Sunday, May 08, 2022

Infidelity is not always a bad thing: How having a romance on the side can be considered 'self-care' that can actually prolong a marriage


This is all very well but it overlooks a major reason why infidelity is normally condemned: The person dating outside the marriage may find that they like the new lover better than their normal partner. It often happens. And that mostly leads to a marriage breakup

I did myself for a long time allow the lady in my life to do as she wished as long as it did not reduce her time with me. And she did have a number of affairs. And after living for 14 years under that arrangement, I thought we would continue on our customary way indefinitely.

But the unexpected (to me) did happen. She ended up deciding that she liked one of her alternative partners better than me and prioritized him thenceforth. So a romance on the side may be allowable for various reasons but it may lead to the loss of a valued partner

The old way has its reasons.

My policy of tolerance did however pay off in one way. The lady's new partner was disappointed when she informed him that she would continue to see me on a part-time basis. She has done so. She is a good catch so he puts up with that


Infidelity need not ruin a marriage and having a secret affair may be a form of 'self-care' that can benefit all participants and prolong the union.

That is the contentious viewpoints of Isabella Mise, the Communications Director at Ashley Madison - a dating platform created for married people who want to have discreet affairs, and believes.

The 36-year-old told Daily Mail Australia members are looking to form connections with other like-minded people.

'Monogamy works for a lot of people, but it doesn't always work for everyone long term,' Isabella said.

Isabella said Ashley Madison members usually feel happy in their marriage but seek something the relationship lacks.

Some are wanting to feel desired by someone new, while others are seeking an emotional connection rather than sexual pleasures.

'I've spoken to members who have been married for 20 years or people who married their high school sweethearts and haven't slept with anyone else; no two marriages are the same,' Isabella said.

Isabella said Ashley Madison members usually feel happy in their marriage but seek something the relationship lacks.

Some are wanting to feel desired by someone new, while others are seeking an emotional connection rather than sexual pleasures.

'I've slowly realised that infidelity is not always what you think and isn't what you see in movies.'

During lockdown married people reported feelings of boredom, isolation and loneliness

Some believe infidelity was a 'reliable form of self-care' as their overall mood improved

In most cases the dating platform 'has helped preserve marriages'

Over the past two years, Covid lockdowns and restrictions have put relationships to the ultimate test.

'No one anticipated they would spend 24 hours with their significant other handling working from home, home schooling and living in such close quarters,' Isabella said.

'Affairs aren't the key to happiness in a marriage, but an outlet for many couples or married people wanting to date again.

'It can be a form of self-care - something people do for themselves that allows them to return to their primary relationship feeling less stressed or anxious.'

****************************************************

The Age of the Absurd

The West has gone through many eras—the so-called Dark Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, and the Post-Modern. The present era is the Age of the Absurd.

In terms of the absurdities the cultural elites believe, and have convinced masses of people to believe, there has never been a time like today.

Here is a list of the most ridiculous that immediately come to mind.

No. 1: Men give birth.

Heading the list has to be the radical redefinition—indeed, denial of—sex and gender, leading to such reality-defying statements as “men give birth,” “men menstruate,” “birthing person” instead of “mother,” and to the Disney theme parks no longer greeting visitors as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls.”

No. 2: It is fair to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.

We are supposed to believe that biological men do not have an innate physical advantage in competing against women. This is asserted as truth by every Ivy League university, virtually every other university, most high schools, and virtually all the elite media.

No. 3: Defund police and crime will decrease.

We are supposed to believe that with fewer police we will have less violent crime. Any 10-year-old recognizes the sentiment as absurd.

No. 4: Racial segregation is anti-racist. Opposition to racial segregation is racist.

Columbia University and many other universities have all-black dormitories and all-black graduations. They maintain that race-based segregation is not racist. Opposition to it is.

No. 5: “Latinx.”

Because human sexuality is “not binary,” languages with gendered nouns must be neutered, leading to labeling Latinos “Latinx.” That virtually no one from or living in Latin America uses this absurd word does not faze The New York Times or your local university.

No. 6: Your race matters.

One of the least important aspects of human beings is the color of their skin. It is no more important than the color of their shoes.

Its insignificance is easily demonstrated. If you know the color of a person’s skin, do you know anything about the person? The answer, of course, is no. If I know your race, I know nothing else about you. And if I think I can determine anything about you on the basis of your race, I am a racist.

No. 7: Diversity is strength—and the happiest countries in the world are Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.

It is an axiom of the woke, the home of the absurd, that “diversity is our greatest strength.” Yet, The New York Times, the leading media voice of the Age of the Absurd, featured an opinion piece about the happiest countries in the world. The second paragraph began: “Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland led the 2018 ranking of the World Happiness Report.”

