No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

How to phrase it was actually a topic of discussion when turning "Out of Office" on, which I rarely do. There really wasn't a consensus as to how it should be stated.

we all have flaws. that yours will get you killed if imprisoned doesn't change that you should be honest here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

How to phrase it was actually a topic of discussion when turning "Out of Office" on, which I rarely do. There really wasn't a consensus as to how it should be stated.

I took it to be the New York expression for "in trial".

[notcasesensitive]

Apparently Khloe Kardashian is now dating James Harden*. I did not know this and do not care, but she managed to piss off a large portion of Marina del Rey/ Venice/Santa Monica this week when she threw him a motherfuckin' fireworks show at midnight on a Tuesday. Of course her mom and Kanye were sleeping during the party... It was at midnight of a motherfuckin' Tuesday. It was loud at my place over a mile inland (thankfully I was still up), so I can't even imagine how loud it was at the beach. These people are a menace.

*I don't really know who he is (basketball player, I think?), but People claims they've been dating for *gasp* a month now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Apparently Khloe Kardashian is now dating James Harden*. I did not know this and do not care, but she managed to piss off a large portion of Marina del Rey/ Venice/Santa Monica this week when she threw him a motherfuckin' fireworks show at midnight on a Tuesday. Of course her mom and Kanye were sleeping during the party... It was at midnight of a motherfuckin' Tuesday. It was loud at my place over a mile inland (thankfully I was still up), so I can't even imagine how loud it was at the beach. These people are a menace.

*I don't really know who he is (basketball player, I think?), but People claims they've been dating for *gasp* a month now.

I think if you accept the beach and the weather you have to accept the oblivious celebs too.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Um, sorry, no. His decision to get an account is a betrayal, regardless of whether or not anyone would want him. In my mind, anyway . . . I'd be pissed.

That's like saying looking at a member of the opposite sex and saying "Yeah, I'd do hert." is cheating even if she said "Eeew."

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I agree with you. She has a right to be pissed. For context, he had an emotional long-distance affair in 2013 and that was the same time he signed up for Ashley Madison. She found out about the emotional affair at the end of 2013 and there was fall-out, but all along he insisted that it was something he accidently fell into (claiming that he met her on Pinterest, which seems more than a little suspicious to me in the first place). Now, years later she finds out about the account he started at the same time.

He says -- hey, I was being crazy back then (literally, he's claiming some sort of mental issue going on).

She says -- this makes me no longer believe your claim that the emotional thing was accidental. You were out there trolling for an affair. And by the way, I can't believe anything you tell me anymore because you have established a record of not being honest.

I asked her if she could consider couples counseling (not in a You Should Do It sort of way, just asking) and she just doesn't think she can trust him to be honest.

Anyway, the whole thing just makes me sad. They have a great combined family together and (he may have me bamboozled but) he seems to treat her really well other than this mess. And it's all the more sad to realize that he (potentially) threw it all away on a scam.

Context isn't helping here. He did more than throw it away on a scam. He wanted to, and thought he could, get away with it. That he "treat(s) her really well other than this . . ." doesn't cut it in marriage. Fidelity is generally assumed to be a really important part of the deal. If that was the case for them (and admittedly it isn't for everyone), then he screwed up. I am sad for her, and for any other innocent bystanders. He needs to figure out what's important to him, and to act accordingly.

But sure, Flower, your glory hole exception applies.*

*Oops - that was young Coltrane.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

That's like saying looking at a member of the opposite sex and saying "Yeah, I'd do hert." is cheating even if she said "Eeew."

It's not even close to that. He signed up for a website that says (as my 10 year old daughter can, sadly, quote - in song) it's for someone who "want(s) someone other than my wife . . .", repeat, "shhh!" If your spouse signs up for a site that promotes affairs, you're entitled to be pissed off. I never said it counted as cheating. But it sure as hell is a violation of trust.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Context isn't helping here. He did more than throw it away on a scam. He wanted to, and thought he could, get away with it. That he "treat(s) her really well other than this . . ." doesn't cut it in marriage. Fidelity is generally assumed to be a really important part of the deal. If that was the case for them (and admittedly it isn't for everyone), then he screwed up. I am sad for her, and for any other innocent bystanders. He needs to figure out what's important to him, and to act accordingly.

But sure, Flower, your glory hole exception applies.*

*Oops - that was young Coltrane.

