CHEATERS....What is America Coming to?

HEHEHE..so check it it people…

I knew America was F’ed up, but DAMN!!!! When you are married…that’s it man…no more chasin’ booty.  They have a site where married people can go on and cheat on their husband or wife.  WTF.  And get this….ohhhhh you’re gunna love this...the site: AshleyMadison.com is named after the guy’s daughters…and they are like little kids.  I guess this really is the home of the free and brave where people can profit off of cheating spouses.  Not only that, but he even made the slogan “Life is short…Why not have an affair”…hahahaha.  I gotta give it to him though…he is exploiting something that will make him rich….QUICK!!!!!.

I told my girl if she ever saw me on that crap … that she has the permission to shoot me in the eyeball and rip off my balls.  I mean what do you think seeing a site like this? By the way…some women might want to check and see if their husbands are on there…you might get a RUDE surprise!!!!!!

Original Post by danilaz:

Hey,

I can understand the frustration.......my sister who has been married for nine years, has a six year old son, spent the last 3 years trying to conceive their second child, invetro, fert pills, you name it they tried it (she has PCOS and one ovary to boot) anyway, she went through three miscarriages and FINALLY this past August she got pregnant and made it!  She's now 5 months pregnant and two weeks before Thanksgiving her husband met his "soul mate" online and ran off to Florida!  Yep........this world is pretty bad....  I blame much on technology for failing marriages although I'm one for using the computer but it sure is a way for a person to persue it for purposes beyond a spouses knowledge to say the least....

 

 

 

The reality is that it has nothing to do with technology.  People who want to find happiness elsewhere will find a way to do it whether or not there is a technology to avail them.  I find that women tend to concentrate too much of their time and effort on a particular event as a way to potentially save a bad relationship.   Having children is simply not a way to hold onto a man...often, it's merely a way to make more than 1 person feel lonely.  

Ive seen women check their sense of security on the reflection of their massive diamond rings while their husbands check their prowess on a set of young boobs walking by.  Ashley Madison (and the likes) does nothing more than take advantage of the reality we all rather not face...but the truth is that if we refuse to take our sadden situation seriously enough to face it...fix it...then repair ourselves...their will always be someone else on the side...around the corner...and within reach to fill the lonely space. 

Original Post by drea99:

Original Post by peaches0405:

 That is such an unbelievably long post, I wouldn't even know where to begin.  Monarch, kudos to you if you can actually sort through all that to figure out what he's saying.

Like most things written in english, you begin at the beginning. 

As to the length-- reading is a learned skill and sometimes things worth reading are lengthy.  I found, despite its length, it was well broken up, legible, and understandable.  Thoughts do not need to be in soundbites to be consumable.  Your agreement with his statements or not has no bearing on the legitimacy of his viewpoint.

edit: strange spelling error

 You are absolutely correct, drea.  I should have explained my post better.   I did read it all and I had no problem understanding what he was trying to say.   I guess I'm just being lazy right now.  Too much work IRL today, so my brain seems a bit fried at the moment.  I'll leave the long responses to people who aren't feeling quite so scrambled as I am right now   

Saturday work sucks  :-/

I am going to possibly insert a hijack and say that I find the term "paternity fraud" (one of hata's links) oddly disturbing, if not offensive. In evolutionary biology we call it "extra-pair paternity" and indeed, the 10-15% figure cited is the best known estimate for humans, according to my genetics professor.(Apparently, even when parents bring in their offspring for genetic testing of some sort, 10% extra-pair paternity is what the doctors discover, usually in a purely incidental way - more on that later. But note that this is people who willingly bring in their kids for other genetic tests, leading me to think that many mothers in these situations do not know or suspect that this is the case.)

But "fraud" is such a loaded term, implying premeditation, action and desired selfish result, rather than what I suspect is usually the result of a chaotic life, external locus of control, and (possibly) good overall intentions... when the woman even knows that she is doing it, which she might not. I know the men's rights movement goes nuts over this kind of thing, and I do get it (really, I do: complex, often violent systems of social control, including marriage, were developed to prevent just this) but to actually call it fraud is overstating in my opinion. (I know you weren't calling it that, hata - but the wiki page was.)

