From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:12:32 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Apr10.032353.2653@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	Your archetypal affair seems to be some sleazy back door man who
>>spots a confused, unhappy wife and uses her confusion to get into her
>>pants.
>
>Actually, I never said this, and my examples had a woman being the other person.

	What you have said is that you see all affairs as gratuitous sex.
You seem, in general, hungry for moral absolutes, hard and fast rules. But
life doesn't work by such rules, it works more by heuristics, rules of thumb.
Affairs happen sometimes out of love and affection, too. You don't admit
that, which makes this discussion very one-sided, is-it-harmful vs.
is-it-neutral. While it's more the exception than the rule, affairs are
also sometimes beneficial.

>>The effect on their lover's spouse, by contrast, can only be guesswork.
>
>This is not true. If the relationship is open, which is verifiable,
>you know the effect. And it's not a problem.
>
>If the relationship is *not* open, then it is *not* guesswork as to the 
>effect on the lover's spouse (and kids) when they find out. If the
>spouse (and kids) don't find out, there still is some effect because
>the cheating spouse won't be able to spend as much time with them (because
>she/he will have to spend some time with this third party).

	Pure Hollywood, Fred: the guilty always get punished, the truth
always comes out, every dog has his day, et silly cetera. People get away
with affairs all the time without discovery and without harm. Simplistic,
too, is your notion that there are just two kinds of relationships, open
and closed. There is, in fact, a whole spectrum of sexual policies
commonly in use today. For example, it is perfectly possible to "cheat" in
some open relationships. The couple may have a rule that all lovers must
be approved by the other spouse, for example. An unapproved affair would
then be cheating.

	On the other hand, "closed" relationships are also a mixed bag.
Some folks don't mind affairs all that much as long as it's kept a
complete secret (this version of the closed relationship is especially
popular in parts of Europe); this is an especially popular system when
both spouses intend infidelity, but occurs where there is only one
"problem" spouse, too.

	And even where affairs are a real no-no, people vary in how
seriously they take it. Some take confession of a past affair in stride,
though they'd freak out about a current affair; some would shrug off a
partner's one-night-stand, but demand divorce over an ongoing affair; and
some are so extreme that just knowing their spouse was _interested_ in
someone else would be the same as if they were lovers.

	Marriage is a contract. The best analogy I can think of to it are
closed-shop labor contracts. If the company hires scab labor, are the
scabs "assholes"? The union folks will think so, certainly. They'll accuse
the scabs of taking the bread from their families' mouths. But the neutral
observer will note that the scabs need work as much as the union folks,
and that the scabs aren't violating any contract, only the company is.
Your mistake remains that of deducing a cause and effect relationship
between affairs and tragedy that only sometimes occurs. Let's go back to
your anecdote:

>>In article <1992Apr9.020355.20800@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>>>I once lived (platonic
>>>room-mates) with a woman who seemed to only date married men. She never
>>>knew they were married when she first met them, but she eventually figured
>>>it out.
>>
>>	This is interesting already. So far it sounds like she'd get a
>>clean bill of moral health from you, Fred. She was lied to, she didn't
>>fool around with married men intentionally.
>
>She continued fooling around with them after she found out they were married.

	OK, so we agree there was no moral taint on her until she
discovered they were married, right? But does that guilty knowledge affect
the _outcome_ of these events, the pain? It does not. The wife gets hurt
because her husband had an affair, and she found out. Had your roommate
broken things off as soon as she found out the guy was married, would that
have lessened the wife's pain? Hell, no. She doesn't care about your
roommate and her situation, she cares about her husband.

	Another example: let's imagine I become friends with a married
woman. As time goes on we realize we're falling for one another, but we
are _not_ sleeping together - she believes in keeping her promises. Next
thing you know she and I decide we want to become a couple. She tells her
husband she wants a divorce, and moves in with me.

	Notice that, despite the fact that no one cheated, the results are
the same as if we had, the kind of worst-case results you're so fond of
mentioning: divorce, the husband's heart broken, their kids confused and
hurt. It isn't affairs that cause such things, not in a straight
if-A-then-B line. And maybe this change of partners was a positive thing
for she and I. Would the fact it was negative for her husband make it
wrong?

>>if someone's spouse is cheating on them, do you think it's
>>better if they know, or are in the dark?
>
>I believe in honesty and in people knowing the truth about matters that
>pertain to them.

	If a close friend of yours were cheating on their spouse, and the
spouse was someone you barely knew, would you inform on your friend?

>But the way Judy picked to let the wife know about
>the affair was seemily calculated to cause as much pain as possible.

	When you find a tactful and diplomatic way to gratuitously inform
someone their spouse is cheating on 'em, let me know.

-  nothing fails like success  -          Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                          barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles