((((((( Crumpet )))))))
If your mate cheated on you, could you forgive?
by avidbiblereader 106 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
onacruse
Crumpet, you passed my "test." I used a neutral word (animalistic), to which you could have responded in a negative way (insinuating thereby that you "saw" that description [merely an adjective] as a moral judgment...which, of course, the word does potentially contain), or a positive way (no judgmentalism implied), as you did.
Therefore, I applaud you for your honesty.
fwiw, monogamy, though it may be a fairly representative reflection of ideal human culture and nature, is, in fact, not representative of the reality of human behavior. As just a few examples: France, after WW1, when the country had been bled dry, and males were in short supply--society (though theoretically constrained by conservative monogamous Catholic theology) 'turned a blind eye' to multiple non-monogamous sexual affairs, ostensibly with the purpose of repopulation. The Spartans (as an ancient example), and the Chinese (as a modern example) could well be included in this sampling.
-
AuldSoul
(((Crumpet))): I have chosen quantity over quality but simply to ensure I stay alive.
We all have to make sacrifices to survive. Damaged people aren't reasonably expected to behave normally, naturally is sometimes the best we can hope for ... if and when we are healed maybe normalcy can reign supreme, again.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
onacruse
I would like to emphasize, lest there be any misunderstandings!
My "test" of Crumpet was not a test of her, but a test of "knowing why we feel, and why we do" what we feel and do.
I've applied (and try to continually apply) this same "test" to myself, and others have applied it to me as well (as unwilling as I might have been at the moment! LOL), and oftentimes I've come up on the short end of the stick.
In the same line of thought: last night, after I made my previous post, I was thinking about the difference between the terms "amoral" and "immoral." "Amoral" is neutral, "immoral" is negative (in the sense of 'judgmental').
"Cheated" (as incorporated in the title of this topic) is a negative word, implicitly meaning violation of a previous mutual commitment. Also, "adultery," (to 'pollute or defile').
But so much for "words." Thank you for indulging me.
-
BizzyBee
Bizzybee - why do you say something didn't work? Is it on the basis that I am no longer with Mr C? That seems a terribly negative point of view. From my point of view it worked beyond my wildest dreams. When we started dating I explained that I didnt believe in mongamy and that I didnt date the same person longer than 3 years as I felt that for me was long enough to concentrate on one person and that we both deserved to explore the many wonderful human beings on this planet. And also I just felt that friendship would continue long after the shared living arrangements and sexual cohabitation may be over. This is the relationship that I still have with the first boyfriend 14 years on.
In the end with Mr C - the relationship surpassed my expectations - its lasted three times longer than the predicted and planned life expectancy and we are still friends. Now I have two lovely men who call most days and talk to and share their girl problems and I share mine. This may not be what you consider successful perhaps. But for me well it is.
Crumpet:
Perhaps we should have defined terms. I notice that the thread was started by a Yank, therefore the word "mate" means something fundamentally different than it does in the UK. 'Mate' here generally implies monogamy and all that goes with it, and in the UK it means 'friend', yes? But, the word "cheat" in any culture implies being dishonest and deceitful.
Therefore, guided by the way the question was posed using the US definition of 'mate,' this is the way I read it: "If you have an agreement with your spouse (or life-partner or significant other) that your relationship is an exclusive committment to one another in terms of sex, and they went behind your back and breeched that agreement, would you forgive them and stay with them?"
Certainly you can have a "successful" relationship if both parties are agreeable to it being sexually 'open.' As long as you both understand and agree to the terms, I don't see that anyone is 'cheating.' And if it makes you happy - who can argue?
However, if something in that scenario leads you to feel that fully one-half of the human race is 'hateful,' perhaps you're not as happy as you would want to be.................?
-
Twitch
In my opinion, love (in this context) is not just about giving freedom. Love is about decision, too. From my side, I give freedom. From my wife's side, she gives me freedom.
My wife is free to have sex with whomever she likes. She chooses to have sex with me, exclusively. The same is true of me; I choose to have sex with only her. No one makes either of us choose this, we do so willingly. She has decided to reserve herself for me, and I have done likewise toward her.
Love is also being able to count on intimacy (far beyond sex) with that person who claims to reserve intimacy for you.
Well said, Auldsoul. I couldn't agree more.
-
RAF
Again I don't care cheating (... it's all contextual about the why and stuff - so everything is still to be considered) But I care about respect ... I mean you can have fun without me but I don't want to pay the bill (in any way) and if you're lying to me just to hold an (other) warm place instead of just being honest (to set me as free as you feel or need to be somehow) that's when things will get very cold up in here !!!
I like men which have balls (*) in this contexte too (not scared to say the truth - not scared to lose - they face it and are ready to pay the bill) Whoever is scared to lose anything (and even more because of his/her own actions) is already a loser (but most of the time they appear as cheaters first which is lower than being a loser) ...