Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    The following note has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::HR_MODERATOR, specifying the
    relevant note number.  If you wish, you may specify that the message
    be forwarded anonymously.
    

				





         Well...
         
         I had an affair with a married man that lasted ten
         years. We were and still are very close friends.
         We were and still are married to our spouses and
         have no intention of ever *not* being.
         
         This relationship provided for each of us something
         totally different and lacking in our marriages, and
         yet  neither of us would have traded our spouses
         for each other, or had any illusions about the chances
         of *our* making it as a couple. They were on a scale
         of 1 to 10, about minus 4. Neither of us *ever* had
         any desire to make the affair more than what it was
         intended to be...an affair.
         
         This affair *did* make both of us see our spouses
         in a clearer light, and a more complimentary one.
         I am convinced that my marriage is stronger because
         of it. Although I do not sleep with him anymore,
         I *do* still see him occasionally and we share memories
         and conversation.
         
         I think each action we take, whether it is an affair,
         having a baby, getting a divorce, must be taken on
         its own merits. Can't have your cake and eat it too?
         We are not talking *cake*, we are talking people,
         a much more complicated issue. *People* with strong
         desires and strong commitments to the absolute secrecy
         needed to carry off a long-term affairs, can do so.
         You do not hear about them because they *do* work;
         if you heard about them, they wouldn't. 
         
         ---
         
         BTW, I am not interested in defending my actions.
         I feel no need to do so. I will not respond in notes
         to any comments requiring a defense or explanation.
         I did want to respond to the base note because I
         felt it was over-simplistic in its treatment of a
         complicated issue. Affairs can and do work, without
         hurting anyone involved. Affairs can also be the
         single most hurtful and disrespectful thing a person
         can do to another. It all depends on your intentions
         for having one, how you conduct it, and your ability
         to *not* to tell your best friend.

    
    	"You cant have your cake and eat it to" - Well, what *can* you
    have then?                                                    
    	
    	Apparently, you can have whatever you want, provided that your
    intent for doing so is a "good" one. 
    
    	What's a good intent? I'm sure it's completely dependant on
    the situation at hand. Who would dare judge another based on their
    "first order" observation? Probably someone who's quick to judge...
                                                     
    	Well, who would be quick to judge? Someone who's feelings of
    self are very dependant on the actions of another. In other words, 
    someone who's own "self worth" was derived from meeting a "performance
    criteria", in this case, how well another can meet the requirements
    of the sacred vows...
    
    	Why is this threatening to them? Because it goes against the
    strict, absolute order by which perhaps they've been taught to measure
    *themselves* against. It invokes a feeling that the person cannot
    face within *themselves* and begs that it be confronted.
    
    	The feeling might be as simple as that from seeing "change" flying 
    in the face of the supposed "rock solid - 'till death do us part - 
    stability". It might be, "Gee, I've been a fool to have put _all_ my 
    life's hopes into this other person - look what can happen?" It might 
    even be a realization that there *are* exceptions to the supposed
    absolutes we've been taught all our lives.
    
    	This can be most distressing, to some of us. Therefore, we dont
    like to "see it". Since it's real, and we cant simply ask to "have
    the note set hidden", we deal with it by being rationally judgemental.
    Without hearing, or knowing_anything_at_all, about whats *really*
    going on.
    
    	Joe Jas 
                                                                     
    	  

    
    
    .0  Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?
    Sounds like a defeatist attitude to me.
    
    .1  It's refreshing to see some honest, adult responses like yours
    here.  Too often, we are confronted with sanctimony instead of reality.
    
    
    
    

Maybe you can't have your cake and eat it too... But...



Can you have two 'cakes' and eat both of them???? :->

Jim.

    
    the only thing i don't like is.....
    
    	the deception!
    	the lying....
    
    i can only condone affairs as long as all parties involved (meaning...
    the spouses) are aware of the affair...

    if you're spouse knows you're having an affair and accepts it
    then...have fun....
    and...perhaps your spouse would like the opportunity to carry on his/her
    own affairs....
    
    but if you haven't told your spouse then you're being deceptive...
    and i can't condone that type of action...especially when the
    possibility of transmitting nasty sexual diseases exists....
    
    other than that...if everyone agrees....ya got my blessing...:-)
    

    
    .5
    	Yo, Rik!  Who asked you to condone anything????
    
    Where do people get the idea that it's okay to condone or approve
    what is another's personal lifestyle????  

    re .6, RIGHT ON.
    
    re .0, and .5, in this case, the answer is simple.  MYOB.

    .6-.8
    
    You are absolutley right....just don't let me hear you condoning that
    murder, rape or theft.  Everyone has their own lifestyles, including
    murderers, rapist and thieves.  

