<B>*Extramarital sex is a consistent feature in the history of humankind.<P>snl..which in simple terms means it is normal, no reason to dwell on guilt or morality, but rather why and what to do about it, which is my point all along re the occurence of an affair. There are very specific reasons for every single thing human beings do, we are finely tuned to SURVIVE or we would be extinct. Affairs clearly are an important survival mechanism for our species, the conclusion is inescapable, and actually makes very good sense.</B><P>Cali: <I>Ok. What separates man from animal is his ability to think. I believe we have social mores for a reason. And, just 'cause everybody's doin' it, doesn't make it right.</I><P><B>*Nearly 60% of middle and upper income married couples will be affected by an extramarital affair.<BR>*Women are becoming as likely as men to have an affair.<P>snl...which suggests people are married to the wrong people in large numbers. Or are not ready to make a marital committment in the first place. Or that marriage itself (as we practice it) is not possible for our species.</B><P>Cali: <I>more self-justification rationalizations? I do not doubt that people marry the wrong person...someone who abuses physically or emotionally is wrong...but most marriages fail because people don't have the skills to be married. I suppose you would support polygamy, then?</I><P><B>*Religion is not a deterrent to affairs.<P>snl...which suggests it is not a moral issue at all.</B><P>Cali: <I>and speed limits are not deterrents to speeders which suggest they are not legal issues? </I><P><B>*The "in-love" sensation is caused by the increased production of an amphetamine-like chemical known as PEA. It creates an intense but temporary feeling.<P>snl...I will cautiously buy that part of in-love is chemical. In fact everything we do and experience is chemical, we are a biochemical lifeform. BUT why do we produce these chemicals, what triggers them, and are they signals to encourage us to pursue and cleave to someone we have more of these in-love feelings for (frequency and duration).</B><P>Cali: <I>there is more in the book about these chemical reactions and how to keep the 'love' feelings overtime. from the book: <B> Lasting love is more than a feeling. It requires care, discipline, attentiveness and skill to survive a lifetime.</B> Lasting love lies in the chemistry of another chemical, oxytocin, 'the cuddle chemical,' an endorphin produced by the pituitary gland that stimulates a sense of security.</I><P><B>*Psychological needs play a role in affairs<P>snl...Hooray, independent verification of fit.</B><P>Cali: <I> or, a verification of EGO needs...<B>Self-esteem needs are the reason given for many affairs. Self-esteem needs are met through knowing, understanding and acceptance. Self-esteem is enhanced through talking intimately about feelings, thoughts and needs. When we inquire warmly and affirm each other, we meet one another's self-esteem needs.</B> My H has cried 'you didn't listen to me' and he is right, but he hasn't listened to me either. I asked him to talk to me not his 'friends' so we could create this intimacy.</I><P><B>*Love affairs are different from sex affairs.<P>snl.absolutely, one is about bonding for life, the other is about scratching an itch.</B><P>Cali: <I>One is about ego and self-esteem and the other is about SF</I><P><B>*Most love affairs last between two and three years but some last a lifetime.<P>snl...Yeah, I know. But the why is critical isn't it.</B><P>Cali: <I>Why? The point is they do end. And usually because the fantasy that has been created does not get supported by reality. Those that don't end, don't end because they don't seriously consider leaving their spouse...they are able to continue living out their fantasy undisturbed by duty, responsibility, and pressures of day-to-day life.</I><P><B>*Fewer than 10% of affairees divorce their spouse, then marry their lover.<P>snl...Makes sense, due to the many reasons people experience affairs, the motivation it gives the bs to change the status quo favorably for the ws, and the unwillingness of humans (in general) to take big risks. The marriage you have might not be too great, but it is a roof, a hot meal, and sex on demand. Lots of people when confronted with losing that will settle for it. Survival is a very strong drive too, and it is in direct conflict with love in an affair situation, cause you essentially have to give up everything you have for an unknow future if you choose the lover. That is a high price, and the more you have, the harder it is to pay. Ya know, all this stuff is becoming clearer and clearer. Bottom line is we are all very "selfish" as we must be. And the reason people do not leave marriages is fear, they are flat out afraid to take the risk, so they make the best of what they have. </B><P>Cali: <I> Maybe that's the point of mating for life...maybe that's why the grass is only greener over the septic tank? As you know, this book is based on anecdotal and empirical evidence...it was not pulled out of thin air...those people who married their lovers were not happier two years later, most were unhappier and wished they had 'worked it out' with their former spouse.</I><P><B>And that is ok, life is about choices, not taking the risk to better your psychological life in favor of your general well-being is a very legitimate choice. It is functionally the same choice one made when choosing to marry or not, or choosing to break-up with someone or not. I am curious about the paradigms behind the choices, the constraints that lead us to the choices. I have them too, on some levels I am loathe to leave my marriage, but I needed to understand why, why would I still choose something that does not work. I know why now, and I am in the process of destroying those paradigms and replacing them with new ones that work better in my estimation. <P>It is very hard to do, but if one cannot reprogram themself, one is stuck with the programming life handed you BEFORE you understood how life works. I think this is part of how willing one is to take risk, cause in the transition period one is very vulnerable, and it is a scarey place. But the rewards are great, more control over yourself, and where your life takes you by way of how and why you make choices. I am not going to settle for my marriage, I am going to choose it passionately, or end it, cause I think that is how life should be lived (for many reasons not relevant to this, and not specific to marriage).</B><P>Cali: <I>I would still argue that YOU can change. The dynamics of YOUR marriage can change. You do not have to CHANGE who you are with to CHANGE YOU! The best change comes from within.</I><P><B>*Nearly 80% of those who do divorce because of an affair are sorry later.<P>snl...Would be very interesting to know why, and what the criteria are for sorry. I suspect it is cause they did not do the work first. That is why I support MB principles (though I complain some about the philosophy of marriage), it forces you to do the work, and discover what exactly is going on inside you, your spouse, and the marriage. I suspect the 80% is mostly settlers, who made a bad trade cause they did not do their homework.</B><P>Cali: <I>But that wouldn't be you...making a bad trade? You know everything you need to know about OW. You can be assured that she is who she purports to be? Most people interviewed had the same problems in their second marriage they had in their first. Which seems to mean that it is NOT who you are married to, but the relationship skill that you bring to the marriage.</I><P><B>*Getting rid of the spouse does not get rid of the pain.<P>snl...Sure it does, gets rid of any interpersonal component that was unhealthy, and people talk all the time here about coming alive (both bs and ws), depends on the quality of the marriage. Surely no one would think someone who left an abusive marriage isn't gonna be in less pain? But it does not solve the problems "inside" you, but that is just commonsense in these days of pop psychology.</B><P>Cali: <I>I find it interesting you can refute her research findings. These statements were not pulled out of the air, but are based on evidence. Leaving my abusive stepfather's house did NOT relieve my pain...just because I was gone...does not mean the pain disappeared. I still have to confront some of the issues that started then.</I><P><B>*Healing from a divorce takes about three years, children pay a high price, and many spouses remain bitter for decades.<P>snl...Children pay a high price for lots of things, it is call reality, and we are all equipped to survive a reasonable range of duress from the experience, and divorce is reasonable (normal) in the human condition. There is no particular reason to single out that stress as any better or worse than the stresses of peer pressure, unreasonable parental expectations, death of a parent, addictive parents, sibling rivalry, and a whole host of failures in meeting the unique special psychological needs of each of us as children, and what that means if we are not raised perfectly. As adults we are expected to understand the limits and parameters of our berhaviour, rewrite our internal paradigms in ways we choose for our adult lives, and move on. Those who cannot do that suffer accordingly, it is how survival of the fittest works. We should do the best we can obviously as parents and as a society to raise healthy children. But I do not think it is particularly healthy to stay in a marriage you do not want to be in, for the sake of the children. In any event that is a highly personal decision, although we all care about all the young of our species. No one really is going to sacrifice anything at all except for their own dna, and if they elect to divorce, they have allready decided their kids will survive the process. That spouses are often bitter bothers me, as does regular anger in a marriage. I am not able to be bitter never have been, or hold a grudge more than 5 minutes (and believe me I have really tried sometimes, just can't do it), so maybe I am missing something. But IMO a bitter spouse (long term) is proof positive they were not marriage material, and they considered their spouse property. I personally have zero interest in being married to anyone capable of that level of anger or bitterness, that is the antitheis of love, and makes a mockery of marriage.</B><P>Cali: <I>self-serving hogwash...oops...sorry that just popped out...let me rephrase that...Children do suffer as they will have less of their parents resources, specifically time, energy and money. They will not longer have two parents 100% of the time, but now each parent 50% of the time. As the total income must now support two households instead of one, there is less money to put aside for education. And, should each remarry the resources are further subdivided. </I><P>from Staheli's book: pg.121 dangers of divorce regarding kids: 88% parents remain angry, 40% boys without college or career focus, 88% see at least one parent suffer long-term emotional damage, 50% quit college, +50% see second divorce, 50% are less successful in college and work than counterpart in intact families, 50% kids angry--many boys violent, lower self-esteem.<P><B>*Most marriages can survive an affair. If you want to stay married, you can.<P>snl...And if you want to commit suicide you can? So? Agreed we all have the capacity to do stuff not in our best intersts, that is what makes us human. The ability to override feelings, instincts, whatever we want to call the inflexible programming all other lifeforms must follow. I approach this from a diametrically different viewpoint than many, I do not think marriage is important at all, I think people are. And to stay married simple cause one is married is insane, and violates every tenet of what being human is all about...CHOICES, to better yourself. An affair should be a time you reevaluate your life, BEFORE decideing to choose to remarry your spouse, and we need to teach people how to do that, so they don't make kneejerk choices to stay OR leave a marriage. Which once again is nothing more that who you chose to be an intimate partner, it is not the be all end all of life. There are others you can fit and fit well, afterall what happens if a spouse dies? Is life over? The most important outcome of an affair is all parties doing the work to fully understand who they are, and what they want, and acting on it. Life will go on, it always does, no matter what choices any of us make.</B><P>Cali: <I>Of course you don't think marriage is important...I wouldn't expect otherwise. A person who believes in marries and upholds their vows does not have an affair. That having been said, it is an important fact for BS's and WS's to know...because in our disposible society it is all to easy to cite irreconcilable differences and move on to the next marriage...further devaluating marriage. </I><P>Whew...I made it through this.I have one thing to say to WSs and that is if you treat your spouse as you do/did your lover, you are apt to see a miracle take place.<P><I>Lovers make each other a top priority. Make your spouse your top priority. They are careful to spend quality time together. Have you fulfilled your 15 hrs. this week? They are considerate of each other and interested in each other's feelings, thoughts and ideas. They express joy, delight and love during the time they spend together. They insulate their relationship from the trivial hassles of life. They make each other feel important. </I><P><B>TREAT YOUR SPOUSE AS YOUR LOVER AND YOUR MARRIAGE AS A LOVE AFFAIR!</B><P>Sincerely,<BR>Cali<p>[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: JustPlainCali ]

Hi Cali,<P>I know you are expecting to hear from SNL but I just wanted to say that this writeup of yours is good. Very good. Dispute or disagree the points logic and reasons you presented are plain for all to see. <P>Those who chose to differ can, the consequences will happen whether they like it or not. Taking knowledge and using it correctly takes wisdom. Twisted knowledge does not produce wisdom. <P>For all the words used in this world to make excuses it all boils down to actions, which speak louder than words. <P>You have clearly taken issues, cleared up any misconceptions and left the truth. For that I thank you.<P>Mahalo,<BR>L.

Cali,<P>I have read this post a few times and I know that I am one of the new guys on the block and don't really know all of you yet but I HAVE to reply to this.<P>First, You can't help someone that won't help theirselves.<P>Second, No offence SNL, but arguing with him is like arguing with a stump. He has his points of view and he is not willing to listen to anything else. I think he enjoys arguing and will not tire before he wears you down. With his strong will and always wanting to be "right" I would hate to be his poor wife. SNL if I have you wrong forgive me but that is the way I see it.<BR>My Father in Law is like that. Always a one-sided conversation. Always about what he wants and how he sees things and if you have a differing point of view, it is dismissed.<P>Don't get me wrong SNL, I appreciate your input to my posts and others posts, even if I don't agree with them I still respect them.<P>Hope this doesn't piss anyone off because it is just the way I see things and it is really unimportant what I think...<P>Right?<P><BR>RN

Thank you for this, Cali. It needed to be said. You have certainly done your homework.<P>With admiration,<BR>Jo

