I'll not venture onto relationship threads again, thank you. See ya.
Oh dear - they certainly evoke our deepest, deepest beliefs and feelings, don't they - as well as challenge our ethics and our ability to live within those ethics and the way the ethics erspond to experience.
I wil miss your input on such threads, Lola - I hope you reconsider.
Deb,
I appreciate what you've said. Thank you. I should look at my own behavior and consider a more cautious approach. These discussions go better, I think when we can be less reactionary. And I'm not blameless.
My sincere apologies if I have been disrespectful or hurtful.
My apologies for not piping up and saying I agree with much of what Lola says. (been a little quiet, for moi, lately).
osso, you've been busy.........and no apologies necessary from anyone. I just get testy from time to time, as we all do. Don't worry Soz, all is well.
It's a loaded subject, Lola. You knew that, right? Hope I haven't offended you. Certainly didn't intend to.
Eva,
You haven't offended me at all. It's a subject I thought we could discuss with open minds. I apologize if it was too ambitious. But let's forget it now.
Not to bring up a sore subject, I agree that the 'offenders' discussed here, the habitual cheaters, are a group that can bear not only study, but on consideration can be broken down into subgroups, that behavior can be understood, at least to some extent. Some of the behavior can be based on that old human motivator, fear, and some, well, lots of reasons. I will leave room for the behavior to be acceptable, within what they used to call open marriage, although the words "habitual cheater" imply that in the situations under consideration, only one person is into the openness part.
Some cultures also have centuries old acceptance of males having mistresses while marriage marches on. And some of those cultures are somewhat open to the females working out new relationships. Some of italy's good short story writers cover this.
I think things are complex and that what e'er we want in our own lives, the subject is interesting.
I think sexual incontinence can be a worse crime than murder, under certain circumstances.
huh?
unless you mean sex knowing you have std, sans discussion and protection.
There is justifiable homicide but there is also trust and sexual incontinence can mean the breaking of trust. People whose mates wander feel insulted: that they somehow were insufficient or unattractive or didn't try hard enough. No one should make their mate feel terrible about themself by cheating.
Still, it ain't murder. Murder is really insulting.
Murder me and you have TRULY hurt my feelings!
We humans are a complex mix of stuff, each of us unique, and if we were to limit a discussion such as this to the moral sphere, we aren't going to learn very much.
One can think of teachers whose notion of pedagogical sophistication is to loudly yell into his students' faces, regardless of home life, regardless of innate abilities, "Well, just pull your socks up!"
We can hold to a moral principle (eg., 'it's not ok to hurt another unnecessarily') and we can attempt whatever we feel worthwhile as regards trying to convince others that we'll all be better off if such a principle were held broadly. But the fact that we commonly engage in such debates is itself evidence of our variation person to person, and culture to culture.
Gawd!!!!! I bet they scratch a lot.
I'm going to have to go back and reread at least parts of this thread, to regroup my sense of it. (How soon we forget..)
I'm finding the reread interesting, even though Lola edited her posts later for private reasons. I'm now around page five and much agree with Craven, at least in retrospect - though his words wouldn't be mine, me being more territorial; I won't argue with his.
I dunno if or what I posted back then. (maybe I argued..)
But - there was a pause for YOU CANNOT CONNECT ERROR, whatever the words were. Will report back.
Still with Craven through page seven...
hard to read but worth it so far.. whether or not any of us end up agreeing...
