Marital Affairs

[Anileve]

Here is a controversial topic, and I am almost positive that it has been discussed. However, I want to start fresh with a different twist this time. Now before you unleash your anger at an innocent victim of a demoralized human nature, please try to remain objective.

 

Is it wrong to have an affair with married or committed men? I've always been a beehive for attached men, they are drawn to me like flies on a sticky and hot summer afternoon. I've always tried to uphold my moral principals and rejected their offers or advances. But regardless, some of these men have never ventured out and some have on several occasions. I've always lectured them on their decisions and possible regrets but they were adamant about their pursuit. I've always thought that it may be happening to my friends or me some day, so a contribution would be absolutely cruel. However, these men were not my friend’s men, nor anybody else’s whom I knew. They would have affairs if not with me then with someone else. I sort of always ridiculed their weak will power and their submission to their "alter ego".

 

However with my complicated personality and my own demons I have realized that a guys promise of a commitment doesn't entice me and more often pushes me away. Men in committed relationships, however are an interesting bunch. They seem more polished, more confident and more fun. Single men are fidgety, unsure, often insecure and not as thrilling. I always think that it's due to their safety blanket factor. Married men have their stability at home, they don't have to worry about losing a woman or worrying about revealing their emotions or compromising anything. They are confident that when they see something worth pursuing they don't fear rejection since they already have the stability. I don't know if any of this makes sense.

 

Well there is a man at work, a very intelligent, attractive and humorous young guy. We had this intense mutual chemistry for some time now. In the beginning I laughed it off and would joke about him being handcuffed with a desire to break loose. However, now it took a different turn, we are a bit too playful. When he's around me he's a bit nervous but at the same time more blunt about his interest in me, surely enough with jokes which keep being repeated. There are several other instances displaying his attraction and interest in me, which are rather severe but in a very chivalrous ways. "My girlfriend is out of town Evelyn, I am a bit lonely this weekend." "Ha ha ha" .... Evelyn-> first and then I find myself like this But of course I brush it off with some smart ass comment. Ok, to make this terribly painful story short, I am thinking of dropping my principles. A lot of things which work for others categorically don't work with me, I can't help it, they are just not for me. And just to make it clear, when I am in a relationship with someone I don’t cheat, that’s why they are always so short. So who is to say that "immoral" actions are not in fact "moral and just" for me?

 

I guess I am confused and want to see what you think of this. Basically I am a commitment-disabled, but it's not because I am afraid that they may leave, but because I aaallllways lose interest after some time, that's a 100% guarantee and I can't do anything about it, I tried but failed. I don't think that I can ever have a nuclear family, I always need passion and excitement and that just fades with time, so I move on. So please list some very convincing reasons as to why it would be wrong.

[Anileve]

Does no one have an opinion on this? Or is it that the post seems intimidating long?

[Azat]

Eve, I think I have told you my story, so I will only give you the short answer. MANY years ago I was involved with a WONDERFUL danish woman who was married but in a troubled relationship. To make it even more complicated I know the husband as well... We both really loved each other and the thrill of the whole relationship and the secrecy in the initial stages. After a long time of this she did separate from her husband and we were really together in the out.

 

I do have to leave all the exciting part and tell you the end. After some time(few years) she wanted to get married and I being a major idiot was too scared of the commitment and for a long time disagreed with her. She returned back to her ex and now has a beautiful baby with him and are having another one sometime soon.

 

(I am not even sure why I am talking about this in the open)

 

In brief, it is a relationship that is going to be driven by thrill. Once the thrill is gone it will become somewhat boring as the others. I can nether tell you to go for it or not. I think cheating is a horrible thing, but you really are not cheating. he is. I dont know.

 

I can tell you that if the shoe was on the other foot it would not be a good thing.

 

Edit note: shoe and not show...

