Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    	There is a man that I know. I know his wife and kids too.
    	There is a woman that I know. I know her husband and kids too.
    
    	Each of them has told me that they have had a short affair with the
    other (quite independently - I havent't even told the other one what
    the first told me). My estimation was that they both wanted a
    sympathetic ear where they could be sure the information would go no
    further. They certainly didn't want moralising lectures.
    
    	To say anything to anybody would be breaking a personal trust. I
    would not do that lightly. In this particular case I would also make
    four enemies and risk breaking up two marriages.
    
    	With that as the background I keep very quiet, and do not bring the
    subject up with any of my four friends.

    Moralizing aside, I think that affairs are one of the very best methods
    for breaking up a marriage. Maybe I should make that suggestion in the
    "50 ways to leave your lover" topic. I would feel comfortable telling
    my friend that his catting around presents a great danger to a
    wonderful family life, and he's being foolish if he thinks sexual
    variety is worth risking his relationships with his family. Maybe I'd
    have this conversation sometime while he's over watching videos.
    There's the one where Michael Douglas's one-night fling turns out to be
    a relentless mad-woman, or the Woody Allen film where the other woman
    suddenly insists on announcing herself to the family.

    Fatal Attractions, Crimes and Misdemeanors, respectively.

>Do you still remain the best of friends?  Do you keep your mouth shut?
    Yes and yes.
    
>Do  you  "lecture"  him?  Do you tell him to stop?  Do you threaten to
>tell his wife?  
    
    Yes, yes, no.
    
    >How do you react?  Does anything basically change with
>respect to the relationship you've had with Bill?
    
    Surprise probably. Concern. I don't expect much to change.
    
>Suppose he told you that he was really bisexual (or gay) and  that  he
>Would  your
>response be the same or different from the above scenario where he was
>having sex exclusively with women?
    
    Same thing.
    
    		Alfred

    I might tell my friend that it is safe to confide in me, but that he
    probably shouldn't confide in many people anything he doesn't want
    getting around.  I might tell him that maybe the fact that he felt
    the need to tell me these things means that he feels guilty about what
    he is doing and that this guilt may likely drive a wedge between
    himself and his wife and seriously damage his marriage.  I might
    suggest he get some individual therapy.  I would certainly remind him 
    that no sex is ever totally safe.  I would not stop being his friend, 
    and I would keep his secrets secret.  Whatever I did tell him I would
    try to do without lecturing or moralizing.  It would make no difference
    to me if his lovers were women or men.
    
    						- Vick

                        << Text will be entered from  >>

Although Bill's actions may bother me because they don't fit in with
*my* morals, I wouldn't say anything to Bill's wife and my comments to
Bill would be somewhat limited.

There is really nothing I can do to change Bill. It is not my job to "fix" Bill
or his marriage. It's Bill's life and he has the freedom to live it any way he
chooses. The same goes for his wife. If he likes what he is doing and things
are going well there's not much incentive for change. I may ask him "Why are
you telling me this?" in an effort to get him to think about the situation. It
could be the strain of keeping it secret wears on him and feels compelled to
tell SOMEBODY to get it off his chest.... in which case he has some guilty
feelings about what he is doing. Maybe he feels real good about what he's
getting away with and has a need to brag about it to somebody. Only Bill knows.
The other question I might as is "If you can tell me, why can't you tell your
wife?" and see where the converation goes from there.

If I attempt to change the situation I am way outside of my boundaries and
chances are I'd be doing it so I would feel comfortable rather than out of
concern for Bill or his wife. It's clearly (to me, anyway) a situation that
does not involve me and is an issue between Bill, his wife and the women that
Bill is involved with. The only help I can offer is to listen to Bill and
offer some of my thoughts on the situation. It's up to Bill to change the
situation if he chooses to do so.

I may not like what I see but that is not Bill's problem. It is my problem.
I'd let it go, say to myself "that's just the way things are" and move on from
there. If I'm focused on Bill's problems, then I'm not paying attention to
what's going on in my own life. I can care about Bill, offer what support I
can, but I can't take care of him. 

   Rick

    
    
    	I can't believe I'm writing in here... I'm a reader only but What
    	the Hey!!
    
    	I had a very good friend that I went to school with since first
    	grade and she ended up later in life going out with a married man.
    	She is no longer with him but it really hurt our relationship as
    	friends because like .5 (herb) said.  *I* myself believe that if
    	your not happy and need to go else where, then maybe you should
    	think twice about your marriage and either seperate for awhile or
    	divorce before you damage the life of another.  *No one* has a
    	right to hurt another in that way.  
    
    	To make a long story short, we are no longer friends because I just
    	can't bring myself to respect her.  My marriage is *very* special
    	to me and I just can't be friends with someone who tries to destroy
    	someone elses.  But thats *me* so.... And no, I never told anyone
    	involved but I did try to talk to her and listen to her but I just
    	couldn't comfort her when they broke up.
    
    	Z.B.

    Actually, someone who tells you something like this is puting a burden
    upon you, even if they are a friend. One of mine told me one time, even
    invited me to go to a Pro. I declined, but he told me how great it was
    the next day. I don't approve of this sort of thing, call me old
    fashioned. This was 20 years ago BTW
    
    Anyways, if you keep playing these games;
    
    A.  You will get found out
    B.  You may contract an STD
    C.  Your friends may change 
    D.  You may find yourself changing by lying to yourself and your wife,
        etc.
    Would it matter if they wer g/l/b, no, I don't think so.
    
    I also as was stated earlier talk to the person and ask them why they
    decided to risk (and list their assets, wife, children, etc) everyting.
    
    Short answer for now
    
    Steve

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< SOAPBOX: to seek out strange new opinions >-
================================================================================
Note 475.1                  Affairs, Lies, & Friends                     1 of 27
OXNARD::HAYNES "Charles Haynes"                       9 lines  25-SEP-1991 03:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I would assume that his sexual relations were his own
business, and I'd probably ask why he was telling me this.

Second, before making ANY kind of judgement, I'd find out what
kind of relationship they had. If both know what's going on and
agree - no problem. If he's breaking any kind of agreement with his
wife, I'd have a hard time not being judgemental.

	-- Charles

    Every situation is different, so what I'd actually do and what 
    I think I might do are almost certain to be two different things.

    But...

    Regardless of the gender of Bill's partners...

