From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:50:49 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Apr12.151547.6065@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	What you have said is that you see all affairs as gratuitous sex.
>
>I never said that either. 

	You're squirming again. For someone taking the high moral tone
you do, you seem pretty unsure of your position. Here's what you said:

}>>And when it's being done just for the sake of gratuitous sex...
}>	You didn't say anything about motives. Suppose it's done for love?
}
}I say bullshit. What's love ? Doesn't love involve trust ? How can one trust
}anyone who's being unfaithful to their spouse ?

	QED. Ball's still in your court. If you aren't contradicting
yourself, you've got a _lot_ more explaining to do.

>>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.
>
>Heh. Try this for a heuristic then - don't fuck around with a married
>person with kids, when the other partner doesn't know and OK it.

	As a rule of thumb I've never disagreed with this, Fred.

>Yes, I
>know, you don't want anything limiting from getting that itch between
>your balls scratched... and so you'll ignore this heuristic.

	I seem to be spending my time scratching your itch, instead :-).
I refer, of course, to the itch to moralize.

>>Affairs happen sometimes out of love and affection, too.
>
>I never said they didn't. I said I didn't know what love was. Why don't you
>try reading what I write ?

	This would take fewer words if you'd stop being so coy. Don't
play word games, address the issue: does your moral judgement apply to
affairs motivated by love, however you choose to define it?

>>>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.
>
>How do you get "guilty always get punished, [...]" out of that ? If
>anything, it's the innocent parties that get punished.

	You claim there's harm even if the affair's never discovered. I
have difficulty accepting occult claims like that. I don't doubt a
spouse who's cheated on could _see_ it that way - after they discover
the affair they may well blame every problem their marriage ever had on
that affair. But I don't buy it, and maybe that's the heart of our
disagreement. Leave out all the self-righteous finger-pointing, and the
question is really one of defining the connection between infidelity and
bad marriages. Does the former cause the latter? The latter, the former?
A bit of both? Different in each case?

	I'm inclined to the belief that affairs are a symptom of a bad
marriage, not the other way 'round. I would agree an affair might
occasionally change the course of a marriage, may cause divorce where
otherwise no divorce would occur, but I think the marriage had gone bad
in either case.

>My feelings on this matter were formed by observing the results, the
>always painful results, of this behaviour when it was discovered.

	Well, maybe that's why you're so uncertain of the principle.
You're defending a universal moral principle on the basis of a few
individual cases. It shows. Every time you state your defense you bring
in all this peripheral stuff that obscures your principle instead of
supporting it. You speak of the effect on the kids, and I start
wondering if you make an exception when there are no kids; you speak of
gratuitous sex, and it appears there may be an exception for affairs
sparked by true love.

	What I want to know is the support for the _general principle_.
If you're merely arguing affairs are bad in most cases, like when
there's kids, or the motives for the affair are shallow, we probably
agree. It's when you make these blanket moral judgements that I have a
problem. Why are _all_ affairs bad, other than the specific matter of
the married party breaking a promise? What makes the third party,
apparently without exception, an asshole?

>I've
>seen nothing written by you to indicate that your feelings on this
>matter are anything but rationalizations to allow you to
>consciencelessly screw with any woman you're interested in that is
>interested back, no matter what the potential harm to others.

	Nothing like a good, objective analysis, is there? :-) The idea
that someone might argue my position on purely impersonal and unselfish
grounds would bother you, wouldn't it? I've already said I have a low
opinion of getting involved in secret affairs for practical reasons, and
that my disagreement is with the moralistic and absolutist extreme of
your position, not with its "rule-of-thumb" validity. You're so
insistent on the right to point fingers that you'll fantasize a suitable
target, just to exercise the option to lay blame.

	Ease up, Fred. All these little feints at flames look more like
a nervous tic than an attack when your opponent isn't playing the
game.

>>>>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?
>
>I try an avoid becoming friends with untrustworthy people. Dishonesty
>bugs the shit out me. If I had the bad judgement to befriend such a
>bozo I would try and convince them to change. Or they'd stop being my
>friend.

	Your ducking of questions is becoming a habit. You've said it's
better for the cheated-on partner to know. You've also condemned your
former roommate for informing cheated-on partners. I'm just trying to
find out your values here. You seem to actually understand that affairs
only do harm once they're discovered, yet your principles seem to say
you'd see it as your moral duty to be the informer. What's the scoop?

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