</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong>Some of us actually have to get up, go home and cook dinner for the kids (steak, bake potatoes and fresh corn on the cob tonight. YUM!)

We can’t drive & surf at the same time... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sounds like someone needs to get their priorities straight! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

<small>[ July 02, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Why? Odd question, phrased as if it is ok. But many disagree with that premise, so the question is ambiguous, and reduces down to is it ok...which is what everyone seems to be addressing anyways. Cannot have a discussion of a why until everyone is on the same page, which they are not.

Apparently the title is therefore a direct reference to another poster, seems one might as well have simply said so up front, as naive has pointed out. However, IMO that isn't a big deal, this is a regular issue, and a legitimate one, it really matters little "who"se story prompted it. I don't see how kuljey could legitimately be upset by a civil, fair-minded discussion of an issue that affects her. Suppopsedly most people here value a full discussion of all viewpoints in trying to find their way. Is their any evidence kuljey wants to be treated with kid glooves, Rather than honest feedback? I personally find naives need to be so defensive more intriguing, than any concern of harm to kuljey. That is true most of the time here, more often than not, heated/passionate/inappropriate/strident/legalistic responses say more about the responder (and their lives) than the purported object of their response.

Back to the question Why? Well, actually the real question, is it ok? IMO the answer is an obvious no. For dating and marriage to have any meaning they must be different things. One of the fundamental conditions of marriage is exclusivity, which precludes dating. If this were not true then dating = marriage, there would be nothing to distinguish a difference...ie congruency, equality, and no need for different words. So what then is the question? That would be when is one free to date, in other words when is one no longer in the state of marriage, which means one must first determine, what is marriage, what conditions must exist for it to be extant. Until one knows that, one cannot know when one is no longer bound (ie free to date).

This all assumes one buys the marriage vs dating paradigm. Many do not (and such can be determined by their behaviour, regardless of what they profess). For any paradigm to prevail, it must be proven by some acceptable underlying principles. IMO one can prove (or at least make a strong case) that the monogamous relationship paradigm is the most likely behavioural choice for "happiness".

So, the answer to your question is, it is okay because they are no longer your spouse. And the arguement here really is about those who feel bound by "rules" (marriage license), that would be "gaurdian" temperaments....and those who are bound by what is (or is not)..that would be "rationals". They will never agree, they live in different realities.

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

According to my husband, it is perfectly okay to "date" someone if you work with them. He has dug in his heels and fought me on this for nearly three years now, until I am ready for the nice men with the butterfly nets and the strait-jackets to come and take me away.

I do not know where he got this idea. Probably from his company, which strongly encourages the employees to bond with each other (Teambuilding, you know) -- including single females with their married male bosses. Please don't tell me that companies don't like this. I've seen it first-hand for many years. In a lot of ways, he IS the company, and he was all for this policy.

He insists that his same actions -- driving out alone with a woman for a lunch or a dinner or any other social reason -- would be wrong if he did it on a weekend with someone he doesn't work with, but it is absolutely a non-negotiable point that there is nothing wrong with this if it's somehow connected to your job and the other person is a co-worker.

In his view, the only thing he did wrong was not tell me what he was doing. (This went on for at least a ten-year period, I know now. Does he still do it now? He says not, but who knows? Not me.)

Yes, you heard him right. His mistake was NOT in getting all mixed up with flirtatious young women who couldn't keep their butts out of his face and wasting time with them that he could have spent with his wife. His mistake was ONLY in not sharing the details of the fun they had each day with his wife.

He looked me right in the eye and told me this not 48 hours ago.

Of course, it does make perfect sense. If we had only done things his way, I could have been sitting home alone each day while he was out with the girls and looking forward to hearing about how important they all were to each other and how much fun they were having and how much of a difference he was making in their personal lives by riding to their rescue at the drop of a hat.

Gosh, that sounds like a normal healthy marriage, doesn't it? What was I thinking by turning down an offer like that?

I am just about ready to call and have myself committed. I really, really am.

I once dated a block of dark gray limestone. Sucker 2rned out 2 be something like 800 million years old! Wasn't so much as a trilobite in sight at the time, so it wasn't an A! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

-REALLY ol' 2long

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: 2long ]</small>

Very good post, sufdb!
(are you a programmer per chance?)

And the arguement here really is about those who feel bound by "rules" (marriage license),
So why would someone play by the “rules” (getting married) if it’s something they don’t believe in?