    At some point after the drunken confession, I would ask Bill
    why he told me.  Then my *guess* is that I would suggest to Bill 
    that he sounded guilty about what he'd been doing (and rightly so) 
    and that the right thing to do would be to stop, and then consider 
    telling Sue the truth.  I would try not to "lecture."  If Bill listened
    to any of this and acted on it, our friendship would probably
    only suffer a little bit.  I think I would have less trust in
    Bill (if he can lie to his wife, he can lie to me), but we could
    still be friends.  If Bill refused to stop cheating on Sue, he
    would find me becoming more and more distant.  If he asked, I'd
    tell him I can't enjoy the company of someone who lies.  

    Based only on what you've told me, I would not tell Sue.  (if there
    were clear cut evidence that Sue might be in danger, I would consider
    an anonymous warning).  But naturally Sue would wonder why I never 
    stop by for dinner anymore....

    *I'll add that if Bill were actually *gay* his relationship with
     Sue would probably suffer - and Sue would notice.  My definition of 
     "gay" includes the desire for emotional and spiritual "connectedness"
     to the same sex (not just physical gratification) *and* the LACK of
     the same desires for members of the opposite sex.  If this were
     evident (and I think it would be if Bill were my best friend) my advice 
     would be similar, but more extensive, simply because I'd be speaking 
     from someplace I understand and have some personal experience with (i.e.
     intimate same sex relationships).

     If Bill's "gayness" were simply a matter of sex, I'd tell him to grow
     up.  When sexual variety is more important than protecting a loving
     10 year relationship (complete with children) *something* is
     definitely wrong.

    /Greg
     
     

	I agree with Herb. It would seriously ruin our friendship. This
happened once already. The husband wasn't a good friend though, and the wife
was. I found out by accident, and I really wished I never found out. In the end
I did tell her as she had to know. Mainly because she is a good friend and I
hated to see this guy hurt her the way he was.

	One question, if it were found out the wife was cheating on the
husband, and the husband was a good friend, would you tell the husband? If the
answer is yes, then apply why you would to the situation Jerry is talking about
and let them know (that's if you can't convince them to tell the spouse first).


Glen

    First:  I am female
    
    Second:  Life no longer affords us the luxury to keep secrets.  No one
    has the right to lead someone to believe they are in a monogamous
    relationship when it is not true.  Lives are at stake.  Safe sex, is
    only so safe.  Risking your own life is one thing, risking that of your
    loved ones, is another.
    
    The world is full of lies, half truths and secrets.  Why lead someone
    to believe that you are sharing you life with them, when you only share
    sometimes.  
    
    Penis Misplacement Disease no longer just shatters feelings, it kills.
    
    --Advise from my father.
    

    .14,
    
    > even if in smaller numbers. <
    
     If you mean wifes cheat less than husbands....I wouldn't be so sure
    of that....  
     Over the years, and in different jobs, of all the friends I've had,
    there were more times when the friend confided about his wife's 
    affair than confessing about himself having an affair. ( usually
    over serveral drinks I,ve heard this....)
    
    
    
    

.11> (if there were clear cut evidence that Sue might be in danger,
.11> I would consider an anonymous warning).

If Bill were known to have had sex with men would the "clear cut"
danger (of an STD) be more probable?

.11> But naturally Sue would wonder why I never stop by for
.11> dinner anymore....

I'm not going to even THINK about putting words into your keyboard, but,
this sounds like you're punishing HER for something HE did?

.12> In the end I did tell her as she had to know.  Mainly because she
.12> is a good friend and I hated to see this guy hurt her the way he was.

She *HAD* to know?  You imposed standards and decided that she *had*
to know?  Was it a matter of the degree of "hurt" (him foolin' around
versus her really getting hurt by telling her)?  I think that this is
the very essence of what I was asking.  Some people feel like the 'wife'
simply "has" to know and I am having a difficult time dealing with that.

.12> One question, if it were found out the wife was cheating on the
.12> husband, and the husband was a good friend, would you tell the husband?

Physician heal thyself - would you answer this in the same context as the
extract from above ... wouldn't you feel like HE "had to know" in the same
sense that SHE "had to know"?

Bubba

    re .0

    Having been in a similar situation (wife having affairs w/o husband's
    knowledge)...

    No, I didn't tell the husband.  I never "lectured" (not my style).  I 
    did have serious discussions with my friend about how she could keep all 
    her lies straight.  I wasn't able to remain close friends with her and 
    her family because I couldn't stand the lies, which she wanted me to 
    participate in (provide her with alibis, etc.).  The husband got 
    suspicious, and would ask me questions; I wouldn't 'spill the beans' but 
    wouldn't lie, either--I just told him to ask her.  So I began seeing 
    them less and less often because it was just too uncomfortable, until 
    eventually we hardly saw each other at all any more.

    If I were 'Sue' in your scenario...Yes, I would want to know.  I prefer
    to live inthe real world, not a fantasy world!  In fact, I was sort of
    in that situation.  We didn't have kids with us, but to all outward
    appearances people thought we were a 'perfect couple.'  He boasted to
    evryone about how great I was, and how happy he was in our terrific
    marriage.  That was the public "Dr. Jeckyll."  The private "Mr. Hyde"
    was quite different, and I'd already decided to divorce him before I
    found the first lipstick stains on the collar (really - I'd thought
    that was only in movies!) or scent of strange perfume on his clothes.

    I knew I'd be giving up a big house in a nice town, the boat, a hefty
    combined income, etc., and would be living alone and struggling
    financially, but to me it was worth it.  I have *myself* back, and
    that sure beats living a lie in a phony marriage any day.

	darch

    in my last relationship, we talked pretty specifically about "if one of
    us has an affair, do we tell the other?"
    
    he wanted to know, regardless.
    
    i wanted to know only if it mattered.
    
    if he cheated on me then it's for HIM to resolve his guilt.  i'll help
    with that, but still, there's no reason to make me feel bad just cause
    HE did something he feels guilty about.
    
    "if it mattered" meant
    	- a sign of something wrong with our relationship.  just wanting to
          hop in the sack with someone doesn't mean there's anything wrong
          with the relationship.
    	- if there were any significantly unsafe acts.  wet kissing is not
          worth telling me about.  other things are.
    	- seeing the other person enough to begin to have significant
          feelings about them.  he could be in love with me as ever, but i
          want to know if he starts to love someone else.
    
    with respect to friends who are cheating or who are being cheated on:
    it takes two to make it or break it.  maybe only one of them is messing
    around, but there's probably a reason for that; the "injured party" is
    not completely innocent.  i have had continuing friendships with folks
    in open relationships, who have been cheated on, and who are cheating. 
    my concern with MY relationships is how they treat ME.  if they ask me
    to lie for them, then that's treating me badly.  if they just want an
    ear, that's treating me like a friend.
    
    lee

    After having a so-called-friend, mess with my marriage. As in having an
    affair with my future_not_soon_enough_ex, I problably would dis-own him
    cause he might be in bed with your SO before too long. Or someone elses
    SO. With me, this so-called man who had adultrous affairs with my soon to 
    be ex, I did a Christian thing. I forgave him in lip services only. 
    Knowing that he is a faithful person too, or he would like to tell you so.
    Anyhow, he will take this to his grave deep in his heart. I hope people like
    Bill burn in Hell for shit like that. If the fools want to mess around,
    do it. But be honrarable about it. Divorce the SO first. 
    
    If Marriage is a sacret instution that we wish it to be, than lets
    quite fooling with it. Quit having affiars, quit cheeting, keep your
    love where it belongs, at home with your family. 

    re.0
    
    [what would I do?]
    
    When friends have 'confessed' affairs to me, I've usually tried to
    determine why I was told.  When they tell me that their affairs are
    secret from spouses/partners, I generally ask "Why?"  No, I've never
    told anyone about a spouse/partner's infidelities [Infidelity = doing
    something not in the contract, if extrarelational sex is sometimes not
    an issue].
    
    [since you asked how I'd feel if I were "Sue"]
    
    personally, I would prefer not to have a friend tell me about something
    like this.  I'm not opposed in principle or practice; I just wouldn't
    want the details. If what I have works and makes me happy, there is no
    need to try and save me from it.
    
    Also, I find the statement "he would never leave ..." somewhat naive,
    affairs or no. In life and in relationships there are no guarantees.
    
      Annie
    

    Obviously, very few people have any respect for marriage these days.
    
    Marriage is monogamous.  Anything else is cheating.  Think about it the
    next time your kid gets caught cheating at something and if you think
    it's alright to cheat on your spouse then make sure you tell you kid
    it's ok to cheat.
    

    RE: .16 (Jerry)
    
    >.11> (if there were clear cut evidence that Sue might be in danger,
    >.11> I would consider an anonymous warning).
    >
    >If Bill were known to have had sex with men would the "clear cut"
    >danger (of an STD) be more probable?
    
    	Are you asking for medical statistics?  I really have no idea.
    	I said "regardless of the gender of Bill's partners."  "Clear cut"
    	evidence is hard to come by.  If I knew that one of Bill's office
    	"partners" had developed symptoms, Sue would get a warning.  It's
    	all very subjective though.  You can't know exactly what you'd
    	do until you are faced with the actual situation.  
    
    .11> But naturally Sue would wonder why I never stop by for
    .11> dinner anymore....
    
    >I'm not going to even THINK about putting words into your keyboard,
    
    	Thank goodness for small favors...     
    
    >but,
    
    	Uh oh...		:-)
    
    >this sounds like you're punishing HER for something HE did?
    
    	Would you rather I attend Sunday dinner and make the tension
    	between Bill and myself even more obvious?  Again, assuming
    	Bill refuses to give up these flings and continues to lie to
    	Sue, what *should* I do?  Pretend nothing is wrong and start
    	lying myself?  After all, that is what I would have to do to
    	allow Sue to continue to think nothing at all was wrong.
    	
    	My friends mean a lot to me and there is very little I would't
    	do for them.  However, friendship is a two way street.  I won't 
     	compromise my values out of loyalty to a person who doesn't know 
    	the meaning of the word (based on his actions).
    
    	This being said, I'll have to go back and check on how close you
    	made Sue and Bill's friend (i.e. me in this instance).  If I were
    	as close to Sue as I am supposed to be to Bill, this would be a 
    	lot more difficult.   I don't know how I could avoid worrying Sue
    	because I don't know how I could avoid showing my distaste for
    	Bill's actions.
    
    	/Greg	
    
    

    RE: .21
    
    >Obviously, very few people have any respect for marriage these days.
    
    I think if you look closely, what people are saying is that cheating
    is NOT ok.  Whether it is "cheating" or not depends on whether there
    is an agreement between the partners that "sex on the side" is OK or
    not OK.  It is basically about keeping promises.  It is about trust.
    
    I agree with you that marriage is monogamous - at least every
    traditional marriage that I've ever heard of is supposed to be.
    
    Perhaps what we need to do is be clear about assumptions - that is
    certainly what people in any kind of relationship need to do.
    
    For myself, I *assume* that a marriage is monogomous unless I am
    told otherwise.  If I feel I need to know (for whatever reason), I
    ask.  For myself, I speak with my partner about the issue before I 
    make any assumptions. 
    
    /Greg

.21> Obviously, very few people have any respect for marriage these days.

    There's a term that I've heard .. it's called "swinging".  Say, two
    married couples get together and they have wild and raucous sex.

    No lies, no "cheating"... just sex.  Everything's open and honest.  Does
    that show "respect" for marriage?  Is "swinging" okay?

    Bubba

    In response to a request, the following note has been copied from
    the HUMAN_RELATIONS conference with the author's permission.
    
    
            <<< NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HUMAN_RELATIONS.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? >-
================================================================================
Note 1200.2                 Affairs, Lies, & Friends                      2 of 5
QUARK::MODERATOR                                     30 lines  25-SEP-1991 11:50
                              -< Anonymous reply >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






Well, here is what I have to add to this subject.  Several years ago,
my husband passed away pretty suddenly.  Well, a year or so after that
I ran into this woman (and I use that word very loosely here) in a 
restaurant ladies room.  I kind of knew who she was and she proceeded to 
tell me she had had an affair with my husband 15 years ago.  It completely 
devastated me, I felt like smashing her one.  After she told me, she just 
said oh, I thought you knew.  Later on, I was talking to a friend about it 
and I found out just about all our friends knew but me...it only had lasted
a short time but I often wonder what she got out of it by telling me then.

My advice would not be to tell the wife, but do tell him the implications of
what could happen and ask him how he would feel if she did find out or
if it were the other way around.  Would I remain friends, probably but
I would think a lot less of him.

Been there...as it's hurts like hell 

.25> No lies, no "cheating"... just sex.  Everything's open and honest.  Does
.25> that show "respect" for marriage?  Is "swinging" okay?

For the world in which I desire to live, "swinging" is NOT okay...  It is very
hard for me to describe my reasons for feeling this way.  I would hope that some
may even agree with me.

The main problem I have with your above statement is the "just sex" part.  
Perhaps I have coupled sex with love too closely.  Isn't the act of committing
oneself to a monogamous relationship the ultimate of showing ones love?  Seems
to me any other way would be diluting something...  I don't know; perhaps I will
have something else to add at a later time.

Don

    
    Ack, I don't know about the "swinging" term, Bubba.  To me, "swinging"
    has the connotation of being very promiscuous, as in having sex with
    'anything that moves' in the gender(s) one desires.  
    
    On a purely intellectual level, I don't have a problem with "open
    relationships" though--as long as both people in the primary
    relationship agree to this beforehand and everything is done in an
    honest manner.
    
    	deb (presently single, historically serially monogamous)

.27> For the world in which I desire to live, "swinging" is NOT okay... 
.27> It is very hard for me to describe my reasons for feeling this way.
.27> I would hope that some may even agree with me.

Unless you describe your reasons for feeling that way, I don't know what
I'm agreeing with ... for myself, I don't think that I could ever participate
in "swinging" (as defined by two married couples 'getting it on').  I think
that my (ex)wife would have been appalled at such an idea (she's a country
girl with values more old fashioned than mine).  I harbor no particular
"moralistic" reasons, just that I like a "one-on-one" when it comes to sex.

As to the moral aspects - I can't answer.  Since everything is for all
practical purposes "open" and honest I can't see any real problems.

.27>The main problem I have with your above statement is the "just sex" part.  
.27> Perhaps I have coupled sex with love too closely.

Perhaps you have, but, if that's the way you feel ... there's certainly nothing
wrong with your personal vales and relationship between sex and love.  I, for
one, simply don't feel that way - I do not have to *love* a person to have
sex that person.  If I had the prerequisite of "love" I'd be celibate, believe
me! (I'm very close to celibate now without added restrictions of 'love')

This is one of the reasons that Bill's confession to me (in the base note)
would have had zilch effect on our relationship.  One of the *key* elements
here is Bill's "confession".  He may have simply be bragging, boasting, or
running off at the mouth.  For me to take a decided risk of genuinely causing
problems in an otherwise idyllic marriage ... odious.  I don't have 8" x 10"
glossies.

Also, I simply don't couple "love" and "sex" that closely.  Perhaps Bill
doesn't either ... Don't brand me, or him, as a "slut" or "immoral".  He's
married, and, PERHAPS by conventional standards he's "immoral", but, I have
a hard time with that.

.27> Isn't the act of committing oneself to a monogamous relationship the
.27> ultimate of showing ones love?

Perhaps from your perspective this is right.  I certainly respect your
position and admire your commitment.  But, is it "right" to possibly
impose your standards on Bill and Sue?

.27> I don't know; perhaps I will have something else to add at a later time.

I'd be interested.  Sincerely.

Bubba

.29> Unless you describe your reasons for feeling that way, I don't know what
.29> I'm agreeing with ...

I am happier now than I have ever been in my life...  Monogamy has been very
very good for me.  I feel this way of life allows me and my family to realize
"true love".  If I stay on this course I feel I will achieve perfection,
whatever that is...  By not "lusting" after other people, I can see the 
beauty within them.  I believe I already have what most people seek...

.29> I harbor no particular "moralistic" reasons, just that I like a
.29> "one-on-one" when it comes to sex.

Not good enough; I really would like to know why you feel this way.  Where is
the satisfaction?

.29> Since everything is for all practical purposes "open" and honest I can't
.29> see any real problems.

I don't believe this can be the case from my perspective.

.29> He may have simply be bragging, boasting, or running off at the mouth.

As men, do we really need to do this?  Are you impressed by people who do this?
Why do people do this?

.29> Don't brand me, or him, as a "slut" or "immoral".

Hey, if the shoe fits...  Actually Jerry, if you're not getting any, how can you
be a slut?  Seriously though, I have great respect for your intellect and 
courage and most likely would vote for you when/if you decide to run.  I know
you are at a disadvantage as to who I am since I tend to be read only.  If you
ever make it Back East look me up and I will buy you one.

.29> But, is it "right" to possibly impose your standards on Bill and Sue?

"right" yes, "realistic" no.  My standards have produced great satisfaction for
me.  Since I would want everyone to be as happy as I, it is only natural that I
put my stake in the ground and defend them as the "right way".  Until someone
has a "better way", well, we will just have to wait and see...

.30> -< Way past my bedtime, but... >-

Me to ... but ... this is one of the more interesting, thought provoking
and non-cofrontational electronic conversations that I've had in a long time.

.30> By not "lusting" after other people, I can see the beauty within them.
.30> I believe I already have what most people seek...

Good logic.  I like it.  I almost wish that I were married again so that
I could cast myself into this - as it is - I'm relying on my past marriage
and trying to put myself "into the picture" so to speak.  I had a truly
outstanding marriage and during that time did not "lust" after others, at
least I don't think that I did.  I know that I took people at more than
the "skin deep" level ... I'm not really sure that I do that now - there's
probably more "lusting" than ever before (it don't cost nothing to lust
and it's the safest sex in the world!).

.29> I harbor no particular "moralistic" reasons, just that I like a
.29> "one-on-one" when it comes to sex.

	.30>Not good enough; I really would like to know why you feel this
	.30> way.  Where is the satisfaction?

Sorry, this may be distressing to you, but, the physical act of sex is
quite satisfying.  There need not be "love" associated.

.29> Since everything is for all practical purposes "open" and honest I can't
.29> see any real problems.

	.30>I don't believe this can be the case from my perspective.

Fine.  I respect your opinion.  I brought this up purely from the perspective
that it was wrong to have sex outside of your marital sex because it was
"cheating" ... if there's no "cheating" ... is it wrong?

.30> As men, do we really need to do this?  Are you impressed by people 
.30> who do this? Why do people do this?

No. No. I don't know.  But it is  *N*O*T* limited to "men"!!

.29> Don't brand me, or him, as a "slut" or "immoral".

	.30> Hey, if the shoe fits...  Actually Jerry, if you're not
	.30> getting any, how can you be a slut?

Sorry, I should have made this somewhat clearer.  What I was saying
was that I nor Bill (in the base note) should be 'branded' as most
people would probably brand us.  The point was that *I* don't have
the same association of 'love' and 'sex' that you do.

.30> Seriously though, I have great respect for your intellect and 
.30> courage and most likely would vote for you when/if you decide to run.

Thank you!!  I appreciate that. (I came VERY close to running for a minor
public office recently ... but have delayed that)

.29> But, is it "right" to possibly impose your standards on Bill and Sue?

	.30>"right" yes, "realistic" no.

A very realistic answer.

Bubba

PS - I'm comin' up to Yankee land for DECworld ... you gotta deal on the
beer - if you're buyin' bring lots of money.

