't feel the same way about it by being non-exclusive.

It's not rational that they should feel any right to exclusivity to you, but it happens.