Jump to content

Non-secret As

MissBee

By MissBee
in The Other Man / Woman

 Share
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

  • Author
MissBee Established Member

MissBee

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The BS is not a player in the A. The BS is simply background noise - much as any other factor in that person's circumstances is.

 

Alright...your most frequently used rhetorical tactic is to point out:

 

Perhaps in some cases. Certainly not in all. It is not a given.
I assume then that in the same manner, what you're saying is also not a given. Although in your experience and your As, the BS was background noise....the flip side is that in some cases (and arguably many) this person is in fact a key player and that "back ground noise" sure was loud enough to be bothersome.

 

 

In regards to me saying that even if you don't love your BS this person's role in your life is still considered you've said:

 

Not necessarily. I think you'll agree that most people love their kids. Yet few MPs are credited with considering their kids when conducting an A. Same goes for the BS - if they were considering the BS, would they be in the A in the first place?
When I said considered...I am not equating it to being considerate...which seems to be what you're saying, that MPs aren't considerate of their kids or BS's or else they'd not be in an affair. What I am saying, is that if you are a person with functioning brain capacities, you weigh your choices and consider them and their effect...even if it is solely just to see how it will cost or benefit you, even selfishly. It doesn't even have to be an accurate weighing of these factors, but just considering them and acting with them in mind. One need not to be morally upright, considerate, loving or caring to consider others and their role in your life.

 

We don't live in vacuums ES...even if I dislike you, if you live in the same house as me, are my coworker, or I have to interact with you...you're going to affect my life in some way and it behooves the smart person to consider just HOW and play their cards with that in mind. Right now I do work on fostering cultural competency, peace-building and interfaith dialogue as we're in a global community in which whether or not you like or dislike someone, the world is too small now to not understand the role various religious beliefs, cultural practices etc. play in the world and in their interactions with your world. So even more so...it is impossible or better yet, only an unwise person will absolutely not consider the role their BS can and will play in their lives. Much like it sounds unlearned for a person to say they could care less about the policies the government makes with regards to the environment, it sounds equally strange to say that one's BS has zero role in one's environment and life.... especially if one has a family together and live in the same house. If nations separated by languages, seas, religions and practices consider these things, how much more should somehow who shares a life and is in close proximity to another person consider them?

 

Of course, I am willing to concede that some MP's may be that dense but for the most part it seems most people function with even that basic level of reasoning. As for the MPs not having the factors I have described....what's the point of bringing them up? They are irrelevant then to this example and fall in some other category. I will also concede that some personality disorders render people unable to consider others, the impact of their actions on others and even on themselves and they act in a void and on sheer impulse...that is also a possibility and perhaps there are MPs like that as well.

 

3. A BS is a "force" external to the A. So is the MP's job, the OP's job, the OP's family and other commitments (possibly including their own BS), the economy, the political situation in their country, the weather, the remaining lifespan of the planet. How material any of those factors are depends on the unique configuration of each individual A - the two people in it and their individual circumstances, priorities and modi.
I believe I expressed that sentiment when I said:

 

Originally Posted by MissBee viewpost.gif

I mean just in general....romantic relationships usually consist of 2 people...who are being acted upon by external forces and depending on where they are in life, those external forces may play a greater role, dating a married person adds a very tangible external force and 3rd party. Hence, MPs who have As with other married persons, they do it because they have the same external forces and that balances out things more than dating a single person who may act like or want to pretend like they don't realize a 3rd party is involved and thus things will be different.

And with that...I think since you also conceded that a BS can play a key role depending on the configuration of an A....then what's the contention? Not always? Okay...not always. But I'd argue most ways :)...which I guess is the point, who is or is not able to prove what is most common and what is not. For every point one can shoot it down with a "not in my experience"....but that's not very useful or relevant as we can all do that all day. I can even say "Human beings have 1 head" and someone can point out examples of some medical case of Siamese twins with one body and two heads. Does that mean that "Human beings have 1 head" is false? No. Should I go around qualifying that every time I say it by saying "Most human beings have 1 head"...I don't think it matters as those who don't are in the minority and deviate from the norm and prove the rule in fact. But someone whose rhetorical style is to sit around bringing up such examples all day is being sophomoric IMO, as that is a very easy thing to do....and most people realize at this point that there are exceptions to every rule, so doing that (pointing out the exceptions, the obscure cases etc) is adding nothing substantial to the dialogue.

 

You have established time and again that pretty much nothing that people find common is common in your experience...except the extreme opposites and with that, I am not even sure how we can have a productive dialogue if you're unwilling to step outside of your experience and place it within a larger context and asses how your experiences function within the mean versus always defending the deviation.

 

Also ES...your posts have established a pattern in which you seem very hostile towards BSs and in all your narratives they don't exist for you so this fits right in with the rest of it. I recall one thread in which in your entire projection of how an AP revealing an A could potentially play out...in virtually ZERO of those projections was the BSs reaction and the idea that the family, friends etc may very well like the BS so not embrace the AP was taken into account. I find that interesting and telling. When one's narrative systematically excludes likely possibilities, even obvious possibilities, then it speaks to one's own biases and not reality. An even-handed approach would have at least taken that into consideration.

Edited by MissBee
bentnotbroken Established Member

bentnotbroken

Posted
Posted
Alright...your most frequently used rhetorical tactic is to point out:

 

I assume then that in the same manner, what you're saying is also not a given. Although in your experience and your As, the BS was background noise....the flip side is that in some cases (and arguably many) this person is in fact a key player and that "back ground noise" sure was loud enough to be bothersome.

