BS: Sexual Infidelity

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Joe_F
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:35 PM

Now that we have largely gotten away from the notion that people have to make promises in order to get laid, that is all the more reasons to expect that people who do make promises will keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:38 PM

Commiting adultry is similar to any other crime. People do it because they think they can get away with it, or they have no concept of consequences.
I've never met a woman who would be worth losing my marriage and reputation for.
I cant say I'm never tempted, I sure as Hell have been, but as Lord Chesterfield said to his son about sex: "The pleasure is temporary, the cost is damndable and the position ridiculous."

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:04 PM

Well, like I have said in the past, why a sane man would want to carry on with two women is beyond my ability to figurate... Ain't that like unConstitutional??? Like "double jeoprady", 'er somethin' like that???

Okay, let me put the qualifier on that... Young people, like in their 20's ain't grown up 'nuff to understand that... Heck, when I was in my 20s I was stupid and did stupid stuff... So did my wife at the time... Hey, it was the fuckin' 60's, wasn't it???

But I got over it and most folks do...

Nah, I think I'll just play this hand out, thank you...

There was a country song that came out about 20 years ago entitled, "Tryin' to Love Two Women"... It was either Conway of George Jones...

"Tryin' to love two women
is like a ball and chain..."

Yeah...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:14 PM

You have a ball with the good one and get chained by the bad one? Very deep.... real deep... chest wader deep. Where is my shovel???? buried?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Alice
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:27 PM

HIV, AIDS, Syphilis, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Papilloma virus (which can cause cancer), Candida, Chlamydia, Trichomoniasis, Bacterial Vaginosis, ... all of these someone can bring back to their spouse/partner after straying into an affair. You never know who that person slept with and who they slept with, etc. I once heard someone explain STD awareness as realizing that you are having sex with everyone else that the other person has had sex with. (Its almost like a pyramid scheme). You don't know who all those other partners came into contact with.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: bobad
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:31 PM

If it weren't for cheating where would country music be?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:00 PM

Right, bo-zer... Cheatin' and country music go hand in hand...

Tryin' to love two women
is like a ball and chain
One's got yer heart
The other has yer name
It's a long, long road
And it tires you brain...

Thisw poor SC governor... I reckon if he's that eat up then he ougtta just say, "Screw it (not literlly, he's allready doen that), I love this Argentine woman and I am gonna just up and leave the country and hook up with here and become an Argentine laborer" or whatever folks with no skills other than being a US politacan e4nd up doing when they move to Argentina with no skills...

Or he needs to break it off with the Argentine lady and suck it up here in the states... Do the counseling and all the required crapolla that the American society expects for him to be one of "them" again...

I donno... His choice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Deckman
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:01 PM

I well remember a few years ago when some polygamist was taken to court, found guilty, and then sentenced. At that time I asked: "Why sentence him any more ... he's ALREADY been punished enough!" bad bad bob

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:35 PM

When one of these weak sisters finally kicks out one of these little cowardly tittybabies, I'll believe "we've really come a long way, baby!" Who wants to be married to a cowardly liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:40 PM

"Naked hiking day?" Now there's a holiday worth taking the day off for!!! But I have to wait another year...boo! arf!arf!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

there is a couple who take the dogs down our local park.
i think they are maried but she has a long term girlfreind and he ain't comlaining!

good for them they are able to get what they all need out of it and no one feels threatened.

i get jealous enough of my other halfs past partners without new ones. i couldn't handle, it but as long as everyone agrees, fair enough.   the problem comes when lies are being told, which when it comes out, makes the faithful one feel like not only are they not good enough but that they must be stupid not to have seen it.

where poloticians are concerned they may do as they wish just as long as they do the job well and are not being hipocrites( i so wanted to write hippgriffs instead).

i think those who are cheating or about to, should first think of what it is that they stand to lose, trust is easily lost and so hard to get back.          preach over lol

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:13 PM

Crow Sister and Kat, if you don't make a promise of fidelity, then no promise is broken and it sounds like that was not one of the promises on which your committed relationships are based.