Edited November 24, 2004 by Azat

[MosJan]

vay vay vayn yekel mez tarela

iys dzer hogun mernim - xalxi knaniqi yev amusineri het inch gorts uneq

[Siamanto]

I always need passion and excitement and that just fades with time, so I move on.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion.

Fun is but a constant denial of the Unhappy!

 

Just an amuse-gueule!

The main course will be served later! Maybe after you lose the fat and moderate your hips!

Edited November 24, 2004 by Siamanto

[vava]

Passion, excitement, thrills yes, yes, and so on... All nice things, but all relatively temporary in nature; and volotile. I've had a few intense, terribly passionate relationships in my life - and I don't regret them for a second. But they take a lot out of you, and at some point almost all your energy is consumed (for better and worse ) by the relationship. There's no more left for other pursuits, be they acadmic, career-oriented, family-oriented or other social activities. These kinds of tumultuous relations almost inevitable end the same way.

 

The pursuit of passion and excitement needn't be at the top pf the priorities list when considering a relationship - all that will come by itself.

 

I admire women of principle - and i'm inclined to think that you'd be upholding higher standards (and self-respect) by not being the 'other' woman. What I mean is, why should you *not* command the whole, undivided attention of your mate? Why settle to be a side-dish when you're the filet mignon?

 

 

 

(edit - i had initially left out the *not* - it makes much more sense now )

Edited November 24, 2004 by vava

[vava]

Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion.

Fun is but a constant denial of the Unhappy!

 

Just an amuse-gueule!

The main course will be served later! Maybe after you lose the fat and moderate your hips!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Funny I just saw Siamento's reference to food - right after I posted! I wonder if anyone else finds it disturbing that we liken our relationships to food.

[Armen]

The pursuit of passion and excitement needn't be at the top of the priorities list when considering a relationship - all that will come by itself.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Wise words Vava. Couldn't agree more!

[Anileve]

Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion.

Fun is but a constant denial of the Unhappy!

 

Just an amuse-gueule!

The main course will be served later! Maybe after you lose the fat and moderate your hips!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The first two lines of your post didn’t make sense. Amuse-guile? I like that one, I think I’ll adopt it. Just to let you know, if you don’t moderate the way you address me you will be my main course. And that’s not fun.

[Anileve]

I can tell you that if the show was on the other foot it would not be a good thing....

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Poncho, I do remember the story. You are 100% right about everything as usual, without seeming pompous, that’s why you are so damn brilliant.

 

Actually a friend of mine had a relationship with a married woman. He relished in the thrilling affair which was based on hot encounters, and I don’t mean just intimacy, I don’t want to reduce it to just locomotion. He also knew the husband and what’s worse occasionally visited the couple under the pretense of a coworker. From how he had described her, she was a highly intelligent, strong and confident woman who just needed stimulation. The affair collapsed after he realized that he had fallen in love with her and wanted something more. He pulled himself away from her in order to recover from his haunting emotions.

 

In your case the problem was that you weren’t ready for a commitment. The same applies to me. I want no commitment and just thrill, after that’s gone so am I. I realize how brutal it sounds but I am not going to deny that I am a bit on a conflicting side. The only negative outcome of that sort of a deal would be if I was to unexpectedly fall in love with that object of my affection. But same can be said of regular relationships when one falls in love with the other and it’s unrequited, so marital status doesn’t play much of a role here.

 

You are also right, if the shoe was on my foot I wouldn’t be too dandy. That’s why I never really accepted such endeavors. However, as I have put it, if it’s not with me it’s with someone else, if I don’t know the partner I hold no guilt. It is something for the partner to think about if they are with the person. I have mentioned already, the reason I shy away from the commitments is because once in a relationship I don’t like to cheat.