The ethical guideline for incidentally discovering extra-pair paternity in the context of genetic testing is that you do NOT disclose to the presumed father. You do, however, disclose to the mother - and inform her that should paternity testing ever be sought by the presumed father, it is equally unethical for any professional to falsely report that he is the child's biological father. The lack of disclosure to the father is based on the principle of minimizing harm to the child and the family unit (i.e. familial peace and harmony). Not to mention the stories that can sometimes lay behind such situations: how about when it isn't active cuckolding but rape, which the woman did not report for any number of valid reasons? Considering the frequency of unwanted sexual contact in this world, I suspect this is not an insignificant number.

Anyway, I guess this isn't so much a hijack as a tangent, but there you have it. (Flame away, everybody.)

I agree lanvy. Then begs the question...why do humans bother to have monogamous relationships? Why argue about the inevitability of infidelity? Just avoid the whole debate and everyone just not pair with anyone else. Throw the whole sanctimonious idea of marriage in the crapper and do something else.

I think the term paternity fraud is a legal one, as fraud usually has very specific connotations within the courts and specifically requires that there be wilfull misleading of the victim to the fact of / suspicion of a different father.

Accidental pregnancy without the mother's knowledge wouldn't fall into the legal definition... although I suspect scenarios are limited to as how a woman could get accidentally pregnant. Passed out at a party, perhaps, or group sex with faulty birth control or something, or some sort of dissociative mental state post facto.

I've not done a whole bunch of research on the topic, but it seems that the majority of the cases turn on a statute of limitations basis, and not on the actual genetic heritage... which seems to me more than passibly strange. There must be a lot of common law historical baggage going on there.

hatamoto:  up until the above post i was with ya. 

then you up and ticked me off.

thanks.

Original Post by monarch777:

I agree lanvy. Then begs the question...why do humans bother to have monogamous relationships? Why argue about the inevitability of infidelity? Just avoid the whole debate and everyone just not pair with anyone else. Throw the whole sanctimonious idea of marriage in the crapper and do something else.

Monarch, pair bonding and strict monogamy are not the same thing, at least in the animal kingdom. There's no need to conflate the two. Heck, even all those species that we once thought were monogamous (those famous swans, for example) turn out not to be. Sure, they pair bond for life -  but they commit the occasional bit of "adultery".

I'm not sure how I personally feel about all this. There's an argument to be made for lifetime pair bonding, and I love the idea of it as well as the idea of sexual fidelity. However, I have heard compelling arguments as to why sexual vitality only lasts a few years in relationships - because that is as long as is required for the birth and early rearing of a child, after which one starts looking around for more genetic variability. Kinda like penguins, which are devoted to each other while breeding but don't necessarily choose the same partners at the next breeding season.

Right now I'm struggling with the idea of trading in that sexual vitality, letting it slide away naturally as it tends to do, in exchange for something deep and permanent. Part of me wants to hang on to the possibility that I won't have to wait for my partner to die before being able to seek that particular kind of vitality out again. From what I understand this is the quasi-universal tradeoff, the only difference being how long it takes for things to get ho-hum. Some couples can make it last longer than others, although making it last 30, 40, 50, 60 years (as modern lifespans seem to suggest) is an altogether new task for a species that, until recently, died before reaching what we now call middle age. I have heard rumours of couples that have done this, made it last "forever", but I have never met any.

I don't think of marriage as sanctimonious, per se. I think of it as a patriarchal institution of social control that was created to prevent extra-pair paternity under penalty of death, which is why I won't do it.But that's another story.

But I do love the idea of pair bonding, the emotional and physical commitment to another human being with the intent to last a lifetime (which, to be fair, is what most people are thinking of when they get married these days). I could see myself joining in a civil union, I guess, which is in my opinion the modern reimagining of marriage without the historical baggage - the ideal that's about the love and commitment, and not about the women-as-chattel thing.

Original Post by monarch777:

I agree lanvy. Then begs the question...why do humans bother to have monogamous relationships? Why argue about the inevitability of infidelity? Just avoid the whole debate and everyone just not pair with anyone else. Throw the whole sanctimonious idea of marriage in the crapper and do something else.

Because there's an equally strong force to pair bond. The conflict, specifically when it comes to cheating, is the dynamic between the drive to spread (men) or collect (women) genetic diversity against the drive to 'nest' and produce offspring in a secure environment. Even in the absence of marriage as a legal construct, people would still be couples.