Not once did the Times or the writer note that the four “happiest” countries in the world are not at all diverse. In fact, they are among the least diverse countries in the Western world. They are almost entirely white, almost entirely Protestant Christian (or from a Protestant Christian background), and all their citizens speak the same language. America, on the other hand, is by far the most radical experiment in racial, religious, and ethnic diversity.

No. 8: Free speech does not allow for hate speech.

“I’m for free speech, but not for hate speech” is the view of almost half of America’s young people and virtually all its elites. So widespread is belief in the absurd that these people do not understand that the statement is self-contradictory. It renders the words “free speech” meaningless. By definition, free speech allows for hate speech. If it doesn’t, “free speech” means nothing more than speech with which one agrees.

No. 9: You’re not a human being until you’re born.

There is no need to believe in God or in any religion to understand the absurdity of this assertion. If we are not human beings until birth, what are we five minutes—or five months—prior to birth, when we have a heartbeat and brain waves? Non-human?

No. 10: Capitalism is evil.

Abject poverty has been the norm for nearly all people throughout history. Yet, in the last century alone, billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. And there is only one reason: capitalism.

No. 11: America is systemically racist.

The manifest absurdity of this claim is easily demonstrated. In the past decades, more than 3 million black people have immigrated to America from Africa and the Caribbean. And probably tens of millions more would like to. Are all these people fools—choosing to move to a systemically racist country? Are they ignorant—unaware that America is systemically racist?

The non-absurd know the answers: All these blacks are neither fools nor ignorant. They know how lucky they are to move to America—because this country is so tolerant and so overwhelmingly nonracist. People don’t move to countries that hate them. No Jews moved to Germany in the 1930s.

We live in the Age of the Absurd. The only question is, why? I think I know the answer and will discuss it in a future column. In the meantime, share these 11 absurdities with friends and relatives, especially with those who actually think they make sense.

*************************************************

Georgia’s successful passage of the "Parents’ Bill of Rights" law shows that Florida is not an outlier

I’ve got Georgia on my mind. On April 28, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law House Bill 1178, the “Parents’ Bill of Rights.”

This is a big deal. In addition to providing Georgia parents with strong legal protections to ensure that they are able to

1. know what their children are learning in public schools and

2. be involved in their children’s education, the Georgia Parents’ Bill of Rights boldly adds the following into Georgia state law:

No state or local government entity, governing body, or any officer, employee, or agent thereof may infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing and education of his or her minor child without demonstrating that such action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that such action is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by less restrictive means.

Georgia is now the 15th state in the nation to protect parental rights as a fundamental right in state code.

“Fundamental rights” is the legal term in our nation for those God-given rights that are the most precious and that receive the strongest protections by our nation’s laws. And the language in the Georgia Parents’ Bill of Rights about “a compelling state interest” that is “narrowly tailored” and “not otherwise served by less restrictive means” is known in legal circles as “strict scrutiny.”

This language ensures that any governmental action that could infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing and education of his or her child will face “strict scrutiny.” This is a very high bar for the government. An example of government action that would meet this high legal bar is law enforcements’ removal of a child from a home for physical abuse by a caregiver.

The passage into law of the Georgia Parents’ Bill of Rights is significant for another reason: It is a major legislative win for parents who have been ignored by the education establishment. Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic shut down public schools in the spring of 2020 and pulled back the curtain on what children were learning (or not learning), we have seen deepening frustration from parents across the nation.

And as parents were ignored by the education establishment, this frustration built. It helped propel Gov. Glenn Youngkin to victory in Virginia in November 2021. It led to the ouster of three school board members in deep-blue San Francisco earlier this year. But legislative wins have been elusive.

That started to change when Florida, where ParentalRights.org already helped pass a law in 2021 enshrining “the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of his or her minor child,” built on that success this year by passing the “Parental Rights in Education” law.

But even though this was a major win for Florida parents, Florida seemed to be an outlier in heeding the cries by parents who had been ignored by the education establishment. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers had recently vetoed a bill in his state that would have also enshrined parental rights as a fundamental right.

The South Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee killed a fundamental parental rights bill, even though the bill had earlier passed the South Dakota House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 63-5. A fundamental parental rights bill was killed by a Colorado House committee. Other bills championed by parents were stalled or weakened across the nation.

All of this has come despite the growing evidence that parental rights have wide bipartisan support. For example, a recent NPR/Marist poll showed that independents, Latinos, and, significantly, households with children under the age of 18 are inclined to vote Republican in wide margins.

I don’t think this is necessarily because these individuals now identify as Republicans. But I think it is the Youngkin effect again: Parents are frustrated that their concerns relating to their own children’s education is being ignored. And only Republican candidates and elected officials are listening to them.

That is why Georgia’s successful passage into law of the Parents’ Bill of Rights was so significant. It shows that Florida is not an outlier. It shows that parents are winning, and that the tide may be turning.

After Georgia, we are watching New Hampshire. House Bill 1431, which creates a parental bill of rights, has already passed the New Hampshire House and recently passed the New Hampshire Senate.

In Missouri, House Bill 1858, which provides curriculum transparency to parents of children in Missouri public schools, has also passed the Missouri House, and is poised to pass the Missouri Senate. Other curriculum transparency bills are moving across the nation.

Georgia shows us that elected officials are starting to listen to parents. It shows that parents are winning. And it should remind us, yet again, that parental rights are bipartisan. Elected officials across the political spectrum should sit up, take notice, and support the right of parents in the education of their precious children.

***************************************************

The left’s talk of ‘women’s rights’ exposes its gender hypocrisy

For the past few years, Democrats have worked tirelessly erasing gender in all its forms.

They tell us women who have babies aren’t mothers; they are “birthing people.” They insist men can get pregnant while giving parents of newborns the option of not designating the sex of their baby on his/her birth certificate, despite their infant’s obvious male or female genitalia and other biological gender traits before their eyes — and the eyes of their doctor.

The left has championed transgender men competing in women’s sports, putting biological women at a significant disadvantage, while the Biden administration’s latest addition to the US Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, refused to answer a simple question during her recent confirmation hearings when asked to define what a woman is.

The newly confirmed left-wing justice said she couldn’t do that because she isn’t a biologist.

But now that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark abortion case, which, if overturned, would leave abortion laws to be determined by the states, Democrats are up in arms accusing those who oppose abortion of not protecting “women’s” rights and “women’s” reproductive health. Huh? I thought women and gender no longer exist according to the left.

Nonetheless, it’s remarkable how quickly the Democratic Party has reversed course and gone back to defending women and women’s rights after systemically attempting to abolish gender from our collective conscience.

Talk about hypocrisy and glaring double standards.

Democrats and the radical left seek to erase womanhood in all its traditional forms — when it’s politically expedient — but swiftly pivot to defending women and women’s rights when access to an abortion on demand at any stage of a pregnancy is at stake. And they desperately need a wedge issue to mobilize their voter base come the midterm elections, in which Democrats are expected to get shellacked given the Biden administration’s disastrously low poll numbers.

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, what’s become apparent is that, at minimum, Democrats have a serious messaging problem when it comes to gender and culture wars. At maximum, they’ve lost the moral authority to lecture to the American people what a woman is or isn’t when they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Take liberal co-host of “The View” Whoopi Goldberg, who was outraged this week about the possible overturning of the controversial abortion case. On her show Tuesday, she railed, “This is my body and nobody . . . you won’t let me make my decisions about my body? You are not the person to make that decision.”

That’s liberal hypocrisy in a nutshell. Democrats pound the table when it comes to abortion rights, cherry-picking when to use the argument “my body and my choice” and saying how dare the government get in between a woman and her doctor. Yet when it comes to government-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations during the pandemic — it’s not your body nor your choice. Instead, they want unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Anthony “flip-flopping” Fauci or the discredited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention making those important health decisions for us.

Never mind if you’re a healthy child or young adult and at very low risk of dying or experiencing severe symptoms from COVID-19. The left still insisted you get vaccinated, regardless of the fact that it doesn’t stop transmission of the virus. They attacked any conservative who dared to mention the scientific existence of natural immunity after contracting COVID-19 and beating it or spoke out against harmful COVID-19 restrictions like oppressive lockdowns or other questionable government-imposed mandates. The left abandoned its “my body, my choice” stance and accused those who wanted to make health-care decisions for themselves of “killing Grandma.”

But in their worldview, killing unborn babies via abortion is apparently A-OK.

The hypocrisy and doublespeak are truly astonishing.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

1 comment:

Norse said...

There is a risk with most things in that they may end before one would like them to and that they may not end well. That does not mean one should not proceed recklessly. I think it is healthy to be both aware of and at the very least have internal honesty about what one’s motivations are. I know by experience that an old flame can become a strict friendship, but it is not without temptations. When sensibilies continue to tower above impulses things often seem to go well, or at least go better than the messy alternative. There are trade-offs and sure enough things may work well even if areangements are a bit unusual. My good friendship with an old flame certainly has bothered some, but after a while, seeing that it is indeed a friendship the concerns have settled down.