I won't deny it roughneck, I do love to discuss, but I am not intransigent, and I do change my mind (from others imputs) on a regular basis. I just am fairly intolerant of unsupported positions. I function pretty much on reason, and reason is not all that common. Everyone has an opinion, but not all that many are prepared to do the work to prove it. That is ok, for them, not ok when they go public with it. For the most part no one does what anyone "tells" us, but then that means we all just careen about like mindless bumper cars. I (in my small way) attempt to bring order to this chaos by being willing to take on all comers. Knowing full well few will be swayed by reason. Ones programming is far too strong for most. But there are a goodly number of folks here who really will to debate. I think that is cause most of here figure we got nothing to lose at this point and are willing to try anything. Life crisis have a way of shaking one off their assumptions.<P>Cali: Ok. What separates man from animal is his ability to think. I believe we have social mores for a reason. And, just 'cause everybody's doin' it, doesn't make it right.<P>snl...sure it does (when the everyone is the majority, that is how it has always worked, you know that). Sigh, I wish we could have an in depth discussion of social mores, and such, but just not enough time, and this is not the place.<P>snl...which suggests people are married to the wrong people in large numbers. Or are not ready to make a marital committment in the first place. Or that marriage itself (as we practice it) is not possible for our species.<P>Cali: more self-justification rationalizations? <P>snl..Hey, look closer, I was only making suggestions.<P>cali....I do not doubt that people marry the wrong person...someone who abuses physically or emotionally is wrong...but most marriages fail because people don't have the skills to be married. I suppose you would support polygamy, then?<P>snl...I am indecisive re polygamy, it has a lot of good pragmatic things going for it. But I pretty much think we are hardwired for monagamous behaviour in mating, albeit a little looser morality re procreation (for the good of the gene pool I guess).<P>*Religion is not a deterrent to affairs.<P>snl...which suggests it is not a moral issue at all.<P>Cali: and speed limits are not deterrents to speeders which suggest they are not legal issues? <P>snl...You are correct, they are not deterents, the real deterent to speeding is the likelihood you will kill yourself. Our society would function just fine without speed limits, after a short period of natural selection removed those who "speed" from the gene pool.<P>*The "in-love" sensation is caused by the increased production of an amphetamine-like chemical known as PEA. It creates an intense but temporary feeling.<P>snl...I will cautiously buy that part of in-love is chemical. In fact everything we do and experience is chemical, we are a biochemical lifeform. BUT why do we produce these chemicals, what triggers them, and are they signals to encourage us to pursue and cleave to someone we have more of these in-love feelings for (frequency and duration).<P>Cali: there is more in the book about these chemical reactions and how to keep the 'love' feelings overtime. from the book: Lasting love is more than a feeling. It requires care, discipline, attentiveness and skill to survive a lifetime. Lasting love lies in the chemistry of another chemical, oxytocin, 'the cuddle chemical,' an endorphin produced by the pituitary gland that stimulates a sense of security.<P>snl...So are we saying once again it makes no difference who we are married too, just do the chemical thingy? The other ingredient has to be motivation. One has to want to do this work, and that involves choice, and the mysterious reasons why we choose one over another. I know what to do cali, I know how to play the game, I have played it for years, I just don't want to anymore, and that is the issue, why should I not be selfish, why shouldn't I do what I want to do? I am not the one trying to change how I love, I like who I am that way. She is the one saying she can change, will change, but I don't really think she can. She is who she is, I am who I am, that is the truth and I don't think it can change much. And it makes me really really angry that I had to love another to finally get her attention. The way I am put together means that it is too late. I am not capricious cali, when I am done I am done, I married her that way, and I can leave her that way, I don't play games. I don't want her to change, I want her to let me go peacefully.....but we will see, I have granted the reprieve, it is complicated enough I am willing to consider I may be wrong, but it is highly unlikely I am, the marriage has gone pretty much as I thought it would, 24 years ago. And I have not gotten more stupid, I understand human behaviour a lot better now, and will not make the same mistake of judgement twice.<P>*Psychological needs play a role in affairs<P>snl...Hooray, independent verification of fit.<P>Cali: or, a verification of EGO needs...Self-esteem needs are the reason given for many affairs. Self-esteem needs are met through knowing, understanding and acceptance. Self-esteem is enhanced through talking intimately about feelings, thoughts and needs. When we inquire warmly and affirm each other, we meet one another's self-esteem needs. My H has cried 'you didn't listen to me' and he is right, but he hasn't listened to me either. I asked him to talk to me not his 'friends' so we could create this intimacy.<P>...........snl..The trouble cali is you assume people should just "do it", what if one just does not want to create intimacy with you? That is the whole point, choosing who to be intimate with. I don't disagree with all this stuff, in fact I love it, I just don't want to do it with my w, I want to start over with someone more like me. And I want my wife to do it with someone more like her. I don't want to meet her emotional needs (as she needs them). Is that so hard to understand? I know her, I know what she needs, I don't want to do it, that is the whole problem. I am trying to figure out why I should just "do it" instead of wanting to do it. (she does not really want to do me either, she can't and it stresses her to try, she ends up angry and love busting, and trying to get me to be someone I am not).<P>*Love affairs are different from sex affairs.<P>snl.absolutely, one is about bonding for life, the other is about scratching an itch.<P>Cali: One is about ego and self-esteem and the other is about SF<P>snl....I don't believe in SF without in-love, and what is wrong with ego?<P><BR>*Fewer than 10% of affairees divorce their spouse, then marry their lover.<P>snl...Makes sense, due to the many reasons people experience affairs, the motivation it gives the bs to change the status quo favorably for the ws, and the unwillingness of humans (in general) to take big risks. The marriage you have might not be too great, but it is a roof, a hot meal, and sex on demand. Lots of people when confronted with losing that will settle for it. Survival is a very strong drive too, and it is in direct conflict with love in an affair situation, cause you essentially have to give up everything you have for an unknow future if you choose the lover. That is a high price, and the more you have, the harder it is to pay. Ya know, all this stuff is becoming clearer and clearer. Bottom line is we are all very "selfish" as we must be. And the reason people do not leave marriages is fear, they are flat out afraid to take the risk, so they make the best of what they have. <P>Cali: Maybe that's the point of mating for life...maybe that's why the grass is only greener over the septic tank? <P>snl...Could be cali, could be, maybe life is about playing it safe. I am a conflicted individual, I am cautious, but I am capable of taking huge risks...IF I believe in the risk. And I hate the idea of settling, I'd rather live alone, and die in a ditch by myself, then live a life just based on quid pro quo re EN. I want the passion cali, I want to live, not just exist.