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Chris -CA123 ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong>Very good post, sufdb!
(are you a programmer per chance?)

And the arguement here really is about those who feel bound by "rules" (marriage license),
So why would someone play by the “rules” (getting married) if it’s something they don’t believe in?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have programmed, but am not a programmer.

Everyone has rules, that wasn't my point. Each temperament defines rules differently. Gaurdian temperaments find their well-being in an adherence to clearly defined heirarchial rules. There is little confusion, the rules are typically black and white, and their justification is simply that the rule exists.

Rationalists live by rules also, with a caveat, the rule has to make sense. They constantly evaluate whether the rules lead to good outcomes, if not, they will alter, or even abandon the rule.

This leads to an irreconcileable conflict if each ridgidly insists on their paradigm. For a gaurdian, that the rule is followed is paramount, and justification in itself, it's own reward. In the case of marital disharmony such folks will argue you never give up, the vow (rule) says you cannot. If you are unhappy, then you reprogram yourself to accept your circumstance. But the marriage is always sancrosanct. Makes no difference how the marriage came to be, whether one would make the same choice again, etc, etc.

A rationalist will agree that committment is important, but they will require the marriage be a safe, emotionally desireable, psychologically healthy enviroment. They accept the idea that one can make a marital error in choice, that people can be incompatible, etc. etc. that one can love or care about someone, yet not be able to live with them in a successful intimate relationshop.

These opposing focus on marriage will lead to different opionions and choices about marriage, including when it ends. A rationalist will view the marriage license as an economic contract (which it is), and will make dating decisions based on the reality of the interactions in the relationship. Obviously if two are not living together, divorce is filed, that pretty much says the marriage is done...from a rationalist standpoint. A gaurdian will say it is rule based, and one is not divorced until the rulemakers (the state) says so...both are right..but each will make behavioural decisions for different reasons.

IMO the "real" reality is somewhere in between. It makes psychological sense that at some point the conditions that create a marital climate cease to exist...then rules or no, you are no longer in a state of marriage. I don't think one can write this down and apply it, but I think we each know when it is true in our own lives. I also think if one dates while they are still "married" (psychologically speaking), there are unhealthy consequences, so it behooves one to err on the side of caution, and not date until they clearly are "divorced".

Thank you Sufdb

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> A rationalist will agree that committment is important, but they will require the marriage be a safe, emotionally desireable, psychologically healthy enviroment. They accept the idea that one can make a marital error in choice, that people can be incompatible, etc. etc. that one can love or care about someone, yet not be able to live with them in a successful intimate relationshop.

These opposing focus on marriage will lead to different opionions and choices about marriage, including when it ends. A rationalist will view the marriage license as an economic contract (which it is), and will make dating decisions based on the reality of the interactions in the relationship. Obviously if two are not living together, divorce is filed, that pretty much says the marriage is done...from a rationalist standpoint. A gaurdian will say it is rule based, and one is not divorced until the rulemakers (the state) says so...both are right..but each will make behavioural decisions for different reasons.

IMO the "real" reality is somewhere in between. It makes psychological sense that at some point the conditions that create a marital climate cease to exist...then rules or no, you are no longer in a state of marriage. I don't think one can write this down and apply it, but I think we each know when it is true in our own lives. I also think if one dates while they are still "married" (psychologically speaking), there are unhealthy consequences, so it behooves one to err on the side of caution, and not date until they clearly are "divorced".

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have been reading this thread and almost posted a couple times but didn't . . .

When I left my now xH I had no intention of ever going back to him. We had tried, been to countless counselors, ministers, etc. and nothing was working. . . he was physically abusive to the point of almost killing me on a few occassions

(God willing you'll never know what it's like to look up into the face of your spouse as he has you on the floor with his hands around your throat -- and with the last ounce of ability you have before passing out you mouthe to him "You're going to kill me" and with the coldest eyes staring back at you and with a slight grin on his face hear him say in return "That's right!" -- and that's just one of the times, I have written about others in Recovery)

I went to work often with bruises. I was beaten just hours before my final exams -- to which our ministers intervened hours later and he told them I got what I deserved. It really didn't matter what was going on or why, I was beaten once and had a full bookshelf pulled down on top of me for refusing to eat pizza.

He then began refusing even to go to counseling. . . said it didn't help . . .

When I left, I left for good, everything was tried -- the marriage was broken beyond repair -- he was physically, emotionally (and for the first time here on MB I will admit) there was one case of sexual abuse from him to my person.

