All's Fair In Love And War

[jennie-jennie]

Sometimes I like to think about what my "weapon of mass destruction" might be (to the BS) and what would cause the most amount of damage (Hiroshima level).

 

After all, all's fair in love & war - right?

 

Sorry, I was responding to this. And are you suggesting that affairs don't destroy families?

 

My personal opinion is that affairs do not destroy families. They can destroy an existing romantic relationship between two adults, but not the family. But then again I am from a country where serial monogamy is the norm and so is sharing custody for the children in the event of a divorce.

 

But my response to your post was about the intent. The WS does not have the intent of disrupting anything at home. If he had, he would be going for a divorce, not an affair.

[IfWishesWereHorses]

My personal opinion is that affairs do not destroy families. They can destroy an existing romantic relationship between two adults, but not the family. But then again I am from a country where serial monogamy is the norm and so is sharing custody for the children in the event of a divorce.

 

But my response to your post was about the intent. The WS does not have the intent of disrupting anything at home. If he had, he would be going for a divorce, not an affair.

 

I know plenty of families and children, as well as adult children that would disagree that affairs do not destroy families. A family is a unit, which most certainly consist of more than romantic love. And I agree that the WS does not have an intent to break up the marriage or the family, they want an affair. Its is the OW, especially in the quote, that would like to see the marriage and subsequent family unit destroyed.

 

My point was though was that in war, the enemy's intent is known, in an affair, it is hidden so that there can be no retaliation as with war.

[jennie-jennie]

I know plenty of families and children, as well as adult children that would disagree that affairs do not destroy families. A family is a unit, which most certainly consist of more than romantic love. And I agree that the WS does not have an intent to break up the marriage or the family, they want an affair. Its is the OW, especially in the quote, that would like to see the marriage and subsequent family unit destroyed.

 

My point was though was that in war, the enemy's intent is known, in an affair, it is hidden so that there can be no retaliation as with war.

 

The OW often, not always, wants the present family unit dissolved and then recreated in another form. She usually wants nothing more intense than for the extramarital relationship to be known.

 

It is in the interest of those who want to preserve the original family unit to see it as destruction, instead of seeing it as a necessary transformation to fit the present conditions.

 

Who is the enemy really? Is it the BS or is it the WS' desire to keep the family unit intact in spite of his love having moved elsewhere? Is it indeed the forces that fuel this desire of his? Such as the cultural forces of a society presenting an image of a family being destroyed because a new relationship has been formed?

[OWoman]

My point was though was that in war, the enemy's intent is known, in an affair, it is hidden so that there can be no retaliation as with war.

 

This isn't always the case - perhaps in old school classic warfare, but certainly not always. Did the average Iraqi know that they were at war with the US before the bombs fell on their heads? Did Afghans or Pakistanis know they were at war with a whole bunch of countries before their husbands, fathers and brothers started getting shot by an invading force? Not to mention guerilla warfare, acts of terrorism, underground resistance, etc.

 

Sorry, I was responding to this. And are you suggesting that affairs don't destroy families?

 

They don't, necessarily. And, IME, they can strengthen families through reconstituting them around a loving couple instead of a dysfunctional one.

[jennie-jennie]

I know plenty of families and children, as well as adult children that would disagree that affairs do not destroy families. A family is a unit, which most certainly consist of more than romantic love.

 

They don't, necessarily. And, IME, they can strengthen families through reconstituting them around a loving couple instead of a dysfunctional one.

 

Sure, families are more than romantic love, but by clinging on to an old-fashioned concept of a rigid family structure more harm is done to the participants of the family. Sons and daughters are taught to in their turn not care for their own happiness other than on the sly. They are taught to themselves become WS, OW/OM and BS. They are taught to be horrified if the family unit indeed dissolves and transforms. Instead of learning how to deal with life - openly and honestly.

Edited August 23, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[OWoman]

Sure, families are more than romantic love, but by clinging on to an old-fashioned concept of a rigid family structure more harm is done to the participants of the family. Sons and daughters are taught to in their turn not care for their own happiness other than on the sly. They are taught to themselves become WS, OW/OM and BS. They are taught to be horrified if the family unit indeed dissolves and transforms. Instead of learning how to deal with life - openly and honestly.

