The Way Less Than Perfect, drawn to the lifestyle

[rosco rathbone]

Hi rosco,

I myself have been on a debating hook with the world for almost all of my life. By the way I have read a lot of your posts and you seem to be having the same addiction, although of course not with my obviously superior qualities in debating and my enormous intelligence and high standing morals.

But then I suspect you do not come from the land where morality and superiority is equivalent with living there.

Francisco.

I suck at debate-not a linear thinker. That is why I prefer to stand off and make witty comments while you all rip each other to rhetorical shreds.

 

[Pure]

To Johnny M,

Perhaps you don't want to talk to someone as corrupt as me directly, but it would be useful to all if you would confirm the following or correct anything that's wrong in capturing your views. Parts I'm not sure of, I've put in [ ]. It's my best effort to distill The Nine Principles of Mayberry, and thanks to Quint for her good job at an earlier summary:

Mayberry's Nine Principles:

(apply to both sexes)

["Cheating" = fucking someone other than your [committed 1-1] partner, without their knowledge and in the absence of a prior 'open relationship' agreement]


1. Cheating hurts one's [committed, 1-1; applies below] partner.

2. [It's always wrong to hurt your partner [[when it's merely to further one's pleasure/interests.]] ]

3. Cheating is not based on good intentions and cheaters should not claim otherwise.

4. [Cheating is based on bad intentions, i.e., to hurt your partner or further your pleasure or interests at their expense.]

5. A Cheater isn't suited to be a Mayberry submissive.

6. A Cheater is cheating at the time he cheats; the future isn't clear, but Mayberry doesn't want anything to do with him.

{{Note: Similar to F's principle, though F thinks the future is fairly clear.}}

7. If a cheater thinks cheating is OK, Mayberry thinks he's a shifty callous lying jerk. [In fact Mayberry tends to think he's that, in any case.]

{{I, pure, had earlier proposed}}

8. {A.} If a person's in a committed relationship, he should be honest and non deceptive. He undertook that obligation; he made a promise.

9. {B}. If the relationship doesn't suit a person's needs, then he should leave.
=======

It would help all, as Quint has suggested, to have a summary--officially approved by Mayberry, of what he says about cheaters and cheating. PLEASE correct these nine or add or subtract and make an approved list.

Thanks,

J.

 

[MissTaken]

I suck at debate-not a linear thinker. That is why I prefer to stand off and make witty comments while you all rip each other to rhetorical shreds.

These threads need some witty and entertaining comments.

Is it just me, or have some of you felt like you are posting in circles?

Issues of morality on a porn board seldom see any resolution. I speak from experience in that I have been involved or observed a number of threads on this topic and others.

First, our motivation for posting is to be considered. Are any of you posting in hopes of changing another's mind? educating the "cheater" or the "non cheater" as the case may be? If you are, I have to say, it isn't likely to happen.

Second, are you seeking support and justification for your views? Well, you all have found at least some of that. Cool.

Third, do you find this sort of debate entertaining? If so, enjoy.

For me, I just find it sad to see people I respect attacking one another in text over an issue that can only lead to more hard feelings and attacks.

*sigh*

I just wish we could move on with the understanding that there are no right or wrong answers, only what is right or wrong for each one of us in our own personal lives.

 

[Netzach]

Backing up, the only significant difference in my posting style and thought is that I desperately disagree with C/F in this instance. The emergence of a CV totin' I'm just looking out for you all persona on C's part irks me. F, I think is more willing to take a "do what you need to do, this is why I don't fuck around with married people" stance, which I find respectable and fine enough.

Backing up again, perhaps this all does have more to do with M/F and BDSM than we may have thought.

I personally do not, never have, and never will see "feminism" (small f, note) as a chance for women to exert their difference and perhaps make more collective, more moral decisions than men have historically made.

a. I think the differences are overemphasized and become their own fulfillment. IE: I've never fit into the more patient, more nurturing, more collectively minded camp. People have tried to shove me there all my life, because I can't spooge.
I certainly don't want to be there.

b. I reject the model minority complex (even though female is a slight majority) in which if I'm just really really really GOOD the patriarchy may learn its lessons from me and change, so I better not be like them. To me "being like men we can never equal them" is crap.

The master's tools are the only way to get a seat in the parlaiment. Simple as that.

I have a succinct reason why I choose to act primarily with me in mind, my own transient momentary happiness, taking what I want out of life and chewing it up.