We have all made promises in our lives that later we have found we can not keep, for any number of reasons. Sometimes we make a decision that we no longer want to keep the promise.   I make very few promises, coming from a family who takes it's promises very, very seriously. I have certainly broken promises, but in my adult life I do not think I have ever broken a promise without advance notice and a discussion.

While there are certainly many exceptions, in Western culture, most committed relationships include an expressed expectation and promise of sexual fidelity, and monogamy is, generally speaking, the normative value in our culture. "Cheating" is when one breaks the rules.

A definition of infidelity: Infidelity is a violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of an intimate relationship, which constitutes a significant breach of faith or a betrayal of core shared values with which the integrity of the relationship is defined. (from Wikipedia.)

While I agree that how a couple or a family chooses to deal with infidelity within the immediate family unit is no one's business but theirs, I disagree that nothing about it is anyone else's business. Reading between the lines of history, I think Mamie Eisenhower and Eleanor Roosevelt and their spouses came to some sort of agreement and accomodation

We are social creatures, imbedded in larger families, neighborhoods, communities, mutual friends. In the case of marriage, it is not only a contract between two individuals, it is also a contract between the couple and the community. It recognizes the interdependence on which the social fabric depends. That is why witnesses are required. That is the prime reason behind all the public ceremony that usually surrounds the rite of marriage in what we call a Wedding. The role of the community as witness to the marriage is both a pledge to support the couple's commitment, and also to hold the couple accountable to the community for that commitment.

Where there is a strong community, the infidelity has an effect on everyone within the social circle of the couple, and children, if there are any. Few among us have not experienced the rippling effect of some one's infidelity on our relationships with the couple involved, our children, our churches or workplaces, our circle of friends, and also acquaintances and/or our extended families.

Infidelity is the most difficult issue for a couple to truly overcome. In most relationships in our culture, it strikes at the core of trust. Once trust is broken at a core level, it almost never can be fully re-established. I have seen this played out again and again in couple's therapy. There may be forgiveness, but the betrayed party never forgets, and rarely truly puts it behind them.

Reading between the lines of easily accessible history, Mamie Eisenhower and Eleanor Roosevelt and their presidential spouses eventually came to some sort of agreement and decision regarding discrete accomodation. It doesn't sound like the same was true of John and Jackie Kennedy. And it certainly was not true of Bill Clinton.

I am not particularly concerned with Sanford except as the latest example among public figures. How he and his wife choose to deal with it is indeed their private decision. As others have noted, he went about his own liason in a manner that is a flagrant violation and abnegation of his public responsibilities.

I heard an extremely obnoxious but priceless statement from john q. public regarding Sanford on NPR this afternoon. Some "person in the street" said, "If you need to get laid, you need to get laid."

I'm disgusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 10:40 PM

And sorry for not editing out redundancies in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:14 AM

Well at least the language has been enriched.   If you want to do something and don't want to tell your wife about it, you just say: "Sorry, I'll be hiking the Appalachian Trail".

e.g.   "Sorry honey, I won't be able to clean out the garage this evening--I'll be hiking the
Appalachian Trail."

What? That may not have the desired result?


Well, at least guys can use it with each other:   "Hey Larry, haven't seen you for awhile.   Been doing a lot of hiking the Appalachian Trail?"

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:26 AM

Janie, I agree with you, IF that is a promise which has been made, both parties should keep it. In our case, we are neither church people nor Christian, though we are spiritual.

I find the john q. public comment from NPR as disgusting as you do and I do NOT advocate anyone cheating on their partner UNLESS both parties have an agreement and even that takes a great deal of maturity, confidence, and trust. I don't think there are many who are predisposed in our society to handle it that way.

It is obvious that our society still has different standards for men and women...men are expected to stray a little, women are not supposed to even have a libido. THAT disgusts me....that we still have such suppositions in a supposedly enlightened age.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:00 AM

Who says women are not expected to have a libido? Am I right that most of the advocates of guilt here are from the USA? If so, it would (again) probably benefit that country to have a lot less religion in its makeup.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Midchuck
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:08 AM

Am I right that most of the advocates of guilt here are from the USA? If so, it would (again) probably benefit that country to have a lot less religion in its makeup.