 

Another guy friend of mine has bad cheating habits. But he doesn’t like to make it clear to the women he’s dating that he doesn’t want something serious, because most women do. So in order not to lose an interesting prospect he leads them to believe that he’s faithful and in a relationship with them. He likes the devotion of the companion but feels uncomfortable reciprocating. I told him on several occasions to let the women know the terms in the beginning so that they don’t expect much and are not later hurt. A recent woman he was dating, who I am now good friends with, was a great person. She was very devoted to him and believed they were serious. He on the other hand was barking up other trees, I told him that she doesn’t deserve it and he better break it off. Thank God he listened to me, and she has no clue about what he had been doing. This is all because some people are just not made for commitment but society makes us believe that we are all supposed to establish monogamous relationships for life. That’s why we have so many marital problems.

[Siamanto]

The first two lines of your post didn’t make sense.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Is that a fancy way to say that you lack the humor and mental agility to comprehend it?

A bon entendeur Salut!

 

 

Amuse-guile? I like that one, I think I’ll adopt it. Just to let you know, if you don’t moderate the way you address me you will be my main course. And that’s not fun. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

Just like certain variety of japanese fish, my venom can prove to be fatal if not handled properly!

I'm to be consumed with moderation!

 

PS. It is "amuse-gueule!"

[Anileve]

Passion, excitement, thrills yes, yes, and so on... All nice things, but all relatively temporary in nature; and volotile. I've had a few intense, terribly passionate relationships in my life - and I don't regret them for a second. But they take a lot out of you, and at some point almost all your energy is consumed (for better and worse ) by the relationship. There's no more left for other pursuits, be they acadmic, career-oriented, family-oriented or other social activities. These kinds of tumultuous relations almost inevitable end the same way.

 

The pursuit of passion and excitement needn't be at the top pf the priorities list when considering a relationship - all that will come by itself.

 

I admire women of principle - and i'm inclined to think that you'd be upholding higher standards (and self-respect) by not being the 'other' woman. What I mean is, why should you *not* command the whole, undivided  attention of your mate? Why settle to be a side-dish when you're the filet mignon?

(edit - i had initially left out the *not* - it makes much more sense now )

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

An interesting perspective from a freshly married blissful man. Just wait a couple of more years and then tell me if your view hasn't changed.

 

You make some very good points and I agree with you. Some people desire relationships, enjoy the comfort and commitment, and I don’t deny the genuineness in that. However, I don’t believe it’s for everyone and sometimes it’s a matter of age. For example, I felt the same when I was younger, I never really did change. My brother on the other hand, 5 years younger is completely the opposite of me. Despite the fact that he’s swamped with women, he is very monogamous and faithful, quite a romantic.

 

Recently another dude at work got married, we were having a long late night conversation with him about marriage and relationships. He said the same thing you have. He was involved with someone who was very vibrant and although he was mad about her, she just had a hard time committing. She was passionate, exciting and fun, but their relationship was very draining for those same reasons. Now he found someone he can be serene and comfortable with, but there isn’t much passion there. So you sacrifice comfort and understanding for a flame.

 

See I realize that thrilling relationships leave no room for other pursuits, however that is only if you believe that they are equivalent to those “comfortable” ones. I understand completely how both cannot coincide with each other. My personal endeavors usually prosper when I am not with anyone all together, when there is no commitments, because they seem to also consume your time in the duties you must execute to maintain the well-being of a relationship. However I noticed, that those “comfortable” relationships can also drain you, in a creative and spiritual magnitude you become dry and that’s when the desires for a “quest” start churning.

 

The other-woman…hmmm…has a very derogatory connotation. Why? Because the other woman is generally thought of as a woman waiting relentlessly for her man to leave his wife for her. I have no interest in that. A man which may leave his wife for me, will most likely leave me for someone else.

 

Filet mignon remains an enticing dish only if it is consumed in small quantities at a high price (metaphorically speaking here) and with moderate time gaps. In which case sometimes “the other woman” receives maybe lesser dosages but they are of such magnitude that they make up for months of mediocre attention in more dosages. If you understand what I mean.

[Anileve]

Is that a fancy way to say that you lack the humor and mental agility to comprehend it?

A bon entendeur Salut!

Just like certain variety of japanese fish, my venom can prove to be fatal if not handled properly!