I filed for divorce, I kicked him out -- he even went back to his home state to live -- and then to further control me and to abuse me from a distance he delayed and delayed the divorce . . .

The phone calls were agonizing, his threats were even recorded on my answering machine.

So how long was I going to continue to keep myself, my life, my healing on hold -- how long was I going to let him run my life and be his victim? What about my kids? How long was he going to get to control and victimize me/us all on the account of a piece of paper?

May you never know what it's like to have to hide from your spouse and separate from your kids, while both are in hiding so that they can be kept even safer.

Everyone knew the marriage was over. Everyone wondered what had taken me so long to leave the situation. Everyone that is but xH.

He could have kept the divorce going and going for a very long time, and he tried -- only he finally messed up.

I'm not talking about an affair here -- I'm talking about abuse, severe abuse and the control an abuser inflicts on his victim.

So I guess I'm a rationalist in this instance -- but every situation is different -- and I have actually become insensed when the abuse rational and defense was/is used when I knew better.

I know there are many of you who will not agree -- yes I dated before the divorce was final -- was already well into year two and heading to year three. --

Those of you that are rule based will throw up your hands in disgust -- my situation was very different than someone having an exit affair, etc. etc. -- there are sometimes gray areas and extenuating circumstances.

way2

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: way2 ]</small>

Way2 thanks for sharing.

I was trying to imagine what it must have been like .... for the men you dated as a married woman .... while you were fighting to divorce a seriously strange abusive man ....

I was trying to imagine the hurt and defensive heart wounds you carried around with you while dating ..... and , I was trying to imagine the impression your necessary protective mechanisms made on the men you dated ....

As you look back at your past ... now a wiser and more balanced woman ... imagine you find yourself in the position to help a woman escaping the hell of an abusive marriage. What dating advice would you offer her.... if asked.

Thanks

Pep

jeez way, a horrifying story, I don't think anyone in any camp would find fault with you..at some point survival trumps all rules, even the gaurdians would agree with that. This isn't about a better view by the way, we have all the temperaments because we need them. The gaurdians keep the rationalists honest, and the rationalists keep the gaurdians from draconian adherence to "one" common good, and stagnation.

Am glad you got away, and took back your life, whatever type you are.....hey go to melody's thread and type yourself

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=024357

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

"survival trumps all rules" ....?

Somehow, I am pretty sure that a woman can survive without dating while married.

I don't think I understand what you're saying ...

meaning when survival is at stake there are no rules only expediency...wasn't particularly referring to the topic of the thread, sorry for the confusion. I suppose the tie in was the notion (some advocate) that one has to remain married no matter what.

Way, I was interested in pepperbands question to you as well. Looking back what role did the dating play (good or bad) in your psychological recovery?

pepperband --

I know in your view I was still married -- but every vow had been broken (I did have evidence of him having an A) -- as a rationalist I don't think I was married except for a paper.

I would not give "dating" advice.

I can hear your disdain, and for that I am very sorry.

Unless you've ever been in that situation it's hard to understand .. the physical, psychological and sexual abuse removes much from you -- it's hard to see yourself as a viable and capable person who can be loved.

way2

<small>[ July 04, 2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: way2 ]</small>

sufdb --

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Way, I was interested in pepperbands question to you as well. Looking back what role did the dating play (good or bad) in your psychological recovery? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I "dated" only one person - -he was the person that was part of the group who were trying to get me to leave my xH and then closed around me to protect me.

Frankly I never thought I would be attracted to this person -- always thought he'd be with someone else.

The good --

It allowed me to beleive that I was capable of being loved -- it helped melt away all the words and damage doen by xH.

Because of the person I was with I was able to keep my faith, which I was loosing because of the abuse and the way xH used to twist religion and even our vows to keep control of me.

I was able to believe in marriage and vows -- for I could continue to beleive in love and that love for me in someone else was possible.

Knight in shining armour syndrome.

I was able to trust again -- especially men again.

I was able to resist the poisons xH was spewing about me and to me to hold me down and control me. Again this level of abuse produces psychological effects that keep women and whole families in the abuse for years.

I was able to take back *my* life again -- even IC was encouraging me to date again for those reasons.

The downside --

Knowing that most people will not understand, will judge and so you must hide this part of your story.