If it helps any, a great many people in the USA agree with you. Unfortunately, in a country that more or less invented the idea of religious freedom, too many seem to feel that they're being denied religious freedom if they aren't allowed to force their religion on others.

Real religious faith means not having to make logical sense.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:25 AM

The great tension is between the rise of the idea that our feelings are all important, that they are the test of things; and the concept of the promise and the vow, which is in one sense public, but in a related sense, is a form of internalized public stance, as it is simultaneously made to at least one other person, and in that sense to the community. The tension is (1) to determine what is or is not the defining characteristic of one's self -- is it all what I want or need, or does it involve public elements; and (2) the implications of the decisions.

The political ramifications are obvious: Republicans accuse Democrats of being purely random "feeling" people with no morals, so if they are in charge, everything will dissolve into chaos; meanwhile Democrats believe that moral judgements without regard for the people involved are heartless ideology or hypocrisy. This is why Republicans were so gleeful about Cliinton; and why Democrats are so gleeful about Republican shenanigans. No one ever accused Bill Clinton of hypocrisy.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:33 AM

"Real religious faith means not having to make sense".   Now there's a nice objective statement.

In fact, the same can be said of atheism.

There's no proof either way. (Here we go again.   An amazing number of threads seem to lead down this road).

Agnosticism makes perfect sense.   Neither of the other two choices mentioned do--if sense is your main goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:35 AM

"...logical sense".   Don't want to misquote.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:11 AM

Ron D: "Agnosticism makes perfect sense."

I completely agree.

I certainly believe that agnosticism makes much more logical sense than atheism. Not that I would challenge anothers beliefs, only where their belief became an insistence that they were being fully objective and impartial, and indeed assuming their position was necessarily correct and applicable to all.

Gnosticism (or other spiritual paths with advocate direct empirical experience over Priestly intercession) IMO also makes similar sense, as neither agnosticism nor gnosticism are predicated upon blind faith.

Bit of a tangent of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 11:25 AM

Sorry I brought it up. How about we get back on track with the original discussion instead of going down that old and tired religion road, again. Or, start a different thread or resurrect (pun intended) one of the old ones if you want to bash about? Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM

I don't understand the obsession with the sex lives of politicians..who cares who they sleep with ? As long at they do what they are elected to do and are not involved in criminal activity..it is really none of our bleedin business.
   Most countries take the view that people, politicians included, are entitled to a private life...let them have a private life.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM

Problem was that Sanford was not doing what he was elected to do. He disappeared without giving his staff any way to contact him. whatever the reason he was derelict in his duty to the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

Hmmm ~ thought I posted a while ago, but apparently not. Unless maybe I did, and got censored. Here goes, again:

This guy had to go all the way to Argentina to find someone to cheat with? Doesn't speak well of his competence...

If he had been able to set up his love nest a little closer to home, he wouldn't have had to abandon his post for so long, and probably would never have been caught.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:21 PM

Janie makes a whole lot of sense.

In my view, it ought to be legally 'possible' for people to write their 'marriage' contracts to reflect personal views...including same-sex, multiple relationships..etc. Then, in cases of upsets, certain details would not be at question....

But this would not deal with the issue of political office. NO MATTER WHAT a major politician and his/her spouse agree on (like Eisenhower or Roosevelt), they know that many constituents will not agree and can/will vote to reflect more conservative views. Back then, the press had some sort of agreement to not publish everything they knew....now, with technology as it is (like finding cell phone records from the Atlanta airport), it has become a major sport and business to follow, record, film, question and analyze everything a major public figure does. This has both positive & negative aspects, as it is often the case that 'morals' get confused with 'ability to do the job' and occupy way too much of the news cycle.


Sanford not only broke obvious 'promises'...both specific & implied...with his wife AND his constituents...he also showed an abysmal lack of recognition of how private he could keep such affairs. If he had tried to run for president, someone whould have gleefully broken the story at an 'interesting' moment. He merely made it easier.

What is most interesting to me, is how other Republicans are struggling to decide what to say publically.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM

I understand that our social 'norm' is monogomy.

I just distrust the forms of brainwashing (IMHO!) that lead people to believe that it is either 'normal' (aka 'natural') or indeed plausible, to lead their lives in such a fashion without encountering severe reality checking.