I'm a man with a pussy. I've been accused of so much in Feminist (big F wave 2) circles and I decided by God, they must be right. So there it is. I like my pussy, I don't think I'll be trying to bring its biology in line with my psychology any time soon. But I've always been completely mystified by women for the same reasons men are, and I've always been glad to be a schmuck in certain ways if it serves me well, as it seems to be implied here is male behavior.

(I've never seen this behavior as the sole province of men, either.)

Do any of us really escape this big ol' blue ball without ever breaking someone else's heart or fucking them over?

'Nother note.

I'm not a sub.

Now, I don't think that this gives me the right to pollute the streams, run a sweatshop, or go to war with some puny outpost of the world, all moral outrages that have taken up less energy here than fucking someone's wife, but OTOH I'm not wired to take care of others before I am taken care of. Almost every submissive I've ever talked to says something to the effect of "I've always been a pleaser, I've always made sure everyone around me was happy and derived my happiness thus."

I've never been able to say those words without laughing, because nothing could be further from true.

I please me. I lived 26 years in an effort to make sure everyone around me was OK with my very prudent decisions (read what they wanted me to do) and the result was a near nervous breakdown. Since I've realized that my morality is my problem, and my guilt for my mistakes is mine to expiate with myself and the Almighty involved, and that I can do something rash and stupid *just because I want to* and survive, nay thrive, I've been far more able to live with myself, my substantial sins notwithstanding. I waited till now to accrue any, most of us get in one or two by age 20.

"Terrible things will happen if you let her leave the house. Terrible things will happen if you let her run and play. Terrible things will happen if she does something that might not be a good idea."

This is how I was raised. The only terrible thing that happened was what I missed out on.

I don't want to live a life free of regret, personally. A handful of them would be OK, let me know I at least lived it fully.

 

[Pure]

From Quint's summary of Catalina:


If you are going to cheat, at least have the courtesy to feel bad about the harm that you are causing to your partner.

This is an old theme, that does not die. It's found, to a minor extent, in Johnny's postings as well.

{{Added: Johnny has majorly stressed the hurt a third party does to the _spouse_ of his/her married lover. That the cheater is indifferent to it.}}

The gist is that Cheaters (or a certain subset of them) do not feel bad about the upset to the spouse and are callous selfish jerks devoid of moral sense , if I may paraphrase.


Did anyone here say they had an affair and did not feel badly {{Added: about the hurt of their spouse}}?

For the record, in my second 'marriage' I had an affair for a few months. Its discovery contributed to the ending of the relationship. I feel badly about the hurt; we've eventually forgiven and remain as friends.

{{Added: I'm trying, but I don't really feel badly, more than a 'teeny' grain, for the husband of the woman in question; never met him. He was going to lose her. She picked the time and the method; I was the stick she whacked him with. So I plead to Johnny's main charge, but not to Catalina's}}

This 'ex' probably forgave because she holds the interesting principle that, "One shouldn't get into a vast moral outrage when people are merely selfish. Almost everyone is, at times. Outrage is for the truly evil deeds where there isn't any clear benefit, as in the Germans killing off their Jews, including ones who might have fought in their own army or worked in their factories."

I have my doubts that Catalina or Johnny will let the matter stand corrected, since there's so much mileage in debating about and against monsters devoid of feeling or principle.

------
In case, anyone is interested, I think their beliefs arose because I took the following position: Outside of legal obligations
(i.e., don't accept stolen money), one does not necessarily have any moral obligations to 'third parties' who aren't friends, excepting 'good samaritan' ones.

The 'third party' being someone (you don't know) who's the victim/object of a possible moral infraction(but something not illegal) by the second party. This applies, for instance, to the spouse (third party) of the person (second party) one is having an affair with.

One feels, of course, for anyone who may be hurt; if I were God, maybe I'd eliminate hurt. But there aren't necessarily duties to prevent or deal with hurts of third parties (non friends)inflicted by second parties, aside from 'good samaritan' obligations throw a rope to a drowning man.)

By the way, I believe this is compatible with buddhist principles; unlike Christians they do not always feel they need get directly involved in others' sufferings; indeed some reject 'good samaritan' duties as interferance with the cosmic (karmic) course of things.

