Glory

</strong>

You can phrase it however you like. You have made an argument in the words you chose for your questions. If you were being objective you would not use words like "charms". You have also, ignored the arguments so far. You seem only interested in arguing with me.

</strong>

I don't know.

No. There is a difference between necessity and inevitability. If you assume that there has never been a marraige in which both partners were entirely honest it doesn't indicate that such a thing is immpossible.


</strong>

Deception is, by definition, intentional.

</strong>

This may be true in a very broad sense but, as vesica pointed out, one does not have to be hurt by their current partner in order to feel this dichotomy.

</strong>

I don't understand your metaphore or your analysis. I understand the relationship between predator and prey. I don't see how the prey's physical exertion is relevant. He runs and the predator chases. Neither is good or bad. What are you trying to say?

</strong>

Then it is unfrotunate that you are asking about people. Human behaviour is virtually impossible to judge objectively. There are no absolutes in human behaviour. One person's recipe for a successful marraige is a recipe for disaster for someone else.

</strong>

Definately not in every case. Possibly not in any case. You seem to suggest that for every truth there must be lie. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

</strong>

First of all you go wrong when you look for a rule that is universal. There aint no such animal.

Second, you must define your terms better. Deception might mean saying that the weight she put on isn't noticeable or it might mean telling him that you need to go to Houston on business when you really need to put in an appearance at your other husband's brthday party. What do you mean by deception?

</strong>

Which dictionary are you using?

</strong>

No, the distastfulness of an action does not negate its usefulness or its possible necessity.

</strong>

I was using irony to illustrate that you are putting the cart before the horse. You attribute a negative reaction to infidelity to insecurity. It's the other way around. One feels insecure because they have been cheated on. In many ways, people do behave like dogs. People who have been hurt their entire lives respond positively to any affection. On the other hand, a person who has been treated well will respond very negatively to being metaphorically smacked on the nose. This is not how a healthy person treats people and dogs don't deserve it either.

</strong>

Only as many times as you have been unclear.

</strong>

How many times have you denied saying what you said?

Not if you want to not to be convinced. Every time someone refutes your premise you tell them they haven't been thourough enough or that they are misunderstanding you or that they are building strawmen. Well, if half a dozen people misunderstood you, maybe the flaw is in your statement, rather than our interpretation of it.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Gallimore

“You can phrase it however you like. You have made an argument in the words you chose for your questions. If you were being objective you would not use words like "charms". You have also, ignored the arguments so far. You seem only interested in arguing with me.”

I’m not sure if using subjective words squares with discussing subjective issues. I’m interested in arguing with you? I think correcting the design fault of your argument is rather the case. Besides, who followed me to this forum? I’m flattered really. Email me your picture, who knows you might be lucky to have an obsequously romantic dinner with me.

“I don't know.
No. There is a difference between necessity and inevitability. If you assume that there has never been a marraige in which both partners were entirely honest it doesn't indicate that such a thing is immpossible.”

I’m not sure if I understand the difference between necessity and inevitability. But I like where you’re going. You’re focusing on the structure of my argument, not me.

“Deception is, by definition, intentional.”

Really?

“This may be true in a very broad sense but, as vesica pointed out, one does not have to be hurt by their current partner in order to feel this dichotomy.”

I think it has been somewhat clear that I’m focusing less on individual than universal issues. You’re right. One doesn’t HAVE to be hurt to appreciate the dichotomy.

“I don't understand your metaphore or your analysis. I understand the relationship between predator and prey. I don't see how the prey's physical exertion is relevant. He runs and the predator chases. Neither is good or bad. What are you trying to say?”

You said it yourself. The distastefulness (correct spelling) of an action doesn’t negate its usefulness. That is, can we really use the prey’s physical exertion as an argument against the predator’s biological necessity to kill? Never mind the metaphor. Can we use an individual’s emotional exertion as an excuse to dismantle deception as a necessity?

“Then it is unfrotunate that you are asking about people. Human behaviour is virtually impossible to judge objectively. There are no absolutes in human behaviour. One person's recipe for a successful marraige is a recipe for disaster for someone else.”

Well, it hardly requires a morsel of horse sense to comprehend that psychology is an objective study of human behavior. The word “ology” denotes science, which rejects anything subjective. Difficult? Absolutely. Impossible? No.

I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by “there are no absolutes in human behavior.” Eating isn’t? What about life and death?

“Definately not in every case. Possibly not in any case. You seem to suggest that for every truth there must be lie. This just doesn't make any sense to me.”

Claims, no premises. Not all husbands and wives lie? Possibly no husbands and wives lie? “For every truth there must be lie” doesn’t make sense to me either.

“First of all you go wrong when you look for a rule that is universal. There aint no such animal.”

A claim without any premises.

“Second, you must define your terms better. Deception might mean saying that the weight she put on isn't noticeable or it might mean telling him that you need to go to Houston on business when you really need to put in an appearance at your other husband's brthday party. What do you mean by deception?”

Well, deception is deception to me.

“No, the distastfulness of an action does not negate its usefulness or its possible necessity.”

Makes sense to me.

