0
   

Are men (and women) who habitually cheat just creeps?

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 06:14 pm
Shocked
0 Replies
 
lost my calgon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 07:01 pm
sex is everywhere today...i just heard on Oprah the other day thats its a regular way of life on school buses these days.... Rolling Eyes
so with sex comes sex and then comes the potential for cheating to take place.
I say....go with the Chinese Zodiac and always a marry a person who falls under the category of "the dog". They are the loyal ones.

Cheaters are generally selfish and have emotional problems that cannot be fixed no matter how much you love that person. ONce a Cheater ALWAYS a cheater.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 08:25 pm
dang it, habit dies hard!@
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 08:35 pm
Smile
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 09:18 pm
Lola wrote:
I've simply pointed out that there is more to be understood about any behavior than judging fault.
... I'm talking about understanding behavior for the purpose of changing. There's a big difference in these two uses of the word. I hope this clarifies.


I know that I'm not interested in understanding why a cheater cheats. Or at least, I'm not interested on a personal level. I might be interested on a professional level, but that's a completely different thing.

Creepy doesn't have any relevance as a term for me in this context, so I wouldn't be able to say if a regular cheater was a creep.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 09:47 pm
Smile
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 11:34 pm
lost_my_calgon wrote:
sex is everywhere today...i just heard on Oprah the other day thats its a regular way of life on school buses these days.... Rolling Eyes


Doubt it, there'd be no attendance problems.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 11:39 pm
We always ran for the back seat because the bumps were felt most dramatically back there. We had slingshots and Roy Rogers lunch boxes. We figured Frontierland was as exciting as life could get. There was little humping.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 11:56 pm
Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 07:25 am
Originally, when i saw this thread, i didn't come here, because i had a strong suspicion that it might be an ambush thread. I'm now sorry i came, and am convinced that my original instinct was correct. I don't need to have sociopath defined for me. I know what the word means, which is why i selected it. The contention that those who judge without sufficient "sensitivity" are sociopaths is little short of ludicrous. I wasn't running down the thread shouting "burn the witch!" you know. One can recognize a pathological behavior, and still be justified in condemning its consequences. Are we then to get a big case of the warm fuzzies for the childish, self-centered jerk whose only focus is in his or her genitals, without regard for the emotional harm they cause? Count me out; this thread stinks-and please, next time, exercise a little honesty. You don't want people to decide whether or not habitual infidelity makes someone a creep, you want to call for compassion, and you want to excuse, with the appeal to pathology, not to offer evidence in mitigation. This entire exercise is extremely dishonest of you, Lola.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 09:01 am
set

There's no reason any of us should assume that you have an innate moral compass superior to that of others. You have a notion, and you hold it with passion, but that is hardly compelling enough on it's own. People here disagree with you, to varying degrees and on various aspects of your view, but tough luck. You don't get to be pontif.

And it really is time you knocked off the personal attacks and slanders. I don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't enjoy your presence ( I do), but you fly off the goddamn handle and imply or explicate not just wrong-headedness, but false motives and bad character. You better learn to accept your friends warts and all, or you'll be the only one left, humble and righteous.

DON'T get in a fight with me here. I'm your friend. But I'm not going to let you denigrate other friends who don't deserve it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 09:12 am
I didn't denigrate anyone. And i do question the motive of this thread. Your reaction is what is over the top.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 09:37 am
Ooooweee. What's going on here?!! Where's Diane? Montana? I think someone's over here judging somebody! Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 10:21 am
I think Lola's remarks are indicative of her professional background and detached approach. For those of us who are not professionals and who do not have to deal with these issues on that basis, it is entirely understandable that we react more emotionally to this subject.

I'm sure we could learn a lot from Lola, but that does not negate our own feelings and opinions about the issue. And for that matter, I do not believe Lola has asked us to put aside our own feelings.

(BTW, I would never call someone in a "committed" relationship who repeatedly cheats with others a "creep." My preferred term is "jerk." Smile )
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 10:32 am
My remarks were not directed at any individual with whom i am acquainted, either IRL, nor here at this site. Those who seek that sort of entertainment will have to rely upon their speculations and not what i've written. This thread refers to those who habitually "cheat" on a partner and i've responded to that. I continue to consider this thread basically dishonest, in that it seems to solicit an opinion, but when i've given mine, Lola responds that she considers such people creeps, but . . . and then makes an inferential accusation of insensitivity on my part, and a suggestion of sociopathy in that attitude. That would certainly be no less denigrating that anything which i've written, and for which the Mountie accuses me, while hilariously pontificating on my expressed opinion by characterizing it as pontification. I have the distinct feeling of having been ambushed.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:24 am
Setanta wrote:
My remarks were not directed at any individual with whom i am acquainted, either IRL, nor here at this site. Those who seek that sort of entertainment will have to rely upon their speculations and not what i've written. This thread refers to those who habitually "cheat" on a partner and i've responded to that. I continue to consider this thread basically dishonest, in that it seems to solicit an opinion, but when i've given mine, Lola responds that she considers such people creeps, but . . . and then makes an inferential accusation of insensitivity on my part, and a suggestion of sociopathy in that attitude. That would certainly be no less denigrating that anything which i've written, and for which the Mountie accuses me, while hilariously pontificating on my expressed opinion by characterizing it as pontification. I have the distinct feeling of having been ambushed.


Wow! Insecure much??
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:27 am
Not at all, Boss, but if you would like to think so, you help yourself.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:37 am
The part I was disagreeing with, Lola, was

Lola wrote:
This is where ethics don't help much. I think ethics are vital to provide guidelines. And they are absolutely necessary in questions of professional behavior. But matters of the heart are not matters of ethics.


That was when I said that I do think ethics has a place in personal relationships, of all kinds.

Lola wrote:
Your idea that one should break off one relationship before getting involved in another is a commendable ideal. But it's not always possible or realistic. When ideals clash, one must chose. And you've said you agree with this, actually. So where do we disagree?


If you think it is unethical to avoid breaking off one relationship before getting involved in another, there is no disagreement. I have gone into the lack of absolutes, mitigating circumstances, more or less unethical, ideals not always achievable, etc. All I am saying is that with all of those caveats, the bottom line, to me, is that cheating as defined in this ongoing discussion is unethical.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:41 am
Hey Lola, hike up your skirt a little more, and show your world to ... us. Smile
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 05:25 pm
I may have thought of a better way to explain my position, such as it is.

Lola wrote:
Behaving differently than your feelings indicate in some matters can be a disloyal act and in this sense, unethical.


I don't exactly disagree with that, but how does it translate to actions? There are all sorts of ways to behave differently than your feelings that are ethically required. When I feel very strongly that I want some time to myself, I could lock the sozlet into a room and turn off my sound signaling system, but that wouldn't be very ethical. When I found a wallet with $100 in it and a bunch of credit cards, I thought longingly of some boots coveted, but I gave the wallet back anyway complete with cash. Etc.

Part of being an adult is attempting to only act only on those feelings, no matter how strongly held, that can be acted on ethically. This doesn't mean that feelings should be ignored, at all. If I am feeling overwhelmed, I take action to mitigate that feeling in the most ethical way I can, like signing sozlet up for classes. Signing her up for classes is not the problem. Breaking up with someone you don't want to be with is not the problem.

Again, I don't expect that everyone can always act ethically at all times -- I certainly don't, I know many good people who occasionally act unethically and are still good people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 09:56:57