<P>As you know, this book is based on anecdotal and empirical evidence...it was not pulled out of thin air...those people who married their lovers were not happier two years later, most were unhappier and wished they had 'worked it out' with their former spouse.<P>snl...IMO that says more about people, than it does marriage. Very few people are in conrol of their own destinies. <P>Cali: I would still argue that YOU can change. The dynamics of YOUR marriage can change. You do not have to CHANGE who you are with to CHANGE YOU! The best change comes from within.<P>snl...I don't deny that cali. But there are other options too, and therein lies the conflict. The issue of how well you fit someone again, and how "good" can the marriage be, or not be. There is nothing inherently wrong with loving another, it is what many do when a spouse leaves by death or wandering. Do bs also have awful second marriages? No, not if they learn their lessons. This is not about the ow, why does that seem to lurk behind much of this. I have no intention of trading, nor any reason to believe I even can. This is simply about whether a marriage ends or not.<P>Cali: But that wouldn't be you...making a bad trade? <P>snl...No, that would not be me. I don't believe in trading, besides it is impossible to do, given freewill.<P>cali...You know everything you need to know about OW. You can be assured that she is who she purports to be? <P>snl...No, no one can have such assurance, life (and marriage) is a journey, not a destination, only thing you can be certain of, is nothing is certain.<P>cali...Most people interviewed had the same problems in their second marriage they had in their first. Which seems to mean that it is NOT who you are married to, but the relationship skill that you bring to the marriage.<P>snl...Again, that says more about people than it does second marriages. Those who do there homework, and apply the lessons, do just fine.<P>*Healing from a divorce takes about three years, children pay a high price, and many spouses remain bitter for decades.<P>snl...Children pay a high price for lots of things, it is call reality, and we are all equipped to survive a reasonable range of duress from the experience, and divorce is reasonable (normal) in the human condition. There is no particular reason to single out that stress as any better or worse than the stresses of peer pressure, unreasonable parental expectations, death of a parent, addictive parents, sibling rivalry, and a whole host of failures in meeting the unique special psychological needs of each of us as children, and what that means if we are not raised perfectly. As adults we are expected to understand the limits and parameters of our berhaviour, rewrite our internal paradigms in ways we choose for our adult lives, and move on. Those who cannot do that suffer accordingly, it is how survival of the fittest works. We should do the best we can obviously as parents and as a society to raise healthy children. But I do not think it is particularly healthy to stay in a marriage you do not want to be in, for the sake of the children. In any event that is a highly personal decision, although we all care about all the young of our species. No one really is going to sacrifice anything at all except for their own dna, and if they elect to divorce, they have allready decided their kids will survive the process. That spouses are often bitter bothers me, as does regular anger in a marriage. I am not able to be bitter never have been, or hold a grudge more than 5 minutes (and believe me I have really tried sometimes, just can't do it), so maybe I am missing something. But IMO a bitter spouse (long term) is proof positive they were not marriage material, and they considered their spouse property. I personally have zero interest in being married to anyone capable of that level of anger or bitterness, that is the antitheis of love, and makes a mockery of marriage.<P>Cali: self-serving hogwash...oops...sorry that just popped out...let me rephrase that...Children do suffer as they will have less of their parents resources, specifically time, energy and money. <P>snl...Again, no argument, but so what? That was my point, life is not perfect, and I have no intention of living my life for my kids, do you? Who better to decide the fate of ones children than the parent. If a parent decides they need to do something, and they are willing for their child to pay a price, they do it.... you do it, we all do it. I don't see your point. btw, I am the child of a divorced parent, and I thank God my mom left my dad (I will spare you the details).<P>cali...They will not longer have two parents 100% of the time, but now each parent 50% of the time. As the total income must now support two households instead of one, there is less money to put aside for education. And, should each remarry the resources are further subdivided. <P>snl...That does not have to be true, but it is the crux of the injury, reduced resources, not the divorce itself. I have read more recent, detailed studies, that refute this notion that children of divorce are damaged goods (are you, am I ?). Children of divorced parents, whose lifestyle is maintained, and who have devoted parenting show no discernible difference form children of 2 parent families. One could argue that a lousy parent is a lousy parent whether they stay married or not, they do not become a lousy parent cause they get divorced. Nor is their any logical natural basis for saying someone will only survive if raised by their biological parent. However, it is true (by studies) that step-parents are less likely to be nurturing, especially to step-daughters (sexual abuse is much more likely). In any event, I bought all this malarkey and refused my wifes regular suggestions we divorce, and my kids are essentially grown, so while it is an important consideration, it is moot for me, I did my duty. And I have absolutely no concern for living the remainder of my life based solely on what effect my choices might have on my adult children, that is just plain nuts. You can rest assured they are NOT living their lives doing what I want them to do, or what is in my best interest. They are doing exactly what they want, and so do I intend to do.<P>Cali: Of course you don't think marriage is important...I wouldn't expect otherwise.<P>snl...You bet. If I have to choose between the welfare of a human being, or maintaining the status quo for society, I will choose the human being everytime.<P>cali...A person who believes in marries and upholds their vows does not have an affair.<P>Snl...I did. But I should have resolved the marital issues first (an impossibility cause life is not that discreet, it is all jumbled up together. I may have just finished out my life as I was, w and I distant, having little to do with each other, but gamely worshiping our vows..... how sad that would have been, don't ya think? And that is exactly the story of many marriages, they are pictures, they are not intimacies.<P>cali...That having been said, it is an important fact for BS's and WS's to know...because in our disposible society it is all to easy to cite irreconcilable differences and move on to the next marriage...further devaluating marriage.<P>snl...Once again you talk in absolutes, but I know you do not believe every marriage should be saved. But you have the Huptza(sp?) to argue from an absolute. May I ask when you think it is ok to divorce, and is that the standard you think all should follow? Maybe time to dissect you a bit, seriously, when do you think it is ok to divorce, and why do you think irreconcilable differences do not exist? (even the Bible acknowledges they do, and that one can divorce because of it, did you realize that?). <P>Whew...I made it through this.I have one thing to say to WSs and that is if you treat your spouse as you do/did your lover, you are apt to see a miracle take place.<P>snl...That is indeed the point of MB.<P>cali...Have you fulfilled your 15 hrs. this week? <P>snl...yes.<P>cali...They are considerate of each other and interested in each other's feelings, thoughts and ideas. They express joy, delight and love during the time they spend together. <P>snl...Only if they feel it, you cannot fake this cali, you know that.<P>cali...TREAT YOUR SPOUSE AS YOUR LOVER AND YOUR MARRIAGE AS A LOVE AFFAIR!<P>snl..I did, for many years, it did not work.