This difference was pointed out to me by a woman, a Christian, who worked in an AIDS hospice in Thailand run by buddhist monks. The monks contribution was providing a building where the dying could die; the families were expected to feed the patients. The Christians did the nursing. And the feeding. She said no monk wanted to go really close to the AIDS patients and feed them.

By the way I believe she was exemplary. I just don't think her choice should be thought of as a duty. (Else all of us, here, are sadly lacking. Well maybe we are.)

 

[Netzach]

Did anyone here say they had an affair and did not feel badly?

I came close. I said that I'm fucking a married guy and I don't feel badly, or to be honest, that bad feelings have come and gone periodically but nothing I won't live with.

I shall now chalk a scarlet A on myself for the benefit of others.

I felt very very badly about the one weekend in which I myself tried to live the life of the lie fragmented, I couldn't do it, personally. But again, what other people can and can't do, I can't begin to assume.

 

[Pure]

Hi N,

On my way home, I realized I'd confused the 'charges' of Catalina and those of Johnny M. So I've added a couple clarifications to my posting.

I cop to Johnny's but not to Catalina's.

Maybe you can say which 'charge' you're addressing, the hurt a third party does to his/her lover's spouse, OR the hurt a 'first party', a spouse, does to his/her own spouse, the second party, in cheating.

J.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Let's try this without the rather silly 'oh poor me, don't call me names Johnny!' attitude. ok?


My revised list, a bit easier to read than your version, Pure.

Mayberry's Nine Principles:

(apply to both sexes)

["Cheating" = fucking someone other than your [committed 1-1] partner, without their knowledge and in the absence of a prior 'open relationship' agreement. The dishonesty I am concerned with is in the absence of physical or emotional abuse ]


1. Cheating carries huge potential to hurt one's partner.

2. It's always wrong to further one's pleasure/interests without taking into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being honest.

3. Cheating is not based on good intentions and cheaters should not claim otherwise.

4. A Cheater isn't suited to be a Mayberry submissive.

5. A Cheater is cheating at the time he cheats; the future isn't clear, but Mayberry doesn't want anything to do with him at the time of the cheating. Someone living in that sort of chaos and dishonesty is not for me.

6. If a cheater thinks cheating is perfectly alright, Mayberry thinks he's a shifty callous lying jerk.

7. If a person's in a committed relationship, he should be honest and non deceptive. He undertook that obligation; he made a promise.

8. If the relationship doesn't suit a person's needs, then he should leave.

9. Pure is a jerk(you've been trying to drag my name through the mud often enough, for daring to have ethics.)

=======
All of these feel fairly reasonable to me, and conform to what I consider to be the basic ethical principles that allow human beings to exist together.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Let's try this without the rather silly 'oh poor me, don't call me names Johnny!' attitude. ok?


My revised list, a bit easier to read than your version, Pure.

Mayberry's Nine Principles:

(apply to both sexes)

["Cheating" = fucking someone other than your [committed 1-1] partner, without their knowledge and in the absence of a prior 'open relationship' agreement]


1. Cheating carries huge potential to hurt one's partner.

2. It's always wrong to further one's pleasure/interests without taking into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being honest.

3. Cheating is not based on good intentions and cheaters should not claim otherwise.

4. A Cheater isn't suited to be a Mayberry submissive.

5. A Cheater is cheating at the time he cheats; the future isn't clear, but Mayberry doesn't want anything to do with him at the time of the cheating. Someone living in that sort of chaos and dishonesty is not for me.

6. If a cheater thinks cheating is perfectly alright, Mayberry thinks he's a shifty callous lying jerk.

7. If a person's in a committed relationship, he should be honest and non deceptive. He undertook that obligation; he made a promise.

8. If the relationship doesn't suit a person's needs, then he should leave.

9. Pure is a jerk(you've been trying to drag my name through the mud often enough, for daring to have ethics.)

=======
All of these feel fairly reasonable to me, and conform to what I consider to be the basic ethical principles that allow human beings to exist together.

You have more patience than I have, I gotta give you credit for that.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

You have more patience than I have, I gotta give you credit for that.

Thanks Eb...


Maybe I should have put down a real #9? Something like "People sometimes make the best of bad choices, and cheating is one of them. It is galling, however, when someone shows absolutely no concern for their partner's feelings. This lack of empathy seems to be a sign of deeper emotional issues.

 

[Pure]

To Johnny M,

Thanks for revising and clarifying. You must admit I didn't do too bad a job.

Sure Johnny, let's add the 'real' 9).

