Married Shmarried.

[No_Go]

No Go, we have to agree to disagree again.

 

I would help the cat, like children they are innocent.

 

The rest? No way, I wouldn't love someone who didn't love me, and I wouldn't compromise myself for someone who didn't love me. I would find it disrespectful to myself. I won't be a doormat, and this "unconditional love" seems to invite being used.

 

Now for my husband who I love and loves me? I will do all sorts of things not in myself interest.

 

I believe I can control my emotions to an extent, and that includes love. And I believe what your ex does. For me, love without action isn't anything really, except for a figment of your imagination.

 

If someone says that they love me, and do not SHOW that love in anyway, I can't say I feel loved.

 

a figment of your imagination Ah, if you were single I'd introduce you to my ex He had exactly the same belief.

 

For me: this 'imaginary' part of love is what I enjoy most - it physically changes me, it is so weird - I can live on 3-4 hours of sleep without being tired when I got into such an emotion (my regular is 8-9 hours). I become more empathetic, more creative - all around positives even without the other person being aware of my love to them, I'm not even talking about relationship. I guess to some extent it is also selfish - because the emotion that I experience brings me so much positives (even with zero participation of the other party).

 

Also - actions don't really bond me at all. My ex will tell me - he'd bond with friends over shared experiences. For me... it is more like having an experience in presence of someone else. Having good time, fun, laugh, even sex - for whatever reason do not help me build a bond with someone. I guess some people may relate to this, many won't.

 

I've never felt like a doormat if performing actions of love for someone that don't reciprocate because I'd do them by choice. The guy 1) fro my other post was probably not even aware for many of my actions, I'd keep as much as I could to myself.

 

I believe I can control my emotions to an extent, and that includes love. Lucky you! The only thing I can control is the manifestation of the emotions like actions or words.

Edited November 28, 2017 by No_Go

[RecentChange]

I believe I can control my emotions to an extent, and that includes love. Lucky you! The only thing I can control is the manifestation of the emotions like actions or words.

 

Really? You can't influence, change or control feelings like anger? Or anxiety? Or even joy?

 

Perhaps I can't make them appear or disappear, but I can talk myself down from anger. I can use breathing and visuals to control anxiety. I can count my blessings and focus on the beauty of nature to increase my joy.

 

And I don't allow myself to fall in love with someone who doesn't love me. I stop my mind when it drifts off to that fantasy land. I do not allow myself to become infatuated with someone that does not value me equally.

 

And back to the OP's topic.

 

For me - LOVE is what defines my relationship. Not possession, or even sexual fidelity. It's the love, and that commitment to that love that we share and binds us.

 

I don't get my joy from the emotion of love - but from the action of love. Seeing how my love for him influences him. Seeing how my love makes his day brighter. How my love can comfort and support. How my love can help him love himself.

 

It's the benefit of the action of my love in his life that warms my heart - not the emotion trapped in my head.

Edited November 28, 2017 by RecentChange

[NuevoYorko]

Some very avid and determined rationalization demonstrated here. I’m not quite getting the point, but it’s reminiscent of the “revelations” of my adolescent pot smoking self

[No_Go]

You can't influence, change or control feelings like anger? Or anxiety? Or even joy? Not really. I've tried to but I always feel like I'm misleading myself. I can control my actions pretty well though and I guess that's what matter for the outside world. I can be fuming from the inside - if people see me 'calm' - they think I am good at controlling anger

 

On OP's topic of love - I don't think she argued love don't exist - more that marriage/commitment doesn't need to be related to love and vice versa. RC - great for you that you see both coinciding, which actually makes sense considering you perceive love as action.

 

Really? You can't influence, change or control feelings like anger? Or anxiety? Or even joy?

 

Perhaps I can't make them appear or disappear, but I can talk myself down from anger. I can use breathing and visuals to control anxiety. I can count my blessings and focus on the beauty of nature to increase my joy.

 

And I don't allow myself to fall in love with someone who doesn't love me. I stop my mind when it drifts off to that fantasy land. I do not allow myself to become infatuated with someone that does not value me equally.

 

And back to the OP's topic.

 

For me - LOVE is what defines my relationship. Not possession, or even sexual fidelity. It's the love, and that commitment to that love that we share and binds us.

 

I don't get my joy from the emotion of love - but from the action of love. Seeing how my love for him influences him. Seeing how my love makes his day brighter. How my love can comfort and support. How my love can help him love himself.

 

It's the benefit of the action of my love in his life that warms my heart - not the emotion trapped in my head.