    	I know the comparison is severe for these times but ages ago
    infidelity was treated the same way as the villians that I have mentioned.
    We just began to accept adultry because "everyone" was doing it.
     What would happen if "everyone" decided that it's ok to pop someone
    off, or it's ok to rape if you get the desire.  Would we have people
    defending murder and rape.  I don't think so......
    
    Bill

    
    I can agree with .5 - as long as there is no deception involved,
    there should be no problem.
    
    I am not defending myself and could easily "mind my own business"
    this friend of mine was having problems in her new relationship
    and needed a friend to talk to.
    
    The only advice that I could give her was to talk the problem out
    as in any relationship.  I fear that should her SO find out - a
    divorce will be quick at hand, which I know would hurt her - I am
    just a concerned friend.
    
    -Lynn
    

    
    .9
    
    	Bill, how do you equate murder and rape with infidelity?
    Rape is a violent sex act against someone.  Murder is the taking
    of someone's life.  Infidelity is a choice two consenting adults
    decide on.  
    	Who gets hurt?  Sure, tell me the cheated-on.  Why?  Because
    they fell for the promise?
    	I don't advocate infidelity.  But I most certainly cannot put
    it in the same class as murder and rape.
    
    	I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your logic.
    
    

    .11
    
    Set/Flame=Meltdown...
    
    	Here is how I equate them....
    
    MURDER is the taking of someone's life.   Yes that is obvious.
    INFIDELITY is also the taking of a life.  In every marriage there
    is a creation of a singular life.  It is created by two consenting
    adults.  Each being independant and both deciding to join and make
    one life together.  This IS a seperate life apart from the individuals.
    ADULTRY is the destruction of that life.  Although both individuals
    function independantly, their main objective should be (IMO)to maintain
    the other life in which they created.  ADULTRY brings a cancer into
    this life.  Some may control the cancer, but others may not.  In
    most cases the Cancer destroys the life that is created.
    
    RAPE is a violent sex act.   Debatable.  RAPE has been known to
    be an act of pure violence or hatred.  Adultry is the same with
    mental/emotional hatred and violence.  I don't buy the lies one
    bit.  "I love my spouse but I had a wonderful affair...."  Bull!!!!
    I'm sorry but I thought love included respect and trust.  I don't
    see any of that going on.  I can see that maybe one can "LOVE" the
    way someone acts, or looks, or whatever, but don't try and tell
    me you love anyone that you lie and purposly break a promise/vow
    to.  It just aint LOVE...I won't buy it and if I hear it I might
    get violently ill.  
    
    I know that not all have the same religious background as I do.
    but I was asked a question.  I also equate it as it reads in the
    bible....."THOU SHAL NOT COMMIT ADULTRY"  The same wording as "MURDER"
    and "THEFT"  there is no exceptions.....those rocks didn't read
    "Thou shal not ......... except when......."

    
    Set/flame=cold brew....
    
    Bill

    
    	Bill,
    
    	Your reply (.12) overfloweth with negativity. Guess you feel
    pretty badly about people having affairs. Perhaps this threatens
    the belief structure to which you ascribe. Why, do you spose, is
    this seen as such a threat to it?
    
    	You know, one can guage the rigidity of a belief system by
    observing the reactions of the faithful to "threats" against the
    system. Science is seen as a threat to Christianity, and it's well
    known that there are people "trying to do something about it". To
    give another example, Salmon Rushdie's book is seen as a threat
    to ther Muslim religion - look at how they're reacting. Now, what
    does this say about the belief system; Flexible or Rigid?
    
    	What happens when you get so inmersed in a belief system is
    the same thing that happens when you get completely inmersed in
    anything else - you lose your objectivity. Creationism is hardly
    an objective science. Khomeni's followers, while quite content to
    burn the book, never bothered to read it themselves, (Probably because
    it's printed in english and they cannot.) which is hardly objective.
    What chance, expressed as a percent, do you think that any one of them
    would bother to have the book translated, so they could find out
    for themselves exactly what it did say? 1%? 0.01%? 0.0000000000000001%?
    
    	Subjectivity is the cue, when you "feel" something is wrong,
    that perhaps it's time to look at "how far in" you are. This is
    just as applicable to the believers in "High end HiFi stereo systems"
    as it is to believers in anything else. 
    
    	Joe Jas                    
    
    	

    
    12.>    
    Set/Flame=Meltdown...
    
    	Do you really need that???  Or are you beyond rational
    discussion???
    
    	    
    "MURDER is the taking of someone's life.   Yes that is obvious."
    	I am sooooo glad you realized that.
    
    "INFIDELITY is also the taking of a life."
    	Well, I'm still alive, I think, um, yup, sure am.
    
    
     "In every marriage there is a creation of a singular life.  
    It is created by two consenting adults.  Each being independant 
    and both deciding to join and make one life together.  "
    	This, of course being the one single fallacy individuals believe
    in, yet, in my opinion, is probably a big cause of breakups.
    
    "This IS a seperate life apart from the individuals.
    ADULTRY is the destruction of that life.  Although both individuals
    function independantly, their main objective should be (IMO)to maintain
    the other life in which they created.  ADULTRY brings a cancer into
    this life.  Some may control the cancer, but others may not.  In
    most cases the Cancer destroys the life that is created."
    
    First it was rape and murder.  Now you've got infidelity equated
    to cancer.  I'm really trying to follow your "path of logic", but
    I can see I'm getting lost.  
    
    
    "RAPE is a violent sex act.   Debatable.  RAPE has been known to
    be an act of pure violence or hatred.  Adultry is the same with
    mental/emotional hatred and violence.  "
    
    Adultery is the same???  Adultery is "pure violence or hatred"???
    I must have gotten on the wrong boat.
    
    
    "I don't buy the lies one
    bit.  "I love my spouse but I had a wonderful affair...."  Bull!!!!
    I'm sorry but I thought love included respect and trust.  I don't
    see any of that going on.  I can see that maybe one can "LOVE" the
    way someone acts, or looks, or whatever, but don't try and tell
    me you love anyone that you lie and purposly break a promise/vow"
    
    'Scuse me.... but I certainly am not "trying to tell you what to
    do."  I've got better things to do like polish my rosary beads.
    
    "It just aint LOVE...I won't buy it and if I hear it I might
    get violently ill."
    
    I'm not selling, and perhaps you should see a doctor for your illness.  
    
    "I know that not all have the same religious background as I do."
    	Then don't expect everyone to speak as you do.
    
    but I was asked a question.  I also equate it as it reads in the
    bible....."THOU SHAL NOT COMMIT ADULTRY"  The same wording as "MURDER"
    and "THEFT"  there is no exceptions.....those rocks didn't read
    "Thou shal not ......... except when......."

    Good for you.  I am sure your reply was written entirely "in your
    'humble' opinion."  Youth still clings to ancient tenets, as youth
    has yet to experience change.  
    
    Should I now turn on my "flame thrower"??  
    
    Set/flame=cold brew....
    
    Bill

    IMHO:  If this affair were so "right" and "good", why on earth
    would anyone need to discuss it with anyone else?  
    
    IMHO:  Anything which I believe wholeheartedly as being legitimate,
    honorable, decent, and right-actioned is something I *never* discuss
    with anyone else.
    
    IMHO:  If I did discuss it with someone else, I would assume that
    I did not *really in my heart* believe it to be as honest, honorable,
    decent, and integrity based as I was pretending.
    
    All of the above is IMHO.
    
    Marilyn 
    

    Re.703.15
    
                You took the words right out of my mouth.
                 
    
                 I mean, why bother?   What's marriage anyway?
                 If you're just going to cheat, why get married
                 in the first place?
    
                 Your HO is my MHO.
    
                  Dilly
    

    I dunno , I'm assuming that lots of people here are talking about
    the "standard, normal, contracted, 2-person,
    love-honor-cherish-faithful belief-in-one-another-as-soul-mates
    until-death-do-you-part" type marriage.  
    
    I'd just like to bring up that there are other forms of marriage,
    open marriages, group marriages, etc.  I feel "cheating" is harmful
    if it goes against the moral grain of the marriage, and not all
    parties know what is going on and agree that the outside relationships
    are acceptable.
    
    I don't advocate open marriages for everyone, I don't even think
    I'd have one myself, but I feel that cheating is in the eye of the
    beholder, and as long as honesty is shared and nobody is hurt, then
    some people can have their Kate and Edith, too.... 
    
    -Jody
    

    
Is an affair by definition a "deceitful" or "secretive" relationship ?
    
Setting aside the Ten Commandments and Marriage Vows, both of 
which are negatively contexted "rules", there are two possible 
scenarios:
    
1.  Two people have a relationship that they "hide" from his/her/their spouses.
2.  Two people have a relationship that they do not attempt to hide.
    
If you have a relationship outside of your marriage, and your spouse 
is aware of the situation, or has expressed that he/she doesn't 
care what you do when not together, then deceit is not involved, and each 
relationship is open and functional.  I wouldn't call this situation an affair, 
nor do I think, in my opinion, there is anything wrong with such a relationship.
    