//"People sometimes make the best of bad choices, and cheating is one of them. It is galling, however, when someone shows absolutely no concern for their partner's feelings. This lack of empathy seems to be a sign of deeper emotional issues.//

We could even add a kinda 'papal' note: after, "It is galling..." and before "This lack..."

"and Mayberry is deepy grieved by the callousness and inhumanity perpetrated by evildoers around the world."

--just kidding


====

By the way, the main cut was in saying what cheating IS.



Could we add to 3. "Cheating is [always? often? ] an instance of 2. [Furthering one's pleasures/ interests without taking acount the hurt to ones partner.]

That seems to be a missing link, but you strongly imply it in putting 2) next to 3).

OK?

J.

(hey, I guess 'J' is for 'jerk', right? )

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ok. lets try to behave again as adults.

The stories shared by Netzach and Pure show at the minimum one thing, that cheating is painful and difficult for all parties involved. Cheating is a very painful and hard subject to talk about. Feelings run wild and before you know it you have polarisation between people and instead of having civilised discourses they become shouting matches. Thank you Miss_Taken, for reminding us of good manners and civilised behaviour.

I apologize for letting myself be caught up in the shouting game, I do of course not apologize for my beliefs and principles. My own beliefs lie very close to those of Johnny Mayberry. There are nuance differences which some find important, and Johnny (and I hope you do not mind me calling you Johnny) has strong beliefs and puts them forward in strong language. But the message between him and me is not really different. If anything I can admire him for the strength of his convictions and the clarity he tells them with, I do not think anyone doubts where he stands.

Behind every infidelity there are two stories, behind every story there is a world of hurt feelings and pain from both sides. It is one of the reasons why I believe that you should stay away from cheating as far as possible. I can see how people corner them selves in certain relationships and make themselves believe they do not have any other choice but to cheat, but in effect if you look at most stories told by people being cheated on and people who have cheated very little has been gained that could not have been gained in other ways, feelings have been hurt and scars on souls have been created by both sides.

And just in case someone wonders, Catalina is the most wonderful brilliant women who in my opinion has been treated as a piece of shit for sharing her strong ethical beliefs with others. I think that those persons should take a look at how they can justify their actions claiming to be open minded non judgemental persons

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

PS to Johnny,

I like the addition:


//The dishonesty I am concerned with is in the absence of physical or emotional abuse ]//


Odd, but I recently posted on the justification of a person's deception in an abusive relationship. Maybe I'm imagining things, but it seems you read it and agree with its main point. Though you don't wish to state that you have done so or that you agree with anything I've ever said.

====

Miss T.----

Who says people don't 'learn' around these topics?? or at least become clearer and most comprehensive in stating their views?

====

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

To Johnny M,

Thanks for revising and clarifying. You must admit I didn't do too bad a job.

Sure Johnny, let's add the 'real' 9).

//"People sometimes make the best of bad choices, and cheating is one of them. It is galling, however, when someone shows absolutely no concern for their partner's feelings. This lack of empathy seems to be a sign of deeper emotional issues.//

We could even add a kinda 'papal' note: after, "It is galling..." and before "This lack..."

"and Mayberry is deepy grieved by the callousness and inhumanity perpetrated by evildoers around the world."

--just kidding


====

By the way, the main cut was in saying what cheating IS.



Could we add to 3. "Cheating is [always? often? ] an instance of 2. [Furthering one's pleasures/ interests without taking acount the hurt to ones partner.]

That seems to be a missing link, but you strongly imply it in putting 2) next to 3).

OK?

J.

(hey, I guess 'J' is for 'jerk', right? )

How about we say in #3, "Cheating isn't based on the best intentions, and I feel that the harm far outways any benefits."

 

[Pure]

Hi Johnny M,

you said,

//How about we say in #3, "Cheating isn't based on the best intentions, and I feel that the harm far outweighs any benefits."//

I don't mind that, but it's not that different from 3. as it is.

What's missing is a) something about what cheating is; its usual motives; and in particular b) something to link cheating to your number 2), to make it fall under the scope of 2) as a selfish act at the expense of the partner.

How about this, maybe it's simpler: add to 2) as follows, bold for convenience.


2. It's always wrong--as for instance in most[or all] cases of cheating-- to further one's pleasure/interests without taking into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being honest.

Maybe leave 3. alone if this suits you. I like it better the way you first said it.