“I was using irony to illustrate that you are putting the cart before the horse. You attribute a negative reaction to infidelity to insecurity. It's the other way around. One feels insecure because they have been cheated on. In many ways, people do behave like dogs. People who have been hurt their entire lives respond positively to any affection. On the other hand, a person who has been treated well will respond very negatively to being metaphorically smacked on the nose. This is not how a healthy person treats people and dogs don't deserve it either.”

Can you clarify?

“Only as many times as you have been unclear.”

Whatever.

“How many times have you denied saying what you said?”

I’m entitled to deny your frenetic accusations.

“Not if you want to not to be convinced. Every time someone refutes your premise you tell them they haven't been thourough enough or that they are misunderstanding you or that they are building strawmen. Well, if half a dozen people misunderstood you, maybe the flaw is in your statement, rather than our interpretation of it.”

Not if I want to NOT to be convinced? EVERY TIME someone refutes my premise I tell him or her (proper grammatical order) that he or she hasn’t been thorough (correct spelling)? That they are misunderstanding me? That they are building straw men? HALF a DOZEN people misunderstood me?

Do you generalize everything? You haven’t yet to confute me. If you want to hurl claims and accusations with no support, why should I consider you a competent adversary? Rather than following my ass and rifling adolescent sophisms my way, why don’t you go elsewhere?

As for everyone else, I’d appreciate your analysis of an interesting article I was reading recently by Thierry Lancancourt, a French psychologist who compiled a series of obscure documents of men and women discussing about their experience with infidelity, among other things, and which provoked the question of deception.

Here’s an excerpt. Confession of Adrien Dieudonne, 37 years old.

“I used to sleep around, you know. I was sleeping with a woman from my work. There were other women, too. I felt bad about it. I used to hate myself when I came home, you know. When I looked at my wife or my children, I couldn’t live with myself. But I think quilt made me a better husband, a better father. I know you will laugh. But it is true. I was determined to make my wife happy. And my family was happy. Very happy. But when I went out, I always looked for women. I said to myself, if this self-disgust is the price for betrayal, I can live with it. But in a couple of months, I couldn’t stand it. I had to tell my wife. I had to come clean. So I told her. She was, of course, upset. But she didn’t cry. She wasn’t angry. Instead, she said, “Is she pretty?” Then she kept asking me weird questions. Questions like, you know – they made me uncomfortable. But the more I told her, the more she became comfortable. So I told her everything. I promised her I would never sleep around. I promised her that I would never cheat on her again. She said nothing for days, then weeks. Then she told me that it was nothing. That she didn’t mind at all, since she knew I loved her. Then she said something unbelievable. She said I could sleep around. I never did. I don’t know why. It’s not same anymore. Nothing is same anymore.”

So many questions. Why isn’t it same anymore? Why doesn’t he take advantage of his wife’s permission to sleep around? What do you think?

Glory

Gallimore,

You are a garden variety misogynist looking for someone to validate your adolescent desires. You fancy yourself a debater but you can't even define your terms in order to make rational discourse possible and you would rather point out typos than make a clear argument. I'm bored by your pettiness. Let me know if you learn how write or argue.

Glory

Vesica

That she didn’t mind at all, since she knew I loved her.

Intresting woman....I think in some relationships deception by one partner can make the relationship stronger in the end. But, you need parteners with similar ideas about trust. For the woman in your example, she is secure in that knowledge (or belief) that her husband truly loves her. Others might need that 'love' supported by action. Others might view infidelity as an enormous betrayal that calls into question all the trust in the relationship. If the other person can't keep his pants on, can they be relied on for support? For other behaviors the betrayed partner values?

I don't think that deception can be said to always be a good thing. It is very depedant on the dynamics and individual's beliefs within the relationship.

As for why the man in the excerpt no longer indulged, it would seem the enjoyment came from the aura of secrecy and betrayal, it was only fun if he was not allowed to do it. This kind of thinking is evident in many aspects of life.

Gallimore

I agree, Vesica.

I’m fascinated to see the antipoles that flourish in Dioudonne’s confession. I’m curious when there’s an undisruptive harmony between husband and wife, both sharing ides about trust and commutating sexual fantasies with each other, will either one of them (or both) experience the kind of happiness that Dioudonne’s family had before he confessed his wife of his unforgivable affairs? As a faithful husband-to-be, I’m somewhat antipathetic about Dioudonne’s confession. Perhaps it’s irrational to apply Dioudonne’s bathos to every marriage, yet it seems to echo the common attitude about marriage evidenced in the public spectrum. Raymond (from “Everybody Loves Raymond”) thinks he’s a sex camel, because he hasn’t received much sex in marriage. Wives claim the relationship with their husband was “exciting” before marriage. I’ve witnessed so many cases in which marriage becomes less a savory union than a martial burden. If 75% percent of marriages fail, then what’s the problem? Does the aura of secrecy and betrayal remain a salvific vehicle to remedy it? Why does this kind of thinking is evident in so many aspects of life?

Apart from anything else, I was told that husbands and wives with children have less sex than those without children. I don’t know if this is the case. Is unfrequented sex demanded in accordance with emotional commitment?

Questions abound me. Help!