GMF is completely 'normative' within other cultures, as is arranged marriage, or indeed abduction and rape leading to marriage, but it doesn't necessarily make it the most constructive or enlightened approach to adopt in a self-professed "enlightened" society such as the West.

Strong examples, I understand. But agreements made under extreme social pressure, or before an individual has had enough personal experience to determine their own values outside of collectively assumed/indoctrinated ones, will mean all kinds of people get pulled into contracts that are not in any way right for them.

How do we feel about people that go AWOL when they disagree with a governments aggressive foreign policy, or Civil Servants who break confidentiality, in public interest for example. These people are breaking promises and contracts too.
Is it ever as black and white as that?

Think of the amount of Gay men, who have had families because homosexuality was not 'normative'? How many of those who broke their eternal promises, would we condemn as cads?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:03 PM

There really is no issue of guilt per se, but one of broken agreements. More important, breaking an agreementwith enough importance to be elevated to the stature of "vow".

Opting for the indulgence in feelings over internal stature means you walk into the next morning with your feelings momentarily satiated and your ability to keep your own word and be true to your own commitments semi-permanently dinged. This is a stupid bargain to make.

In addition, breaking agreements with others is hurtful, and breaking very important ones with others is often very hurtful. So in addition to seriously dinging your own integrity, you have undermined the trust of the relationship AND hurt someone else. THis makes it a prohibitively expensive indulgence, just as doing some bizarre tempting drug might be.

If there is "guilt"--meaning a wish to turn back the clock and undo what has been done--it comes only from these things. AFAIK the only remedy is to rebuild your integrity anew by embracing higher standards of honesty and communication than you have done in the past, and suffer through the climb back up into your own good graces.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM

GMF?

Gay Married Female?
Godforsaken Miserable Fidelity?
Great Married Fornication?
Group Monogamy Forever?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM

Although "monogamy " may be the alleged norm, serial monogamy is more certainly more prevalent and "sexual fidelity", or not, needs to be totally between those in any given relationship at any given time. No body's business but those involved.

For me, the real issue here is TRUTH. We know most politicians lie. (Perhaps most people do.) But to lie so everyone can see it needs to be political suicide. If they lie about "this", then how can we trust anything they say? We cannot.

I don't care how anyone carries on their sex life as long as it is honest, and not harmful, in the eyes of those to whom it matters - wives, mistresses, children. Or, in the case of public figures - the public. Even as chairperson of the local women's resource centre, I accepted that my personal life had to be above reproach lest I give the centre a black eye. Getting that off the ground was far more important to me that anything else.

I am missing something to notice that it only male politicians who seem to get caught?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM

GFM

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:15 PM

Jesus, make that:

Female Genital Mutilation.

So much easier to type... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:22 PM

Thank you, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:59 PM

I'd like to know how many people make that vow, whilst knowing next to nothing about themselves? I'd like to know how many would support the condemnation of another who broke their vow under unexpected extreme provocation?

I feel that no-one has questioned the real value of monogomy (desrcibed as it is by the 'heterosexual Christian nuclear family') being the prevailing presumption in Western Culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 04:57 PM

From a genetic point of view I would guess that the majority of men want their female to be monogamous in order to ensure that the children of the union carry their own genes. That one is pretty well hard wired in. Women, on the whole, tend to want a monogamous relationship so that the hunter-gatherer in the family is working on behalf of her children, not disappearing off into the wild blue yonder and leaving her to fend for herself whilst raising the family. It mostly comes down to a question of security for both parties.

Our modern lifestyle may have changed but the genetic hardwiring of both sexes hasn't yet caught up with these changes.

Then you have the role of religion in the mix, with the customs and mores associated with those religions, which compound the faithful unto death idea. Just look at what is happening now with the attitude toward gay marriage. What we hear from the opponents to this idea is that it will have a derogatory effect on family life. The nuclear family unit is seen as the norm and we are generally brought up to believe that that is the status to which we should aspire. It's going to take a lot of time to lose that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

I don't think there is any inherent value in monogamy. I do think there is inherent value in honesty and in the notion of interdependence and mutual responsibility. I think that because the social contract is the essential glue that holds us together, and we humans have evolved in such a way that social organization is key to our survival.