[No_Go]

Some very avid and determined rationalization demonstrated here. I’m not quite getting the point, but it’s reminiscent of the “revelations” of my adolescent pot smoking self ��

 

:lmao: I always tell people I never tried pot because I don't really need external chemicals since my mind/emotions brings me to certain heights anyway. They don't believe me but here is the evidence in your words.

[DKT3]

I wrote out a long post, then thought what's the point? It's like going to Starbucks and overhearing some 20 something who truly believes they have the key to the universe but is really too arrogant to realize just how foolish others view them.

 

Funny thing, very intelligent people once thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.very sure, very arrogant to to foolish to listen to those who knew better.

[xoswtdreamsxo]

I wrote out a long post, then thought what's the point? It's like going to Starbucks and overhearing some 20 something who truly believes they have the key to the universe but is really too arrogant to realize just how foolish others view them.

 

Funny thing, very intelligent people once thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.very sure, very arrogant to to foolish to listen to those who knew better.

 

Says the genius who is using ad-hominems. If you can't have a proper discussion without resorting to baseless remarks about my personal character, respectfully do not engage. It makes you appear weak-minded. By the way, I don't claim to have the key to the universe. I only think romantic ethics are irrational & harmful to the psyche. You do realize there are other compartments of life besides, romance, right?

 

So, I don't really mind who or what "disagrees" with me. I mean, good for you...and I'm glad you think your age has anything to do with smarts. You clearly demonstrated that age means nothing when it comes to maturity or anything of the sort.

[xoswtdreamsxo]

Says the genius who is using ad-hominems. If you can't have a proper discussion without resorting to baseless remarks about my personal character, respectfully do not engage. It makes you appear weak-minded. By the way, I don't claim to have the key to the universe. I only think romantic ethics are irrational & harmful to the psyche. You do realize there are other compartments of life besides, romance, right?

 

So, I don't really mind who or what "disagrees" with me. I mean, good for you...and I'm glad you think your age has anything to do with smarts. You clearly demonstrated that age means nothing when it comes to maturity or anything of the sort.

 

If the world insisted to me the grass was purple, am I an arrogant fool because I don't bend to their ways of thinking? I'm not sure what your point that "everyone views me as a fool" was nor am I sure what you thought that was supposed to do for me. I am not a weak-minded person who follows or needs a crowd, so that doesn't phase me. If you disagree with me, that's fine. What I do find interesting is how you, instead of contributing something solid to the debate you took the energy to try to insult me.

 

It reminds me of kind of folks who never pop up to speak except for when they want to address drama.

[MuddyFootprints]

Or call out the drama queens.

[DKT3]

Says the genius who is using ad-hominems. If you can't have a proper discussion without resorting to baseless remarks about my personal character, respectfully do not engage. It makes you appear weak-minded. By the way, I don't claim to have the key to the universe. I only think romantic ethics are irrational & harmful to the psyche. You do realize there are other compartments of life besides, romance, right?

 

So, I don't really mind who or what "disagrees" with me. I mean, good for you...and I'm glad you think your age has anything to do with smarts. You clearly demonstrated that age means nothing when it comes to maturity or anything of the sort.

 

So, you speaking in absolutes about something you personally have not experienced makes you an expert, how?

 

Look I could go out and rob a guy standing on the street and make a viable intellectual argument as to why it was the right thing to do and insist that my view is correct. Even if that argument is valid, does that mean that everyone should agree.

 

With age comes wisdom, and experience. Doesn't mean that age makes one smart. On the flip side being smart without wisdom means jack$h!t. Cue any scene from Rainman.

 

Yes, I said your view and stance is arrogant and foolish. You know why? Because it is. You have no clue what goes on in any Marriage outside of one you are involved in, so you have no clue what those Marriages are based on, or why infidelity has impacted it or why they have an issue with it. Possessiveness and jealousy can be a part of it. Or maybe it's because said partner doesn't really care for the idea of they partner introducing potential"issues" ie STD, bunny boilers, risking childhoods.

 

Lastly, unconditional love doesn't exist, outside of mothers.

[xoswtdreamsxo]

So, you speaking in absolutes about something you personally have not experienced makes you an expert, how?

 

Look I could go out and rob a guy standing on the street and make a viable intellectual argument as to why it was the right thing to do and insist that my view is correct. Even if that argument is valid, does that mean that everyone should agree.

 

With age comes wisdom, and experience. Doesn't mean that age makes one smart. On the flip side being smart without wisdom means jack$h!t. Cue any scene from Rainman.

 

Yes, I said your view and stance is arrogant and foolish. You know why? Because it is. You have no clue what goes on in any Marriage outside of one you are involved in, so you have no clue what those Marriages are based on, or why infidelity has impacted it or why they have an issue with it. Possessiveness and jealousy can be a part of it. Or maybe it's because said partner doesn't really care for the idea of they partner introducing potential"issues" ie STD, bunny boilers, risking childhoods.

 

Lastly, unconditional love doesn't exist, outside of mothers.

 

You used the word 'expert' not me. Everyone says things in absolutes and with certainty. It would become redundant to say 'IMO, IMO, IMO, etc... For example: You say, "unconditional love doesn't exist outside mothers." -- That is your view and I will not assume you think you are an expert or are arrogant because of that..I think it's WRONG...but I won't call you arrogant because you claim this and that. ..

 

. and I don't believe you can make an intellectual argument for anything because another side to logic, is efficiency. So things such as murder would be systematically wrong because it would disturb the way the world, operates. The same goes for marriages that have children involved. Sometimes things are more about a system that works than it is about ethics.

 

I'm not attacking all marriages but the ones that are based on romantic ethics are illogical and unrealistic to me. I don't care what you think is foolish. If you think what I said is foolish, it isn't for you. It's as simple as that.

 

Your arguments do not convince me any. With age can come wisdom but there are a lot of foolish adults who think they're wise simply because they're of an older age Young people can be wise too by learning from other's mistakes. Young folks who have gone through a lot can wise up super fast.

 

This topic went from romantic ethics/marriage to calling ME arrogant. That is an ad-hominem. Disagree with my idea of things but stick to the idea. You don't know me well enough to render such a judgment, yet you wanna talk about 'wisdom'.' I guess....

Edited November 29, 2017 by xoswtdreamsxo

[Steve Mason]

The way I see it, love is different from marriage. Love can be unconditional, but all relationships, including marriages, have certain social rules. Cheating is called cheating because the cheater breaks the rules. Again all relationships have rules. If you live in a society with people, there will be rules.

 

So you can love someone unconditionally, and marry them, they can break the rules, you can end the marriage, and still love them unconditionally. You just wouldn’t want to be married to them anymore.

[DKT3]

You used the word 'expert' not me. Everyone says things in absolutes and with certainty. It would become redundant to say 'IMO, IMO, IMO, etc... For example: You say, "unconditional love doesn't exist outside mothers." -- That is your view and I will not assume you think you are an expert or are arrogant because of that..I think it's WRONG...but I won't call you arrogant because you claim this and that. ..

 

. and I don't believe you can make an intellectual argument for anything because another side to logic, is efficiency. So things such as murder would be systematically wrong because it would disturb the way the world, operates. The same goes for marriages that have children involved. Sometimes things are more about a system that works than it is about ethics.

 

I'm not attacking all marriages but the ones that are based on romantic ethics are illogical and unrealistic to me. I don't care what you think is foolish. If you think what I said is foolish, it isn't for you. It's as simple as that.

 

Your arguments do not convince me any. With age can come wisdom but there are a lot of foolish adults who think they're wise simply because they're of an older age Young people can be wise too by learning from other's mistakes. Young folks who have gone through a lot can wise up super fast.

 

This topic went from romantic ethics/marriage to calling ME arrogant. That is an ad-hominem. Disagree with my idea of things but stick to the idea. You don't know me well enough to render such a judgment, yet you wanna talk about 'wisdom'.' I guess....

 

I said your view and stance is arrogant and foolish, not you.

 

You don't really learn from others experiences, more of learning what did or didn't work for that person in that situation. You didn't experience the event, nor can you feel the feelings.

 

Common sense tells you unconditional love is a myth. Truth is someone you love more than anything can do things that can turn your feelings toward them, be it mother, father, son or daughter. If love was unconditional that wouldn't be possible

 

I'm done here, as I mentioned before, it's like debating the Earth is round having sailed it with someone who hasn't left the area in which they were born.

[nospam99]

Late to the game and probably missed lots of details because most of this thread has been debates and rants about personal values.

 

But trying to understand one or two things so asking .... OP, I just went back and read a few of your first posts. Am I correct that you have been the OW BUT have not slept with the MM? If yes, my understanding of the jargon on LS is that would be labeled an Emotional Affair. Again to the OP, to what extent do you understand that in some people's value systems (mine included) a Sexual Affair is a greater betrayal (and a cheat by definition) than an Emotional Affair? I will point out that for me, the reason for this value is the risk of introducing a disease/infection into the marriage. Just sayin'

[elaine567]

Late to the game and probably missed lots of details because most of this thread has been debates and rants about personal values.