In this case, yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.  
    
An affair, on the other hand (and IMO), is an invalidation to all involved 
because it embraces deceit.  Does it logically follow that if you 
love someone you purposely deceive that person?  Is that love?  
How can one say they are happy with their marriage or that the 
marriage/relationship is "good" if a component of that relationship is deceit?  
    
If one is trying to hide something, then that person must inherently 
believe that he/she is doing something wrong, and components of the 
relationship are shame and guilt.  
    
If one wouldn't tell your spouse because he/she wouldn't approve 
(perhaps because of sexual relations), then you are purposely withholding 
relevant information from someone you purportedly care for.  Are you not 
hurting someone because they DON'T KNOW, are not AWARE that you are 
deceiving them?         
                        
If you weren't trying to hide something, wouldn't you tell your 
spouse/SO/whatever ?  Isn't the "secretness" of a relationship a symptom 
that the relationship is based on fear or shame?  
                                               
The point I'm trying to make is that if one really "loved" another they 
would extend themself for that person, and would at the very least inform 
the other that they have another relationship and the nature of that 
relationship.  The only responsibility involved being that if you 
tell someone you love them, you are also telling them that you 
are willing to extend, to make efforts, for the good of that person. 
                                               
This is not to say that when you love someone you must love them 
exclusively, or have sexual relations with them exclusively, or 
that you MUST NOT have other relationships  - -  but I believe that if 
you love someone, you would WANT (IMO) to avoid hurting that person by being 
open about other relationships, allow that person to express how they 
feel about it, and to allow that person to make decisions based on truth
and not deceit.                                        
                                               
In my opinion, anyone who is having an "affair", a relationship that is 
hidden from a spouse/SO, cannot logically state that they "love" their 
spouse/SO by nature of the fact that they are purposely deceiving 
that person.
        

    ....phew! Ok, I put this in another "affair note".  Marriage is
    a happily ever after type thing, and yes is it morally wrong to
    cheat on a spouse.  I am an old fashioned type gal that would never
    do it......but....temptation does knock at everyones doors (yes
    even the happily married) at least once in a persons life...but
    the married person has to be strong, and has to avoid.  I know we
    are all only human, it sometimes it is tough, when someone magically
    comes in your life and steals your heart away....BUT...when you
    make a commitment to someone else...you have to abide by that
    commitment. Yeah, its a toughie....but you have to be strong and
    avoid the temptation :-)...yes it actually can be done. And the
    result: a faithful, trusting relationship :-)
    
    Lynne S.

    
    
    	RE:  SALOIS
    
    	IMHO, it seems to me like you are ripping apart ::AKINS
    	reponses and being mighty sarcastic with everything he
    	said to boot.
    
    	He has stated his opinions as has everyone else in this
    	topic?  No one else seems to rip him apart like you just
    	did.
    
    	You sound to me like "the cat who ate the canary" to cop
    	another cliche.
    
    	Once again, all in MHO.
    
    	/kim
    
                              

         
         A Rambling History of Infidelity...

aka "A Hysterical View of Infidelity through the Years"         

         The first major reference to fidelity...in
         writing...occurs in the Bible. In two places actually.
         First in the instructions to the Hebrews and then
         again in the Ten Commandments.
         
         In both of these cases, fidelity had nothing to do
         with the respect that the marital partners accorded
         to each other, but rather was a political-socio/economic
         method of ensuring the purity of the gene pool. 
         In other words, they didn't want the Hebrews and
         then the Christians to inter-marry. 
         
         Why? Because they did not want to lose power by
         having lands and money transfer into the hands of
         unbelievers.... It was pure and simple a method of 
         ensuring the survival of the "race". Both economically
         and genetically [in the case of these people].
         
         ---
         
         Later, during the medieval period of Europe, wives
         were [as previously] considered chattel...or simple
         belongings.  It was of paramount importance that WOMEN
         be fidelitous so that the MEN would be sure the children
         they left their lands and titles to were [again]
         unsullied in bloodline.  It was of no importance
         that MEN be fidelitous. In fact, men were rather
         much expected to partake of the fruits available
         to them with little or no concern for the woman.
         
         ---
         
         During the early years of *this* country, women were
         also described as chattel....they were owned by their
         husbands and were similarly expected to remain faithful.
         Men on the other hand were, [again] allowed and
         *expected* to sow their oats where they may. *Society*
         expected this and and *accepted* this as the norm.
         