Throwing out all relationships because some are unfaithful is like throwing out all food because some get food poisoning. You can't just toss a fundamental biological urge because it's inconvenient.

You CAN provide social constructs that allow for biology to express itself without destruction of the relationship, but for the most part, at least among older generations, western culture doesn't seem ready to embrace that. A change like this would likely have to be a generational thing.

Edit: Damn TW, you type like your fingers are on fire. ;)

Original Post by drea99:

hatamoto:  up until the above post i was with ya. 

then you up and ticked me off.

Whaa...? I only said I thought the term paternity fraud was so named because of a legal specification, I didn't say I agreed with it. I must admit I do have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a mother doesn't know and doesn't suspect that the presumptive father isn't the biological one (I'm thinking some sort of impairment on the part of the mother would be probable... drugs, alcohol or such), but I fully accept that they can and probably do exist.

Original Post by hatamoto:

 think the term paternity fraud is a legal one, as fraud usually has very specific connotations within the courts and specifically requires that there be wilfull misleading of the victim to the fact of / suspicion of a different father.

Accidental pregnancy without the mother's knowledge wouldn't fall into the legal definition... although I suspect scenarios are limited to as how a woman could get accidentally pregnant. Passed out at a party, perhaps, or group sex with faulty birth control or something, or some sort of dissociative mental state post facto.

I've not done a whole bunch of research on the topic, but it seems that the majority of the cases turn on a statute of limitations basis, and not on the actual genetic heritage... which seems to me more than passibly strange. There must be a lot of common law historical baggage going on there.

Um, hata, as far as I know there is no actual possibility of being charged or convicted of paternity fraud in any country, it is an invention of the "men's rights movement". It's not a legal term.

And I suspect that in most cases it's a question of "that month, what are the odds that it was my partner's whom I slept with 20 times vs. that mistake that I slept with once? I don't want to have an abortion, I want this baby, my partner wants this baby, I wouldn't be able to explain away an abortion to him even if I wanted one, and therefore the best way out of this to convince myself that this is my partner's baby and therefore there is no need to ever bring it up again" (happening probably at the subconscious level, I'd imagine). Immoral? Sure. Illegal? Gee, not unless cheating on your spouse or lying about your previous alcoholism or whatever is "contract violation" that can land you in jail (it can't).

So I would imagine that in most cases the woman might suspect (though she might have convinced herself otherwise, as above) but in not very many does she actually know. Probably because she doesn't want to risk knowing. External locus of control is a bitch to deal with in other people, and it is frustrating to encounter, but please remember it is a learned behaviour and not entirely in one's ability to change.

For the term fraud to be applicable, there has to be some formal "contract" that you are having a man's baby in exchange for his money. I would hope that we as a society have moved beyond that patriarchal trade-off, and I think that furthers the myth that child support is money for the woman and not for the child. (Therefore the question becomes does the woman deserve that money, not does the child deserve that money). Furthermore, what about the dudes that lie about having had vasectomies - is that another form of "paternity fraud"?

That there are several messed-up aspects of family law, including the presumption of paternity due to marriage (which I agree should be changed) and the lack of a right to a paternity test (everyone should have the right to paternity testing of their presumed children), but that's not the same thing as equating extra-pair paternity with a crime.

The best answer to these problems is to have an adequate social system that can help custodial parents support their children without forcing financial help from non-custodial parents, but no country is that enlightened just yet- we always go after the parents for the cash.

I had no idea this was such a hot button topic.

I freely admit that my knowledge is limited in this area. I'm no law scholar; my entire information about the legal aspect of the topic (specifically that of the so called paternity fraud, not about the issue of genetic diversification which I've known about for quite some time) has been garnered only recently from online sources.

But as an aside, and I recognize we're still going off the track here... how SHOULD a scenario be handled where the father of a child isn't the genetic progenitor? And should there be differing standards of redress when the mother was aware of and concealed parentage, suspected but ignored doubts of parentage, and when she was unaware?

I suppose, considering my assertion that something beyond the rigid definition of the traditional matrimonial unit is necessary to transcend some of these issues around infidelity, this is a valid topic. It'd almost certainly come up anyways eventually.