J.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Hi Johnny M,

you said,

//How about we say in #3, "Cheating isn't based on the best intentions, and I feel that the harm far outweighs any benefits."//

I don't mind that, but it's not that different from 3. as it is.

What's missing is a) something about what cheating is; its usual motives; and in particular b) something to link cheating to your number 2), to make it fall under the scope of 2) as a selfish act at the expense of the partner.

How about this, maybe it's simpler: add to 2) as follows, bold for convenience.


2. It's always wrong--as for instance in most[or all] cases of cheating-- to further one's pleasure/interests without taking into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being honest.

Maybe leave 3. alone if this suits you. I like it better the way you first said it.

J.

My problem is, I don't have any stats to support the 'in most[or all] cases' that you added.

 

[Pure]

Pure's proposed revision


2. It's always wrong--as for instance in most[or all] cases of cheating-- to further one's pleasure/interests without taking into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being honest.

Maybe leave 3. alone if this suits you. I like it better the way you first said it.

J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JM says,


My problem is, I don't have any stats to support the 'in most[or all] cases' that you added.

===
I see the concern. But 2) says 'dont selfishly hurt your partner' and is the rule or 'law' you're going to apply to cheating, in order to assess it as 'illicit' and immoral.

Further cheating was defined as 'behind the person's back' and obviously yields some gratification.

I think 2. as revised would do, since it doesn't actually speak of motive, it speaks of 'furthering one's interest' and 'not taking into account...'

I promise not to ask for stats about motives.

BUT, if you want to be cautious, knowing how I treat promises,

How about


2. It's always wrong--and Mayberry proposes that most cases of cheating appear to fall in this category of act-- to further one's pleasure/interests without taking into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being honest.

not 'proposes', not 'asserts.'

I think, however, the revision you're worried about has little in the way of empirical claims about motives. But you choose or make your own. There must be a way to link cheating with your principles.

J.

 

[MissTaken]

I've ever said.

====

Miss T.----

Who says people don't 'learn' around these topics?? or at least become clearer and most comprehensive in stating their views?

====

For clarification, my thinking was that if any one of you expect that those with differing views are merely uninformed and that by educating them you will change their views, the chances are very slight that that would happen.

That is all.

Now back to our regularly schedule programming.

What are you doing with Johnny.
Is this work going to be published or something?

 

[catalina_francisco]

I found this interesting essay on the net, not that I am agreeing with the content at least not with everything in it, but it might bring in a new fresh viewpoint.

Francisco.

http://lauragoodwin.org/cheaters.htm

No More Cheating: Spread The Word!
by Laura Goodwin
There is no easy way to come out and live honestly, but it certainly is easier than it used to be. It's also not as dangerous as it used to be. In any case, we have to stop living as if we have judged ourselves to be criminals, because that way we collude with our enemies. Our enemies don't need our help: let them worry about how to keep us down, that's their business, not ours.

The way to gain and maintain rights is to exercise your rights. I need every one of you to come out and hold your heads up in the sunshine. People need to see we are not ashamed.

We need not be ashamed if we are clear about what we are doing and why it is important. It's a mental health, and quality-of-life issue. It is *not* a matter of life and death. There is no compelling reason to break vows with your spouse over it, unless you have really had it out with them.

Too many times people won't even try to negotiate with their spouse, because it seems they believe two incredible falsehoods:

1. That they have no right to expect their spouse to be sympathetic
2. That their sex life is none of their own spouse's business!

Both of these attitudes are very wrong, and either one lays an ax to the root of marriage-the-institution, itself. Married people are supposed to be able to depend upon one another. You shouldn't be married to someone you can't count on.

In a good marriage, the husband and wife are like the two wings of a bird - that's how you know if it's good. If your spouse has abandoned trying to keep the sexual bond alive, then the marriage vow is broken. If your marriage is broken, you have a right to know! I pity the cheated-upon partners of the world. Watching them trying to keep their marriages together is as pathetic as watching a bird try to fly with only one wing. Don't they have rights? Don't they need an advocate? Who can really look at the plight of these poor people and remain unmoved?

Living honestly isn't easy, but you know what? Nothing really is! Life is a struggle my friends: a full pitched battle. Rub dirt into your wounds to stanch the bloodflow and get back into the fight.

