Is cheating a deal breaker for you?
I am 97% sure that my bf slept with someone else on Saturday. My friends are telling me to leave him, but I don't necessarily feel the same way. I want to talk about it and try to fix it. Thoughts?
22-25, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
vetguy1991 · 51-55, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
vetguy1991 · 51-55, M
@Sarahcantstop possibly
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sarahcantstop Every cheater does, yes.
Not certainly everybody.
And she is not worried on the general meaning of the word, cheating.
But on lack of loyalty in a relationship.
Not certainly everybody.
And she is not worried on the general meaning of the word, cheating.
But on lack of loyalty in a relationship.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sarahcantstop For first, it´s nothing related to posession.
But to a desired belongin to a team, not to a person.
To grow up, leave behind childish individualism, an emotional and intellectual lack of maturity.
In an agreded willingly relationship, you can´t postulate without being fraudulent, that you "really love someone" if you cheat.
Cos love is not mainly in the feeling, but in the choice. If you invalidate that choice, you make the feeling to be fictional.
And is not about personal feelings, but the joint ones. And not about being individually "hurt". Pain is a so secondary thing.
In a agreeded exclusive loving relationship, the stuff of love itself includes necessarilly that exclusivity.
So, it´s not only unloyalty, is betrayal to the team´s love.
Humans are, true, fallible.
But the ones who are loyal are also humans, till last I know. Are they robots or roedents, instead?
And about the "borrowed" word, possesion totally discarded.
I do not judge nor force anyone´s else deserved freedom.
If my SO needs to go outside the "we" team, the door is widely open.
But Once, only way out. No judgements, no anger, no fights. Be happy, just not anymore with me.
With another one, two, a dozen, not with me.
That´s my own freedom and I also deserve it.
Grow up.
But to a desired belongin to a team, not to a person.
To grow up, leave behind childish individualism, an emotional and intellectual lack of maturity.
In an agreded willingly relationship, you can´t postulate without being fraudulent, that you "really love someone" if you cheat.
Cos love is not mainly in the feeling, but in the choice. If you invalidate that choice, you make the feeling to be fictional.
And is not about personal feelings, but the joint ones. And not about being individually "hurt". Pain is a so secondary thing.
In a agreeded exclusive loving relationship, the stuff of love itself includes necessarilly that exclusivity.
So, it´s not only unloyalty, is betrayal to the team´s love.
Humans are, true, fallible.
But the ones who are loyal are also humans, till last I know. Are they robots or roedents, instead?
And about the "borrowed" word, possesion totally discarded.
I do not judge nor force anyone´s else deserved freedom.
If my SO needs to go outside the "we" team, the door is widely open.
But Once, only way out. No judgements, no anger, no fights. Be happy, just not anymore with me.
With another one, two, a dozen, not with me.
That´s my own freedom and I also deserve it.
Grow up.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sarahcantstop And regarding the "one time stray" "boink" 🤣
You may forgive someone who, driving, kills another human. Thats good and kind.
What kindness and forgiveness can´t do is to bring back de dead one back to life.
You may forgive someone who, driving, kills another human. Thats good and kind.
What kindness and forgiveness can´t do is to bring back de dead one back to life.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sarahcantstop Individualism is not the basis of Democracy, you equate Democracy with market economy, which is, of course based in individualism.
And that shapes mind so much that, as with market, they also make of couples a zero-sum game.
Exactly THAT worldview is what is behind that "People get married or get into similar arrangements for that the other person can do for them. That’s the reality. It may be a financial benefit, or status, or protection, loneliness or societal pressure".
Ok, but do not call it love.
It would be a fraud.
To naturalize that state of things as acceptable is like taking as normal the average human body temperatures.. meassured during an epidemia of an infectious dissease.
Of course, a "normal" distribution, with a sick average.
And from that point of view, with axis in the individual (psychology is still Ptolemaic in lack of it´s Galileo), what else may be if not possesion?