*Religion is not a deterrent to affairs.<P>snl...which suggests it is not a moral issue at all.<P>Cali: and speed limits are not deterrents to speeders which suggest they are not legal issues? <P>snl...You are correct, they are not deterents, the real deterent to speeding is the likelihood you will kill yourself.<B> Our society would function just fine without speed limits, after a short period of natural selection removed those who "speed" from the gene pool. </B><P>ohhh c'mon SnL .... are you serious with this statement? Wouldn't it also remove the people who weren't "speeding" that were hit and killed by the ones who were? <P>Some of your logic runs infinite circles, SnL .. sorry but it truly does.<P>Jo

snl,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>hat was my point, life is not perfect, and I have no intention of living my life for my kids, do you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Absolutely I do, without question. Morally speaking, there is no higher function in life. Evolutionarily speaking, the only reason for a parent to exist is to produce offspring, and to make sure if they can that their offspring survive to pass on their genes. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One could argue that a lousy parent is a lousy parent whether they stay married or not, they do not become a lousy parent cause they get divorced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>One could, but one would be wrong. In many, probably most, cases, the non-custodial parent does a far poorer job of parenting than he (or she) did while living at home. My H was a good father. By all accounts (including the children's, which is what really matters) he loved his children and showed it. Now he rarely sees them because they annoy the OW. Even one of the two children that he clearly favors (as she herself has said) has said that he doesn't treat any of them very well. <P>In an earlier post you said that your youngest son was 15, I believe. I, too, have a 15 year old son. You said,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>my kids are essentially grown<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>but I strongly disagree that that is the case.