    Putting together sex, romantic love, and marriage into one tight little 
    bundle is a relatively new notion in the history of mankind.  It seems
    like a good idea theoretically, but is apparently very hard to achieve
    in the real world.  Maybe it's a dinosaur of a notion that will fall by
    the wayside as man progresses to ever better (or just more practical) 
    things.
    					- Vick
    

    
    I suppose I'm saying that "morality" is always relative to the
    culture, the epoch, the society...  But of course, how you conduct
    your life and what you expect of others doesn't need to be based on
    anything rational at all.  You can just pull it right out of the air --
    or out of some book -- or out of the things your parents told you --
    or out of your own experience.  You, nor anyone else, is obliged to take 
    my academic ruminations into account in any way.  And I'm not really 
    defending anyone.  I'm just obliquely attacking people who brandish 
    morality around like they owned it.
    
    						- Vick

    
    ><But of course, how you conduct your life and what you expect of others
    ><doesn't need to be based on anything rational at all.  You can just
    ><pull it right out of the air --

    >I hope for your sake, you are successful in finding a 6th grader
    >somewhere who is willing to defend that position.
    
    The "you" meant "you", not "I" or "one".  
    
    I was being sarcastic when I mentioned my "academic ruminations".  I
    know you think my thoughts are "academic", whereas yours are "germane".
    
    I'm not sure I know what my emotions have to do with morality or with
    the question at hand (whatever that used to be :^).
    
    					- Vick

    
    
    Why is it so difficult to accept that other people have opinions and
    value systems that differ from yours, Herb?  And, why do you seem to
    always condemn any value system that is different than your own?
    
    	GJD

    My wife has never met "an argument you can't win"?  The concept
    is foreign to her.  ;^)
    
    					- Vick

    :-) is a full face, head on view; 
    
    :^) is a three-quarter profile.
    
    					andrew

    I use the carat ^ as a nose rather than the -.  Otherwise, the
    translations are the same.
    						- Vick

~/~ Stirring up trouble

	It's too bad you feel the world is trying to use this one on you all of
the time. Do you have one for the imaginary baiting everyone is supposed to be
doing?


Glen

    
    
    My questions were intended to be purely rhetorical.  You DO seem very
    intolerant of anyone who doesn't feel exactly the way you feel about
    any particular topic.  Why does the term paranoia keep coming to mind?
    
    Considering how much hair I don't have, buzzing off won't quite cut it.
    
    

>>    any particular topic.  Why does the term paranoia keep coming to mind?
    
    "I know what you're insinuating! You all think I'm paranoid!"
    
    Ray

    These two computer types, you know, the plastic pocket protectors, belt
    line up around the rib cage, etc.... were walking down a Brooklyn avenue 
    when a native remarked "Hey, check out the paranoids."

    Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Herb, you were talking about a non-winnable
    argument.  I thought, what the heck, I'll say something funny and
    defuse things a little.  So I make a crack about my wife and her
    ability to win any argument, no matter how remotely winnable.
    Anyway, you're confusing my trying to win a verbal sparring match
    with trying to be insulting.  I haven't felt insulted and I wasn't
    trying to insult you.  I didn't even take your suggestion that my
    arguments were hardly worthy of a sixth grader to be an insult.  I 
    didn't think it was a very effective rebuttal, but I didn't take it
    as an insult either (am I crazy?).  I guess my ego is strong enough
    that it doesn't get to me when you say things like that.  I thought
    you had a similarly tough skin, because of things you'd said before.
    If you have been taking my comments personally, however, then I 
    apologize.  I was having fun before, but if you were not having fun,
    then let's stop with the slings and arrows.  I disagree with
    you on a lot of issues and intend to keep stating my disagreement.
    But I will try to be a little less caustic in my statements if they are 
    inflaming you.  In return, please try to keep in mind that just because
    someone disagrees with you vociferously doesn't mean they are attacking
    you personally.  
    							- Vick

    
    >Why is it so difficult to accept that other people have opinions and
    >value systems that differ from yours?  And, why do you seem to
    >always condemn any value system that is different than your own?
    
    I thought the readership might be interested to know that I happened
    to stumble across a name for this kind of behaviour in "The
    Road Less Travelled"...
    
    Apparently it's called a character disorder.
    
    The theory goes that we can react to this huge world of ours
    in various ways - we need to adjust somehow as the size and
    unpredictability of the whole setup is arguably a little
    nerve-wracking. So, when we come into conflict with things in
    the world, we react either be assuming that there's something
    wrong with us (that's neurosis) or that there's something wrong
    with the world (that's character disorder). Either stance
    demands change - either you force yourself to become what you
    think the world demands, or you try and force the world to
    conform to your view.
    
    Psychotherpy considers character disorder to be very hard to
    treat as the therapist is naturally part of the patient's
    external world and therefore he should change rather than the
    patient changing. As change/growth of the patient is the objective
    this causes quite a few problems.
    
    *I would like to emphasis that this comment is not a snipe at any
    individual. The original comment may have been directed at an
    individual but I've removed the name and I'm offering the above
    comment purely as a potential answer to those questions*.
    
    'gail
    
    

    :-P                              n u

    I have never challenged anyone's right to any opinion.  Just because
    I disagree with you on this or that matter, doesn't mean I don't 
    think you have a right to that opinion.  On the other hand, you seem
    to be saying that to argue a question logically and intelligently
    is to be merely bantering.  In particular, anyone who disagrees with you is
    merely bantering.  Well, what can I say?  I guess you are welcome to
    that opinion as well.  
    
    But in the meantime, I give up.
    
    - Vick

    
>    Hurting other people is wrong (almost, but not quite ABSOLUTELY).
    
    Careful!  Give me an inch and I might take a mile.  You have to be
    real wary of us intellectuals.  
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  The only reason anyone around here resorts to baiting you, Herb,
    is that anytime we try to argue with you you say things like:
    
    "I consider logic and intellect to be irrelevant to this kind of
    exchange."
    
    or:
        
    "... so any dialogue on that would be a waste."
    
    or: 
    
    "I DO challenge YOUR right to have the opinion that ..." 
    
    I don't know about everyone else, but I read these statements as saying
    that the only way we can get you to discuss the matter is if we all 
    agree up front that you win.  This attitude is not conducive to an
    exchange of ideas, which is what most of us, I think, are here for.
    

Re: .59

>    One of them is cheating on another in a committed relationship. There
>    can be no discussion of that.

Herb, you seem to have more ways to say "I don't want to talk about it"
than anyone else, so why do you keep talking about it?  Please allow others
the freedom to put forth their own personal feelings on the issue, which
might differ from your own.  I think there's no doubt that everyone now
knows how you feel on this subject, there's no need to repeat yourself.

				Steve

Re: .61

Ok, Herb, you said it.  Thanks.


As for what positions I "allow" in "my" conference, you seem to be operating
under a mistaken assumption.  I "allow" ANY views people may have to be
expressed in this conference, no matter what I may personally think of them,
as long as such expression is done in a polite fashion and doesn't appear
to violate corporate policy.  I certainly am not willing to be a "morals
cop" for the noters here.  And I object to your taking on that role for
yourself.

				Steve

	Steve, don't waste your time. All Herb is doing is the same thing he
does with any other note he doesn't agree with. He ratholes it to hell until no
one knows what the origional note was about. 



Glen

Gee, Herb, if I shoot you dead and then say it was "unintended", does that
make it ok?  I guess so, by your logic.

My job as a co-moderator is to moderate ("preside over", according to my
dictionary.)  It is not to direct discussions along paths which I personally
agree with.

As "a noter", I can certainly offer my opinion on subjects, and I do so when
I feel like it.  But I don't pretend to think that I have any authority over
what other people should think, or what their values should be.  And 
certainly I don't think I have a duty to inflict my values on anyone other
than my children.

You are certainly free to think me a fool, Herb, though you should think
carefully about saying so in a notesfile on Digital's corporate network as
an employee of Digital.  And I am equally free to have an opinion of you,
though discretion prevents me from publishing it here.

				Steve

>     I can see two reasons for arguing unethical positions...

Herb, theres just this classic problem a number of folks have experienced
when discussing things with you; what you consider unethical or immoral or
bad or problematic is sometimes/often/occasionally different than the way
other folks view the exact same activities/situations.  And you will brook
no alternate opinion when you get the bit in your teeth; be it the issue of
'trust bandits' or 'gay rights' or 'rights to hold certain opinions', I find
your opinions interesting and even praisworthy sometimes, but your intolerance
of the possible rightness of other noters, your disregard for their own truths, 
honestly arrived at, has convinced me not to bother discussing much with you 
anymore.  This statement above, that you think someone is arguing something
that THEY believe to be unethical, is such a blatant insult to your peers that
I refuse to countenance it any further.  Get one thing through your head, Herb;
people of integrity can and will disagree with you.

DougO

Yes, even on this.


To others, I would suggest, as I have before, that as Herb has opted out
of discussions, there's no point in addressing further comments to him.

			Steve

    
    
    Herb == NL:
    
      

    I am confused? What is ==NL: ?? Guess I'm in the dark agian! :)

Re: .70, .71

Please take this sidetrack offline.  Thanks.

			steve

    Gee Steve, perhaps other inquiring minds would like to know what kinda
    code that it. Perhaps .69 should set default to what NL means. Do you
    know Steve??? 

    It seems to me that all the people jousting with Herb are doing much
    the same thing. Herb is insisting "This thing is right." Others are saying
    "It is not right to insist you are right." The former makes more sense
    to me than the latter.
    
    It seems fairly clear to me that a lot of us noters are interested in
    shaping the opinions of others. I am. If that's a confession, then I
    confess. Then there's the question of means. I think Herb's adamance
    and apparent certainty loses his potential audience, sometimes. Still, 
    you never drag anyone from A to Z by whispering "B" at them. Sometimes
    a strident voice is needed. If Herb shouts from Z, maybe some A's will
    hear him and slide to G or even T!
    
    To turn to one of MY strident topics, I think a problem with many
    parents nowadays is a fear to take strong stands, on the grounds that
    it is fascist or something to convey strong views to children. "Is
    there a God, Daddy?" "That's an interesting question, what do YOU
    think?" The child learns NOTHING, from DADDY. The child learns plenty
    from other sources willing to convey information, e.g. friends, school,
    TV and movies.
    
    I think Herb's fortitude is refreshing, if occasionally irritating.
    Some irritation is a small price to pay.

    
    > Hey, kids: FORNICATION IS WRONG (AND WILL MAKE YOU UNHAPPY)
    
    Actually, Hoyt, this is probably not true, no matter how many times you
    yell it or stomp your feet and say you won't discuss it because
    you just know it's so true that how could anyone with any brains at
    all or any integrity doubt for a millisecond that it might not be true
    because it's just so obvious to you and you are the ultimate authority
    on morality and no one should question your right to dictate what is
    right or wrong and, if they do, you have the perfect right to say any
    insulting thing you can think of because you're right and they're wrong
    and those other people out there must be scum to even think that
    anyone would for a minute even consider discussing any other possibility
    than that what you say is right.
    
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  What the child learns from Daddy is that there are more questions
    in life than answers.   The child who learns he has to hoe his own row
    becomes the healthier more versatile human.  That's just my opinion. 
    I'm willing to discuss it.  Are you?

    Well Vick, I will keep my eyes open to see how long your marriage
    survives. Hope your saying the same words now as when it goes down the
    tubes cause you believe that adultry, cheating, fornication is O.K. and
    a great past time to get into. Hope it doesn't hurt you to the point
    that you might take your life over it or anything. I have read about it
    in the neet games of divorce. I have had an attorney who divorces his
    attorney wife and took his life over it. I wish you well in the future.
    Esp when it comes to the kids, I hope that she doesn't play head games
    with you with visitations. I hope that you can have a friend put you up
    vs sleeping in a car, or under a bridge, or in a celar like friends I
    have met. Gee, really wish you and yours well.

Re: .76

George, I think you are misreading what Vick and Charles and others are
saying.  What I see them saying is that it is not a universal truth that
"affairs are wrong".  I don't see them saying "affairs are ok for everyone".  
For some couples, sexual infidelity may be unimportant.  I know couples like 
that, at least one whose marriage has lasted over twenty years.  For
other couples, sexual infidelity is a violation of the basic trust the
partners had in each other.  You have to look at individual cases and not
try to apply a blanket rule, even though that rule, for YOU, is inviolate.

You might find HUMAN_RELATIONS note 1173 interesting.  In it, I posted an
essay, written for my wedding earlier this year by Melinda Regnell, called
"Promises to Keep".  The essential message is that one should only make
promises one can keep.  If you don't make the promise, then it doesn't
matter if you "break" it.  The problem is that many people ASSUME that
certain promises are made, or make them without really buying into them,
and that's when problems start.

For me, sexual infidelity is wrong.  But I would not consider attempting to
argue that it is wrong for everyone all the time.  Can you see the
distinction?

				Steve

> Gee, I am confused? 

Sounds like it.

> If Vick and Charles and others are saying that "affairs are wrong" 

Did you leave out a "not?" I say that "'affairs' are not always wrong."

> and that you don't see them saying "affairs are O.K. for everyone".

That's right. Affairs are NOT OK for everyone. In fact affairs are probably
WRONG for almost everyone. But almost is not the same as all.

