Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no
sense to me. Does it EVER end well?

S

Stephanie Stowe wrote: Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well?

When dealing with matters of the human gonads and the
human heart, "sensibility" is one of the last things you
can possibly expect.

I have to agree with you, though... it does NOT make sense
and all I've ever heard are horror stories.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Stephanie Stowe" (stowe@whackthisvsac.org) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fszncenyrc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes: > Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes > absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? The most common stat on this, is that relationships that begin with one person still maritally involved with another, have a *95%* rate of failure. IOW, compared to the oft cited 50% odds of divorce, those relationships have a *ten times worse* success rate ( 5% v/ 50% ). So, its not a matter of reason or logic. I don't think this is something people do expecting it to end well. It seems to be something people do when there is something they want which they don't know how to get out of their marriage. If you hang out here for a while, you'll see more than the occasional poster who desparately wants _something_ out of his or her marriage which he or she is absolutely not getting. And while it might be _possible_ for said poster to get this out of his or her marriage, said poster doesn't know how to make it happen. Balderdash.

Which part of what I said is "balderdash?"
They don't want to *admit to themselves* what they have to do. Which is, either focus on the marriage *they chose to be in*, or end that marriage, *then* pursue other situations.

In what sense are you using the term "have to do?" Obviously they
have other choices, like having the affair, and screwing up their
marriage, or in some cases, having the affair and continuing the
marriage.

These are unlikely to be good choices, but they are still choices
people make.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Stephanie Stowe" (stowe@whackthisvsac.org) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fszncenyrc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu...> "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes:>> > Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes> > absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? The most common stat on this, is that relationships that begin with one person still maritally involved with another, have a *95%* rate of failure. IOW, compared to the oft cited 50% odds of divorce, those relationships have a *ten times worse* success rate ( 5% v/ 50% ). So, its not a matter of reason or logic.> I don't think this is something people do expecting it to end well.>> It seems to be something people do when there is something they want> which they don't know how to get out of their marriage.>> If you hang out here for a while, you'll see more than the occasional> poster who desparately wants _something_ out of his or her marriage> which he or she is absolutely not getting. And while it might be> _possible_ for said poster to get this out of his or her marriage,> said poster doesn't know how to make it happen. Balderdash. Which part of what I said is "balderdash?"

I answered that in the three lines *quoted right below*...
They don't want to *admit to themselves* what they have to do. Which is, either focus on the marriage *they chose to be in*, or end that marriage, *then* pursue other situations.

IOW, the claim of " said poster *doesn't know how to make it happen*. "
is the balderdash, *as I explained in those three lines*...
In what sense are you using the term "have to do?" Obviously they have other choices, like having the affair, and screwing up their marriage, or in some cases, having the affair and continuing the marriage.

Well, I'm presuming that such people don't have a *specific intent*
to place their lives into a toilet...
These are unlikely to be good choices, but they are still choices people make.

I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're
bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do "
is self serving excuse building balderdash.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do " is self serving excuse building balderdash.

Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who
want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.

To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it
doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what
they want out of their relationship.

Stephanie Stowe wrote:
Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well?

Someone once told me that marriage is like a diet. Even when you
plan a very sensible and well balanced eating plans, there are times
that you just crave something that you know is not good for
you! Then, it is up to your strength and resolve to resist the
temptation - and we know how many people never cheat on
their diets, right? :-)

Doug Anderson wrote:
To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship.

It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten
from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but
the assumption that everything that one may desire
can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

I don't know what I want. I want different things at different times.
I want to buy a car, on monday it's a sports car, on tuesday it's an SUV,
on wednesday it's sedan and so on and so on.......

I know how to get it, I don't don't know what I want.

Tommorow I'll want something else.

What I want, is to want nothing and to have anything if I ever do want it.

I want to live forever. I want to be young again.

Where can I buy that?

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There are several reasons
they may not know how to get what they want; and one of them might be
that it isn't possible!

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. I don't know what I want. I want different things at different times. I want to buy a car, on monday it's a sports car, on tuesday it's an SUV, on wednesday it's sedan and so on and so on....... I know how to get it, I don't don't know what I want. Tommorow I'll want something else. What I want, is to want nothing and to have anything if I ever do want it. I want to live forever. I want to be young again. Where can I buy that?

How much money have you got?

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do " is self serving excuse building balderdash. Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.

That not the issue *I was addressing*...

Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...

" Re: one cheating question ".

IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.

Sheesh.
To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship.

OK, then they're self decieving *morons*.

Happy now ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

Well, sure. Thats why we also have friends, other family,
work pals, acquaintences...

The idea that a marriage should provide 100% of your daily
needs of everything, is insane.

The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your
own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that
that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science.