         The Puritans on the other hand....DID ascribe to
         FIDELITY....but not because they held great respect
         for the institution of marriage...but because they
         held aesthetic beliefs that sex was an evil but necessary
         function...and to be "controlled" as much as possible.
         Keeping it at home...behind locked doors, in the
         dark, and of as short a duration as necessary to
         beget children....was the easiest way to do so.
         
         Most Puritans [based on their original writings]
         would be devastated to learn that their tenets were
         the foundation for women's' rights....or the abolishment
         of slavery....they wholeheartedly objected to those
         things...their dogma was *aimed* only at the
         head-of-household males. But it was a simpler time
         and they did not see the necessity to define this
         for a society that already *knew* it.
         
         ---
         
         During the last part of the 19th century, small
         groups of independent women started to rally the
         political forces necessary to change the *status*
         of women as chattel.  They had little or no effect
         until the 1920's.....and even now we cannot get the
         ERA passed.
         
         BUT....Fidelity had little play until the 1940's
         when men *started* to see women as real people and
         not possessions. Fidelity only historically became
         an issue [much less a reality] when women had enough
         political power to demand respect. It has become
         the rage in the past 30 to 40 years....hardly a very
         long history to base a moral structure on.
         
         As with slavery....the premise that we [Americans]
         espouse is far from the truth of what we have
         historically *lived*....or the world for that
         matter...[but then again the world accepts mistresses
         and infidelity with an acumen sorely lacking in
         this Notes file]...If we are to say...."this" is
         right and "that" is wrong....at least we would do
         well to understand the history of our civilization
         that has brought us to this feeling....otherwise
         we will continue to be distraught and confused by
         the inability of a good 50% of the population to
         live up to *our* expectations....of course they are
         having trouble...FIDELITY is a new kid on the block,
         brought about by the political and social upheaval
         caused by WOMEN coming into the workplace as equals.
         
         It is a simple cause---->reaction.  Much easier to
         deal with than inflammatory and, quite frankly,
         inaccurate definitions of morals.
         
         

    
    
    Yep' Your Right Kim...I never thought I would find myself saying
    this but..I 100% agree on what Bill Akins said and Now Time to
                   SET FLAME on <MEGA MELT>
                
    
    Now to begin you chose to take a vow of marraige with someone you
    love...You take the Vow because this is the person you want to commit
    the rest of your life with,,the person who knows you inside out,,the
    person who is gonna take you for better/for worse,The one love you
    want to grow old together with and share new adventures in life
    with...Now is that why people get married,Ok just a few reasons,,NOW
     You discover your SO's having an affair whats the first thing that
    cross's your mind? What did I do? or attitude "that ___________!"
     Now My Belief in Marriage is one woman 1 time ...I mean if you
    took the Vow to marry then you must of seemed to know the person,you
    Both must have so much in common, AND Who the ___________ is saying
    cheating is harmless,MAN YOU BETTER GROW UP AND FACE REALITY, a
    cat has 9 lives (yes true) but sooner or later that cat will meet
    its death, Try sitting down and talk to your spouse if there is
    trouble Sexually or whatever and see what can be done together work
    at it I mean Jesus You both must have had something special in order
    to get married or AM I TOO OLD FASHION (I dont think so) and This
    Open Marriage,,Joke! Pleeeez,     
                        ENOUGH ENDED
      JIM

Jim, 

Sometimes getting married is a mistake.

There's not much you can do to hold up the other person's end of the comitment.

I don't ask that you change your views on marriage, but I think that you should
be aware that there are a *lot* of people who do not live up to your description
of marriage in the previous note.  In a lot of cases people have ended their
marriage because they wanted that 'ideal' marraige and they were not getting it,
and they want a second chance.

Jim. 

    [an aside -- I think I'm just about to drown in all this "humility."
    It's beginning to look like IMHO=IMNSHO (as in "not so")]
    
    
    re .21
    
    You seem to be arguing that fidelity is a female invention... at
    least in its recent manifestations. 
    
    Actually, way back in pre-history when no one had any idea that
    something you did for fun was what caused the arrival of a new being
    some 9-10 months later, no one fussed much about it.  Even as late
    as the last few decades there were some primitive societies where
    the concept of paternity was not known.  
    
    Since in such societies the only "line" of inheritance that was
    known was through the female, they were often matriarchal and "goddess"
    worshipping societies.  In some of them, the worship of the goddess
    called upon women to be as fertile as they could be... and when
    sex and procreation began to get connected, that meant to "do it"
    with as many different men as they could.  This form of "worship"
    persisted into the early Christian era in some societies.  It is
    said that Cleopatra did a fair amount of "temple flat-backing" in
    service of the goddess.
    