Hmmm..just a short comment...<P>Do I have intentions of living my life for my children? In a huge way, yes! I gave birth to them, they are my responsibility. I am divorced, but if I chose to remarry and the man didn't get along with my children, should I marry him? NOPE!! While my children are under my care and protection, everything I do revolves around them! When I am making a decision about something that might affect them, I automatically think of how it would benefit them. That's what a parent does!!<P>Mitzi [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I am willing to concede stalemate, SnL. The decision is full well in our minds and hands.<P>Now I will disagree 'til I die about divorce being just as good for kids. I was irrepairably harmed by my parents divorce...I have a hole in my heart which has yet to heal. I have a father that I don't know very well and feel distant from. Perhaps, no for sure, that is why I argue against divorce<B> WHEN THERE IS NO ABUSE OR MAJOR CONFLICT!</B><P>That, SnL, is when I believe divorce should occur and I concurred that my mother should divorce her last two husbands...both of whom were alcoholics with a tendancy towards violence. The second stepfather being the most damaging of all...<P>But even she doubts her reasoning for divorcing my father after all these years. It did everything those statistics predicted. Out of 4 children, only one finished college (me). The boy eventually went to a trade college, but has problems with alcohol still. Two younger sisters dropped out of college. We have a poor relationship with our father and are now distant from our mother...but as we grow older we seem to be learning and trying to change that. And, our sibling relationships have been difficult.<P>I have no doubt that the way I grew up has affected my marriage and I have no will to pass that on to my children. I will fight tooth and nail not to have to introduce them to more parenting figures. (And, by the way, I love and respect my stepmother)<P>I guess, I'll ask, like so many before me...why do you torture yourself and your W so? Just leave? End it? You are so sure that it is over...that you have to be right...and no amount of work on your part or her part is going to change your mind...<P>Cali<p>[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: JustPlainCali ]

SnL, <P>Correct me if I get out of line but are you trying to dazzle me with brilliance or baffle me with bullsh!t? Are you an engineer by trade? Or maybe a highly educated, successful business man?<P>You remind me so much of my sister with a PhD. She thinks that life has dealt her a doo-doo sandwich and thinks everyone owes her something. She divorced her poor husband to chase her boss. Well, guess where she is now? She has a lower paying job, lonely, and her X won't even give her the time of day. She is my sister and I love her dearly but she made her own bed now she has to sleep in it, from now own. <BR>She talked with all those fancy words and rambled on and on about what a injustice it was being married to her X. <BR>Look where all those fancy words and a pipe dream got her. What a damn shame! He would have done anything for her and she turned her back on him. All in the name of reason! I wonder what her reasoning is now? <BR>Sure he wasn't perfect, but who is? As she is finding out. <BR>Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Your wife? Us? I don't know that answer either! I do know this, the grass may very well be greener on the other side but who's to say it don't taste like [censored]?<P>I will be praying for you..... And I mean that!

Ok, it was a trick question, of course in a sense we live for our kids, else why have em I suppose. But the point was are you gonna disappear as a human being, live only as a reflection of your childrens needs? What about your needs, and what if there is a conflict? For example, many argue a full time stay at home mom is "best" for child. Does this mean the woman should forgo developing her own person, say going to school part time, or working in her feild? Studies suggest that a happy fullfilled parent is a more positive influence and role model than an unhappy, miserable parent. Now overlay that with a marriage, how miserable must a parent be, before the benefits of being a 2 parent family, are overshadowed by the very real negative psychological effects on human beings of living in sacrificial intimacy (ie property) to another. No free rides folks, contrary to popular opinion, one cannot just "decide" to be happy. And if you are not in a nurturing marriage, you won't be happy. If it was that simple we would not need the feild of psychology, nor would anyone be unhappy. <P>cali, why did your parents divorce? And except for our dna imperative, why should we care about our kids at all? They consume resources, and interfere in our lives, not to mention also causing us all sorts of grief. (before anyone comes unglued, I too love my kids, I just wonder why I do, and maybe I shouldn't love em quite so much).

roughneck....Correct me if I get out of line but are you trying to dazzle me with brilliance or baffle me with bullsh!t? <P>snl.... I am doing neither, I seek truth, for the purpose of choosing action. Life is complex, if we treat it simplistically we will not find the truth (or at least will not understand why it is the truth). I could care less whether I impress anyone, admiration is not even on my list of EN. I don't want to be demonized, or mistreated (hurts), but I not particularly concerned that I am one of the troop (that is a monkey joke). There you are corrected.<P>r...Are you an engineer by trade? Or maybe a highly educated, successful business man?<P>snl....Hmmmmm, no, but close. I am indeed a rational temperament, and highly analytical by disposition. I did study engineering [but didn't graduate cali [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] neither did 2 brothers or 1 sister....otoh, oldest daughter has graduated (dual degree engineer, and fine arts), and 2 more kids are well started in college (both engineers)... ]. I am actually a furnace repairman, but I do own my own (small) successful business.<P>r...You remind me so much of my sister with a PhD. She thinks that life has dealt her a doo-doo sandwich and thinks everyone owes her something.<P>snl...You need to read me more. I don't think anyone owes me anything, and I love life, the good, bad, and ugly. I made all my beds, and I sleep in them.<P>r...She divorced her poor husband to chase her boss. <P>snl...Am not doing this to trade roughneck, this marriage survives or not on it's own merits.<P>r...Well, guess where she is now? She has a lower paying job, lonely, and her X won't even give her the time of day. <P>snl...Guess he didn't really love her much huh?<P>r....She talked with all those fancy words and rambled on and on about what a injustice it was being married to her X.<P>snl....Hey, it is called ENGLISH, and I use the appropriate words to communicate my opinions. Maybe you should read the dictionary more (that was a PLAYFUL dig).<P>r...Look where all those fancy words and a pipe dream got her. What a damn shame! <P>snl...Maybe so roughneck, she may indeed have made some poor choices, such is life. Hopefully she learned from them, and will find a good marriage, is that your wish for her? Or is it preferable she suffer the rest of her life?<P>r...He would have done anything for her and she turned her back on him. <P>snl...That is simply not true, or he "would" be giving her the time of day wouldn't he? Based on that alone I would say she is better off without him. His love was very conditional, and she didn't live up to it...yuck.<P>r....Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Your wife? Us? I don't know that answer either! I do know this, the grass may very well be greener on the other side but who's to say it don't taste like [censored]?<P>snl...convince? No one. I am trying to understand some complicated emotional/psychological issues. I am not content to just live my life by accident. Events have occured that suggest I (or my life) am majorly screwed up, it behooved me to understand exactly why, don't ya think? And one line platitudes, or cliches, or standard opinions re life are inadequate for the in-depth understanding I seek. Heck roughneck, this is my life (not to mention a few others as collateral issues) at stake, and I DO want to get it right.<P>r...I will be praying for you..... And I mean that!<P>snl...Please do, I need all the help I can get. Thank-you.<P>btw are you an oil worker?<p>[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]