> Are you saying that its ok for a married man to have gay affairs
> and a het wife at home?

Might be. Can be. Probably isn't.

> Doesn't that contradict the terms of a mono life style? Wow? 

Yes. But married .NEQ. mono.

> Are you saying if your one brand of person the laws are different that
> if your another?

Is this sentence english? If I understand what you're asking - the answer is
YES.

> Are you saying that its O.K. to have a person to come out of a closet
> during the marriage

Of course that's ok. If my partner were to realize in the middle of our marriage
that they were different or had changed I would ABSOLUTELY expect they would
tell me about it. (Your mileage might vary.)

> and its O.K. if they have affairs with others

That depends on what they have promised and agreed to.

> and if she, being Jane, should not be personally hurt because of this?

"Should" is such a judgemental word. I decline to prescribe how she should feel.
If they have an agreement that "affairs with others" are ok, then Jane's partner
hasn't done anything wrong. Regardless of agreements if Jane finds herself hurt
by her partner's acts she should talk to her partner!

> Would it not be wiser to have the closet man come out AFTER the divorce?

Why is a divorce assumed?

> Or would the client in question feel that he could have both worlds,
> hence his cake and frosting too?

If everyone knows what's going on, what's the problem? If someone is being lied
to, or a promise is being broken then that is wrong and should be corrected.
    
> O.K. you make a promise and you don't mention it in your wedding vows.
> So we have a contract? Should we all get our night school degrees in 
> contract laws? Is this a business or a marriage? 

It is a marriage. If you make a promise - keep it. However George, don't assume
that everyone makes or wants the same promises you do.

	-- Charles

    Affairs ... I wonder ... would you *want* to know?
    
    Let's suppose you were at your wife/husband's office and saw a letter
    in the incoming mail that was marked "personal" ... it's hand-addressed,
    obviously NOT "business communications" ... would you ask about it?
    I'd like to hear from (heterosexual)married people on this.
    
    Bubba

    re.82
    
    No, I wouldn't ask about it.  [at least, I imagine I wouldn't react
    differently from how I have in the past]
    
      Annie

Re: .82

Either you trust your partner or you don't.    If you don't trust your
partner, you don't have much of a relationship.  If you do, then you 
shouldn't feel tempted to pry.

				Steve

    
    Sigh, here we go again.
    
    I think I'll refrain from answering this seriously because the
    question, which has little or nothing to do with hetersexual
    relationships, was asked in such a way as to specifically
    exclude a number of the readers of this notesfile.  Why not
    say "I'd like to hear from (white) married people on this."
    Or, seriously, why not say "I'd like to hear from members of 
    (committed) relationships on this."  The question really is
    how much do you trust your mate.  Right?  In fact, if you had
    said "I'd like to hear from married people on this" I probably
    would have kept my mouth shut.  But because of the way it was
    worded, I can just feel the hurt/anger of the gays around here
    and I can feel them thinking "if I say anything they'll be all
    over me again for straight-bashing".  So I'll say it for them.
    I am not straight-bashing.  I am pointing out that the very
    wording you the question was a form of gay-bashing.  It said
    something about the validity of gay relationships.  It said
    that trust between gays in committed relationships is not
    of any interest.
    
    And here's my answer:
    If the letter had a pretty stamp on it I'd ask if I could have it.
    
    					- Vick
    
    

    Up till a couple of years ago. I would not give a rats a$$ about it.
    Now, I would be alittle leary. 

                <<< NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 1.10                       Format and rules.                       10 of 21
QUARK::LIONEL "We all live in a yellow subroutine"   20 lines   5-JAN-1988 16:04
                         -< Discrimination prohibited >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The moderators of this conference strongly support the notion that
    the most valuable discussion is one that is open to all.  Therefore,
    it is a new policy of MENNOTES that it is not permitted to artificially
    restrict the set of people who are allowed to respond to a note, such
    as by saying "men only", etc.
    
    Clearly the context of certain notes may suggest a primary class of
    responses, such as from divorced men as an example.  But ANYONE who
    has a contribution to a topic should feel welcome to respond.  If the
    moderators feel that a note is contrary to this policy, it will be
    returned to the author for modification.
    
    Furthermore, any existing notes which include such restrictions
    are declared open to all members of the community.
    
    Comments on this policy should be directed by MAIL to the moderators.
    
    				Steve Lionel
    				Mike Zaharee

    No, I wouldn't ask.  At a different time in my life I would have, but
    these days I don't stay in relationships that aren't based on trust --
    trust from both parties involved.  There would be no need to ask.
    
    -Janice

    re .0
    
    Yes, I would really want to know the truth.
    
    aq
    

.86> I think I'll refrain from answering this seriously because the
.86> question, which has little or nothing to do with hetersexual
.86> relationships, was asked in such a way as to specifically
.86> exclude a number of the readers of this notesfile.

    Perhaps from your perspective it excluded some readers and perhaps from
    mine it did also.  The simple fact of the matter is that these are very
    real people who are very married and very heterosexual.  I wanted, FOR
    MY OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE to get as close to reality as possible. 
    That's all there is to it, it's as simple as that, nothing more and
    nothing less.  I'm genuinely apologetic if I've offended anyone or any
    class of people.  I regret that you do not know me personally for you
    would know that I would not intentionally offend anyone at any time for
    any reason ... but ... such is the inadequacy of this electronic
    medium.

    Naturally, anyone can respond to any note in any conference, if they
    are so inclined.  Perhaps I was using this medium to target a specific
    segment of society with a specific question.  Again, I apologize.

.86> ...has little or nothing to do with heterosexual relationships...

    Not really.  There's a certain 'legality' associated with heterosexual
    relationships.... things like divorce, separation, child custody,
    division of personal property ... and on and on and on (this I know
    from experience) ... and believe it or not, I have known some people to
    used the phrase "I can't afford a divorce".  Being somewhat of a
    realist I believe that such a mind-set CAN have an impact on the way
    one would react to different circumstances.  This also was in my
    thinking as I requested specific input from a specific segment of
    society.
    
    I hope that I have made myself clear as to my reasons and have
    satisfied you that I have/had no intent of excluding anyone or any
    group for other than these reasons.

