looking for other perspectives (very long)

dragonlady wrote in message ...
In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

How long does one's spouse have to be incapacitated before you
consider it reasonable to seek out someone else to meet your needs?
Two years? Ten? Never?

Please, give some thought to your answer. How many days of coming
home to a place without a partner could you endure before seeking
another? 1000? 10,000? How many lonely nights? How long would you
choose to live the life of a widow without even the option of looking
for another mate?

I am not suggesting that you STAY in an untenable situation. I am
suggesting, however, that until you get a divorce, relationships with
others are inappropriate.

Now, if your partner decides they'd accept you being polyamorous, then
you are not cheating on them. If you AND YOUR PARTNER decide to chage
the vows, than it's different -- under those conditions, you aren't
cheating, you are just operating under differnt rules than most of us.

However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years? Is it really more ethical to
divorce them and move on with your life? Maybe, but I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure I would _condone_ an affair in such a situation, but I'm
not going to condemn it either.

Even if you are certain that you would remain faithful and celebate
for the rest of your life if necessary, can you not understand that
others might find the need to find another person to share their life
with? The daily ups and downs, the joys and trials of life, these are
things that most of us wish to have someone to share with....someone
whom we love and who loves us back.

Sure, some people are single forever, whether by choice or
circumstance, but can you not understand that others might need to
find someone else to fill the hole left by a partner that isn't there
for them anymore?

Personally, I don't consider divorcing a spouse who's been incapacited
by illness for years to be any less a breaking of one's vows than an
affair. After all, the oath was "in sickness and in health .... till
death do you part".

Except when your partner is refusing to get treatment for a mental
illness, I would say THEY have broken their vows.

This is something I watched up close many years ago. A couple that I
was relatively close to seemed to have a good marriage, but the wife's
manic-depressive illness began to get worse and worse. She flatly
refused to get treatment for it. At first, I thought the "in sickness
and health" line applied, and he should stay with her. What convinced
me otherwise was realizing that it was no different from refusing to
stay married to an alcoholic who refuses to stop drinking: the power to
change things is there, and if they won't even TRY to get better, I'd
say the healthy partner is under minimal obligation to try to stay.

I think it's OK to say, "If you don't stop (drinking, using cocaine,
gambling all our money away) I am going to leave you." Those are all
types of illnesses. I think it's also OK to say, "If you refuse to get
treatment for your (depression, schizophrenia, manic-depression) I am
going to leave you."

I do NOT think it's OK to decide that life is miserable with your
partner, so you're going to cheat on them.

If you feel that they have broken their vows and it's now acceptable
for the other partner to break theirs, why is acceptable to break the
"till death do you part" part, but not the "forsaking all others"
part? I'm not talking about being lying or deceitful about it, just
not requiring permission from the partner. If you don't need their
agreement to divorce them in this situation, why do you feel that
their agreement is needed to seek out solace from another party.

A few years ago, I thought much as you did. This experience (and
please remember that I have NOT broken any vows) has taught me that I
should not rush to judgement of other's behavior. One doesn't really
know what they might be experiencing. Still, as the OP demonstrates,
affairs have consequences for everyone involved. Not something to be
entered into lightly.

I try (really hard) not to judge other people -- but that doesn't mean
that I have to not have an opinion about what constitutes ethical
behavior. If asked, I'm more than willing to share that opinion -- and
here, I was asked.

Yes, and I thank you for sharing. I hope you will consent to share
your opinion in more depth.

BTW, thanks for the story about your friends. My spouse is
manic-depressive as well. I've been able to cope with it reasonably
well for most of our marriage, but this last depressive episode,
brought on by extremely stressful circumstances beyond our control has
been the worst, including for the first time, some catatonic periods.

(abacus) writes:

dragonlady wrote in message ...
In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

How long does one's spouse have to be incapacitated before you
consider it reasonable to seek out someone else to meet your needs?
Two years? Ten? Never?

Please, give some thought to your answer. How many days of coming
home to a place without a partner could you endure before seeking
another? 1000? 10,000? How many lonely nights? How long would you
choose to live the life of a widow without even the option of looking
for another mate?