Original Post by hatamoto:

Original Post by monarch777:

I agree lanvy. Then begs the question...why do humans bother to have monogamous relationships? Why argue about the inevitability of infidelity? Just avoid the whole debate and everyone just not pair with anyone else. Throw the whole sanctimonious idea of marriage in the crapper and do something else.

Because there's an equally strong force to pair bond. The conflict, specifically when it comes to cheating, is the dynamic between the drive to spread (men) or collect (women) genetic diversity against the drive to 'nest' and produce offspring in a secure environment. Even in the absence of marriage as a legal construct, people would still be couples.

Throwing out all relationships because some are unfaithful is like throwing out all food because some get food poisoning. You can't just toss a fundamental biological urge because it's inconvenient.

You CAN provide social constructs that allow for biology to express itself without destruction of the relationship, but for the most part, at least among older generations, western culture doesn't seem ready to embrace that. A change like this would likely have to be a generational thing.

Edit:Damn TW, you type like your fingers are on fire. ;)

Original Post by drea99:

hatamoto:  up until the above post i was with ya. 

then you up and ticked me off.

Whaa...? I only said I thought the term paternity fraud was so named because of a legal specification, I didn't say I agreed with it. I must admit I do have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a mother doesn't know and doesn't suspect that the presumptive father isn't the biological one (I'm thinking some sort of impairment on the part of the mother would be probable... drugs, alcohol or such), but I fully accept that they can and probably do exist.

 I guess if there is a "force" to pair bond...that must mean something. But going back to the cheating aspect, you make it sound like society is the reason that people frown on cheating. Not individuals in the relationship. That it was all put upon them by history.

If it is true that we as humans cannot help ourselves, and we must stray...I say stray then, but be honest enough to tell your partner that you intend to stray...give your partner the chance to back out of the contract. Don't lie to them. That is the reprehensible part to me. But you fail to respond to that part of the argument hatamoto. You completely avoid that point. If the wife or husband chose to live with infidelity..that is between the couple..it is no one else's business. Right? But to LIE about it...is wrong. Crappy. What if your partner found someone they actually had some good times in bed with besides you? By lying to them, you are robbing them of the chance to explore..and perhaps find someone who "gets" them...especially  if, as you say the relationship is tarnished, and that is why one MUST stray in the first place.

Original Post by monarch777:

 I guess if there is a "force" to pair bond...that must mean something. But going back to the cheating aspect, you make it sound like society is the reason that people frown on cheating. Not individuals in the relationship. That it was all put upon them by history.

If it is true that we as humans cannot help ourselves, and we must stray...I say stray then, but be honest enough to tell your partner that you intend to stray...give your partner the chance to back out of the contract. Don't lie to them. That is the reprehensible part to me. But you fail to respond to that part of the argument hatamoto. You completely avoid that point. If the wife or husband chose to live with infidelity..that is between the couple..it is no one else's business. Right? But to LIE about it...is wrong. Crappy. What if your partner found someone they actually had some good times in bed with besides you? By lying to them, you are robbing them of the chance to explore..and perhaps find someone who "gets" them...especially  if, as you say the relationship is tarnished, and that is why one MUST stray in the first place.

Society puts a large amount of negative reinforcement over one end of the biological motivation spectrum: to protect the family unit. I suspect there's a number of reasons for it, including (but not limited to) property rights, community stability, and personal security. The human animal can be a very territorial creature.

I've never asserted that the entire problem is societal in nature. The problem is compounded and made much more dramatic by cultural and religious dogmas though, and unlike biology they're things that can be adjusted.

... and I have not failed to respond to "that part of the argument". Read up where I said, quote:

I absolutely agree that open communication can solve these problems before they start, but with communication has to come the maturity to process what you hear. It seems that precious few currently possess that maturity... therein lies the catch-22: how do you evolve your thinking if noone's talking, and how can you start talking if you risk censure for merely uttering the words?

I have also never asserted that people must stray. I said it's a powerful biological imperative and that many follow it even in spite of substantial deterrents against doing so. In light of that, it's sensible to re-examine the utility of the existing system.

EDIT: I get the sensation that you think I'm looking for a justification to cheat on my wife, or justification on some act in the past. I'm not. In my 25 years as a sexually active male I've never cheated on any partner, nor knowingly helped others to cheat. I have been cheated on once that I know of, and it sucked, but life happens.