Your spouse has a right to know if you have broken your vow. Your spouse has a right to fight to maintain your bond and the validity of your vow. If you are sneaking around on them you aren't even giving them a chance, and that is just low, low, low. It's totally unfair!

If you have been cheating and you have decided to repent and try honesty, this can be a dangerous move. Don't spill your guts about everything you have done. For mercy's sake have compassion, and tell your spouse only that you are restless and unhappy, and ask for their help. Call upon their sense of loyalty and decency, and give them a chance to surprise you. If your partner loves you, you might be astounded at what they will be willing to do to keep you safe at home where they can find you.

They may do exactly as you fear, too. So what!? You aren't so special that you never have to face adversity. Face what you fear bravely. This situation is your doing. Take responsibility for your choices, for your mistakes, and for all of your own life. Do what you have to do to get right, and in the end it will give you (and your spouse) peace and freedom.

 

[catalina_francisco]

a bit of humor source
http://www.newline.com/sites/towncountry/

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Cheat

1. Trying to avoid conflict in marriage
2. Career problems
3. Looking for excitement or passion
4. As a way to end an unhappy marriage
5. Fear of growing older
6. Jealous of new baby
7. Buyer's remorse after wedding.
8. Feeling Trapped
9. Financial Pressures
10.Looking for a one-night stand

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Why not tell your partner you're leaving and then leave, as opposed to cheating, especially longterm cheating.

So says Mayberry, Catalina, Francisco.

Men's and women's reasons for affairs are different, so for now let's look at an interesting passage, on the leaving issue for women.In a nut shell, maybe a half of intimate murders of wives come at the 'leaving' period *or even after.*

I've previously given reasons for thinking that about a quarter of spouse murders are response to real affair. Francisco thinks it's 40%. If my previous figure is right, it's twice as dangerous to her life for a woman to say she's leaving and leave, as it is to have an affair, even given the risk of discovery. After all, and I'm not saying this is invariable, a woman might 'just' be beaten over an affair, but killed over leaving, the leaving being more threatening in its permanence, to the unstable male mind. Note: I am talking about how one might _understand_ certain behavior, not mainly trying to see if it violates one of the 10 commandments.

=======
Violence Against Women: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal. 1997, 3(6): 566-589.
http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/sever/pubs/separationandviolence.html

RECENT OR IMMINENT SEPARATION AND INTIMATE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:A CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW AND SOME CANADIAN EXAMPLES

Aysan Sev'er

[...]
VICTIMIZATION SURVEYS AND HOMICIDE DATA

Survey research provides more direct insights into the link between separation and intimate violence against women. For example, an Alberta study (Kennedy & Dutton, 1989) found that more than half (approximately 55%) of separating/divorcing people reported physical violence whereas the percentage among still cohabiting partners was lower (approximately 40%). Smith's (1990) and MacLeod's (1980) findings also attest to the increased risk of victimization of women at the time of separation (also see Canadian Panel, 1993; Kurz, 1996; Wilson & Daly, 1993).

Moreover, in a recent national survey, approximately one of five women (19%) who reported violence by an intimate partner claimed that the violence occurred during or after separation. In one of three cases (35%), the severity of violence had increased at the time of separation (Johnson, 1995; Rodgers, 1994; VAWS, 1993).In the most extreme case, women are killed by their partners during or shortly after they separate (Campbell, 1992; Daly, 1992).

After an analysis of Canada's Homicide data between 1974-1992, Wilson and Daly (1994) report 1,435 cases where women were killed by their husbands. This translates to slightly more than 75 Canadian women each year. However, the risk of being murdered by a husband was not distributed at random.

In general, married women were nine times more likely to be killed by their spouse than by a stranger, while separation presented a six-fold increase in risk to women in comparison to couples who continued to reside together. Wilson and Daly (1993) also draw our attention to the fact that the increased risk after separation is despite the estranged husband's decreased access to the former wife.

Crawford and Gartner (1992: 44,51,57,101) point out that just because Canada's rate of woman killing is approximately half of the rate in the U.S. (which they cite as the most violent developed society in the world) should not obscure the parallel fact that the rate at which Canadian women are killed is about twice as high as the rates in most other developed countries (1992: 38).

Besides, although overall homicide rates, as well as the rate of husband killings by partners have declined over the years, the rate of women killed by their intimate partners has actually increased (Crawford & Gartner, 1992). They also found that the number one risk factor in intimate homicides is separation. This is news for Canadian women who generally bask in the glory of living in a "gentle" society.