I am not suggesting that you STAY in an untenable situation. I am
suggesting, however, that until you get a divorce, relationships with
others are inappropriate.

Now, if your partner decides they'd accept you being polyamorous, then
you are not cheating on them. If you AND YOUR PARTNER decide to chage
the vows, than it's different -- under those conditions, you aren't
cheating, you are just operating under differnt rules than most of us.

However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years?

What if ... Eleanor Roosevelt could fly!

In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

dragonlady wrote in message
...
In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

How long does one's spouse have to be incapacitated before you
consider it reasonable to seek out someone else to meet your needs?
Two years? Ten? Never?

Please, give some thought to your answer. How many days of coming
home to a place without a partner could you endure before seeking
another? 1000? 10,000? How many lonely nights? How long would you
choose to live the life of a widow without even the option of looking
for another mate?

I am not suggesting that you STAY in an untenable situation. I am
suggesting, however, that until you get a divorce, relationships with
others are inappropriate.

Now, if your partner decides they'd accept you being polyamorous, then
you are not cheating on them. If you AND YOUR PARTNER decide to chage
the vows, than it's different -- under those conditions, you aren't
cheating, you are just operating under differnt rules than most of us.

However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years? Is it really more ethical to
divorce them and move on with your life? Maybe, but I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure I would _condone_ an affair in such a situation, but I'm
not going to condemn it either.


That is a special circumstance. The only person I ever knew in a
situation like that (her spouse wasn't in a coma, but so severely brain
injured that he had to be put in a nursing home) had to divorce him,
because if she didn't, she had to stay on welfare -- if she got a job,
she'd become responsible for his medical bills. It was hard -- but,
yes, a divorce WAS the only option. She continued to visit him and have
contact with him, but got on with her life.

Even if you are certain that you would remain faithful and celebate
for the rest of your life if necessary, can you not understand that
others might find the need to find another person to share their life
with? The daily ups and downs, the joys and trials of life, these are
things that most of us wish to have someone to share with....someone
whom we love and who loves us back.

Sure, some people are single forever, whether by choice or
circumstance, but can you not understand that others might need to
find someone else to fill the hole left by a partner that isn't there
for them anymore?

Personally, I don't consider divorcing a spouse who's been incapacited
by illness for years to be any less a breaking of one's vows than an
affair. After all, the oath was "in sickness and in health .... till
death do you part".

Except when your partner is refusing to get treatment for a mental
illness, I would say THEY have broken their vows.

This is something I watched up close many years ago. A couple that I
was relatively close to seemed to have a good marriage, but the wife's
manic-depressive illness began to get worse and worse. She flatly
refused to get treatment for it. At first, I thought the "in sickness
and health" line applied, and he should stay with her. What convinced
me otherwise was realizing that it was no different from refusing to
stay married to an alcoholic who refuses to stop drinking: the power to
change things is there, and if they won't even TRY to get better, I'd
say the healthy partner is under minimal obligation to try to stay.

I think it's OK to say, "If you don't stop (drinking, using cocaine,
gambling all our money away) I am going to leave you." Those are all
types of illnesses. I think it's also OK to say, "If you refuse to get
treatment for your (depression, schizophrenia, manic-depression) I am
going to leave you."

I do NOT think it's OK to decide that life is miserable with your
partner, so you're going to cheat on them.

If you feel that they have broken their vows and it's now acceptable
for the other partner to break theirs, why is acceptable to break the
"till death do you part" part, but not the "forsaking all others"
part? I'm not talking about being lying or deceitful about it, just
not requiring permission from the partner. If you don't need their
agreement to divorce them in this situation, why do you feel that
their agreement is needed to seek out solace from another party.

I don't think we included "til death parts us" in our vows; lots of
weddings leave that line out these days.

But even so -- I feel it is more honest to divorce first.


A few years ago, I thought much as you did. This experience (and
please remember that I have NOT broken any vows) has taught me that I
should not rush to judgement of other's behavior. One doesn't really
know what they might be experiencing. Still, as the OP demonstrates,
affairs have consequences for everyone involved. Not something to be
entered into lightly.