Original Post by monarch777:

 I guess if there is a "force" to pair bond...that must mean something. But going back to the cheating aspect, you make it sound like society is the reason that people frown on cheating. Not individuals in the relationship. That it was all put upon them by history.

If it is true that we as humans cannot help ourselves, and we must stray...I say stray then, but be honest enough to tell your partner that you intend to stray...give your partner the chance to back out of the contract. Don't lie to them. That is the reprehensible part to me. But you fail to respond to that part of the argument hatamoto. You completely avoid that point. If the wife or husband chose to live with infidelity..that is between the couple..it is no one else's business. Right? But to LIE about it...is wrong. Crappy. What if your partner found someone they actually had some good times in bed with besides you? By lying to them, you are robbing them of the chance to explore..and perhaps find someone who "gets" them...especially  if, as you say the relationship is tarnished, and that is why one MUST stray in the first place.

I agree with you here, monarch.

However, no one said that people frown on cheating only because of society. It is a very strong instinct to feel angry, threatened, betrayed and abandoned by sexual or emotional infidelity. I would even go so far as to say that it may not be possible to actually accept/deal with an open relationship without a loss of intimacy and devotion. The poly people I have known invariably have less solid primary relationships than the people who are (overtly, at least) monogamous. They claim otherwise but I have seen the differences over the years.

Then again there is the usual scenario: one or both partners secretly cheating occasionally, maintaining the illusion of fidelity and therefore the intensity of the pair bond. BTW, I'm not sure that many people's main reason not to cheat is "well, my partner hasn't cheated, so I shouldn't" despite wanting to and being able to. If you haven't cheated, it's probably either because you are inclined to do so but haven't had the opportunity, or you aren't inclined to do so (i.e. you are naturally the monogamous type). I don't believe that there are that many people actively denying themselves out there. Interestingly, while some of the secret cheaters have shaky relationships, others do not. Usually those who cheat rarely and in well-controlled ways, i.e. the ones you would never suspect. Their primary relationships remain good, they are otherwise good life partners. I do think it's wrong to lie to your partner but on the other hand I'm not sure it would be better, overall, to break up a family over a trifle.

Original Post by trustwomen:However, no one said that people frown on cheating only because of society. It is a very strong instinct to feel angry, threatened, betrayed and abandoned by sexual or emotional infidelity. I would even go so far as to say that it may not be possible to actually accept/deal with an open relationship without a loss of intimacy and devotion. The poly people I have known invariably have less solid primary relationships than the people who are (overtly, at least) monogamous. They claim otherwise but I have seen the differences over the years.

This matches my experience. I've known a few polyamorous people and they do seem to "shift" alliegences with a bit more regularity than the average... but that's purely anecdotal and I wouldn't extrapolate it across the whole spectrum of polyamory.

There are also some notable exceptions: I know a woman who is, for all practical purposes, married to a man and another woman, and the three of them are ridiculously sweet together. Some of my questions about the way the system currently works come from watching them and wondering if things are 'right' as they currently exist for general society.

I will say this, though. The poly people sure do try to RECRUIT. Highly anxious about it, and about acceptance. I sense a bit of a siege mentality at work there; polyamory doesn't seem well understood or accepted by society at large.

Interestingly, while some of the secret cheaters have shaky relationships, others do not. Usually those who cheat rarely and in well-controlled ways, i.e. the ones you would never suspect. Their primary relationships remain good, they are otherwise good life partners. I do think it's wrong to lie to your partner but on the other hand I'm not sure it would be better, overall, to break up a family over a trifle.

I'd suggest that even in those solid relationships, cheating can be considered symptomatic of some trouble in the relationship. All other things being equal, mature couples should be able to work through most any problem, including the desire to get a little on the side. Keeping it hidden indicates that the relationship doesn't enjoy full disclosure, though not necessarily that the problems are fatal.

Setting aside the debate on whether 100% radical honesty is the best policy to keep a long term relationship happy and comfortable...

Original Post by hatamoto:

I'd suggest that even in those solid relationships, cheating can be considered symptomatic of some trouble in the relationship. All other things being equal, mature couples should be able to work through most any problem, including the desire to get a little on the side. Keeping it hidden indicates that the relationship doesn't enjoy full disclosure, though not necessarily that the problems are fatal.