[end excerpt]

 

[Pure]

Johnny M,

I've tried to smooth clarify and simply the English of 2) and have it do the job it's supposed to. It would have the three parts, below.

How about this: final draft proposal (subject to your revisions)


2. It's always wrong, in an intimate partnership, a) to simply further one's pleasure/interests and b) to ignore or not take into account the probable hurt to your partner. Sometimes hurt is unavoidable, but steps should be taken to minimize it, by being considerate and honest.

Cheating, Mayberry points out, is usually at least in part about getting pleasure, and so fits under a). Even were it not for pleasure but, say, to reassure oneself of one's attractivenes, that is simply one's own interest. Further, cheating, being undertaken behind the partner's back, surely suggests that the partner's probable hurt is *not* properly taken into account, except in way that is, at best, foolish and ineffective: through deception, allegedly so the betrayed partner 'won't be hurt.'

Conclusion: most cheating is the sort of selfish, heedless, possibly hurtful act that is cited as 'wrong', above.

OK?

 

[Netzach]

Why not tell your partner you're leaving and then leave, as opposed to cheating, especially longterm cheating.

There follow a whole slough of things about probability, DV and abuse.

Let's, for once, assume that all's not so shitty back at the nest and nobody's beating anyone, that could even be said to be the problem, in fact.

Maybe you don't leave or want to leave because your spouse is an otherwise wonderful person who just doesn't have the same needs you do.

For some people that means a relationship has to end. For some people it doesn't. For some people it means going outside the relationship to get the need met. For some people that means letting the uninterested 3d party know and for others it means not letting them know.

I am, maybe even officially (?), the LAST person who's going to tell anyone whose exact pair of Ken Cole's I'm not in, what they are supposed to be doing.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Netzach,

You bring up some interesting points; first I think we all have agreed that in DV circumstances there is a completely different set of guidelines. One that in my opinion is best left to professionals then well meaning amateurs.

Maybe you don't leave or want to leave because your spouse is an otherwise wonderful person who just doesn't have the same needs you do.

For some people that means a relationship has to end. For some people it doesn't. For some people it means going outside the relationship to get the need met. For some people that means letting the uninterested 3d party know and for others it means not letting them know.

The fact is that when you enter a relationship your partner expects honesty and truthfulness from you. If you have not made the agreement that your needs can be met outside the relationships, you are breaking the agreement, you are breaking the contract made between the parties involved.

If you break that part of the agreement most people will find it also very possible to break other parts. If your partner is such a wonderful understanding person then you have the fullest right to expect from them that your needs are answered or that you can come to a new agreement in which the needs of all parties involved can be met, and if not it is only fair to all parties involved that you find a new partner, one that is better suited to meet your needs.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Pure,

Can we now conclude form your article it is better not ever to leave you partner, be it man or woman. I do not think so. Separation and divorce is a fact of life, people grow more distant and marriages and relationships break up because of it.

There are many reasons why people break up in a relationship and why they should not stay together. Many divorces leave a bad taste in the mouth, many turn ugly, but in the end in most of those divorces it is better to split up than stay together.

There is a risk to cheating you have already admitted that, which is in fact the only thing Catalina and me have said. There is an additional risk if you cheat that is all there is to it, you are taking a change with your life, yes you also do that if you leave your partner, if you separate, I will gladly admit that. But not playing the simple game of adding those percentages which would be of course bullshit, you can see that at the minimum you are adding additional risk to the separation.

Cheating in general IMO is the symptom of something deeper that is wrong in the relationship, something that will not simply be resolved by cheating. If I may borrow from a posting earlier a sentence you made.

He was going to lose her. She picked the time and the method; I was the stick she whacked him with.

You say it yourself; the cheating was just a symptom a way for her to break out of a bad relationship. Would it not have been better for all parties involved that the two of them had sorted out their differences?

Its discovery contributed to the ending of the relationship.

Again you are basically stating that there was more wrong with your own relationship and in effect the cheating was a symptom of something else. So again I ask you the same question would it not have been better to work out those problems before cheating?

we've eventually forgiven and remain as friends.

Here again the cheating lead by your own accord to a not very pleasurable ending of the marriage. In retrospect would it not have been better to have separated as friends and adults instead of having to go through a forgiveness state?

I hope you do not think I am picking on you Pure; I am just using your story to illustrate certain points.

Francisco.