I wasn't saying it to help his case (which I think is shitty), I was just saying it for added context. If there's a side to be had here, I'm on her side (and she is my family member). It all just bums me out and I know she's struggling with what to do at this point. I think if she felt like she could trust him to be honest (not just when he's totally, over-the-barrel caught, but in their general dealings and in counseling), then she would want to work on things. But she doesn't. With good reason. Ugh.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Paisley

It's not even close to that. He signed up for a website that says (as my 10 year old daughter can, sadly, quote - in song) it's for someone who "want(s) someone other than my wife . . .", repeat, "shhh!" If your spouse signs up for a site that promotes affairs, you're entitled to be pissed off. I never said it counted as cheating. But it sure as hell is a violation of trust.

More importantly, it's a sign he's a sucker.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I wasn't saying it to help his case (which I think is shitty), I was just saying it for added context. If there's a side to be had here, I'm on her side (and she is my family member). It all just bums me out and I know she's struggling with what to do at this point. I think if she felt like she could trust him to be honest (not just when he's totally, over-the-barrel caught, but in their general dealings and in counseling), then she would want to work on things. But she doesn't. With good reason. Ugh.

See, here's where I think a little Catholicism can help. He needs to confess his sins, she needs to set some penance for him (in the old school, it would be a couple of weeks in a hair shirt and sack cloth on his knees going up and down the main drag of the town self-flagellating, but people just don't appreciate good penance any more so it would probably be something like doing all the housework and bringing her breakfast in bed for a month) and then after that she can see if she forgives him. But she needs a severe enough penance and enough drama out of him so she won't doubt his sincerity. He needs to really show her that he knows he done wrong and has taken it to heart.

But, for some reason, people never take my marital advice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

More importantly, it's a sign he's a sucker.

Not only are you a cheater, you're bad at it too!

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

See, here's where I think a little Catholicism can help. He needs to confess his sins, she needs to set some penance for him (in the old school, it would be a couple of weeks in a hair shirt and sack cloth on his knees going up and down the main drag of the town self-flagellating, but people just don't appreciate good penance any more so it would probably be something like doing all the housework and bringing her breakfast in bed for a month) and then after that she can see if she forgives him. But she needs a severe enough penance and enough drama out of him so she won't doubt his sincerity. He needs to really show her that he knows he done wrong and has taken it to heart.

But, for some reason, people never take my marital advice.

It all went downhill when they started calling it the sacrament of "reconciliation" instead of "confession" or "penance." From there, it was a quick degeneration to forcing people to hold hands during the Our Father and then changing the script of Mass.

While I may like my theology liberal, i don't like change in the liturgy (yes, the idea of having Mass in English (or any Not Latin lingo) is only 50 or so years old, Vatican II was a huge change to the liturgy, blah blah blah, but bite me), and I like churches that don't look like an airport terminal. That means on the rare occasions I go to Mass (other than for funerals or weddings), I usually visit the Jesuits. Or, in a pinch, the Franciscans - their services can be a little too touchy-feely, but at least I know that I won't have to deal with faux friendliness *and* a sermon filled with retrograde ranting on social issues. (Hi, Father Dave!)

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Not only are you a cheater, you're bad at it too!

My point exactly. I guess when going through the analysis of how crappily he managed to cheat, it made me think it's (maybe?) not in his true nature. IDK. I'd like to think so at least. The other possibility is that there's more out there still that he hasn't been caught for yet.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Isn't that every single emotional affair?

TM

I suppose if you use a handy ellipse to do away with those inconvenient qualifiers.

I think people are way too hung up on cheating to begin with and am skeptical about all attempts to broaden the definition of what's a "betrayal" that should threaten a relationship. I also think it's a handy way for some people to deflect from the issues in the underlying relationship.

I just can't imagine caring about my spouse's relationship with someone else other than to the extent that its interfering with our relationship (a stalking "friend" would certainly meet that definition) or symptomatic of something the two of us need to work on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

It all went downhill when they started calling it the sacrament of "reconciliation" instead of "confession" or "penance." From there, it was a quick degeneration to forcing people to hold hands during the Our Father and then changing the script of Mass.

While I may like my theology liberal, i don't like change in the liturgy (yes, the idea of having Mass in English (or any Not Latin lingo) is only 50 or so years old, Vatican II was a huge change to the liturgy, blah blah blah, but bite me), and I like churches that don't look like an airport terminal. That means on the rare occasions I go to Mass (other than for funerals or weddings), I usually visit the Jesuits. Or, in a pinch, the Franciscans - their services can be a little too touchy-feely, but at least I know that I won't have to deal with faux friendliness *and* a sermon filled with retrograde ranting on social issues. (Hi, Father Dave!)

If we had churches like Europe's, I'd head to Mass every day, just for the art and architecture.

But I agree with you, the downfall of the Church today isn't the prospect of gay-married women priests (bring 'em on, I say), but the desire of Mass attendees for a quickie, watered-down, god-lite weekly munch of the wafer in an airport cafe, mixed with the occasional over-righteous genuflection to a retrograde patriarchy.