Setting aside the debate on whether 100% radical honesty is the best policy to keep a long term relationship happy and comfortable...

Do you think that there is any truth to the idea that humans are wired to have diminished sexual response to any given partner over the years/crave variety? (Note: I am in no way saying that this would be just men, either - a complete load of b.s. that one sees all too often in the media). Meaning that even in a great relationship, it might be impossible to sustain that particular form of vitality?

I am not sure I agree that strong relationships should be able to handle the desire for infidelity. I don't think I would be able to handle knowing that my partner were unfaithful, and stay in the relationship. Is it terrible and unenlightened of me that I would probably rather not know, unless there was actually going to be an effect on my life? (i.e. if it were ongoing, or he wasn't protecting himself, or if there were an emotional component, or if it were due to an actual problem in our relationship).

Original Post by trustwomen:

Do you think that there is any truth to the idea that humans are wired to have diminished sexual response to any given partner over the years/crave variety? (Note: I am in no way saying that this would be just men, either - a complete load of b.s. that one sees all too often in the media). Meaning that even in a great relationship, it might be impossible to sustain that particular form of vitality?

I think it's possible, but it's extraordinary. I've been with my wife for going on 14 years, her smile can still pull me out of the darkest mood, and there are things she does sometimes that just drive me wild with desire.

Even with a relationship that goes beyond friendship and into the realm of where she feels like an autonomous extension of my own self, and a robust, varied and highly enjoyable sex life, I still have a wandering eye. We've talked about it, of course, and the fact that she's bi has certainly helped the issue.

As a result of some of those conversations, plus the experience of others I've known, I think that the largest worry when it comes to infidelity (specifically sex outside of the relationship) is that it'll lead to a break-up. Many people equate a sexual bond to an emotional bond, so extrarelational sex is a direct attack on that relationship... to such an extent even suggesting that even the hint of attraction (real or imagined) can lead to dramatic and sometimes physical consequences in the case of highly jealous/territorial people.

The conflation of sex with love is partially biological and partially societal. I think that if society allowed for extramarital sexual relations that did NOT directly threaten the emotional relationship (emotional monogamy), that many of the traditional problems in LTRs would dissipate. Something like an annual 'anything goes' day that some pagan religions enjoyed, as an example, a societally acceptable day to indulge those urges that might otherwise cause drama.

I am not sure I agree that strong relationships should be able to handle the desire for infidelity. I don't think I would be able to handle knowing that my partner were unfaithful, and stay in the relationship. Is it terrible and unenlightened of me that I would probably rather not know, unless there was actually going to be an effect on my life? (i.e. if it were ongoing, or he wasn't protecting himself, or if there were an emotional component, or if it were due to an actual problem in our relationship).

I don't think it's terrible and unenlightened. If you seriously consider the options and ramifications and determine, finally, that you'd not be able to handle it emotionally then that's who you are and that's entirely okay. We're all products of our upbringing and our genetic heritage, and some things you can't simply reason away.

I do think, though, that society as a whole would be well served by a full and public discussion of the topic, and some of the lethal taboos be currently endure be exposed to the full light of day to see if they're still valid. I think this is already happening to an extent, vis. shows like Dr. Ruth, Sex, Toys and Chocolate and so on, but are counterbalanced by such tripe as Maury Povich and the Never Ending Paternity Test™ reinforcing the current stereotypes.

You've already mentioned that you'd have a difficult time confronting extramarital sex in your relationship as a full disclosure scenario... out of prurient curiosity, how would you deal with, say, a semi-annual bacchanal, where it was univerally understood that what happens on that day STAYS on that day?

hatamoto..I never once mentioned or alluded to the fact that I thought you were a cheater. I was speaking in hypothetical terms the whole way through. Why did you need to personalize this and accuse me of that?

And to the comment about telling the truth and breaking up a relationship over a "trifle"....is still a poor excuse to lie. Perhaps the person being cheated on wouldn't think it a "trifle"...but by lying, I guess the cheater is selfishly protecting themselves. Making sure everything is staying the same, and comfortable....the proverbial "having your cake and eating it too".   I think I would rather be by myself than to live with a person who lied to me. But the liar takes away that choice. That's all.