Good grief!<P>We love our kids because we do! It's that simple! <P>I carried each one of my 3 children for 9 months. I brought them into this world to take care of them and to love them. <P>Yes, divorce is hard on the kids. They do lose out on a lot. My children no longer have a father who is present in their lives because the Thing that he decided to leave for is more important!! Tell me that doesn't affect them!<P>I'm done!<P>Mitz

SnL,<P>This post finally did it for me! Your insensitive illogic directed to adults is merely pathetic, but your inability to empathize with and consider the worth of children is outrageous.<BR>__________________________________________<BR>[quote]<BR>And except for our dna imperative, why should we care about our kids at all? They consume resources, and interfere in our lives, not to mention also causing us all sorts of grief. (before anyone comes unglued, I too love my kids, I just wonder why I do, and maybe I shouldn't love em quite so much). <BR>___________________________________________<P>"They consume resources.." So do our food, home, cars and most other things essential to our lives and that make life better<P>"...interfer in our lives," Interfer! They make life worth living and give us a connection to the past and to the future. They are interesting, funny, good companions.<BR>They teach us about unconditional love. They are clever and cute. They help us discover the wonder of the world once again.<BR>They bring a richness and a fullness to life that only a parent can know.<P>Incidently, the DNA imperative doesn't have anything to do with the wonder of loving children. Our D is not our biological child and there is no difference in the level of commitment and fascination and joy we have with her and what we have for our biological child. What matters is one's capacity for unselfish love.<P>"...not to mention also causing us all sorts of grief." Most of us do not experience <BR>true grief to any great degree -<BR>inconvenience-frustration-irritation, maybe. In any case, most of us benefit far more than we sacrifice.<P>But most of all, children are each a unique, fascinating and emotionally fragile gift to the world. Cali is so right. Divorce has been proven to damage children of all ages<BR>in study after study. Furthermore, studies have shown that even though the parents' relationship is not perfect, kids do better with the biologic parents together than apart. Once the actions of adults have<BR>produced a child, the parents have a supreme obligation to provide an emotionally stable environment for the child EVEN if that means that the parent must sacrifice personal choices for the good of the child.<P>May I suggest that if you have doubts on this topic, you consult the writings of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Stupid Things Parents Do to Mess Up Their Kids, and the 1993 Atlantic Monthly article by Barbara Whitehouse Defoe,<BR>Dan Quayle Was Right. <A HREF="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/danquayl.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/danquayl.htm</A> <P>You say, "Children pay a high price for lots of things, it is call reality.." Good grief!<BR>And this quote horrifies me: "No one really is going to sacrifice anything at all except for their own dna," No One ???!!, not the fire fighters in NY, not the military in the middle east, not the aid workers helping the Afghan children!!!!! Maybe your heart is so hardened that YOU will not make the sacrifice, but a lot of us will.<P>Estes<P>With all due respect, your writings reflect the mind of a sadly self-centered, self-absorbed man unable to empathize with the needs and feelings of others.

estes, no offense but if you cannot engage in flights of conjecture just for the pure joy of it you should not read my posts. Nor should you or anyone assume that just cause I conjecture about something it reveals my true feelings, or implies how I will make a choice. That is a common failing of kneejerk reactions, projecting on to the speaker. It says more about your bias, and inability to have a rational discussion about volatile issues than it does anything about me. I am motivated to remove bias (as much as I can) from discussion so as to fully explore an issue, some understand that, some don't. Before you chastise me, (or anyone who may be playing devils advocate) I suggest you simply ask a specific question re behavior if you feel the need to pass judgement. It is entirely inappropriate to form (much less voice) personal judgements re someonme simply stating a position. However, no offense taken at your disrespectful judgements, and I welcome your reply (I value truth and honesty very highly), sorry I distressed you.<P>btw I agree with most of what you said, couldn't you have made those points without trashing me though? Kinda spoils the effect.<p>[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]

SnL,<P>On a forum such as this, one can respond only to the words as they are written, not the "true" feelings of the writer. It is impossible to accurately infer feelings; however, the words speak for themselves. In this form of communication a person's words are who they are. That's all we've got to go on. I can only respond to your words as written because they are what I have to work with. Your words ARE who you are unless you tell us otherwise. <P>You question my "inability to have a rational discussion about volatile issues."<BR>I saw no invitation for discussion in your post. You clearly said, "No one really is going to sacrifice anything at all except for their own dna.." You did not say, "Let's discuss the possibility that no one really is going to sacrifice anything at all except for their own dna." If you had, then a lively discussion of altruism might have ensued. As they stand, the words are patently inaccurate and insensitive, because many people do sacrifice for others to whom they are not related.<P>Considering the depth of feeling here, the issues you choose for flights of conjecture for your own entertainment are IMHO too personally painful to generate the pleasure for me that you apparently experience when you "engage in flights of conjecture just for the pure joy." I do not think that seeking joy from tossing out provocative remarks is appropriate, especially if it triggers others' distress.<P>My Webster's Dictionary defines "conjecture" as: supposition, inference from defective or presumptive evidence, conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork. Some of us have some serious concerns to work on here. I don't have the emotional reserves right now to guess what your real beliefs are or what you are writing just to see what kind of reaction you can stir up. <P>Perhaps you are right. If your posts are conjecture - inference from defective or presumptive evidence, then it is best I skip them. Life is challenging enough right now without using real tragedies as a source of "pure joy."<P>Biased, yes, I am biased. I am biased toward unselfish love and personal sacrifice.<BR>I am biased toward being genuine rather than playing with what is real and guessing what is not.<P>Forgive me if I have no tolerance for trivializing the profound effect that divorce has on children by discussing it for fun. This certainly is not a source of "pure joy" to me.<P>I apologize for any offense or disrespect.<P>Estes