I try (really hard) not to judge other people -- but that doesn't mean
that I have to not have an opinion about what constitutes ethical
behavior. If asked, I'm more than willing to share that opinion -- and
here, I was asked.

Yes, and I thank you for sharing. I hope you will consent to share
your opinion in more depth.

BTW, thanks for the story about your friends. My spouse is
manic-depressive as well. I've been able to cope with it reasonably
well for most of our marriage, but this last depressive episode,
brought on by extremely stressful circumstances beyond our control has
been the worst, including for the first time, some catatonic periods.

My heartfelt sympathies. I know for my friend the last straw was having
to have his wife involuntarily committed, because she stopped eating and
was within a week or so of dying. When she got out of the hospital, and
that particular depressive phase ended, she insisted she was fine, and
continued to refuse treatment. He said he simply could no longer live
like that, and never again wanted to deal with the courts, having to
prove that his wife was crazy. She ended up going back to live with her
parents. It was several years after the divorce before he started
dating again; we moved away about then, and lost track of him (and her).

I hope your wife gets the treatment she needs. Manic-depresives who get
treatment may still have some problems, but they are MUCH easier to live
with!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article vJ%wc.17426$Sw.15444@attbi_s51,
Doug Anderson wrote:

(abacus) writes:

dragonlady wrote in message
...
In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

How long does one's spouse have to be incapacitated before you
consider it reasonable to seek out someone else to meet your needs?
Two years? Ten? Never?

Please, give some thought to your answer. How many days of coming
home to a place without a partner could you endure before seeking
another? 1000? 10,000? How many lonely nights? How long would you
choose to live the life of a widow without even the option of looking
for another mate?

I am not suggesting that you STAY in an untenable situation. I am
suggesting, however, that until you get a divorce, relationships with
others are inappropriate.

Now, if your partner decides they'd accept you being polyamorous, then
you are not cheating on them. If you AND YOUR PARTNER decide to chage
the vows, than it's different -- under those conditions, you aren't
cheating, you are just operating under differnt rules than most of us.

However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years?

What if ... Eleanor Roosevelt could fly!

No -- it's a legitimate question. Things like this happen -- people
have brain injuries, or develop dementia, or develop a mental illness
that requires long term (maybe forever) hospitalization -- asking what
the ethical thing to do is at a time like that is legitimate, and, I
think, helps define the ethical boundaries.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Paula" wrote in message
I am prepared to walk away from him (and take our child with me) if
I/we/he decide(s) that's what's best for everyone.


The best advise is to break away from this relationship. Your two year mark
seems reasonable and logical... that is about the time it takes for many
people to get over a "breakup" and start to move on. You may be quite
surprised at what a real love means when you enter into a sincere healthy
relationship with a man who has no strings attached.

Please consider in the meantime it is possible that things may turn bad and
he will want his daughter, but not you in the picture. I was with my newborn
at the checkout line when I met a young woman in front of me. She blurted
out "I just had a baby". Then she went on to tell me that she and the baby's
father were never married, and that shortly after the baby was born, the man
and his mother took legal action to gain custody of the child and was
somehow able to convince the court that the woman was unfit. She said as
soon as she had her baby, she had to turn the baby over to them. I couldn't
believe what I heard. But things like this do happen. So please be careful,
don't promise anything, or sign anything without a lawyer. Don't leave your
daughter with them for any extended period of time.... this would be
construed as abandonment.

dragonlady wrote:
However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for
example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years?

What if ... Eleanor Roosevelt could fly!

No -- it's a legitimate question. Things like this happen --
people
have brain injuries, or develop dementia, or develop a mental
illness
that requires long term (maybe forever) hospitalization -- asking
what
the ethical thing to do is at a time like that is legitimate, and,
I
think, helps define the ethical boundaries.

It may be a legitimate question, but it distorts what is really
being talked about with the original situation. It may be something
to discuss in theory, but I would think a new thread to discuss that
would be a more appropriate place.

Personally I don't see any of the above as reasons for abandoning my
commitment to my spouse.