All else is emotively enabling waffling...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do " is self serving excuse building balderdash. Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh.

So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat
because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,
but the reality is more complex.
To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. OK, then they're self decieving *morons*.

I see. People cheat because they are bad, or because they are morons.

Look, even you must realize that things are more complicated than
that. After all, not all morons cheat, and neither do all bad people.

Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do "> is self serving excuse building balderdash. Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex.

How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony
(I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville".
Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable!

Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in
YOUR mindset?

Andre Lieven wrote:
The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science.

The question was : "why would anyone cheat
within a marriage". I was responding to that, not what
people "ought" to do. People "ought" to do a lot of
things that they don't...

Ellie wrote: Andre Lieven wrote: The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage". I was responding to that, not what people "ought" to do. People "ought" to do a lot of things that they don't...

A more accurate assessment would be that some people will have affairs, and
some will not. ("People" is too generalized).

Why? Well, I doubt it would happen within a happy marriage--if both
people are happy with one another & in love, then there in no
compelling reason to look elsewhere. I don't know of any couple that
is happily married that cheating has occurred in personally.

Now, coming from a marriage that is in an extremely bad point right
now, I can certainly see how cheating can happen. When things are
extremely unhappy within the marriage, looking outside for it for
comfort and companionship is pretty normal, if you ask me.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:12:59 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
<stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:
Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely nosense to me. Does it EVER end well?S

-----
Kim/Dreamspinner3
Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,
Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in
"liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,
in YOUR mindset?
Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

Kim/Dreamspinner3 wrote: Why? Well, I doubt it would happen within a happy marriage--if both people are happy with one another & in love, then there in no compelling reason to look elsewhere. I don't know of any couple that is happily married that cheating has occurred in personally. Now, coming from a marriage that is in an extremely bad point right now, I can certainly see how cheating can happen. When things are extremely unhappy within the marriage, looking outside for it for comfort and companionship is pretty normal, if you ask me.

Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. You don't have an affair while you're
in a marriage. (It's just having basic integrity and morality).
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:12:59 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? S ----- Kim/Dreamspinner3 Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>> " Re: one cheating question ".>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>> Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking
_why_ things happen is different condoning them.

But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear
that its useless to go down it again.

Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>> Sheesh.>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,> but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,
in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again.

If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not
try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?
But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>> " Re: one cheating question ".>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>> Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

Yes I do. So what? Not all would.

In article <e5n08egsw0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship.

Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn?
Suppose your spouse had an accident which rendered him or her in a
permanent vegatative state -- or perhaps just the mental state of an
infant. Would it be immoral to seek to have your needs for physical
and emotional intimacy be met by someone else, even though you were
still married to that spouse?

*Is* having an affair under conditions where you sincerely believe your
spouse cannot fill your needs immoral -- or just unwise? (No, I'm not
seriously looking for an excuse -- just pushing the limits of the
discussion.)

Ted

In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Then you FIRST get out of the marriage.

Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage
would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I
can -- in principle, anyway.

Ted

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...> Doug Anderson wrote:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>> but the reality is more complex.>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly> understandable!>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in> YOUR mindset?>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

Well, in that case, it might help you identify a serial killer before they
start, or catch one before they kill again.

Want to try another analogy?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. Well, in that case, it might help you identify a serial killer before they
start,
Tell me something. Has that actually worked, in practice? (Don't think
so)
or catch one before they kill again.
And obviously once they've killed someone, the writing's on the wall..

Yes, it could be interesting to know how they think, from a psychological study
point of view. But that wasn't the point here.

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

George Bush Sr., who's had an ongoing affair with a former aid. Google on
"George Bush Jennifer Fitzgerald".

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people
who>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get
them.>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>> Sheesh.>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,> but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If
so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly
understandable, in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would.

Then why the "liberal" comment?

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:230120042329402888%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <e5n08egsw0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn? Suppose your spouse had an accident which rendered him or her in a permanent vegatative state -- or perhaps just the mental state of an infant. Would it be immoral to seek to have your needs for physical and emotional intimacy be met by someone else, even though you were still married to that spouse? *Is* having an affair under conditions where you sincerely believe your spouse cannot fill your needs immoral -- or just unwise? (No, I'm not seriously looking for an excuse -- just pushing the limits of the discussion.) Ted

"Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:8gq3101kvd1j6buqjkfm60du2pl6cu1bvr@4ax.com... Why? Well, I doubt it would happen within a happy marriage--if both people are happy with one another & in love, then there in no compelling reason to look elsewhere. I don't know of any couple that is happily married that cheating has occurred in personally. Now, coming from a marriage that is in an extremely bad point right now, I can certainly see how cheating can happen. When things are extremely unhappy within the marriage, looking outside for it for comfort and companionship is pretty normal, if you ask me. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:12:59 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely
nosense to me. Does it EVER end well?