    Somewhere along the line men began to realize that something they
    did had something to do with the various blessed events populating
    their tents, and that consequently they had some interest in
    controlling this means by which wealth passed down the generations.
    It was then that men began to have a very strong interest in paternity
    and in controlling women... and incidentally using them for politics
    via arranged marriages.  Fidelity then assured the man's interest
    in his "property."
       
    I guess if we want to assert that a 3,000 year old code devised
    for a patriarchal desert tribal society is the right thing for us
    today... maybe we ought to reinstitute slavery, the selling of wives,
    and the death penalty for adultery... by lapidation, of course...
    and that doesn't mean licking them to death....
    
    I'm no christian... but even Jesus had a better idea... "let he
    who is without sin...."
    
    R.
    

    I'm not highly religious, and I'm not into doing what mommy and
    the rest of the establishment says to do, but I think it's wrong
    to have an affair and keep it secret from your spouse or your
    partner in a long-term committed relationship.  I'm not getting
    into the arguements over feelings and who's responsible for whose
    feelings.  That's important, but not my major reason.  These days,
    with who knows what fatal bugs running around, it's up to each
    person to make a decision as to who they'll have sex with.  By
    having sex with another and hiding it from your spouse, and continuing
    to have sex with your spouse, you are making that decision for your
    spouse.  Your spouse is now exposed to whatever diseases your sexual
    partner has.  That's not what your spouse decided to do, and that's
    not fair.
    
    --Louise

    
    
    Perhaps this discussion has placed the emphasis on the wrong
    person.
    
    Yes, deceit in the form of infidelity and lies is a betrayal
    of another person.  More to the point-when one breaks a commitment,
    one one behaves in a manner that is less than honorable, one is
    betraying ones self.
    
    I have made a vow to be honest and faithful.  That vow was made
    to the man I married, but more important, it was made to myself.
    I would not consider betraying my beliefs, my values, because I
    value myself.  
    
    If I found myself in a position of 'temptation', I would deal with
    my current situation before pursuing a new situation.
    
    "Do what you will, ere it harm none."
    
    Deborah
    
    

    
    RE:  GALLANT
    
    	IMHO, I am stating my beliefs.  As to "ripping apart" anyone,
    may I remind you of a prior note which brought out the "flamethrower"?
    
    If people care to bring out a "flamethrower", they best be wearing
    an asbestos suit.  What comes around goes around.
    
    My "sarcasm" is perhaps a defensive mechanism employed, when people
    feel the need to "flame", instead of carrying on adult debates.
    
    Oh, but I'm sure you were very aware of that.
    
    Enjoy yourselves, all.  I however, do not care to wallow in a pool
    of tears shed for those poor misfortunate souls who have "suffered"
    the effects of "an affair" and the sanctimonious knee scraping 
    crowd that lingers within reach to remind them of their misery.
    
    Have at it!
    

    RE .15
    
    I'm not sure I understand.
    
    >IMHO:  If this affair were so "right" and "good", why on earth
    >would anyone need to discuss it with anyone else?  
    
    >IMHO:  Anything which I believe wholeheartedly as being legitimate,
    >honorable, decent, and right-actioned is something I *never* discuss
    >with anyone else.
    
    >IMHO:  If I did discuss it with someone else, I would assume that
    >I did not *really in my heart* believe it to be as honest, honorable,
    >decent, and integrity based as I was pretending.
    
    >All of the above is IMHO.
    
    >Marilyn 
    
    Do you really mean if you do something that you *really* believe
    is a decent and honorable thing to do, that you would *never* discuss
    it with someone else?  If you got married, would you tell your friends?
    If you are married, do you tell people that?
    
    It seems to me, that you would generally refuse to discuss things
    that you think are in some way, shameful.  Things most people discuss
    are things that they believe are acceptable.
    
    I'm confused.
    
    Elizabeth

    In re the history notes. Two weeks ago I attended a college class
    with my oldest son. One of the things that I found interesting
    was that the professor taught history from the point of view of
    the under classes, those that became the working class of today.
    Interestingly enough, this large segement of society really didn't
    follow the 'rules' of marriage and fidelity that were followed
    by the upper classes. Marriages were often not formalized by
    either the church or the local squire or lord, and sexuality was
    rather freeroaming. It was the protestant reformation, and
    the preaching of men like Wesley that changed all of this. The
    change occured in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Untill
    that time, apparently, most people below the level of aristocracy
    didn't follow the rules of morality that are being talked about
    here.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re.6
    salois....
    first off....it was probably a poor choice of words...
    however...we all do, or do not, condone many things that happen
    to be none of our business...
    
    do you condone out of wed lock babies?...and isn't it none of your
    business?
    
    do you condone taking drugs?...and isn't that none of your business?
    
    i'm sure there are lots of things that are none of yoru business
    that you would say you condone..or not condone....
    
    abortion?
    stealing...murder....
    
