Serious poll question for mature audiences

That's what Neil Diamond sang near the end of that classic duet he and Barbara Striesand did-"You don't say you need me". (Classic IMO, that is).

 

Depends on how it was found out. If it was a voluntary admission that adultery happened and even if it was by accident - there is remorse and guilt feeling or a feeling of having cheated - then forgiveness and acceptance is of order.

If it was discovered not by confession but by someone else talking about it, and when confronted defiance and no regret over it - the relation need a long thought !

Sent from my MI MAX using Tapatalk

 

Often these things are uncovered after a period of suspicion or attested to by someone else and then verified, more than the guilty one up and admitting it out of the blue for a clean break, or confessing and asking forgiveness. That last one seems to happen least.

 

These are my thoughts exactly.

 

Sorry I cant really answer that as I dont drink

 

It's almost 5pm and time for a Manhattan Cocktail. The worst trouble I get into when I drink is buying shave gear.

 

Yep. If one act can be mitigated/excused due to intoxication, then ANY act can likewise be excused on the same grounds. At least, there's no good argument why it shouldn't be. That's one door that can't be closed once it's opened.

 

I agree. As has already been stated;
A) Alcohol doesn't create the desire. It just reduces your inhibitions.
B) Assuming no one was unwittingly dosed, the drinker made the choice to drink.
C) That alcohol lowers inhibition is news to nobody.

 

Full disclosure (or partly full): the core of the discussion I was having has to do with a side issue kinda-sorta related to the OP, where this topic did come up, but one which cannot be gotten into here. Based on everyone's replies, I would guess they would align on that topic as well. But I've said too much.

 

I answered with a very highly qualified "Maybe". I don’t believe drunkenness can ever justify unfaithfulness but I do think it can perhaps possibly in certain circumstances mitigate it. I am essentially thinking of "blackout" drinking, where someone drinks to the point that they no longer know what they were doing or remember it afterward and basically only find out about what they did when they are told about it by witnesses. If someone in that situation was unfaithful, I might see their partner accepting the drunkenness defence. But I also expect it would be contingent on the person acknowledging their even more fundamental issue of alcoholism and seriously and sincerely addressing it. Essentially, if it's that particular alcoholic's "hitting rock bottom" event that leads them to something like AA and a future life of stone cold sobriety, then maybe.

Going out and deliberately drinking a few drinks in a more or less social drinking fashion - enough to lower inhibitions while still leaving you with full knowledge of your actions - and then bedhopping? No. Neither an excuse, a justification or a mitigation.

 

To @Don Logan and @Keithmax, I would say that the poll by its very nature presupposes monogamy or restricted polyamory. In order to be "unfaithful", one must first have willingly and knowingly entered into a situation in which "faithfulness" can reasonably be expected. You can't "break" a promise if you have never "made" it in the first place.

 

That is indeed the assumption.

True. If someone rejects the principle of fidelity, as Don Logan apparently does, the scenario would be so irrelevant and the question so meaningless that I don't know why he'd chime in.

 

Good post, and the above scored a very near hit on the original conversation at work...but again, I can say no more. Too hot a topic.

 

Personally, i think drinking, to the point of blacking out is stupid, irresponsible, dangerous, and opens yourself up to doing stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous things. So, it goes back to, you being responsible, and blacking out isn't an affirmative defense. It's a drunks defense. This wont hold up in court, and it won't mean a whole lot to the wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/or whatever you were unfaithful to. I haven't even touched on the moral aspects of unfaithfulness, yet. But, I easily could.

 

Actually, blackout drunkenness CAN hold up in court as a defence to certain charges -- it's one possible aspect of what is known as the "automatism" or "non-insane automatism" defence, for example. In essence, it's much like a plea of temporary insanity. It is specifically excepted as a defence to a charge of drunk driving, but it can get you off the most serious consequences of murder...

However, from an ethical or moral point of view, I personally absolutely agree with everything you said.

 

Methinks we are more prone to drawing lines in the sand, defining what is acceptable, right, moral, justified, or not, as we enter middle age or beyond. At 19 or 29 we are more likely to be foolish, or stupid, or simply make bad choices than at 49 or 59. And maybe we just get more judgmental as we get older. Maybe we get wiser. Or just lack the energy to chase cars and howl at the moon.

 

Wisdom inevitability leads to sounder judgments.

There's an old saying I like but can't find at the moment that says something like, before moving and old boundary line, it's best to find out why it was put there in the first place. Youth never even thinks to ask.

 

Ah, it is attributed to Chesterton...

 

Survey update-No has galloped to a commanding lead at 94, while Maybe has broken a tie for second with Yes by going up by 2 points to 4.

 

I agree what you have said. I was speaking of what I've seen, personally, profession wise.