A "Happy Marriage" is defined by the participants. What ever "deal"
they work out between them may not work for others.

Marriage is a defined contract between two people.

me too.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:230120042335565506%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do "> is self serving excuse building balderdash. Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh. So?

So, I was on topic, and you were just... blathering.
Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex.

<yawn> Yet another Desperate Doug *empty claim*, devoid of even
any *attempt* to refute.

Learn that debate *isn't* just Monty Python contradiction sketches...
To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. OK, then they're self decieving *morons*. I see. People cheat because they are bad, or because they are morons.

Would you say that people behaving *in ways almost guaranteed* to
create a poor chance at " happiness " are acting like *geniuses* ?

Amazing. You are a moral nihlist.
Look, even you must realize that things are more complicated than that. After all, not all morons cheat, and neither do all bad people.

So ? In what way does any of that blather address *anything* I said,
as opposed to what *you wish I had said* ?

Amazing...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage".

And, I addressed that...
I was responding to that, not what people "ought" to do.

So ? How does that stop me from *adding* the point ?
People "ought" to do a lot of things that they don't...

Indeed. Its a good thing to remind them of it...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Seeker (anon-30263@anon.twwells.com) writes: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be?

No. Because, being cheated on in such a way, tends to make the next
step being the end of the marriage highly likely.

Being left by a spouse is bad for the one being left. Most often,
being left *twice*, once for the affair, and *again*, for the divorce,
is worse than just being hit with the " I'm leaving " whammy.
I can -- in principle, anyway.

Then, specify them.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage". And, I addressed that...

Actually, you didn't. You said anyone who cheated was immoral and/or
a moron. So you didn't address the "why" at all.

As usual though, thanks for playing.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<230120042329402888%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <e5n08egsw0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn? Suppose your spouse had an accident which rendered him or her in a permanent vegatative state -- or perhaps just the mental state of an infant. Would it be immoral to seek to have your needs for physical and emotional intimacy be met by someone else, even though you were still married to that spouse?

The line is drawn, for me, at honesty. Assuming your spouse is injured
but still capable of comprehension, then it is not cheating if you
discuss it with them first and get their blessing.

If in a permanent vegetative state where you can't discuss it first,
no, I don't think it's cheating; your marriage is basically over
anyway. It would be immoral, however, to be dishonest with your lover
and not explain that you intend to stay married to your incapacitated
spouse.

In fact, in the first instance where you have your spouse's blessing
to go outside the marriage, while it may not be cheating, it would be
immoral to take on a lover without explaining to that person that
you're in an open marriage with no intention of leaving it.
*Is* having an affair under conditions where you sincerely believe your spouse cannot fill your needs immoral -- or just unwise? (No, I'm not seriously looking for an excuse -- just pushing the limits of the discussion.)

It's only immoral if you aren't honest with your spouse and with your
lover.

jen

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.


For me at least, I do not assume I CAN have everything I desire.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote:> The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your> own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that> that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage". And, I addressed that... Actually, you didn't.

Actually, to the *non-reading impaired*, I did.

The part about " different Life Value Systems ".
You said anyone who cheated was immoral and/or a moron.

Based on my Life Value Systems. Are you suggesting that I
*have no right to mine* ?

Seel professional mental health assistance for your deep
control issues...
So you didn't address the "why" at all.

<yawn> Ibid " reading impaired "...
As usual though, thanks for playing.

Ah, you're an admitted *troll*.

Thanks for blowing your cover...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Bill in Co." wrote:
If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?

It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers
kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of
it. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, I agree. I was simply saying I can see how it can happen.
Believe me, I've had chances to cheat on my husband over the
years--one man begged me to leave him--but I didn't because I love my
husband and I don't believe in cheating on your spouse.



On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:06:48 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. You don't have an affair while you'rein a marriage. (It's just having basic integrity and morality).
-----
Kim/Dreamspinner3
Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

I said I don't know of any couples personally.
-----
Kim/Dreamspinner3
Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

>"Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then whynot try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that?

Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see
*explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.

We know, for instance, that many people who kill were abused as children. That
is, from a societal point of view, a good thing to know, as we are now aware
that, in addition to it being the moral thing to do, preventing child abuse is
in the interest of the public good.

However, too often (IMO) such information is used to try to garner sympathy for
someone who has *chosen* to do a bad or illegal thing. It is used to say,
"Well, he shouldn't' be as responsible for it, because of these factors."
Frankly, that doesn't even make sense from a logical or psychological point of
view. The vast majority of abused children DO NOT become murderers. Children
from the same family, all of whom were abused, neglected and otherwise had
horrific childhoods can make different behavioral choices, and by those
choices, choose different outcomes. This is the element of free choice in our
behavior.