I'm to be consumed with moderation!

 

PS. It is "amuse-gueule!"

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Amuse-guele, I admit I had to look it up. A clever reference, but merely a tickle in an attempt to provoke me.

 

Lack humor? Not really, just merely a keen sense when it comes to filtering nonsensical statements disguised as humor. Another prized quality is my incredible immunity to rodent's venom. I think that even if you are consumed with moderation it guarantees an indigestion.

 

Touche.

[vava]

Hmmm - i understand what you're saying here eve - and I do think that i've been at least slight misconstrued. Unfortunaltely however - I have a flu, and must get to bed. Will continue soon.... although (i can't resist) just to add one point, I don't think that comfort/contentment and passion/fire are mutually exclusive - that would be sad.

[Anileve]

Hmmm - i understand what you're saying here eve - and I do think that i've been at least slight misconstrued. Unfortunaltely however - I have a flu, and must get to bed. Will continue soon....  although (i can't resist) just to add one point, I don't think that comfort/contentment and passion/fire are mutually exclusive - that would be sad.

style_images/master/snapback.png

You are staying so true to your evasive character. And I agree with you, it is sad just because they seem to be mutually exclusive, otherwise I would be married by now.

[Siamanto]

Funny I just saw Siamento's reference to food - right after I posted! I wonder if anyone else finds it disturbing that we liken our relationships to food.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Vava,

Unfortunately, I will have to disappoint you and I apologize for the confusion!

My "reference to food" was about my post i.e. short and "light" as an "amuse-gueule."

It was also a reference to

My hips are getting larger and larger by the day...I can only imagine my size after this coming Turkey day. Man, my hips will get so large...

style_images/master/snapback.png

and

Hips in moderation, are a beautiful thing. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Last, but not least, each word was carefully chosen to have a double meaning!

Gadagin ges@ lourch eh!

[Anoushik]

Eve, how I envy you for being able to write so much so quickly. You've probably never had problems writing essays.

[Siamanto]

Amuse-guele, I admit I had to look it up.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Sorry, you did not do a good job! Again, it is "amuse-gueule!"

 

 

A clever reference, but merely a tickle in an attempt to provoke me.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Not even close! The idea of the provocation may be a trick of your mind! I gave the explanation to Vava.

 

Lack humor? Not really, just merely a keen sense when it comes to filtering nonsensical statements disguised as humor. Another prized quality is my incredible immunity to rodent's venom.

style_images/master/snapback.png

There was no disguise, it was an overt criticism. Nothing personal. Let me spell it out for you, I hope that will help!

"Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion.

Fun is but a constant denial of the Unhappy!"

 

That means:

1- Those who constantly look for excitement in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE passion. It is simply an ersatz. The "Philosophy" of excitement is simply the denial of a much deeper misery.

2- Those who constantly look for fun are in fact unhappy and in denial of their misery, displaying to the World a happy, fun loving face

 

I think that even if you are consumed with moderation it guarantees an indigestion.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Those who knew how to consume me felt otherwise!

 

Touche.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Ambivalent! I don't know what you have just touched and/or why you felt touched, but it was not me! Not even trying!

[gamavor]

Eve I like your new Avatar! Most of all I like the boots!

 

Never had relationship with a married woman, but few times was on the verge! For clarity of expression I do make difference between having sex and being into relationship.

 

I guess it is somehow professional deviation. If you are a lawyer and if you slept with her (your client that is about to get divorce), she might think that she paid you already. Therefore, dear colleges never sleep with divorcees before you get your remuneration!

[Anileve]

Eve I like your new Avatar! Most of all I like the boots!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Gamavorin, I thank you for the compliments, you have never showed a slightest difficulty in charming the women, the operation is always a success. As for athletic endeavors with fresh divorcees, thanks for the valuable advice. By the way this reminds me of a Seinfeld episode, where he sleeps with his maid and she ends up taking the payment but not cleaning, "because they are intimate". Until he questions her ethics and filled with fury and outrage she breaks up with him. It’s a funny one.