To explain teams as the axis of love is, here, like explaining planetary orbits in Flatland (Abbott).
Makes not sense to you: even about love, or someone is the owner or is owned.
What you call imaginary perfection is daily life for not all but some and not a few ones.
But, against the above, "Millions of flies CAN´T be wrong!! Eat SHIT (registered Mark)".
Lady, to each one their choice.
Have it and be happy, with my blessings.
I do not buy it. Not for me.
And that shapes mind so much that, as with market, they also make of couples a zero-sum game.
Exactly THAT worldview is what is behind that "People get married or get into similar arrangements for that the other person can do for them. That’s the reality. It may be a financial benefit, or status, or protection, loneliness or societal pressure".
Ok, but do not call it love.
It would be a fraud.
To naturalize that state of things as acceptable is like taking as normal the average human body temperatures.. meassured during an epidemia of an infectious dissease.
Of course, a "normal" distribution, with a sick average.
And from that point of view, with axis in the individual (psychology is still Ptolemaic in lack of it´s Galileo), what else may be if not possesion?
To explain teams as the axis of love is, here, like explaining planetary orbits in Flatland (Abbott).
Makes not sense to you: even about love, or someone is the owner or is owned.
What you call imaginary perfection is daily life for not all but some and not a few ones.
But, against the above, "Millions of flies CAN´T be wrong!! Eat SHIT (registered Mark)".
Lady, to each one their choice.
Have it and be happy, with my blessings.
I do not buy it. Not for me.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sarahcantstop You are right … to a point
Democracy is not necessarily linked to market.
Democracies linked to market are based on individualism.
Not because Democracy is necessarily linked to individualism but only because market is.
So, let the Democracy (or not) out of the debate, is irrelevant to this specific one.
BTW the "Why is that any worse than him bowling with her?" is one of the best jokes I´ve Heard in years.
Of the nonsense kind, of course.
Thank you for sharing it.
Well, to the point.
"If she’s really not treating him as a valuable asset, why does she care if he sticks his penis into some other girl? Why is that any worse than him bowling with her? She’s worried the other girls’ sexual attraction is going to have more appeal than hers and therefore the investment she made in this guy isn’t going to pay off."
This is a good economic market based analysis of couples.
Should I say (related to my previous assertions): "Quod erat demonstrandum"?
But, against my own above words, I´ll take the freedom (of also democracy) as criteria instead of the individualism of market laws.
That means:
Is your right, no debate, to accept a partnership with the societal contractual agreement that you describe so well.
Is my freedom to avoid that kind of contracts for the same reasons I do not find desirable an irrecverable teeth ache.
And same as in that case, the choosed solution is extraction: to make her / him an Ex. And...ASAP.
Democracy is not necessarily linked to market.
Democracies linked to market are based on individualism.
Not because Democracy is necessarily linked to individualism but only because market is.
So, let the Democracy (or not) out of the debate, is irrelevant to this specific one.
BTW the "Why is that any worse than him bowling with her?" is one of the best jokes I´ve Heard in years.
Of the nonsense kind, of course.
Thank you for sharing it.
Well, to the point.
"If she’s really not treating him as a valuable asset, why does she care if he sticks his penis into some other girl? Why is that any worse than him bowling with her? She’s worried the other girls’ sexual attraction is going to have more appeal than hers and therefore the investment she made in this guy isn’t going to pay off."
This is a good economic market based analysis of couples.
Should I say (related to my previous assertions): "Quod erat demonstrandum"?
But, against my own above words, I´ll take the freedom (of also democracy) as criteria instead of the individualism of market laws.
That means:
Is your right, no debate, to accept a partnership with the societal contractual agreement that you describe so well.
Is my freedom to avoid that kind of contracts for the same reasons I do not find desirable an irrecverable teeth ache.
And same as in that case, the choosed solution is extraction: to make her / him an Ex. And...ASAP.