sorry, estes, I messed up the post, will repost it later when I fix it.<p>[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]

I have read many of your posts, but have not posted to you many times. But after I picked up my chin after reading your comment on not living your life for your children, I think I understand where you are coming from.<P>Right now, you are the center of your universe. Maybe you always have been, or maybe it is a stage. But I truly doubt if you are going to find happiness, whatever you finally decide about your marriage, until you examine this potential truth and decide whether or not you want to live your life this way.<P>What seems to keep you hanging on in your marriage and as a dad, is that you really are a decent guy. You don't want to hurt the people you love, and you don't want to be the bad guy to them, or to society. <P>In fact, I bet you have "given" much of your life and for the most part have been good at giving. Now you are tired of "giving"...even sick of giving. Maybe the reason you are so tired of giving and so reluctant is because you do not receive in giving. The act of giving of yourself, or self sacrifice (not martrydom or self abuse) does not fulfill you or meet your needs. Giving, if you do not get is shallow and empty.<P>As Christians, we are called to put God first, others second and ourselves last. Even in a secular setting, basic morality calls for putting the needs of others at least as important as our own. Even society grapples with the right balance between individual rights/freedoms and the good of society as a whole.<P>Certainly, we have a duty to look out for ourselves. But when we value ourselves over all else, we tend to believe that the pursuit of our own happiness, even at the cost of those we love, is truly just and right. If "you" are most important, to deny yourself is to almost deny life itself.<P>If you truly want to believe and live as if you are the most important thing in your own life, then you might try the whole hearted pursuit of happiness. You may be well suited to serial monogomy where you establish one romantic relationship after another, shedding each as the romance dies.<P>To some, happiness is a goal in itself. Others believe happiness is achieved by living a life of integrity.<P>Of course, I guess you have to define happiness. If your definition is more of euphoric romantic feeling, then living a life of integrity, isn't going to "do it" for you.<P>Give it some thought and be honest with yourself.

Long time no see, FHL. You have been missed.<P>Such very wise words offered to SnL, and for myself as a struggling Christian as well.<P>Thank you,<BR>Jo

Ok, Snl - a couple of things:<BR>I have read a good many of your posts, and I don't necessarily agree with some of the others that your logic is circular. I happen to think some of it makes sense, but when I don't agree with someone I don't always want to see the 'sense' in what they may be saying. Some of what you say is true, but some of it confuses me.<BR>Like:<P>snl: "Events have occured to suggest I (or my life) am majorly screwed up...."<P>Wiffle: Events do not just occur. This is counter to your foundation that we make choices. I do not believe there are any accidents in this world. Every intention we have creates an action (or inaction) and there is an effect for every cause. So we are creating our destinies (or is it destinys?) every day. Since you are so big on the truth, you will increase your credibility if you speak it always. You had an affair. Your wife is not happy about that. You are now questioning (out loud) your marriage that you may have been questioning internally for years. This is more truthful than to say, "events have occured..."<P>Second:<P>Cali: Ok. What separates man from animal is his ability to think. I believe we have social mores for a reason. And, just 'cause everybody's doin' it, doesn't make it right.<P>snl...sure it does (when the everyone is the majority, that is how it has always worked, you know that). Sigh, I wish we could have an in depth discussion of social mores, and such, but just not enough time, and this is not the place.<P>Where is your empirical or historical evidence to support "everybody doing it makes it right". I don't remember this life lesson. If I am living in a drug culture where everyone (at least everyone I know) is shooting up herion, this makes it right? And what do mean by "right"? Legal? Moral? Healthy? Acceptable? Normal???? I truly don't know what you mean when you say it has always been this way if the majority is doing something. Does that mean Rwanda is right? Hitler was right? <BR>Plus, you are forgetting the fact that "everybody" is not doing it. In my own marriage an affair is not the problem. Neither my husband nor I has had any sort of sexual or emotional contact with an outside person in our 15 years of marriage. I feel certain mine is not the only monongamous marriage on the planet.<BR>More clarification on this point please.<P>Finally:<BR>I am intrigued by your points about children. I have 3 of my own and I would not say I am "living" for them. I helped to give them life. I am responsible for their care, feeding, upbringing and teaching. I love them more than I can put into words. I would do anything to help them become healthy, well-rounded contributing adults. I certainly hope they like me when they are grown and that we are friends as well as family. But, now is not the time to be their friend. Now is the time to be their mother. <BR>The part that intrigues me is your question of why we love our children as much as we do. If we could understand that and somehow incorporate that kind of feeling to our spouses it sure might be helpful. And I don't think it is a genetic thing - certainly adoptive parents feel the exact kind of truly unconditional love for their children. But, I guess this goes to your point of how we can't make ourselves feel something - can't create it, it is either there of not. <BR>So, I guess I am saying I agree people shouldn't stay married simply for the children. But, I do think they are a reason to try to work things out.