    .7...olson....
    "i can't stand judgemental people"
    
    but..isn't that making a judgement?
    
    you are saying..."i judge rik to be judgemental (which we all are
    to some extent, silly) and i can't stand judgemental people"...
    
    so you make a judgement on me, without knowing, and then declare
    that you don't like people who judge....
    
    and...as mr salois asked me....who asked you?
    why didn't you just mind your own business?
    
    i hate people who judge AND dont' mind their own business....:-)
    
    naw...i don't hate people....
    

    
    re.30
    sawyer....
    
    I neither condone nor condemn.
    
    Try it.......

    re:28
    
    Are you being facetious when you ask if I would tell someone if
    I was married or not?  Do you *really* believe that I meant I would
    never discuss something that I considered honorable and decent in
    the example that you used?
        
    I believe that the original subject was *an affair*.  And if I *really*
    thought that *my* having an affair while married to someone else 
    was honorable and decent, I would not discuss it with anyone.
    
    But since for *me* it would be considered a shameful thing on my
    part----yes, I would probably discuss it with someone whom I thought
    might give me reasons to make me feel I was okay and allow me to
    continute to justify my behavior.
    
    All of the above, you understand, is IMHO.
    
    Marilyn
    

    re .30-
    
    Ah, rik, so you prefer to turn my statement of personal preference
    ("I can't stand judgemental people") back against me.  Fair enough;
    I recognize that it is indeed a "judgement" of my own.
    
    I've noticed a bifurcation in this discussion; some folks are talking
    about infidelity as applied to their own lives, and most seem to
    feel that they wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't do it.  On personal grounds,
    I take no stance, I neither condemn nor condone, what individuals
    choose to do with their lives.  
    
    The second thread, however, I believe addresses the basenoter's
    original concern: what should one do when one witnesses OTHER people
    involved in such a situation?  What I meant by my "judgement" in
    .7 is that those who feel compelled to judge OTHERS, and who feel
    compelled to intercede instead of minding their own business...
    those are the folks I can't stand.  Personal preference of mine
    for people who are tolerant of other's choices, is all.
    
    Is that so hard to understand, rik?
    
    DougO

    All flaming, IMHOing, moralizing, etc. aside... for most folks,
    most of the time "having an affair" just doesn't work.  Someone
    or several someone's get hurt, productive energy gets put into
    concealment, or friction, or repairing the "damage."
    
    Some people seem to be able to do it... and some even have agreements
    that allow for it... in effect, making it not quite the same thing.
    Some folks may do it rather than handle their dissatisfactions with
    their primary relationship.  Some may be compulsive about it.  Laws,
    moral or otherwise have never prevented it.  (Even the flaming in
    this file won't prevent it....)  Humans is humans and we do the
    darnedest things... even quite inconsistent with what we say we
    want and want to do.
    
    Given that... I think it's kind of a shame that there's all this
    nasty screaming going on in here... if not actually spoken, at least
    the implied statement that "you're immoral and bad and wrong because
    you don't share my particular set of values or mores."  And of course
    there's the screaming (at least figuratively) back... sigh... damn
    shame we can't seem to "love one another..." at least not real well....
    
    R.
    

    	Why is it that people who write "IMHO" all the time are people
    	who seem to be trying to convince others to believe what they 
    	believe?  An opinion should not be a suggestion nor an attempt 
    	to sway someone else to your way of thinking.
    
    	If you want to preach, then at least be honest enough to admit 
    	it.
    
    	Affairs will never become a historic dalliance, they have been
    	happening for many years and will continue for as long as humans 
    	walk this planet.  Whether you think this is right or wrong for 
    	anyone but yourself is unimportant, because chances are you're 
    	not going to have much control over someone else's actions, not
    	even your spouse's.  I hope no one ever has an affair on me, and
    	I would never get involved with a married man, but this is only
    	my wishes and beliefs for me.
    
    							Carla
    

    Re .32
    
    I was trying to come up with an example illustrating that you *would*
    and *do* talk about things that have never crossed your mind as
    being wrong.
    
    You would not need to "talk about it" if you were absolutely sure it
    was wrong - e.g., if you murdered someone in cold blood (and intended
    to get away with it), you probably wouldn't talk about it. 
   
    
    I think what you are really saying is that you would talk about
    doing is the questionable, grey area, where you are not sure that
    it would be wrong in your case, to try to get support for your actions.