 

These days, there are fewer "traditional" families (consisting of one married couple and their biological offspring) than there are other forms of family (including bi-nuclear, single-parent, single sex parents, extended families etc) yet this notion persists that the "traditional" family - which in fact only existed as the "norm" for a short space of time - is somehow superior.

[woinlove]

Sure, families are more than romantic love, but by clinging on to an old-fashioned concept of a rigid family structure more harm is done to the participants of the family. Sons and daughters are taught to in their turn not care for their own happiness other than on the sly. They are taught to themselves become WS, OW/OM and BS. They are taught to be horrified if the family unit indeed dissolves and transforms. Instead of learning how to deal with life - openly and honestly.

 

Yes! Yes! Yes! to living life openly and honestly!

For some this works in an exclusive R, others prefer an open R with the possibility of multiple partners. The family may be traditional, same-sex, extended, or whatever. If it works for them, is open and honest, and provides a safe and loving environment for kids (if the family includes children), that's all wonderful. But, I don't see any room for affairs and OW/OM in there - unless one is using the term for secondary partners in an open relationship, which is an entirely different matter. I was a happy OW, but I really didn't care much about families, traditional or otherwise. Affairs and caring about families is a mix that would seem to require a lot of rationalization and self-deception, as well as the deception of the spouse/children.

[OWoman]

Affairs and caring about families is a mix that would seem to require a lot of rationalization and self-deception, as well as the deception of the spouse/children.

 

This depends on the nature of the family dynamic, and the nature of the A. My H's kids knew about the A, and supported it. There was no deception of them, and no need for deception. They were pleased to trade in a highly dysfunctional family setup for a warm, loving, open and honest one, especially since it's drawn the extended family in closer too.

[jennie-jennie]

Yes! Yes! Yes! to living life openly and honestly!

For some this works in an exclusive R, others prefer an open R with the possibility of multiple partners. The family may be traditional, same-sex, extended, or whatever. If it works for them, is open and honest, and provides a safe and loving environment for kids (if the family includes children), that's all wonderful. But, I don't see any room for affairs and OW/OM in there - unless one is using the term for secondary partners in an open relationship, which is an entirely different matter. I was a happy OW, but I really didn't care much about families, traditional or otherwise. Affairs and caring about families is a mix that would seem to require a lot of rationalization and self-deception, as well as the deception of the spouse/children.

 

What I am saying is that it is in fact the persisting of the traditional family unit as being superior that makes for affairs. With a more flexible view on suitable family units one does not have to be so frightened that transformation of the family unit will bring about destruction to the family members. Thus the WS does not have to work so hard at concealing the new relationship which is likely to transform the present family unit.

[LilyBart]

Sometimes I like to think about what my "weapon of mass destruction" might be (to the BS) and what would cause the most amount of damage (Hiroshima level).

 

After all, all's fair in love & war - right?

 

Sorry, I was responding to this. And are you suggesting that affairs don't destroy families?

 

No, I don't think affairs destroy families....unless the BS lets it.

 

If the BS fights hard to keep the M intact after the A, chances are they’ll get to keep the M. The M can be preserved for all intents and purposes.

 

Whether it’s a good/better one than before or whether the two parties in the M are actually happy is debatable - my point is the “façade” of the M can remain, thus preserving the “family”.

 

If I ever decide to get out of my A with my MM, I will choose a way to cause the most amount of damage possible to the BS before I exit. Why not? All's fair in love and war right? Why shouldn't I leave my mark?

 

Good thing he keeps me happy.

[Owl]

This is an interesting thread.

 

Personally...I do not believe that "all is fair" in war OR in love.

 

There ARE the "Laws of Land Warfare" that Owoman mentions, that were the outputs of the Geneva-Hague conventions.

 

And she's right...not all of our "enemies" signed them, or abide by them.

 

But frankly, be very glad that at least WE try to abide by them (there are always going to be times when people don't follow the rules). They provide guidance and often prevent soldiers from turning into something worse than animals.

 

And there are each society's conventions/laws/traditions that 'marriage/love relationships' are supposed to follow as well.

 

If you want to say "All is fair in love and war"...then it would have been morally right (if not legal) for me to have taken some severely drastic measures against OM when it became apparent that he was a threat to my marriage? If there's no "rules"...then anything goes.