<small>[ July 04, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: way2 ]</small>

Way2 .... I have much curosity and interest to learn from what you unfortunately experienced. I pray that no other human ever experience the fear and humiliation that you've endured .... Know this Way2, I feel no distain. I feel great sadness and great anger for what you experienced. You "hear" incorrectly.

I watched "What's Love Got To Do With It" about 4 nights ago on TV. It's the movie made about Tina Turner's life before she was a single artist. It's a well made movie. It had a horrific rape scene with Ike Turner punching her and kicking her, then strangling Tina while he rapes her up against the fish tank in their living room. Your story created a visual in my mind that was very uncomfortable.

I really don't see how a woman could trust a man intimately after having such an experience. I imagine it would take much therapy and years to heal enough to be relationship-ready.

If you'd like, I'll stop posting anything to you. We seem to have a tendency for antagonistic misunderstandings. For my part, I apologize.

Adieu.

sufbd

I was pretty sure I was misunderstanding your meaning .... thanks for the clarification.

<small>[ July 04, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</small>

No pepper don't stop posting to me.

After writing that post (and only scratching the surfice) I was rather drained and it affected my thinking afterward

actually I have agreed with you on several occassions and have said so.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have much curosity and interest to learn from what you unfortunately experienced. I pray that no other human ever experience the fear and humiliation that you've endured .... Know this Way2, I feel no distain. I feel great sadness and great anger for what you experienced. You "hear" incorrectly </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Tina's story hit really close to home ... if you want ask questions please do ... it's been so long since I told anything about this I'm just a little rusty.

I would never want to encourage the situation I was in for anyone ... it was very stressful -- and maybe very different from the norm

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I really don't see how a woman could trust a man intimately after having such an experience. I imagine it would take much therapy and years to heal enough to be relationship-ready. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">One of the reasons I was beaten was because I stopped being able or watnign to be intimate with xH -- he couldn't make the connection between lack of feelings for someone who was hurting you and zero desire to "be" with him.

<small>[ July 04, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: way2 ]</small>

To the original post...

...our law makers and more so...our COURTS (with the backing of society accepting it in general) think it is ok to do so...

L.A. Suburb Making Adultery Legal.

Oh yes... not to exclude the 'media'...
The Associated Press... has the nerve to refer to 'adultrey' as "Archaic Law".

...when are we going to elect representatives of government?... to stand up for marriage/morals!

...when are we going to turn off the TV, stop reading the trash of 'relativistic thought'?

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<small>[ July 04, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: NSR ]</small>

In my first post her, I ALMOST wrote "No exceptions" to dating while married. But I really don't like to use the words "never" or "always".
I still think it's not gonna be "okay" 99.99 % of the time.

If your spouse has an affair, moves out and you are dating within 3 months of d-day, I'm gonna say it's NOT okay.

Almost always, a situation needs to be looked it individually before you can lump it into the big heap with the rest.

Sometimes, dating will not make the situation worse/better.

But until you have a "clean" break (divorce COMPLETED) in a previous relationship, it can still come back to haunt you.

Also, some people seem to think they HAVE to be dating or in a relationship NOW!
Why?

Relationships are good emotionally, mentally & physically for a person (it's been proven), it's not gonna hurt to not be in one for a time and do a bit of self-analysis and personal growth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In my first post her, I ALMOST wrote "No exceptions" to dating while married. But I really don't like to use the words "never" or "always".
I still think it's not gonna be "okay" 99.99 % of the time.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Far be it for me to go against Chris on this...
...or any of his other posts...
...but in a philosophical G. K. Chesterton-esque way...

isn't it like saying... "... it's gonna be "okay" (to love and honor my God) 99.99 % of the time...
...but to dishonor Him 00.01 % of the time"?

Rarely does the thought of philosophy enter the mind when it is(has been)... abused, beaten, degraded and hurt...
...but look to Him who was... abused, beaten, degraded and hurt... ...and although we see the road as 'hard'... is it possible to offer up (as sacrifice)... the circumstances of our lives.

Many would argue...
...if there are children involved...

...I don't think that matters much...
...and if argument be the goal...
...if children are involved... all the more to show our prosterity (whethter ours or not)... the right direction.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

If I say it's wrong 99.99% of time, does not mean I think it's right the other .01%.

It means I hope I don't ever get put in the circumstances to where I would have to make a call on that .01%.

I would not say it's "wrong" in perhaps a few certain circumstances. On the other hand, I wouldn't say it's "right" or "okay" either.

Am I digging myself into a hole with this <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> ?