Bill becomes a bit obsessed about it, but I think he has a fair point: in the
last 40 years or so there has been a STRONG trend toward lessening personal
responsibility precisely by providing explanations for the behavior in terms of
childhood trauma, or current needs/desires, or whatever.

I don't want to stop understanding behavior, but I do want our society to stop
using that understanding to prevent the consequences of choices people made, or
telling the perpetrator that "it wasn't really your fault".

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
"Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then whynot try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.

But _no one_ in this thread has made excuses. So although you may
find that frustrating, it hasn't happened here.

WhansaMi wrote:

Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post info
in your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you are
responding to). I wrote the above not Jen.
It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.

That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see every
attempt at explaining something shut down by labeling it
an excuse. It's actually insulting.

In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whose
first response is "what did the cheated spouse did
or didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totally
wrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to an
action which is almost never justified. But when someone
asks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is not
about whether it is justified or not, and trying to put it
in those terms is like shutting up the people who are
questioning it.

Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to do
something doesn't make it right!

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
WhansaMi wrote: Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post info in your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you are responding to). I wrote the above not Jen.It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior. That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see every attempt at explaining something shut down by labeling it an excuse. It's actually insulting.

Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so
thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila.
In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whose first response is "what did the cheated spouse did or didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totally wrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to an action which is almost never justified. But when someone asks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is not about whether it is justified or not, and trying to put it in those terms is like shutting up the people who are questioning it.

Thank you for putting it like that. I've felt that way without being
able to put it into words.
Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to do something doesn't make it right!

For some people this does seem to be a radical concept. Maybe that
_is_ why they have so much trouble with the idea of exploring why a
behavior they dislike actually occurs.

Ellie wrote:Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post infoin your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you areresponding to). I wrote the above not Jen.

I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see everyattempt at explaining something shut down by labeling itan excuse. It's actually insulting.In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whosefirst response is "what did the cheated spouse didor didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totallywrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to anaction which is almost never justified. But when someoneasks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is notabout whether it is justified or not, and trying to put itin those terms is like shutting up the people who arequestioning it.Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to dosomething doesn't make it right!

Agreed. And, maybe Bill jumped the gun. And maybe I did the same. I
apologize if that is the case.

But, I, at least, was not addressing the OP -- I've done that in several other
posts. I was commenting on Bill's statement and then the question of whether
or not it was legitimate to find out *why* serial killers (or adulterers, by
extension) do what they do. That is the point I was addressing in this post
-- where I think there is legitimate value in discovering why, and where I
think it becomes non-legitimate, i.e., when it is used to excuse behavior.

Sheila

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...> Doug Anderson wrote:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people
who>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get
them.>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>> but the reality is more complex.>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If
so,> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly> understandable!>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly
understandable, in> YOUR mindset?>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot
solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the
vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once
that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place.

S

Can you not think of circumstances where getting outof the marriage would be worse for the cheated-uponspouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle,anyway.

Depends on what you would classify as 'worse for the
cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be.' I can think
of plenty of financial circumstances where divorcing
would be worse, I can't think of any circumstances where
divorcing a spouse would be worse emotionally than cheating
on them.

Tracey

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) ignorantly bleated: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes: WhansaMi wrote: Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post info in your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you are responding to). I wrote the above not Jen. >It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers >kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of >it. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior. That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see every attempt at explaining something shut down by labeling it an excuse. It's actually insulting. Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila.

Ah, so pointing out that *you failed to read the REASON I stated*,
is an " insult "...

In which case, you must be well used to such " insults " by now...
In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whose first response is "what did the cheated spouse did or didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totally wrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to an action which is almost never justified. But when someone asks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is not about whether it is justified or not, and trying to put it in those terms is like shutting up the people who are questioning it.

Which is NOT what I did. As I *did* offer a reason for such
behavior in some people. Namely, different Life Value Systems.
Thank you for putting it like that. I've felt that way without being able to put it into words.

<smirk>
Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to do something doesn't make it right! For some people this does seem to be a radical concept. Maybe that _is_ why they have so much trouble with the idea of exploring why a behavior they dislike actually occurs.

Maybe thats why you repeatedly LIE about those whose points you
CANNOT refute/agrue against...

Got it, you coward.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) ignorantly bleated:
Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Ah, so pointing out that *you failed to read the REASON I stated*, is an " insult "...

Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people
cheat.

Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how
people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses
people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread
started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.

So an accusation that I'm not addressing the thread and you are is
simply bizarre. When it comes with implications that I can't read, it
becomes insulting as well.

But I've learned not to expect anything else from you.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04... Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila.

Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think.