If one thinks that social organization and structure are not necessary, take a look at Somalia.

So I think that dishonest violations of the contract on which the integrity of a relationship is based, and which the violator attempts to hide so as not to experience consequences are aggregeous. I obviously have a very strongly held value about this.

When I decided to leave my marriage, I broke an important commitment. I had some very good reasons for doing so, but it was still a choice. While I do not regret my decision, I will always feel somewhat guilty about it.

Infidelity had nothing to with it by the way. Years ago we were separated for a year and in counseling to see if we could make things work. When we came together as a couple we did have an explicit mutual expectation of sexual fidelity. During the time we were separated a female apprentice was working daily with my spouse, was very infatuated with him and came onto him very strongly. He found her very attractive. We talked about this in marital counseling. He was essentially wanting my permission to have a sexual relationship with her. I was very clear that he had to make his own decision about that. I was also very clear that while I had no idea at that time if we were going to reconcile otherwise, I was certain that I was not interested in continuing the hard work of attempting to work out our problems if he chose to enter into a sexual relationship with her. As it happens, he chose not to, but whatever he might have chosen, he acted with honesty and integrity in discussing it with me first so that I could also make an honest and informed choice. He did not try to "have his cake and eat it to."

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

Janie, you do, for the most part, speak my mind. As did Amos a while ago. I hope you can get beyond that guilt feeling. I had that also and it is so counterproductive. CS is correct, we do make these commitments with so little self-knowledge and even less knowledge of the other. New knowledge sometimes requires a re-thinking. Scientists do it all the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:41 PM

If you are human you are a foibled mess with clay feet, but sexual infidelity is not among my foibles. My plumber Max says that it can happen in flash but living in the moment always provided my conscience to have the last word.
Saying no has cost me some friends but not my wife.
At least not in the last 21 years.

There's always tommorrow ;')

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:47 PM

"I don't think there is any inherent value in monogamy."

I would not have children with a woman who held that premise. It's all about the kids... all of the laws, all of the religious "rights".. all of the ceremonies, vows, public undertakings, whatever.

Even in the civil contract ceremony in Canada (that I attended) and written in law... "... forsaking all others...". It's for the kids.

If you forsake your spouse or your children, you forsake yourself. And you have no rights under law or God, unless forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:51 PM

It IS about the kids if a couple chooses to have kids. Even if a couple discovers they they never should have married each other, they should design any new arrangements to make it as easy on the kids as possible.
It IS the case sometimes that remaining together may be harder on the kids than separating, but every effort should be made. If infidelity is a major issue, it 'can' be better for kids not to watch the game play out.

   I was personally acquainted a number of years ago with some people who had a very 'open' lifestyle with no jealousy and where the kids knew everyone and 'flowing relationships' were taken for granted. But each family was still defined, and none of the kids doubted who loved them and took care of them. Unusual, but they seemed to make it work. I do NOT recommend that just anyone try this.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM

I hear what you are saying, Gnu. I think there are very strong reasons for a society to have norms, mores and values that provide for a stable family environment for the purpose of rearing children, including strong cultural support and an array of social sanctions for flouting that most important of social contracts. However, there are cultures that do that in the context of polygamous families. In cultures where polygamy is a norm, they still involve solomn commitment and overt interdependency and mutual responsibility.

I personally value monogamy, but I don't see monogamy as being the only arrangement that provides the stability and support needed to provide appropriate care for children. The inherent value lies with the conditions that underpin whatever the (usually culturally based) social contract is that represents a society's effort to provide for the rearing of young. The power of any social contract rests on strong belief in honesty and integrity.

Obviously, in Western society, the advent of good, reliable forms of birth control has changed mores and norms very rapidly. However, we have not found ways to compensate for what that means in terms of child-rearing. Additionally, we have come to value the rights and immediate needs and wants of the individual over the responsibilities of the individual to others, and to society.   There is no intelligent dialogue on any significant scale to address the consequences, intended and unintended, in these shifts. Largely, in my very humble opinion, because of the failure to understand the function of values. In terms of marriage, and the "solomn" commitment that at one time upheld that institution, I have this to say. It is only my opinion, FWIW, but I think it is a sound and well-reasoned opinion. Marriage is hard. No one goes into a first marriage, presumably at a fairly young age really knowing what they are in for.   Talk with long-time couples who consider themselves happily and successfully married, and they will still tell you how hard it was, and that there were many unpleasant surprises along the way.   