 

But trying to understand one or two things so asking .... OP, I just went back and read a few of your first posts. Am I correct that you have been the OW BUT have not slept with the MM? If yes, my understanding of the jargon on LS is that would be labeled an Emotional Affair. Again to the OP, to what extent do you understand that in some people's value systems (mine included) a Sexual Affair is a greater betrayal (and a cheat by definition) than an Emotional Affair? I will point out that for me, the reason for this value is the risk of introducing a disease/infection into the marriage. Just sayin'

 

OK but the OP has not clarified the extent of the physicality of her affairs, only that she has not "slept with" her MMen.

I guess not many "public figures" are keeping OWs around for a homely chat...

[clia]

If I'm calling someone my FRIEND, sleeping with their husband would be betrayal. That's why I'd feel bad. If it is just a woman on the street , then "oops, we just happen to like the same man..and you got to him, first.." -- I don't see that as breaking ANY vow because I'm not her friend. I just see it as it is -- 2 women are interested in the same man. *shrugs* I'm calling a spade a spade. Things are what they are. The rules humanity makes are secondary.

 

Why is it okay to label a "friend," but not a romantic relationship? What's the difference? Why is it okay to "betray" in a romantic relationship, but not a friendship relationship under your views? How is the situation with a friend any different than your friend being the one who is saying "I saw it first and it's mine"? It just seems circular. If you are against labeling relationships, and everyone should be able to have a free for all and be with whoever they want, shouldn't that include friendships as well?

 

You use the term "romantic ethics." What, specifically, do you view as the romantic ethics that you are so against? (It's just not clear to me from your posts above -- jealousy? possessiveness? commitment? other things?)

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

 

I'm not attacking all marriages but the ones that are based on romantic ethics are illogical and unrealistic to me.

 

Define "romantic ethics." What does this even mean?

[wmacbride]

Why is it okay to label a "friend," but not a romantic relationship? What's the difference? Why is it okay to "betray" in a romantic relationship, but not a friendship relationship under your views? How is the situation with a friend any different than your friend being the one who is saying "I saw it first and it's mine"? It just seems circular. If you are against labeling relationships, and everyone should be able to have a free for all and be with whoever they want, shouldn't that include friendships as well?

 

You use the term "romantic ethics." What, specifically, do you view as the romantic ethics that you are so against? (It's just not clear to me from your posts above -- jealousy? possessiveness? commitment? other things?)

 

It's about selfishness.

 

The reason someone can't betray a friend, in my experience, has little to do with "friendship" and has more to do with not wanting any backlash and not wanting to harm a friendship because it meets one of their needs.

 

They might also have to see the effects of their actions, and they simply don't want to have to face that sort of fallout.

 

The concept that we should only value the feelings of those who we value makes no sense to me. If it's wrong for me to sleep with a friend's husband because she is my friend and it could hurt her, then why is it any better for me to sleep with some stranger's husband simply because I don't know her? How is her pain an less important?

 

Look, I am not claiming to be perfect or saying that I have never hurt anyone. Of course I have. There are times I have been absolutely awful. The thing is, I have the ability to make choices about my life. I can choose whether or not to get involved with someone who is married, or I can choose to only open the relationship door to a guy who is single. I can choose to minimize the harm and pain I cause to others.

 

It's just like how, if I am having a bad day and am really upset and angry, I'm not going to walk up to someone I don't know and slap her across the face because it makes me feel good. Her pain is not worth the temporary "fix" I would get by hitting her. I ball my fists up, bite my lip and walk away. That's part of being an adult- not responding to every urge you have and the rest of the world be damned.

 

 

At the end of the day, I have to be able to square myself away with the person I see in the mirror every day, and if I know my intentional actions have caused someone else pain, especially if they are someone who has done nothing to me, then I sure don't feel good about myself. How can I?

Edited November 29, 2017 by wmacbride

[wmacbride]

It's about selfishness.

 

The reason someone can't betray a friend, in my experience, has little to do with "friendship" and has more to do with not wanting any backlash and not wanting to harm a friendship because it meets one of their needs.

 

They might also have to see the effects of their actions, and they simply don't want to have to face that sort of fallout.

 

The concept that we should only value the feelings of those who we value makes no sense to me. If it's wrong for me to sleep with a friend's husband because she is my friend and it could hurt her, then why is it any better for me to sleep with some stranger's husband simply because I don't know her? How is her pain an less important?