[vava]

Sienfeldian wisdom can go a long way to explaining life's intricacies. Everything else you can probably learn from Homer. (Homer Simpson that is...) link.

[Anileve]

Sorry, you did not do a good job! Again, it is "amuse-gueule!"

Not even close! The idea of the provocation may be a trick of your mind! I gave the explanation to Vava.

There was no disguise, it was an overt criticism. Nothing personal. Let me spell it out for you, I hope that will help!

"Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion.

  Fun is but a constant denial of the Unhappy!"

 

That means:

1- Those who constantly look for excitement in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE passion. It is simply an ersatz. The "Philosophy" of excitement is simply the denial of  a much deeper misery.

2- Those who constantly look for fun are in fact unhappy and in denial of their misery,  displaying to the World a happy, fun loving face

Those who knew how to consume me felt otherwise!

You must be careful with your “each chosen word having a double meaning,” for the effort is so overworked that it attempts to strike but misses the target, evidently with more than one person. Unless of course you enjoy a solitary theatrical amusement….

 

I appreciate the clarification of the meaning behind your poetry, however, my views haven’t changed. I still believe that the statements are nonsensical. “Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion?”

 

It’s like saying “Education is but a desperate longing for Knowledge.” I think a logician may say “Duh! Have we discovered that the earth is round all over again?” but a presumptuous fictionist may say: “Those who are constantly looking for education in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE knowledge." That’s what I call a straw-man.

 

And believe me, I foster no desires of consuming you, or your rambunctious thoughts.

Ambivalent! I don't know what you have just touched and/or why you felt touched, but it was not me! Not even trying!

style_images/master/snapback.png

As for "touching" you, perhaps a little French lesson may help.

tou·ché

interj.

Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

 

Apparently in your case, it was not a fitting comment.

[Siamanto]

You must be careful with your “each chosen word having a double meaning,” for the effort is so overworked that it attempts to strike but misses the target, evidently with more than one person. Unless of course you enjoy a solitary theatrical amusement….

style_images/master/snapback.png

The fact that you lack the humor and the mental agility to to comprehend anything that is beyond your rigid and narrowly focused and maybe overly rationalist mindframe, should not be a reason to cater my words, style and thoughts to what you would or may understand! This is a public forum and my universe and audience is not limited to you, even when I reply to your posts!

Are you telling me that one should constrain oneself and conform oneself to your - or someone else's - Mental World and Psyche? I wonder what happened to your speech about Passion, Individuality, non-Conformism and...?

 

 

 

I appreciate the clarification of the meaning behind your poetry, however, my views haven’t changed. I still believe that the statements are nonsensical. “Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion?”

style_images/master/snapback.png

I understand! Nobody would be able to overcome such a deeply rooted denial in less than a day! It takes time, in many cases forever!

 

 

 

It’s like saying “Education is but a desperate longing for Knowledge.” I think a logician may say “Duh! Have we discovered that the earth is round all over again?” but a presumptuous fictionist may say: “Those who are constantly looking for education in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE knowledge." That’s what I call a straw-man.

style_images/master/snapback.png

First of all, Education is a means to bring Knowledge to us. Excitement is NOT a means to bring Passion into us.

Second of all, Knowledge IS NOT innate, Passion IS!

Most of all, the concept of Education is based on the awareness of a innate LACK of Knowledge! We wouldn't have Educational Institutions if we thought that we were already full of Knowledge!

There's no denial in this case. At the contrary, full awareness.

 

 

 

I think a logician may say “Duh! Have we discovered that the earth is round all over again?”

style_images/master/snapback.png

I think that a Logician would say: "Please consult a Dictionary! Logic is not concerned with empirical facts; Logic is merely concerned with the consistency and coherence of a thought process or a "Thought System" i.e. a set of inter-related statements!"