From a sociobiological perspective, the primary function of marriage is to produce offspring and then rear them at least until they themselves reach reproductive age. It requires both the support of an integrated social system, and the threat of stigma from an integrated social system to hold many, if not most, marriages together over the long haul. Speaking very generally, I tend to think the evidence is that long-haul marriages are best for children. Our cultural mores had become so hide-bound in that respect, that when it was in the best interest of children for the marriage to dissolve, that usually did not happen. Now the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the other direction. Another explanation is we are evolving socially very unevenly. If we don't kill ourselves off through climate change first, it will be interesting to see what finally socially evolves.

I am not a religious person, and have been gradually moving over the past several years in the direction of thinking it quite unlikely there is a god or a supreme consciousness or superintelligence. What that as meant for me is that I have had to change the basis on which I base my moral values, and to come to understand them as choices based on any combination of rational thought and inculturation by family and society. As I have moved in this direction, I have found that little has changed regarding my values. What has changed is the basis of them. There are values that I choose to believe are inherent because there is much evidence that aspiring to those values is life-enhancing and responsible, both individually and collectively, in terms of fostering survival of our species and the earth, or that cross-cultural study and experience strongly suggests their universal functionality.    That doesn't make them inherent, but I firmly choose to treat them as such.   

There are other values that I also hold dear and practice in my personal life that I none-the-less understand as personal and culturally determined values. Monogamy is one of those. One function of religion in a society is to provide a non-rational basis for necessary values.   That is fine with me, though I do wish people in general would put a bit more effort into disquishing between belief and fact, and even more often, learn to be aware within themselves of the distinct difference between a thought (cognition) and a feeling (emotion.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:02 PM

Weirdest thing. I could not get this post to submit. Finally had to copy it to pages and then back to a dialog box - this after 5 tries.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:13 PM

("could not get this post to submit.")

Yep..it happens. I copy it, then hit **reload** in the browser..(not 'refresh' in Mudcat.) This puts a new copy in the cache and overrides whatever problem was going on. Wish Jeff was still around to explain it.

And thank you, Janie, for the rational & coherent look at some of the issues.



and I'm sort of indebted to Sanford for bringing this issue to such ...ummmmm... 'interesting' attention. I am not happy he did all this, but it sure is making people think.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:34 PM

Alas, Bill, I lack your succinctness.   Probably because I lack your clarity and am processing and figuring things out in the process of writing here. Journaling, so to speak, as I go.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:54 PM

You done good, Janie!

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:58 PM

"My plumber Max..."

Ah, but what does your plumber Joe say?

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 11:00 AM

He's not available for comment--he's out hiking the Appalachian Trail in eastern Kabekistan.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

Kabekistan--that must be pretty far east in Maine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 04:05 PM

OK, here's the thing... I may be a Pollyanna, but I still believe in the concept of The Public Trust.

We are all of us flawed, and stumbling through this world (especially when it comes to love!) But when a person is elected to uphold the laws, (especially as a governor) and to work to set standards of education for our children, to represent us at home and abroad, I DO hold them to a higher standard.

I mean, I am aware that politicians are human, and that their marriages and relationships are truly none of my business. I am not a stone-caster, by ANY means.

However, when politicians behave in ways that demonstrate a disregard for personal loyalty and integrity, they have lost me. I want them to do better, and be better, and try harder, as they set an example. I just do!

Bill Clinton is a great example. I wanted him so badly to be our president, was so hopeful on so many levels. And there is plenty he did well he should be remembered for. But when I had an opportunity to see him this year, made sure my daughter came, ('cause how often do you get to see an American President?!). When the time came actually meet him, I didn't even want to shake his hand. All the awe for me was lost in "Ewwwww!!".

... I'm just sayin'.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Sexual Infidelity
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 04:45 PM

100