Conference quark::mennotes-v1

 
    re: .0
       
>1) Some people point out their wedding vows etc., but I don't recall
>ever hearing of any vows where one pledges absolute and total 
>devotion to one's spouse-to-be, although this does seem to be the
>implication. Can one person be every single thing to another 
>person? If that were true you would never set foot out of your home.
    
    Odd.  Every set of wedding vows I've ever heard has something akin
    to the traditional "and forsaking all others until death do you
    part."  Of course, I do not enjoy weddings, and my experience of
    the different sorts of wedding vows is probably limited.
    
    As for someone being all things to another person, that strikes
    me as a bit of a blanket statement, considering what usually goes
    on in an extra-marital affair.  The variations are many, but the
    basic idea is the same.
    
    
>2) Monogamy is a relatively new concept in terms of evolution. It is
>not a law of nature, which still does have a significant impact on 
>us. This is not to say that it is a neat little excuse to do it,
>ie., "Sorry, my genes made me do it!". We still have to accept 
>responsibility for our actions.
    
    Could someone with more knowledge in this area comment?  It seems
    to me that humans are not the only animals that mate monogamously
    e.g., bald eagles?
    
    The comment about responsibility is an important one.
    
    
>3) Is the development of an extra-marital relationship considered to
>be harmful because of a perceived threat? Granted, sometimes it
>is, but is it always? Is the marriage not firm enough?
    
    The only way I can see it not being a threat is if both partners
    believe that the association between love and sex is tenuous or
    non-existent.  If either partner considers sex to be an indicator
    of love, then I cannot see how an unfaithful partner could not be
    perceived as threatening the marriage (what does this other person
    give that I don't?)
    
    Getting back to responsibilty for a moment, remember that traditional
    sex can often result in tiny persons.  A monogamous, heterosexual
    marriage would have to be a mighty citadel indeed to accept a child
    that was the result of one partner's irresponsibility. 
    
    An awful lot of people seem to make assumptions in this area, and
    I don't think *anything* can be taken for granted.  Please note
    further that although I have restricted my comments to 'traditional'
    marital arrangements, I understand there may be analogues or even
    unique conditions in other sorts of life relationships.


    DFW

    In this age of AIDS my husband had better believe in monogamy! If
    he goes out, contracts the virus, and passes it to me, he won't
    die of AIDS.  Rather, he'll die and quick an painful death at my
    hands...
    
    Ten years ago I would have turned the other cheek. Not anymore.
    there are too many dangerous things out in the wild world and I
    would want them to stay out in the wild world!
    

    Re .0,.1:
    
    A number of animals are monogamous: wolves, geese and some other
    big birds are the examples I can remember off the top of my head.
    
    They do better at it than people--our pair-bonding mechanism is
    less polished, I guess.  There's a season for them when it
    happens (adolescence), then it's done, and affairs are not possible.
    Mistakes (and there are mistakes, see Konrad Lorenz's books for
    details about geese: sometimes the bonding goes male-male or
    female-female, sometime it is not reflexive) can't be fixed.
    
    Given the lack of flexibility of the goose method, I prefer our way.
    
    						-John Bishop

    Ah, but wolves and geese are relatively new on the evolutionary
    scale: consider the eternal cockroach! :-)  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    
    And just what do we know about those dinosaurs.  You think it's
    a mistake we find them in tar pits?  I say, it was an obvious 
    precursor to the contemporary fad of hot-tubbing!  :-) :-) :-) 

    There are rare occasions where one person in a couple finds an
    undeniable attraction for an outsider.  At this point perhaps it should
    be talked about openly and honestly.  If I had to choose between my SO
    having a short-term physical relationship with a woman, or losing him,
    I think my choice would be clear.  I don't anticipate ever having this
    happen, and I would not want it to be with some stranger off the
    street, but the mechanism is in place in our relationship for the
    discussion.  Maybe even after discussion the decision will be made not
    to go outside the relationsip for the reasons as discussed....but I'd
    rather know about the yen and cope with it beforehand than find out
    later and feel betrayed.  It would be a difficult situation, and I
    don't relish the thought of it, but honesty is the best policy.
     
    Jody
    
    
    

  
    This is an issue that there can be no right or wrong answers.  It
    is all a matter values and opinions.  I have known a few couples
    who mutually agree it is ok to engage in physical relationships
    with other people.  Since it is a mutual agreement and both parties
    truly believe in what they are saying then I guess for them it's
    ok.
    