"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message
news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then
why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at
it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One
cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place.

Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm
astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act
(I've thought this before)

"JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> writes:
"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts.

It does seem mind-boggling sometimes, no?

Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. For me at least, I do not assume I CAN have everything I desire.

Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked, even more so today. (Like
it's a foreign concept). This relates to the ME ME ME thing we've discussed.

WhansaMi wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of it. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior. We know, for instance, that many people who kill were abused as children. That is, from a societal point of view, a good thing to know, as we are now aware that, in addition to it being the moral thing to do, preventing child abuse is in the interest of the public good. However, too often (IMO) such information is used to try to garner sympathy for someone who has *chosen* to do a bad or illegal thing. It is used to
say, "Well, he shouldn't' be as responsible for it, because of these factors." Frankly, that doesn't even make sense from a logical or psychological point
of view. The vast majority of abused children DO NOT become murderers.
Children from the same family, all of whom were abused, neglected and otherwise had horrific childhoods can make different behavioral choices, and by those choices, choose different outcomes. This is the element of free choice in
our behavior. Bill becomes a bit obsessed about it, but I think he has a fair point: in
the last 40 years or so there has been a STRONG trend toward lessening personal responsibility precisely by providing explanations for the behavior in terms of childhood trauma, or current needs/desires, or whatever. I don't want to stop understanding behavior, but I do want our society to
stop using that understanding to prevent the consequences of choices people made, or telling the perpetrator that "it wasn't really your fault". Sheila

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

> >>Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn?
It's pretty individualized. For some, the line is drawn by their religion. For some, it's drawn by the laws of their country. For some, it's drawn solely by themselves. For others, it's a combination of all of the above.

Tracey, you just answered *how* it is drawn, not the posedquestion of *where*...
Try again, please... :-)

But, see, *I* can't draw a line between moral and immoral
for anyone but myself. I drawn mine based on one set of
criteria, others draw theirs based on another set. So, the
questions posed is not answerable with a 'where' answer,
IMO, only with a 'how' answer.
**At the same time**, just because it would be going against my belief doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I just wouldn't be lying to myself and saying 'Well, I'm not *really* going against my moral code because of X, Y, and Z.'
Indeed. One way some people violate what *appeared* to betheir values, is to rationalise them writing " waivers "for specific cases.

I had started out my reply with a reference to 'situational
morality' and how I don't believe in it. Then I thought some
more and, to some, I probably *do* practice situational mor-
ality. I don't believe I do, but others would probably see it
that way. You see, I don't have a whole lot of set 'absolutes'
as my guide and, I believe that people who do, eventually end
up in situations where they cause unwarranted pain to others
or they go against their own moral beliefs. As an example,
someone who says 'I will never lie' will, IMO, inevitably
find themselves in a position where they either must lie or
they will cause pain to a person they love. My version of
'I will never lie' is more of a 'I will never lie for the
sole reason of saving *myself* from pain' kind of thing. So,
when I tell someone who is *not* beautiful that they are,
I am not violating my own moral code.

Tracey

Ellie wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of it. Do you have a problem with that?

No, I don't.

urf wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message *Is* having an affair under conditions where you sincerely believe your spouse cannot fill your needs immoral -- or just unwise? (No, I'm not seriously looking for an excuse -- just pushing the limits of the discussion.) Ted

Is IS immoral. Hey Ted, don't you remember the Ten Commandments? I mean,
if your own code of morality doesn't define it, then think of the Ten
Commandments, if it helps. There's some pretty sage (moral) advice in those
commandments...

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...> Doug Anderson wrote:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>> but the reality is more complex.>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly> understandable!>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,> in YOUR mindset?>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment?

"Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently, accepting
everything.

Andre Lieven wrote:
The other case was a male coworker of mine, who was supposedly in a very happy marriage too. But his job sent him on business trips to another site regularly, and he got caught in an affair with a woman there. He ended up in a painful divorce when the wife found out (through a very strange coincidence of someone knowing someone who knew that woman). He broke up with the woman, but to this day says he doesn't know how he let himself go that far. Easy: He *let himself* go that far.

Sure, it's always that way. I don't think he was denying that
he let himself go that far, just regretting it by questioning
his own judgment.
The best comment I've heard about the " it just happened " excuse, is from an episode of The Larry Sanders Show ( HBO ).

In his case, he didn't try to excuse his behavior.
IOW, he acted *with definit deliberation*. *Thats* how he let it " go that far "... by *his choice*.

I am not sure what "definite deliberation" means here.
If it means conscious decision, then yes, that is what
he did.
His choice, his consequence.

Yes, an unfortunate one.

My point, in case it was lost, was that it's not necessary
for a person to be unhappy in their marriage to do a foolish
thing and ruin a good life.

Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. S

OK, let me make this clearer. I see nothing wrong in trying to understand it -
in fact, I think that is a good thing! BUT don't use THAT to excuse the
behavior, and *stand for nothing*, as is happening so much these days. Do
you see the distinction? Perhaps you do, but I doubt if Doug does (due to
his exceedingly liberal slant). And that is the trouble with these times.
Bad behavior is condoned, almost expected. Personal responsibility seems to
becoming somewhat extinct. And the legal "profession" is further supporting
the trend.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dHzQb.26116$zj7.1142@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why*
they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people
who>>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get
them.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just
cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If
so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly
understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment? "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently,
accepting everything.

What do you think you stand for?

I am 61. Over the years I have seen much. Some things that I once saw as
important, have changed, while other things have remained important.
I try now to be flexible. That is, to use my thinking power to decide on
an individual basis if something is important or if it is not. I try to
avoid
being a reactionary. I once suckled at my mother's breast. That was
important
to me then. It is no longer important. (Although there may be a
psychological
component.)

As an example to what I mean, I would tell you of my Vietnam days. I once
saw it as being vital to the interests of my country. I came to hate the
war.
I realized that I had been swayed by the political propaganda of the day,
much
like the young men in the book "All Quite on the Western Front".

synopsis at
http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/view.php?url=/Book_Reports/All_Quiet_On_the_Western_Front.shtml

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) ignorantly bleated: Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Ah, so pointing out that *you failed to read the REASON I stated*, is an " insult "... Bizarre.

Yes, your stated views, and perceptions are certainly that...
Have you even read the OP?

Yes. Have *you* ?
The thread is about _why_ people cheat.

Listen very closely, oh reading impaired one:

I ANSWERED THAT WHY.

Sheesh !
Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.

Net Cop Wannabe-ism noted.
So an accusation that I'm not addressing the thread and you are is simply bizarre.

Then, get professional help for *your* reading impairment...
When it comes with implications that I can't read, it becomes insulting as well.

" Insulting " n.: Accurately describing Doug's *inabilities*...
But I've learned

LIE.
not to expect anything else from you.

Translation: " AS I CANNOT refute your points on their merits, I will
call you names, instead. "

Thank you for once again, displaying your *inabilities*, so that
more people can be aware of them.

HTH.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:hLGdnZWdBfTUUo_dRVn-
As an example to what I mean, I would tell you of my Vietnam days. I once saw it as being vital to the interests of my country. I came to hate the war. I realized that I had been swayed by the political propaganda of the day, much like the young men in the book "All Quite on the Western Front".

Funny you mention it. That's loaded in the DVD player as we speak (write).
Great film.

"JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04... Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think.

<yawn> Projection. Ad hom. Nothinig of substance. No argument. No
position. No facts.

IOW, nothing at all.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Tracey (rbrancher2@aol.com) writes:>Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn? It's pretty individualized. For some, the line is drawn by their religion. For some, it's drawn by the laws of their country. For some, it's drawn solely by themselves. For others, it's a combination of all of the above.Tracey, you just answered *how* it is drawn, not the posedquestion of *where*...Try again, please... :-) But, see, *I* can't draw a line between moral and immoral for anyone but myself.

OK, but you do understand that you answered a fundamentally
*different* question, from what was posed... ?

And, I would have to disagree with you. Do you never set any
moral judgements, based on various societal and legal standards ?
Can we not say that many of those are based on moral judgements ?

For instance, murder is held to be morally wrong. But, if one is
legitimately defending one's life from a mortal threat posed by
the one you killed, then that makes it be not murder, based on
the morality of having to choose a lesser harm, that of not letting
a non-aggressor be killed by an aggressor.
I drawn mine based on one set of criteria, others draw theirs based on another set. So, the questions posed is not answerable with a 'where' answer, IMO, only with a 'how' answer.

Well, would you say that any person, having made a clear and
recognisable commitment to another person, can then unilaterally
break that commitment, and show that even they are aware of the
immorality of that violation, by way of their deceit in trying
to cover up that violation ?
**At the same time**, just because it would be going against my belief doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I just wouldn't be lying to myself and saying 'Well, I'm not *really* going against my moral code because of X, Y, and Z.'Indeed. One way some people violate what *appeared* to betheir values, is to rationalise them writing " waivers "for specific cases. I had started out my reply with a reference to 'situational morality' and how I don't believe in it. Then I thought some more and, to some, I probably *do* practice situational mor- ality. I don't believe I do, but others would probably see it that way. You see, I don't have a whole lot of set 'absolutes' as my guide and, I believe that people who do, eventually end up in situations where they cause unwarranted pain to others or they go against their own moral beliefs.

