People who have been cheated on; do you agree with the author?

[law1204]

You're bypassing the point and getting too technical on the terminology.

 

The terms of debate are important. Words mean things.

 

Freedom of reaction to the event is what we're talking about.

 

While giving your SO the information they "need" to make an "informed decision" is a compelling argument, I don't think it overrides the other even more compelling arguments. That is my opinion.

 

Couching the principle in legalisic, somewhat nationalistic-sounding terminology such as "freedom" and "consent" and "informed decision" only makes the same tepid idea sound much more important than it really is.

 

Explain to me how a coverup of that magnitude does not remove freedom of reaction from the innocent partner. It's simple; you receive news, you act accordingly.

 

Oftentimes I hear stories from battered women who place themselves between their abusive spouses and the children - because if the children make mistakes, oftentimes an abuser will turn his wrath on them. Mothers will lie to their abuser or just not say something the child did wrong so that the abuser will leave the kids alone.

 

Sometimes, withholding information so that decisions CANNOT be made is in everyone's best interest.

 

But didn't you just say a minute ago that anyone can still leave their relationship at anytime if they want to? Getting abused forever because you told the truth and confessed to cheating sounds like a great reason to leave.

 

You would think, but the dynamics of abuse are not that clearcut. My therapist councelled a couple where the man emotionally abused his wife for forty years before she finally left because she had an affair early on in the relationship.

 

Even if you remove the element of "abuse" the problem with telling is that the betrayed partner will most likely use the infidelity as a weapon in any disagreement that the couple has. Even if their relationship is otherwise great, many spouses who stay together and are mostly happy still won't let the other one live down their mistake. Heard it happen a thousand times.

 

 

--Law

[law1204]

What about whether she wants to stay with you?

 

What about MARRIAGE, Karvala?

 

Ask yourself this: Does emotionally injuring your spouse by telling them (don't even deny that telling emotionally injures them because you know it does) somehow IMPROVE the relationship?

 

If you believe in marriage, and if you believe that seeing marriages break up is a bad thing, how in the world could you advocate telling and actually have the nerve to argue about "informed consent to decide whether to stay?"

 

Duh!

 

Telling damages the relationship. In no way can that be supported.

[karvala]

What about MARRIAGE, Karvala?

 

Ask yourself this: Does emotionally injuring your spouse by telling them (don't even deny that telling emotionally injures them because you know it does) somehow IMPROVE the relationship?

 

If you believe in marriage, and if you believe that seeing marriages break up is a bad thing, how in the world could you advocate telling and actually have the nerve to argue about "informed consent to decide whether to stay?"

 

Duh!

 

Telling damages the relationship. In no way can that be supported.

 

Surely you're being ironic? You can't seriously be arguing that lying about cheating is a good way to achieve a healthy marriage, and that anyone who advocates telling their partner the truth wants to see marriages break up?

 

Telling doesn't damage the relationship. Cheating damages the relationship. How about not cheating as a way of preserving the marriage? Or do you think it's just all about what you can get away with: there's no crime unless you're caught?

[law1204]

Surely you're being ironic?

 

No. The topic of this thread is if you agree with Myra Kirshenbaum who says not to tell.

 

You can't seriously be arguing that lying about cheating is a good way to achieve a healthy marriage,

 

Nope, I am not.

 

I am arguing that TELLING is a good way to damage the relationship further.

 

and that anyone who advocates telling their partner the truth wants to see marriages break up?

 

If you advocate damaging the marriage further, then what other conclusion can one come to? This is Deductive Reasoning 098. Easy stuff.

 

Telling doesn't damage the relationship.

 

We've already established that it hurts the cheatee. Deliberately hurting your spouse is not damaging HOW?

 

Cheating damages the relationship.

 

We know that. That's not the topic.

 

BTW, before you accuse people who don't tell because they wish to protect themselves from abuse of being self-intrested, keep in mind that a lot of people tell for selfish reasons as well - "I couldn't handle the guilt" is as common as flies.

[karvala]

If you advocate damaging the marriage further, then what other conclusion can one come to? This is Deductive Reasoning 098. Easy stuff.

 

Apparently not, or you wouldn't continue to get it wrong. I don't advocate damaging the marriage further, because I have not accepted your premise that telling damages the marriage. On the contrary, cheating and then lying about it damages the marriage. A marriage in which one person cheats is already damaged. A marriage in which one person cheats and then feels it's okay to lie to the other person about it is even more damaged. You clearly judge damage only by how likely the marriage is to survive, but I believe it's more than just a binary state; there is a quality to marriage, and a marriage in which one person is lying about cheating to another is of very poor quality. No proper relationship and connection between two people is possible under such circumstances; only the external pretence of normality remains. That's not my idea of a successful marriage.

 

We've already established that it hurts the cheatee. Deliberately hurting your spouse is not damaging HOW?

 

Deliberating lying to your spouse and ending any meaningful, genuinely trusting relationship, is not damaging HOW? This is the problem with your argument: you think that as long as the partner doesn't get to know about it, it's the same as if it had never happened. It isn't; the relationship is completely changed thereafter, and unlike the damage from telling, there is no possibility to repair this damage because it's never allowed to surface.

 

We know that. That's not the topic.

 

On the contrary, that's very much part of the topic. The likelihood of cheating again, for example, is strongly connected to whether or not someone tells. You argue that telling is hurtful and damaging; I could argue that not telling and increasing the likelihood of cheating again is much more hurtful and damaging.

 

BTW, before you accuse people who don't tell because they wish to protect themselves from abuse of being self-intrested, keep in mind that a lot of people tell for selfish reasons as well - "I couldn't handle the guilt" is as common as flies.

 

So? It's hardly news to me that people who cheat are capable of acting in cold self-interest, and it's hardly news that sometimes the self-interest is to keep quiet and sometimes it's to spill the beans. The fact that people tell out of self-interest does not in any way demonstrate that those who keep quiet are somehow being heroic martyrs sacrificing themselves for the sake of their relationships, however much they might like to believe it.

[anggrace]

It depends. Im glad I found out, but the relationship had already been suffering and I seriously doubt he would of stopped.

[avman]

Thread closed