    An "affair" to me is engaging in a physical relationship with another
    that your SO doesn't know about and most likely wouldn't approve
    of.  In this case you are betraying the trust you have with your
    SO and that's what makes it wrong!  This also shows a lack of respect
    for your SO's feelings and values.  All relationships  are
    based on mutual trust and respect and an affair destroys that.
    
    I don't think I could ever "cheat" on my husband (If I were married)
    because that is the level of commitment I see that marriage implies.
    An affair is something I could not forgive or would expect to be
    forgiven for.
    
    .... stepping down off the soapbox
    
    Donna
    
    
  
    
    

    Re: .6
    
    I'm afraid that defining "affair" the way you did avoids the issue. Few
    people would disagree with you that having a physical relationship with
    someone your SO didn't like and keeping the fact secret is bad. But
    "traditional" values go much further than that. Traditionally *ANY*
    extra-marital relationship is prohibited. Not too long ago such
    behaviour was punishable by death EVEN IF ALL PARTIES CONSENTED TO IT.
    Some people would prefer that this was still the situation. 
    
    But there are a lot of dimensions to "affair".
    
    	Love, affection, sex, attraction, desire.
  	With or without consent.
    	With or without knowledge.
    
    If we simply define "affair" as having sex with someone other than your
    spouse, and ask if this is "bad", then the answer is "it depends". 
    
    To me the issues are clear. Desire is natural, repressing or denying it
    is silly. Acting on it can cause hurt. Don't do that. If you *know*
    that acting on it will not hurt anyone else (just because your SO
    *says* it's ok isn't good enough. You have to *know*) then there's no
    problem.
    
    Black and white is so boring... I prefer my world in color.
    
    	Chacun a son gout,
    	-- Charles

    
    Re: .6
    Well put Donna!
    
    The topic is, "Affairs, harmful or harmless?"
    
    Clear enought for this guy.  I vote harmful.
                                
    * Dwight *

    I understand what you are saying about the 'marriage' end of this.
    We are not married, but my SO and I have discussed our own "guidelines"
    on the subject of infidelity.  Our relationhip is a deeply committed
    one-one that would never tolerate an affair of any sort.  We outline
    "infidelity" as anything physical and/or emotional with someone
    other than each other.  We love each other very much, but we both
    feel we would walk away from the relationship immediately if the
    other ever had an affair.  It would hurt, but these things are based
    on *monogamy*, not cheap thrills or "sharing."
    
    I don't know how these "open marriages" survive.
    They don't!
    
    Stacie

    Again - devil's advocate here.
    
    re prev:  "I don't know how these open marriages survive
               They don't!"
    
    I am honestly not sure about the statistics involved between divorce
    rate and open/closed marriages, but I have met people who have a
    successful relationship that is open (two men married to one woman,
    and they all love one another - and even some of their friends).
    
    Please don't act shocked, but I feel a relationship can work if
    it is based on a premise of mutual communication of all needs, and
    agreement on how the needs of each individual can be met.  So long
    as no one gets hurt, I feel that a couple seeking their own
    satisfaction is perfectly acceptable.  Most often this takes the
    form of a one-on-one relationship, (usually) heterosexual, striving
    for permanence in a world filled with change.  I find this type
    of relationship rewarding and fulfilling, and I personally would 
    not swap it for another.  But there are other ways of living than
    yours and mine.

    Have you any statistics to back up your statement?
    
    Jes' curious
    
    -Jody

    I am one who used to think that affairs were great. They made life
    exciting, like walking a cliff edge. Most of the time great lifelong
    friends are made, even if there can no longer be intimacy involved.
    I used to spend a lot of time trying to make it happen, or daydreaming
    about having them, with practically every woman I ever saw. Lots
    of times, the women I had affairs with would be the ones that I
    could talk to the best. Casual, intimate, or serious conversation could     
    be easily managed. The reason for this, I assume, was because there
    were never any head games played. I was always open and honest about
    myself and my life and my relationship with my wife. But now when
    I look back on it all, I realize that the real reason that I lived
    this way was because I really never loved my wife. I was spending
    time looking for someone who I could really love. I found that person,
    and now I am the happiest man alive. I knew her only for a month
    before I felt I was cheating on her when I was with my wife. I told
    my wife about it as soon as I realized my dilemma, and we separated
    and now we are divorced. 
    