         [Ahem]
         
         Re: [-1]
         
         Ah....might I suggest that your last note borders
         on personal attack? I re-read Salois' notes and although
         they *are* a bit ascerbic, they are not out and out
         character assassination...your most recent diatribe
         however comes close.
         
         Some free advice...[and we all know what *free* advice
         is worth...grin]..
         
         Cultivate a sense of humor...
         
         Melinda

<         Cultivate a sense of humor...

	 maybe everyone one in this note needs to cultivate a sense of
	 humor and quit acting like children.


	 
	 I'd answer this note, but with the state this note is in, I
	 know that no matter how unbiased,  or to what side my
	 note tended to lean, I'd get flamed...no thanks.

	 Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...it seems most
	 everyone in here thinks that everyone else is entitled to it
	 too....Everyone's opinion is there own and should not be
	 forced on someone else....


	 k

    Does anyone wish to address the real arguments that I stated in
    my previous note?  As my equating ADULTRY to the acts of MURDER
    or RAPE.  I promise no flames  :-)
    
    Bill 

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning....
    

    
    	Ok, I'll bite.
    
    	It depends on what you mean by murder, cause there are two kinds;
    murder of the soul and murder of the body. You can tell the difference
    because murder of the body leaves behind what is called a corpse...
    
    	However, the two are quite independant of one another, as the soul
    can live on after the body has been done away with, AND the body
    can also live on after the soul has been done away with. Most people
    do not recognize this "other side" of the symmetrical attribute!
    
    	On this level, rape, which is definately soul-murdering, is
    on the same level as adultery, which is also soul-murdering. They're
    both *murder*, but just of a different sort then the "bodily harm
    until physical death" kind.                       
    
    	Much less things are also soul_murdering; take "Invalidation"
    for example. This tends to kill the_soul_in, or kill_someone' soul.
    How about some domination, grandiosity, perfectionism, co-dependancy,
    addiction or chronic anxiety? These things all tend to be
    soul-murdering too.  
                                     
    	As a matter of fact, I'll bet that anyone who chooses to soul
    murder another, has been previously soul murdered themselves. Their 
    choice is but a segment in a long line of atrocity. Perhaps it happened
    to them during their childhood. Whenever it happened, *I* believe that
    it *did*, and I actually give human nature the benefit of the doubt.
    
    	Deliberately breaching perhaps what is the greatest trust another 
    has ever cared to place is a *learned* thing, what we all are made
    of inately is much better than that! Our action only serves to
    perpetuate this disease of soul_murder, when we make this choice.
    
    	Joe Jas
                                                             

    There are two kinds of people in this topic.  One who had an affair,
    the other whose spouse had an affair. 
    
    Today's assignment for the course Human Relations 101 is to classify
    the replies accordingly.
    
    Oh, this is not IMHO, this is The Truth and if you don't believe
    in it, you will rot in the hell till eternity.
    
- Vikas

    <- .45
    
    I couldn't agree more.
    
    SandieD
    
    p.s.  well, I not really sure about the burning for eternity...
    :-) :-)
    

    Okay, let's get this topic back on track. The personal attacks on
    other noters must cease! Disagreeing with someone's ideas or opinion
    is fine, but crossing the line from there to attacking the person
    for stating said opinion is not allowed in this conference. Please
    re-read the guidelines for behavior in this conference. They can
    be found in note 1 and it's replies.
    
    Tamzen, co-moderator of Human Relations

    
    RE: .47
    
    I agree with the moderator......I am the author of the first topic.
    
    I did not mean to cause such a stir, but through this conference,
    I think I can look at the situation a little more objectively and
    with more of an open mind.
    
       "To each His/Her own"
    
    -Lynn
    

    
    
    re: 31...salois
    "i neither condome nor condem"

    you say this after condemning me for not condoning something?
    
    try being honest.
    

RE: -.1

>    re: 31...salois
>    "i neither condome nor condem"

He said 'condone', not 'condome'. Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

-- Ron

    
    Since this is H_R, I won't run with that one...

           Why would you have or want cake if you couldn't eat it?
    
                                    Dwight
    
    

    
    
    
    	RE: .54 ...the actual saying is "You can't eat your cake
    	and have it, too"
    
    	In actuality, you CAN have your cake and eat it, too...
    	but you can't EAT your cake and then HAVE some, too.
    	
    	Git it?!  (^8
    
    	Tigg~~

    .55> You can't have eat your cake and then have some too.
    
    Literally speaking, what if you ate SOME of the cake and then saved
    some for later?  ;-]
    
    K2         
           
 

    
    
    
    	Eat dessert first;  life is so uncertain !
    
    
    

    guess not
    
    
    Bill