Putting the discussion here in this thread dilutes the fact that
none of the scenarios above come even close to the situation that
started this thread.

Cal~

In article ,
"_calinda_" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for
example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years?

What if ... Eleanor Roosevelt could fly!

No -- it's a legitimate question. Things like this happen --
people
have brain injuries, or develop dementia, or develop a mental
illness
that requires long term (maybe forever) hospitalization -- asking
what
the ethical thing to do is at a time like that is legitimate, and,
I
think, helps define the ethical boundaries.

It may be a legitimate question, but it distorts what is really
being talked about with the original situation. It may be something
to discuss in theory, but I would think a new thread to discuss that
would be a more appropriate place.

Personally I don't see any of the above as reasons for abandoning my
commitment to my spouse.

Putting the discussion here in this thread dilutes the fact that
none of the scenarios above come even close to the situation that
started this thread.

Cal~




Ah, but I'm a big fan of thread drift . . . .
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote:

The only person I ever knew in a
situation like that (her spouse wasn't in a coma, but so severely brain
injured that he had to be put in a nursing home) had to divorce him,
because if she didn't, she had to stay on welfare -- if she got a job,
she'd become responsible for his medical bills.

Not an uncommon situation with Alzheimer's, actually.

--Helen

In article , dragonlady
says...

In article ,
"_calinda_" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
However, I can never condone cheating.

I can appreciate that sentiment. But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for
example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years?

What if ... Eleanor Roosevelt could fly!

No -- it's a legitimate question. Things like this happen --
people
have brain injuries, or develop dementia, or develop a mental
illness
that requires long term (maybe forever) hospitalization -- asking
what
the ethical thing to do is at a time like that is legitimate, and,
I
think, helps define the ethical boundaries.

It may be a legitimate question, but it distorts what is really
being talked about with the original situation. It may be something
to discuss in theory, but I would think a new thread to discuss that
would be a more appropriate place.

Personally I don't see any of the above as reasons for abandoning my
commitment to my spouse.

Putting the discussion here in this thread dilutes the fact that
none of the scenarios above come even close to the situation that
started this thread.

Cal~




Ah, but I'm a big fan of thread drift . . . .

Thread drift is a Good Thing - as long as it does not fold back with a
conclusions like: well, if it's OK to abandon one's committment to one's spouse
in an extreme situation like permanent profound brain damage, then it's not so
bad to be having an affair.

Not that such a conclusion is *explicitly* drawn - and if it were, it would be
challenged I'm sure. It's that so often this kind of drift leaves an impression
like that, where people reading conclude: well, it's not all so clear cut
anyway.

So I guess what I'm saying is that thread drift is a fine thing (else USENET
wouldn't be much fun ;-), but also there's a place for folks like Cal to remind
us that we've drifted beyond the bounds of applicability. But we can discuss
all the other cases at the same time.

Cheers,
Banty

dragonlady wrote:

But what if your partner is
incapacitated and you cannot consult with them? Say, for example, a
spouse injured and in a coma for years? Is it really more ethical to
divorce them and move on with your life? Maybe, but I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure I would _condone_ an affair in such a situation, but I'm
not going to condemn it either.


That is a special circumstance. The only person I ever knew in a
situation like that (her spouse wasn't in a coma, but so severely brain
injured that he had to be put in a nursing home) had to divorce him,
because if she didn't, she had to stay on welfare -- if she got a job,
she'd become responsible for his medical bills. It was hard -- but,
yes, a divorce WAS the only option. She continued to visit him and have
contact with him, but got on with her life.

And the flip side was portrayed in a song, Saint Claire of Cedar Rapids, by a
group called the Hangdogs. It's based on the true story of a woman the writer
knows. She married at 24 in 1987, and separated from her mentally
incapacitated, instutionalized husband in 2 years... yet remained married to
him to provide treatment through her insurance that he otherwise would've been
unable to obtain. From the lyrics, it appears she was amazingly selfless,
didn't pursue other romantic relationships, but drove to visit him occasionally
in the institution in a town some distance away, and intended to continue,
despite the sacrifice, as long as necessary.

Lori G.