Original Post by monarch777:

hatamoto..I never once mentioned or alluded to the fact that I thought you were a cheater. I was speaking in hypothetical terms the whole way through. Why did you need to personalize this and accuse me of that?

Just a sensation. It seemed like you were angry with me personally. If that's not the case then I apologize... mea culpa.

And to the comment about telling the truth and breaking up a relationship over a "trifle"....is still a poor excuse to lie. Perhaps the person being cheated on wouldn't think it a "trifle"...but by lying, I guess the cheater is selfishly protecting themselves. Making sure everything is staying the same, and comfortable....the proverbial "having your cake and eating it too".   I think I would rather be by myself than to live with a person who lied to me. But the liar takes away that choice. That's all.

Not to put words in TW's mouth... uh... fingers... but I think she was saying that compounding the ugliness of infidelity with the collapse and destruction of what was, on the whole, a good life for all parties involved is more universally painful than the guilt of keeping the secret and the deceit of hiding it. In the end, if the dalliance was entirely physical with no threat to the long term viability of the relationship, it's the path of least harm as things are set up today.

Monarch and hatamoto, you are both absolutely correct. You have both expressed exactly my views on the issue. I don't know how I am doing it (cognitive dissonance?) but I'm doing it. Weird.

As for the semi-annual bacchanal... maybe. While I could see that being a nice safety valve, I'm not sure it would actually work, because that day would inspire jealousy like any other day. Unless each half of the couple went to different bacchanals, but not sure if that would be possible. Again, I'm not sure that any amount of social restructuring/permission/postmodern ethics discussions can actually undo the primal damage done from feeling sexually betrayed. I really think it's that instinctive; I'm sure context could minimize the harm, and I'm not saying that infidelity would automatically make me end a relationship, but it just always weakens the pair bond compared to perceived fidelity, even if the couple stays together (or is set up that way to begin with). BTW, did the pagans actually do that, or is that another of the convenient stories modern pagans tell themselves in order to have orgies in the woods? (My birthday is on Lammas-day: all my pagan friends never came to my party as they were off in the woods for Fest).

Original Post by trustwomen:

Monarch and hatamoto, you are both absolutely correct. You have both expressed exactly my views on the issue. I don't know how I am doing it (cognitive dissonance?) but I'm doing it. Weird.

As for the semi-annual bacchanal... maybe. While I could see that being a nice safety valve, I'm not sure it would actually work, because that day would inspire jealousy like any other day. Unless each half of the couple went to different bacchanals, but not sure if that would be possible. Again, I'm not sure that any amount of social restructuring/permission/postmodern ethics discussions can actually undo the primal damage done from feeling sexually betrayed. I really think it's that instinctive; I'm sure context could minimize the harm, and I'm not saying that infidelity would automatically make me end a relationship, but it just always weakens the pair bond compared to perceived fidelity, even if the couple stays together (or is set up that way to begin with).

It'd be very difficult to test that empirically one way or the other, not even by going to records of past societies, as each of those would be heavily influenced by the convention of the day, the records of same probably reflecting the 'common wisdom' rather than individual feeling.

I'd suggest that SOME of it can be 'learned away', but if you're predisposed to being a territorial person then you may well be right. In which case, such a society would be onerous to the jealous people, by requiring them to conform to the societal norm of sexual/emotional separation, even if just for one day.

BTW, did the pagans actually do that, or is that another of the convenient stories modern pagans tell themselves in order to have orgies in the woods? (My birthday is on Lammas-day: all my pagan friends never came to my party as they were off in the woods for Fest).

Heh, who knows? Most of the records from that time and place are via the Romans, who were actively invested in subjugating, destroying or walling off those cultures. The Romans themselves had the actual Bacchanalia, ancient Egyptians had the "festival of drunkenness" that appears to have had a large sexual component, and sexual rituals are relatively commonplace throughout the world's religions that recognize natural forces as important to daily life so it's not completely out to lunch to think that ancient pagans had a little religiously sanctioned booty call. Even more modern societies have "nod and wink" days, like the Italian Carnivale or until recently, Mardi Gras.

.. and besides, you haven't lived 'til you've jumped a fire naked.