You may be confusing Mathematical Disciplines and Experimental Sciences.

 

 

 

but a presumptuous fictionist may say: “Those who are constantly looking for education in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE knowledge." That’s what I call a straw-man.

style_images/master/snapback.png

The Passion and Thirst for Knowledge are innate. There's no valid parallel. Do I need to draw a picture?

If you are so anxious to be logical, I recommend you Kleene's or Quine's "Introduction to Mathematical Logic." Any other Handbook would do it!

Considering your Rationalism, you desperately need to improve your Logical Thinking.

 

 

 

And believe me, I foster no desires of consuming you, or your rambunctious thoughts.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Should I take it as a compliment or a...? In any your choice and I have NO problem with it!

 

 

 

As for "touching" you, perhaps a little French lesson may help.

tou·ché 

interj.

    Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

 

Apparently in your case, it was not a fitting comment.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No kidding! What do you think I understood?

You seem to have a quite low opinion of others, and a flatteringly high one of yourself!

I believe that your thought process is too rigid and rational - yet poorly logical - to comprehend certain things! It's not a criticism and nothing personal!

[Armat]

Ed,I am waiting for your input

[Anileve]

The fact that you lack the humor and the mental agility

You’ve used this expression before, try something different it’s getting rather old.

 

...to to comprehend anything that  is beyond your rigid and narrowly focused and maybe overly rationalist mindframe, should not be a reason to cater my words, style and thoughts to what you would or may understand! This is  a public forum and my universe and audience is not limited to you, even when I reply to your posts!

Where I exceeded at rationality you have certainly balanced it out by lack of. It is a public forum and I would hope that your universe is not limited to my posts or me, otherwise I would really have something to worry about.

 

Are you telling me that one should constrain oneself  and conform oneself to your - or someone else's - Mental World and Psyche? I wonder what happened to your speech about Passion, Individuality, non-Conformism and...?

I don’t believe that I stated such nonsense in anyone of my posts. In fact, it is you who seems to clamor my beliefs by imposing your own in an overly righteous manner. Don’t worry all of those attributes are still visible to those willing to open their eyes.

 

I understand! Nobody would be able to overcome such a deeply rooted denial in less than a day! It takes time, in many cases forever!

Surely if you keep muddling equivocal meanings in your trite statements it may indeed take a lifetime to formulate them into coherent statements.

 

First of all, Education is a means to bring Knowledge to us. Excitement is NOT a means to bring Passion into us.

Second of all, Knowledge IS NOT innate, Passion IS!

Most of all, the concept of Education is based on the awareness of a innate LACK of Knowledge! We wouldn't have Educational Institutions if we thought that we were already full of Knowledge!

This is irrelevant, don’t indulge yourself in such banalities. A knowledgeable person may still crave for education to enhance her intelligence, that doesn’t mean that she is deprived of it. Just as a passionate person may turn to excitement to beef up the supply. Therefore your argument is invalid. And you are wrong once again, passion is not innate, it’s acquired through experience and excitement, thus one is intertwined with the other.

 

No kidding! What do you think I understood?

From your response regarding “touching” it’s highly doubtful that you did, but I am not going to argue your ad hoc defense attempt.

 

You seem to have a quite low opinion of others, and a flatteringly high one of yourself!

I believe that your thought process is too rigid and rational - yet poorly logical - to comprehend certain things! It's not a criticism and nothing personal!

style_images/master/snapback.png

I had no idea that you’ve nominated yourself as the spokesperson of my opinion.

 

I believe that your thought process is too rigid and rational - yet poorly logical - to comprehend certain things! It's not a criticism and nothing personal!

You’ll be making accurate accusation if you were to reduce it to one person in particular. Most of your views are judgmental, tactless and condescending and most importantly lack the necessary formula to be considered seriously. Moreover you have managed to completely vitiate this thread. Perhaps a deflation of that self-amplified tumescence may help the situation.

 

P.S. This is not a criticism and nothing personal!