 

 

In regards to me saying that even if you don't love your BS this person's role in your life is still considered you've said:

 

When I said considered...I am not equating it to being considerate...which seems to be what you're saying, that MPs aren't considerate of their kids or BS's or else they'd not be in an affair. What I am saying, is that if you are a person with functioning brain capacities, you weigh your choices and consider them and their effect...even if it is solely just to see how it will cost or benefit you, even selfishly. It doesn't even have to be an accurate weighing of these factors, but just considering them and acting with them in mind. One need not to be morally upright, considerate, loving or caring to consider others and their role in your life.

 

We don't live in vacuums ES...even if I dislike you, if you live in the same house as me, are my coworker, or I have to interact with you...you're going to affect my life in some way and it behooves the smart person to consider just HOW and play their cards with that in mind. Right now I do work on fostering cultural competency, peace-building and interfaith dialogue as we're in a global community in which whether or not you like or dislike someone, the world is too small now to not understand the role various religious beliefs, cultural practices etc. play in the world and in their interactions with your world. So even more so...it is impossible or better yet, only an unwise person will absolutely not consider the role their BS can and will play in their lives. Much like it sounds unlearned for a person to say they could care less about the policies the government makes with regards to the environment, it sounds equally strange to say that one's BS has zero role in one's environment and life.... especially if one has a family together and live in the same house. If nations separated by languages, seas, religions and practices consider these things, how much more should somehow who shares a life and is in close proximity to another person consider them?

 

Of course, I am willing to concede that some MP's may be that dense but for the most part it seems most people function with even that basic level of reasoning. As for the MPs not having the factors I have described....what's the point of bringing them up? They are irrelevant then to this example and fall in some other category. I will also concede that some personality disorders render people unable to consider others, the impact of their actions on others and even on themselves and they act in a void and on sheer impulse...that is also a possibility and perhaps there are MPs like that as well.

 

I believe I expressed that sentiment when I said:

 

And with that...I think since you also conceded that a BS can play a key role depending on the configuration of an A....then what's the contention? Not always? Okay...not always. But I'd argue most ways :)...which I guess is the point, who is or is not able to prove what is most common and what is not. For every point one can shoot it down with a "not in my experience"....but that's not very useful or relevant as we can all do that all day. I can even say "Human beings have 1 head" and someone can point out examples of some medical case of Siamese twins with one body and two heads. Does that mean that "Human beings have 1 head" is false? No. Should I go around qualifying that every time I say it by saying "Most human beings have 1 head"...I don't think it matters as those who don't are in the minority and deviate from the norm and prove the rule in fact. But someone whose rhetorical style is to sit around bringing up such examples all day is being sophomoric IMO, as that is a very easy thing to do....and most people realize at this point that there are exceptions to every rule, so doing that (pointing out the exceptions, the obscure cases etc) is adding nothing substantial to the dialogue.

 

You have established time and again that pretty much nothing that people find common is common in your experience...except the extreme opposites and with that, I am not even sure how we can have a productive dialogue if you're unwilling to step outside of your experience and place it within a larger context and asses how your experiences function within the mean versus always defending the deviation.

 

Also ES...your posts have established a pattern in which you seem very hostile towards BSs and in all your narratives they don't exist for you so this fits right in with the rest of it. I recall one thread in which in your entire projection of how an AP revealing an A could potentially play out...in virtually ZERO of those projections was the BSs reaction and the idea that the family, friends etc may very well like the BS so not embrace the AP was taken into account. I find that interesting and telling. When one's narrative systematically excludes likely possibilities, even obvious possibilities, then it speaks to one's own biases and not reality. An even-handed approach would have at least taken that into consideration.

 

 

:bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny:.......................

NoIDidn't Established Member

NoIDidn't

Posted
Posted

And with that...I think since you also conceded that a BS can play a key role depending on the configuration of an A....then what's the contention? Not always? Okay...not always. But I'd argue most ways :)...which I guess is the point, who is or is not able to prove what is most common and what is not. For every point one can shoot it down with a "not in my experience"....but that's not very useful or relevant as we can all do that all day. I can even say "Human beings have 1 head" and someone can point out examples of some medical case of Siamese twins with one body and two heads. Does that mean that "Human beings have 1 head" is false? No. Should I go around qualifying that every time I say it by saying "Most human beings have 1 head"...I don't think it matters as those who don't are in the minority and deviate from the norm and prove the rule in fact. But someone whose rhetorical style is to sit around bringing up such examples all day is being sophomoric IMO, as that is a very easy thing to do....and most people realize at this point that there are exceptions to every rule, so doing that (pointing out the exceptions, the obscure cases etc) is adding nothing substantial to the dialogue.

 

You have established time and again that pretty much nothing that people find common is common in your experience...except the extreme opposites and with that, I am not even sure how we can have a productive dialogue if you're unwilling to step outside of your experience and place it within a larger context and asses how your experiences function within the mean versus always defending the deviation.

 

Also ES...your posts have established a pattern in which you seem very hostile towards BSs and in all your narratives they don't exist for you so this fits right in with the rest of it. I recall one thread in which in your entire projection of how an AP revealing an A could potentially play out...in virtually ZERO of those projections was the BSs reaction and the idea that the family, friends etc may very well like the BS so not embrace the AP was taken into account. I find that interesting and telling. When one's narrative systematically excludes likely possibilities, even obvious possibilities, then it speaks to one's own biases and not reality. An even-handed approach would have at least taken that into consideration.

 

Great post!

 

On the topic of the OP, though....can a "non-secret" affair even be considered an affair? By definition, an affair is generally kept secret, anything else starts to look like permitted indiscretions or open relationships to some extent. At least, that's my opinion.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...