 

If "all is fair" and that makes it ok for him to pursue my wife...that means that it would have been OK for me to have done something horrific to him to prevent that from occurring?

 

What WOULD have been "the line"?

 

Is it "all is fair" as long as it works FOR you...but NOT fair when it works AGAINST you?

 

I don't agree with that kind of thinking. There have to be "limits"..."rules"..."conventions". That's the basis of society. That's what keeps people from "going too far" when they're faced with a deeply emotional issue.

[Owl]

If I ever decide to get out of my A with my MM, I will choose a way to cause the most amount of damage possible to the BS before I exit. Why not? All's fair in love and war right? Why shouldn't I leave my mark?

 

Good thing he keeps me happy.

 

Hope you don't find a BS that turns out to feel the same way...and is willing to do the same back to you.

 

It's funny when you're the one hurting the other perhaps...but probably less fun when it's done to you I'd think.

[OWoman]

If "all is fair" and that makes it ok for him to pursue my wife...that means that it would have been OK for me to have done something horrific to him to prevent that from occurring?

 

What WOULD have been "the line"?

 

The law.

 

If you did "something horrific" that was within the law, and without consequences for you and your loved ones (or at least, without the kind of consequences you weren't prepared to face) then that would make it OK under this view.

[LilyBart]

Hope you don't find a BS that turns out to feel the same way...and is willing to do the same back to you.

 

It's funny when you're the one hurting the other perhaps...but probably less fun when it's done to you I'd think.

 

Oh no Owl, don't get me wrong - I would never do anything that would physically hurt the BS or do anything that can be prosecuted by law.

 

But if I ever wanted to drop the D-Day bomb, there are some key dates that are more appealing than others. Say...on her anniversary? I mean, the IRONY! It's definitely a thought. Because what better day than to do something like that?

 

But notice - I haven't done it (yet). And I may never. *shrug* Just because I "think it" doesn't mean I'll "do it".

[carhill]

Sane automatism.

 

Gaslighting and exposure of infidelity could easily be proffered as an explanation for the dissociative episode.

 

'What happened to my spouse? I don't remember'

 

One potential of the law.

[Owl]

The law.

 

If you did "something horrific" that was within the law, and without consequences for you and your loved ones (or at least, without the kind of consequences you weren't prepared to face) then that would make it OK under this view.

 

OK...so it's alright to violate societal mores/expectations/conventions...as long as it doesn't violate a law?

 

Other than being able to be prosecuted under the law (the enforcement of the agreemant...what's the difference? They're both just abstract conventions that we all "agree to adhere to" as part of living in a society.

 

What makes one ok to violate, but not the other?

 

The ability to prosecute? Then what if I knew that I could "get away with it"? Does that mean it's ok?

[Owl]

But notice - I haven't done it (yet). And I may never. *shrug* Just because I "think it" doesn't mean I'll "do it".

 

This I understand.

 

I gave a considerable amount of thought about doing a number of things to OM...but never acted upon it.

 

I get your point with this.

[lilbunny]

I found this thread very interesting. Why do we associate love and war? Death and sex are undoubtedly deeply linked to one another.

Concepts such as 'fairness' are not universal, depending on your perspective are either social or psychological constructs, or indeed a mixture of both.

Personally, moral and ethical decisions are made every day by each and every one of us. What one person deems to be 'fair' may not be to the next person. To say that 'all' is fair in love and war negates the need to question our choices and make value judgements. I don't think everything is or should be fair in either case, I do not believe my boundaries of fairness will be the same as the next persons.

There has been some discussion of marriage and the family. Both are socially constructed institutions, therefore anyone who operates outside of the expected norm (largely monogomous heterosexual relationships and nuclear family units in the Western world) are to some extent going to be seen as deviant by some sections of society. Being aware of this doesn't mean I will change my behaviour to fit someone else's concept of 'fairness', I don't expect them to fit my ethical codes.

[OWoman]

OK...so it's alright to violate societal mores/expectations/conventions...as long as it doesn't violate a law?

 

Yes. Social mores and conventions are never universal across any society - those whose interests they serve tend to be more invested in them than those whose interests they violate. Laws, OTOH, are universal in that everyone (within the boundaries of that state) is bound by them so consents to be governed by them by virtue of living there.

 

If something is universal enough, and important enough, to that society, there would be a law to protect or enforce it. Social mores might support not picking your nose in public, but it's not important enough to legislate -and many cultures see nothing wrong with that, anyway.

[OWoman]

I found this thread very interesting. Why do we associate love and war? Death and sex are undoubtedly deeply linked to one another.

 

Eros and thanatos - someone's been reading Freud....

[Owl]

Interesting point, Owoman.

 

I don't agree with all of it, but I see your point.

 

So it's a matter of severity.

 

The problem with that is that severity is subjective.

 

It might seem like a small thing to cheat if you're the one cheating...but it's a huge thing for most of those that are cheated on.

 

But...I have a feeling that this is a subject that isn't going to be one that we're going to reach a universal agreemant on. I've expressed my view..."all isn't fair". Probably not much more I can contribute on this thread.

[OWoman]

Interesting point, Owoman.

 

I don't agree with all of it, but I see your point.

 

So it's a matter of severity.

 

Not just severity - but universality. If EVERYONE agrees on something - that, say, stealing someone else's stuff is wrong - it's more likely to become (or remain) a law than something that divides opinion - like, say, shagging someone else's partner. Which remains a law in places where everyone (or enough people) agree that it matters, but has vanished from the statute books where there is greater diversity of opinion.

[Owl]

Not just severity - but universality. If EVERYONE agrees on something - that, say, stealing someone else's stuff is wrong - it's more likely to become (or remain) a law than something that divides opinion - like, say, shagging someone else's partner. Which remains a law in places where everyone (or enough people) agree that it matters, but has vanished from the statute books where there is greater diversity of opinion.

 

But laws aren't universal either.

 

They vary state by state, country by country.

 

Many countries DO have laws against infidelity, often with some pretty rough punishment.

 

Heck...I could cite some pretty 'interesting' laws from my own state/country's past that are still on the books. People don't live by/abide by them today, as they are indeed antiquated.

 

I'm just gonna have to disagree with you on this, Owoman. The only difference in my mind between a law and any other social more is the implied ability to enforce it.

[OWoman]

But laws aren't universal either.

 

They vary state by state, country by country.

 

Many countries DO have laws against infidelity, often with some pretty rough punishment.

 

Heck...I could cite some pretty 'interesting' laws from my own state/country's past that are still on the books. People don't live by/abide by them today, as they are indeed antiquated.

 

I'm just gonna have to disagree with you on this, Owoman. The only difference in my mind between a law and any other social more is the implied ability to enforce it.

 

I meant, universal within the country or province in which that law pertains. Sorry if I failed to make myself clear.

[You Go Girl]

Sane automatism.

 

Gaslighting and exposure of infidelity could easily be proffered as an explanation for the dissociative episode.

 

'What happened to my spouse? I don't remember'

 

One potential of the law.

 

You gotta love the necessary double-take on reading Carhill's remarks on LS. What did he say?

We are still very barbaric! That the legal manuever of "temporary insanity" exists for revenge and rage with crimes of passion is something I can appreciate only by standing back of course, and loving the irony of it all from a fictional point of view.

 

I think the saying "All is fair in love and war" is a thoughtful one, witty and sly, if murderous.

Think of an old-fashioned English duel. Humorous on some level. Turn your back to the person who is going to try to kill you, and walk 13 paces. This is war with rules. Abide by the rules, and you stand the chance of being killed. Break the rules, turn around early and shoot before the other fool playing by the rules has a chance to turn around, and you've won, essentially, if not rule-book wise.

Same goes for love.

The BS and OM/OW are at war. The WS is the officiator counting the paces while they have their backs turned. Both are being played the fool by the officiator if they abide by the rules.

If all was fair in love, both would should the WS where the bullet belongs instead of each other, for the crime of cake-eating.

But both made a gamble in love. Love doesn't abide by society's rules anymore than war does on a basic level in the field. Marriage is a legal contract! That fact reveals more than a BS spouse in a marriage wants to examine.

Point being, rules are useless and abided by to your own detriment. Love nor war will ever be contained within them.

And, as I am in a phase of examining the darker side of human motivation currently, I'd say that partners in love each day weigh the choice of loving the other for their own satisfaction, or eating each other alive for some transgression.

It's definitely safer, and maybe even more humane, to simply LIKE people. Love throws in an element of unfair expectation.

But I'll go there...again and again...because I can't help myself.