From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:19:37 GMT

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>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 ?

I understand affection, and I understand companionship. Some affairs
are done for these reasons. So affairs can be done for other reasons
than gratuitous sex. As I said before I never said that all affairs are
gratuitous sex.

>>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.

Then why are you arguing with me ?

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

Ah, lower, lower, Ah, there, that feels better :-)

>	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 there are kids involved - yes. You (the third party) are clearly an asshole.

If there aren't kids involved, and you know the spouse isn't aware and
wouldn't agree to the affair, then you (the third party) are helping with
the deception and the lies and so, yes, you (the third party) are 
an asshole (but a much smaller one).

>>>>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.

To quote you, answer the question. How did you get your "guilty ..."
from what I said ?

And two, yes, there is 'harm' even if the affair is never discovered because
time that could have been spent with the kids/spouse were spent elsewhere.
And because the successful affair will lower the cheating spouse's opinion
of the other spouse (how can you respect someone that is so easy to fool ?)

>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?

Affairs happen for lots of reasons. Not necessarily becuase there is a bad
marriage. Sometimes because one spouse convinces themself that the 'fidelity'
bit only applies to the *other* spouse.

>	Well, maybe that's why you're so uncertain of the principle.

I'm not uncertain of the principle. People who behave in certain ways
are assholes. IMNSHO. I've never said anything else.

>You speak of the effect on the kids, and I start
>wondering if you make an exception when there are no kids;

Sigh. If there are no kids, then (as I said above) you are less reprehensible.

>you speak of gratuitous sex, and it appears there may be an exception
>for affairs sparked by true love.

What exception ? I never said anything about any exceptions ?

>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.

So why are you arguing with me ?

>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?

Because the third party becomes an accomplice to the deception and the lies
once they become aware of the true situation. And you can't absolve the third
party of their portion of the responsibility for what happens after that if
the affair is discovered.

>	Nothing like a good, objective analysis, is there? :-)

Yup, I try :-)

>The idea that someone might argue my position on purely impersonal and
>unselfish grounds would bother you, wouldn't it?

It's not that the idea bothers me (it doesn't), it's that I don't believe you
when you say you are arguing for your position on 'purely impersonal and
unselfish' grounds.

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

I haven't flamed you. You'd notice if I was flaming you.
The occasional curse, my condenscending attitude, and my moral superiority 
are just a part of my personality that surface when I run into people that
are expressing views that I *know* are wrong.

(And, gee, women still go out with me to dinner, to the occasional movie and, 
 not frequently enough :-(, dancing.)

>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
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

tsk. tsk. Is this an example of sarcasm, or of condenscention ?

>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.

1) it is better that the cheated-on partner know about the affair. It allows
   him/her to know that there is a really big (or not big, if affairs don't
   bother them much) problem with their marriage that needs to be worked on
   if the marriage is to last.

   However, if I am not a friend of the uninformed spouse, I'm not usually
   going to go through the hassle and risk of informing him/her.

2) my room-mate informed the cheated-on partners, not because she was
   trying to help them, but because she was trying to hurt them, and, as
   a result, hurt the cheating spouse.

3) affairs do most of their harm if they are discovered. But, while you
   seem to believe affairs have no effect if they aren't discovered,
   I disagree with you. And you can't convince me otherwise, because
   I just look at my friend with the 3 kids who's been left for another woman,
   and I can remember back to before the affair was discovered and it did have
   an effect on her and the kids.

	fred 
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.