    Bubba

    Bubba,  Certainly, from your previous notes I think you are a good
    person.  I was a little surprised to see the "(heterosexual)" 
    parenthetical exclusionary clause in your note.  It didn't seem
    in character.  I believe you meant to offend no one.  I'm reasonably
    certain you did, however.  There are, afterall, married gay (lesbian) 
    couples, gays (lesbians) with both natural and adopted children, and
    certainly gay (lesbian) couples with joint property, as well as
    separated gay (lesbian) couples.  And certainly there are gays and
    lesbians who have divorced, if not from homosexual mates, at least from
    previous partners of the opposite sex (I don't know how many homosexual
    legal marriages there have been, and have no idea if any have divorced.
    Seems likely, but I just don't know.)  So gays and lesbians could have
    a lot to contribute to the discussion in the way of experience in human 
    relationships.  Again, and I'm really just trying to help you understand, 
    if you had said "(white)" because that was your "frame of reference", then 
    the non-whites in the audience would, I think, rightly feel
    arbitrarily excluded, because trust in a committed relationship has
    nothing to do with race.  Nor does it have anything to do with sexual
    orientation.
    
    Okay, I've made my point.  Now, since I believe you did not mean anything
    by it, and since you showed good spirit by apologizing to anyone who
    might have taken offense, I'll answer the question seriously.
    
    Assuming I even noticed the letter, which is unlikely, I might out of
    innocent curiosity ask who it was from.  But I would not suspect
    anything was amiss.  Actually I usually don't ask questions such that
    the other person can justifiably answer, "none of your business".
    
    						- Vick
    

.94> I believe you meant to offend no one.  I'm reasonably certain you did,
.94> however.

Believe me, I was fixing a frame of reference, nothing more, nothing less.
If I *did* offend anyone I'd be more than pleased to issue a personal 
apology - the individual(s) need only send me mail.

.94> I don't know how many homosexual legal marriages there have been..

In the United States - zero.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify myself.  Thanks for
answering the question.  Thanks for understanding.

Bubba

    >In the United States - zero.
    
    Really?!  I could swear I saw a news story about a homosexual couple
    being legally married in some state or other.
    
    - Vick

    RE: the rathole on gay marriages...
    
    Depends on what you mean by "marriage" - if you mean just the
    wedding ceremony in a church, then yes, gay "marriages" take
    place all the time.  But none of them are legally recognized.

    It isn't even legal in New York City (nor in San Francisco)

    ...but that does remind me of a joke - some 'phobe says "I wish they
    would round up all the homos and put them on an island somewhere"
    and the response is, "They did.  It's called 'Manhattan'."

    :-)

    FWIW - It is legal for same sex couples to marry in Denmark I think.

    /Greg

    P.S. Jerry, I also know you didn't mean to offended anyone and I myself
    	 was not offended in the least.  I would like to point out though,
    	 that in addition to excluding gay relationships (the complexities of
         which, both legal and otherwise, can rival any heterosexual
         relationship; and the details of which might easily be foreign
    	 to you so the exclusion was understandable) the phrasing of your 
    	 question also excluded gay people who are or who have been in 
    	 heterosexual marriages - something I assumed you were familiar
    	 with.

>    ...but that does remind me of a joke - some 'phobe says "I wish they
>    would round up all the homos and put them on an island somewhere"
>    and the response is, "They did.  It's called 'Manhattan'."

So why does the person have to be a "phobe?"

.98> RE: the rathole ...
    
.99> ..why does the person have to be a "phobe?"
    
Forget it.  I (for one) am not interested.  Back to the subject?

Final twist on this story ....

Ok, Bill is involved in an automobile accident.  Unfortunately, he
did not survive.  A few years later you're shootin' the breeze with
Sue and she mentions what a great guy Bill was ... she said that Bill
was a great guy because she knew, deep in her heart, that she was
the only one that Bill cared for and that Bill never cheated on her.

You know ... that's not true.  Tell Sue?  I wouldn't.  No way.  Never
in a million years.  I would simply let Sue go on believing that Bill
never cheated on her .... would you lie?

Before you answer ... take a good long look at note .26 in this string.

Bubba

    .100
    
    Nah, I wouldn't tell.  Telling Sue that this guy had been cheating on
    her all along isn't going to solve anything for her.  Sue's problems
    involve a lot more than one man's cheating.  (Does the word "denial"
    come to mind here, or what??  Sue's problems aren't going to get solved
    until her pain becomes acute enough for her to see things for what they
    really are -- and that may never happen.)
    
    -Janice

    Would I tell her?  That is a hard question to answer.  If Janice is 
    correct and Sue does have some real problems she needs to address, 
    perhaps finding out the truth will be the thing to set her on the road 
    to recovery.  On the other hand, telling her could be the thing that 
    kills her will to live - who knows what might happen.   

    I think it would depend on how well I knew Sue and how much time and
    energy she and I would be willing to invest in our relationship (you 
    certainly can't just drop a bomb like that and walk away).  

    I know people who have benefited from learning the truth about someone
    whom they had once idolized.  They were generally at the stage where
    they realized they needed to do some heavy thinking though - it doesn't
    sound, in your example, that Sue is at this stage, so I probably would
    not tell her.

    It is a tough call in any case.


    RE: Dwight Berry

    Why 'phobes' ?  Because that's the way I heard the joke.  I'm sure
    there are many thoughtful, rational and intelligent reasons why 
    someone would want to round up every last person belonging to a 
    particular group and ship them off against their will to some island
    someplace - just because I haven't heard these reasons (in many years
    of debate on the subject) doesn't mean they don't exist.

    /Greg

    Ah, I agree with what you said, Greg.  I would have to be a close
    friend of Sue's in order to tell her something like that.  But if 
    I were that close, it would have been long before the man's death
    that I would have said something. 
    
    Again, great point, Greg.  Thanks.
    
    -Janice

>I'm sure there are many thoughtful, rational and intelligent reasons why 
>someone would want to round up every last person belonging to a  particular
>group and ship them off against their will to some island


Agreed.    

    RE: .105  (Dwight Berry)
    
    > Agreed
    
    Well I was being sarcastic, but if you agree that such reasons
    exist then you must be able to explain them...  Would you mind 
    sharing these reasons?   In another topic of course so we don't 
    continue to rathole this one - or you could even send me mail.
    
    Honestly I've been trying to find out what they might be for several 
    years now and have thus far been mostly unsuccessful.
    
    Some might think I'm insincere in asking you to do this, but I will
    swear on <insert whatever you hold sacred> that I am quite serious
    in wanting to understand such a point of view.  I mean, put yourself
    in my shoes.  If you knew some people felt this way about you (and
    more than occasionally took action based on those feelings) wouldn't
    you want to know the thought processes behind those feelings?  I
    certainly do.
    
    Thanks in advance.
    
    /Greg
    

(gary schuler)

>    Well I was being sarcastic, but if you agree that such reasons
>    exist then you must be able to explain them...  Would you mind 

I knew that.  Thought it was obvious.  Surprised you didn't preceive mine
as such...