    Now to get to the point
    
    I have been living with my new love since I left my wife.
    We have shared a lot of each others lives in the last six months
    and we both know how much we mean to each other. She knows about
    my frivilous past, as I would not lie to her ever, and she worries
    greatly about me not being able to stop what had become a way of
    life. But I tell her and I will tell the world, that when you love
    someone dearly, they become you. You become them. I could not even
    imagine myself making love to another woman. My life has changed
    so much that it sometimes is difficult to understand why it was
    like it was before. It is even difficult to overcome the stereotype
    of myself that my friends and associates have come to know me as
    over the years.
    Fortunately I have a good sense of humor and can look back at my
    life and laugh, knowing that my future is looking good emotionally.
    
    In conclusion, it is my opinion that affairs are more harmfull,
    than harmless, because in the end, someone has to get hurt. But
    I wouldn't change my life for the world, because I wouldn't have
    met the most important love of my life. 
    
    
    Rich
        

    I'm reminded of what Ann Landers (or Dear Abby) once said to a
    woman who wrote in asking if she should wait for her married
    boyfriend to leave his wife:
    
    	"Remember - if you marry a man who left his wife for
         you, you're married to a man who cheats on his wife."
    
    				Steve

    All-in-all, I'd have to say harmful...  "the grass is always
    greener..."  
    
    It would hurt my husband, that's the most important thing...  it
    would, in the end, hurt me.
    
    I have several male friends who are dear to me.  I would not want to
    ruin a fantastic friendship with any of them by becoming intimate. It's
    one of those things that you can't ever go back to the way it _was_.  I
    bring up friends because that would be the first prerequisite to any
    physical relationship for me. 

    	bj
    

    re.11
    
    The way you feel about your wife is the way my SO and I feel about
    each other.  I am sure you can see the serious damage you or she
    could incur by having an affair.  It's an "understanding" we have.
    
    To reply to another...
    Jody-no, I have no statistics, and you have successfully opened
    my eyes to this.  I guess it was too easy for me to generalize on
    something to which I cannot comprehend.  Upon thinking about it
    a little further, my personal opinion is that both parties cannot
    possibly be "happy" with this arrangement, that one must secretly
    hate the thought, but see it as the only way to keep the marriage
    together.  It reminds me of when I was younger, my mother used to
    tend to give me permission to do things that I would have snuck
    off and done anyway.  (Nothing serious-no sex, drugs or whatever).
    It served her well, though.  It "took the fun out of it" for me
    and it made her feel better because I wasn't actually disobeying
    her.  I'm sure she'd rather I didn't do it in the first place, but
    she could comfort herself with the idea that I wasn't "sneaking"
    or whatever.  It made it look like I never disobeyed her.  I'm rambling
    here...
    The point is...
    
    Secretly disapproving partner: "Well, if he/she's going to do it
    anyway, I may as well give my "permission".  Then it's not "betrayel"
    or "infidelity."
    
    Ok?
    
    Stacie
    

    Stacie: 
    
    I have seen a few situations where something like this can work.
     I admit it is rare, not only because of "the norm", but because
    most people prefer a monogamous, one-on-one relationship.  I simply
    wanted to point out that "never is a long time"....back to the topic
    at hand, though, I did not mean to digress, I just wished to point
    out that some people can and do adjust to things like this.  I also
    know a couple who has lived together, but due to their separate
    job/school situation, they cannot visit one another very often.
     I would not be comfortable in a situation like this, but they have
    an agreement that they can do anything physical with another they
    fancy, so long as "the act" itself is not performed.  I would think
    that would lessen their feelings of intimacy towards one another,
    or make them question what love really is, but they are still talking
    of having children one day, etc....
    
    chacun a son gout?
    
    (to each their own)
    
    -Jody
    

    	.10, in my opinion, voiced the only correct general answer.
    Each of us may have opinions which are specific to our needs but
    we should be honest and recognize our specific values and opinions
    do not necessarily hold for all people.  My second marriage was
    very 'open,' though that word was not used in this context then
    (strange sentence).  The marriage, which was very short lived did
    not end because it was open.  My first marriage was not 'open' butthere
    was a lot of straying from the marriage vows by both of us (it's
    a long story).  The 'straying,' among other more important things,
    helped to end the marriage.  My third and current marriage is ...
    a private matter.
    
    Douglas