OK, and thats why a simple guidebook of such beliefs actually makes
the task of living up to them far easier, unlike with the " this
is very complex " crowd of enablers.

One such example would be the one I've already mentioned.

Another would be, is there any circumstance that makes adultery
from within a marriage, where the other spouse is not aware of
the adultery, and where the adulterer is being deceitful, so as
to not have their behavior become known to the other spouse,
not be immoarl ?

I'd say no, and I'd further say that, as any where it was moral
would be so exceptional, as to be effectively meaningless to most
people and siatuations, that the burden of proof must fall to
the claimant of the exception.
As an example, someone who says 'I will never lie' will, IMO, inevitably find themselves in a position where they either must lie or they will cause pain to a person they love. My version of 'I will never lie' is more of a 'I will never lie for the sole reason of saving *myself* from pain' kind of thing. So, when I tell someone who is *not* beautiful that they are, I am not violating my own moral code.

OK. But, thats not a test of a moral value set, as there is
room for lies which are simply a withholding of aggressive and
pointless " honesty ". Not everyone needs to know what I might
think of their clothes, for instance. Withholding that opinion
is not an immoral act, in fact, it meets a somewhat greater
morality of allowing others to not have me intrude over them
over genuinely trivial matters.

But, if I know that a friend were cheating on their spouse,
for me to maintain the friendship, without comment, would be
enabling their immorality.

As that involves a far more morality based core standard
that does their choice of clothes...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: The other case was a male coworker of mine, who was supposedly in a very happy marriage too. But his job sent him on business trips to another site regularly, and he got caught in an affair with a woman there. He ended up in a painful divorce when the wife found out (through a very strange coincidence of someone knowing someone who knew that woman). He broke up with the woman, but to this day says he doesn't know how he let himself go that far. Easy: He *let himself* go that far. Sure, it's always that way. I don't think he was denying that he let himself go that far, just regretting it by questioning his own judgment.

Well, thats easy for him to do after the fact, and the act.

What would show me that his stated regret was serious, would
be actions that showed that seriousness of the regret.

When many such get caught, their " regret " tends to be more
about having been found out, not the action and choice that
they made.
The best comment I've heard about the " it just happened " excuse, is from an episode of The Larry Sanders Show ( HBO ). In his case, he didn't try to excuse his behavior.

Its possible to passive-agressively excuse one's self by not making
appropriate restitutions.
IOW, he acted *with definite deliberation*. *Thats* how he let it " go that far "... by *his choice*. I am not sure what "definite deliberation" means here. If it means conscious decision, then yes, that is what he did.

Thats what it means: conscious awareness of one's choice.
Made, in this case, by his choice *not to say no and leave*.
His choice, his consequence. Yes, an unfortunate one.

No, a *selfish* one. Nothing " unfortunate " about it.
My point, in case it was lost, was that it's not necessary for a person to be unhappy in their marriage to do a foolish thing and ruin a good life.

Enabled lack of moral values makes many stupid actions far
more possible and likely. That doesn't mean that anyone need
feel an iota of sympathy for the immoral people who *allowed
themselves* to do such stupid things.

Its proper to point out stupidity so as to NOT encourage more
of it...

Shame, and shaming, is useful in accomplishing this. Parents
understand this point, when it comes to children, and that
there are proper levels and avenues for such shame. More
adults should understand it, too.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:buuk9h$7f5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04... Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think. <yawn> Projection. Ad hom. Nothinig of substance. No argument. No position. No facts. IOW, nothing at all.

Yet, it compels you to respond. Must have something, then.

Andre Lieven wrote:
Enabled lack of moral values makes many stupid actions far more possible and likely. That doesn't mean that anyone need feel an iota of sympathy for the immoral people who *allowed themselves* to do such stupid things.

Well, as for feeling sympathy for anybody, I'd leave it to
people who know the person and are familiar with details
of their circumstances. Aside from that, since I wasn't making
any moral judgment of the case, I don't know whether you
are agreeing with, disagreeing with, challenging, or refuting
the point of my post, which was that people in happy marriages
can fall off track and cheat too. Therefore I don't know how
to respond to your post...

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would
accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why?

DrLith wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why?

I thought I explained it better in the other post. The point I was trying to
make is, that you can analyze why serial killers do what they do, and (I think)
that is indeed illuminating, BUT to (realistically) expect those findings to
prevent it, or excuse it (with a pat on the back) is totally naive. Do you
get the distinction?

Bill in Co. wrote: urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who>>>>> want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment? "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently, accepting everything.

Which, I might add, seems to be where Doug is at, for example. To me, this is
just another form of cowardice - not standing for anything. IOW, it's the
easy way out. And it's where we are today, since there really are few
standards (that anybody is held to) anymore. Personal responsibility is
becoming rarer to see these days.