 

Look, I am not claiming to be perfect or saying that I have never hurt anyone. Of course I have. There are times I have been absolutely awful. The thing is, I have the ability to make choices about my life. I can choose whether or not to get involved with someone who is married, or I can choose to only open the relationship door to a guy who is single. I can choose to minimize the harm and pain I cause to others.

 

It's just like how, if I am having a bad day and am really upset and angry, I'm not going to walk up to someone I don't know and slap her across the face because it makes me feel good. Her pain is not worth the temporary "fix" I would get by hitting her. I ball my fists up, bite my lip and walk away. That's part of being an adult- not responding to every urge you have and the rest of the world be damned.

 

 

At the end of the day, I have to be able to square myself away with the person I see in the mirror every day, and if I know my intentional actions have caused someone else pain, especially if they are someone who has done nothing to me, then I sure don't feel good about myself. How can I?

 

 

Add to this that to me, love is an emotion that should be all about happiness and translate into positive action. Having that come on the back of someone else has no place in that for me.

[NuevoYorko]

I think here is where we grandly differ. I don't think love is an action. Action could be a manifestation of love, but love is a pure emotion and therefore - something that can't be controlled (like action could be).

 

"Love" is both a noun and a verb. "Love" is an emotion, like "sad" . "Love" (to love, loving, loved, have loved, will love) is also an action verb, unlike "sad."

 

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a linguistic fact.

 

Also, a person can control their emotions. Learning to control emotions is a big step in development.

[NuevoYorko]

Even if I thought love was abuse, you can't tell me it is not because masochists exist and love is subjective just as good & evil are.

Masochism does not = love, nor does it = abuse.

 

People don't have to agree on much when having discussions, but it's useful if all involved agree on the basic meanings of words. If one party consistently claims that words don't mean what the others in the discussion all agree that they mean - it's not worth bothering to have the discussion.

 

It would, on the other hand, be worthwhile having a lively talk about the meaning of words; for example, "what does 'love' mean to you?" If that were to be happening, however, the parties would all have to agree to refrain from telling the others that they were the only one who truly understood the meaning of the word. Otherwise, again, it's not worth bothering to have the discussion.

 

I've raised a child. I've been through the futility of this type of thing.

[Els]

I feel very sorry for you, OP. :/ You must have been through a lot to have all these cynical views on relationships... unless you are fabricating them to convince yourself that what you are doing is perfectly fine, of course.

 

You can't describe love/commitment to someone who has never been through it. I can tell you love is NOT, though - it's certainly not keeping someone on the side when you have a wife/husband!

[carhill]

I can tell you love is NOT, though - it's certainly not keeping someone on the side when you have a wife/husband!

 

You know, I was watching a movie on the Kodi called 'Girls Trip' the other night with the group I was with over the holiday, the movie being picked by one lady in the group and, during part of the movie, one of the characters, evidently part of a celebrity 'relationship' guru team with her H, discovered her H was cheating on her. They tried working on things but evidence of further activity surfaced and things got sketchy. I don't remember all the details but there was something in there about loving and protecting their 'brand' regardless of their personal milieu.

 

While that was going on I was kinda looking over at the lady who selected the movie and her H and, knowing what I know, wondering if that was part of their deal too, protecting their brand. See, with MW's, I've often wondered how they could speak and demonstrate love and intimacy to their affair partners yet still speak of and demonstrate love at home with their H. I've seen plenty of it first hand. The best explanation I've been given is that the loves are separate and unique. I've no idea how that works as I can't read minds but I've seen enough of it to wonder about it.

 

Anyway, I thought, given the theme running through the movie, that it was a bit coincidental that the lady in question would pick it. There's a lot more to the story but your quote did cause that experience to come to mind and also reinforce the reality that marriages are unique and individual to the couple in them and they decide in one form or another how their marriage will be. I may not agree but, hey, it's their marriage. Hence, when questions of selfishness arise, I'll often advise members to look to their spouse as the arbiter of boundaries. In their marriage, it's their boundaries which matter, not mine.

[Els]

I'll often advise members to look to their spouse as the arbiter of boundaries. In their marriage, it's their boundaries which matter, not mine.

 

The OP is talking about lying to one's partner and having an affair, though. If no boundaries are crossed, we'd be talking about an openly polyamarous relationship, in which case it wouldn't even be considered cheating or an affair in the first place, no? And if the partner's consent was never obtained to begin with, how can it NOT be a transgression of boundaries?

[carhill]

I won't presume to know the boundaries of another's marriage. How do you know the boundaries of the marriage in my example? You don't. The principals do. We can't read their minds. It's their marriage.