Stephanie Stowe wrote: Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? S

I don't know -- to "fill emotional needs" I guess. The other thing I
can't understand is how people "fall in love and get engaged" through
chat and email. :)

amy

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need
some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic? Want their cake and eat
it, too?

amy

JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before)

This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in
this group.

amy

Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted

NO.

amy

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group.

Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group!

But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these
words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order.

"JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:buuk9h$7f5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04...>> Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so> thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think. <yawn> Projection. Ad hom. Nothinig of substance. No argument. No position. No facts. IOW, nothing at all. Yet, it compels you to respond.

Bzt. Sorry, that was the wrong answer, as you failed to grasp
*choice*.

Thank you for posting, and collect your copy of the clueless home
game on your way out.
Must have something, then.

Yeah, pointing out the loons can be fun...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: Enabled lack of moral values makes many stupid actions far more possible and likely. That doesn't mean that anyone need feel an iota of sympathy for the immoral people who *allowed themselves* to do such stupid things. Well, as for feeling sympathy for anybody, I'd leave it to people who know the person and are familiar with details of their circumstances. Aside from that, since I wasn't making any moral judgment of the case, I don't know whether you are agreeing with, disagreeing with, challenging, or refuting the point of my post, which was that people in happy marriages can fall off track and cheat too. Therefore I don't know how to respond to your post...

Well, *you're* the one who cut out all the context.

Not my problem...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Amy D (amykae@joimail.com) writes: Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic?

Sure. Love of drama, the thrill of danger, being totally uncaring
about any emotional carnage done to anyone else...

Loads of specific reasons, all stemming back to, their Life Values
are *different* in this area, from those of anyone who can't
understand why anyone would do such a thing.
Want their cake and eat it, too?

Yep. IOW, " me, me, me, its all about me, f#@* everyone else ! "

There ya go...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... > > "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why > not > > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? > > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > > > > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot > solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the > vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once > that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. > Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order.

I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. I don't walk around
all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE
years than the new wave fad of thinking.

amy

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com...>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why>> not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at>> it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>>>>>> The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One> cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software> development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem> to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into> place.> Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot.
I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order.

Some people also try to make things more complicated than they are - that way,
they don't have to stand for anything. As I said, it's just a form of
cowardice.

Amy D wrote:
It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic?

Maybe. But not all cheatings are the same or for the same reason.
Why don't they "just leave"? I don't know. In the few cases that
I have observed the cheaters didn't plan or even predict
what they eventually got into. They didn't intend to break their
marriage. Yes, many times it's the natural consequence of their
action, but quite a few people think they can be discreet and not
be caught -- and they usually find out that they can't!!

Notice that the thread is about "why" people cheat. I am
not giving justification, just what I think to be one of the
reasons. So I agree with you that they "shouldn't" do it but
that is besides the point.
Want their cake and eat it, too?

Yes, I think that is a common thing though. Not only for
cheating, but generally most of us want to have our cake
and eat it in various situations. Whether we can manage
to do that is a different story!

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted NO.

Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheated upon
spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying on the
health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she would lose
that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out of the
marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse in this
case wouldn't even know about)

Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic?

Because they like the security and they are spineless. (It's not rocket
science, ya know).

Joy wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted NO. Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheated upon spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying on the health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she would lose that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out of the marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse in this case wouldn't even know about)

Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice - it is not
a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it is sufficient enough
of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on the pot, or
get off of the pot.

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: JWB wrote: > > "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message > news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... > > > > "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > > > > > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then > why > > not > > > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at > it? > > > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One > cannot > > solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the > > vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once > > that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. > > > > Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm > astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act > (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable.

So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a
definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are
content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess
that's your right.
I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking.

"Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as
simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool
yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are.

Yeah, I hate this new wave fad of thinking. We should go back to the
non-thinking days.

Brian <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> writes:

Hey Brian;
There were some good posts in the thread you abandoned (as
well as some stupid ones). You might go back and read it on
google if you haven't read it.

Doug wrote: Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ peoplecheat.Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about howpeople who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excusespeople make.

Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel that
I must do so this time.

Threads evolve. I have seen threads travel through a myriad of mutations,
ranging far, far away from the beginning question. So have you. I resent the
suggestion that, because I participated in one such mutation, that I am
*trying* to turn this discussion into anything at all. It is a logical step
from "Why does this happen?" to "What is the fallout from examining why this
happens?", at least in my mind. That you don't like the train of thought,
well..... I'm sorry about that, but that is your problem, not mine.

Sheila

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:> JWB wrote:>>>> "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message>> news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com...>>>>>> "Bill in Co.&quo