your example is really unfortunate and confuses the issue you're trying to advance.

it sound's like you're accusing kim of withholding sex-- and that sends people on a garden path of silly speculation and unnecessary refutations. it's a misleading example that pushes too many buttons and based on terrible assumptions.

the real serious question posed by your earlier post is-- in the event of a sentimental attachment to a third party (regardless of cause, who gives a shit)-- should a marriage be broken?

when you don't have kids, it's easy to confess and say it's over-- it's only marginally harder than breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. but if you have children and a family business, then there are other issues at play, and it's not so cut and dry-- "honesty" can bring ruination for all involved.

people from certain backgrounds will demand "honesty first"-- that's generally what the american populace demands of their celebrities and politicians. hence the scandal. people from other backgrounds might choose to keep a lover secret and protect the family from destruction. it really depends on many things, and the answer is not always as clear as absolutists want to make it.

kim of course has every right to be angry and hurt upon discovering the treason, regardless of thurston's intentions.

True but in a long.marriage sex takes on different or varying levels of importance and again no matter what it doesn't exonerate or even explain violating the trust of marriage through extramarital affairs.. also it seems unnecessary to assume that because thurston had sex with someone else somehow means he and kim also didn't have a healthy sexual relationship and also damn it kim this is why i wish she wouldn't have written about this shit so we wouldn't be discussing it

WHAT???!!! Seriously, Mars, please go back and read my post again. Or, if you prefer, I'll break it down for you:

1. Nancykitten said Kim had reason to be mad.
2. I replied to Nancykitten that she doesn't know the whole story.
3. Nancykitten asserted that if Thurston had extramarital sex, then there is nothing else that one needs to know.
4. I presented one possible scenario that might lead an otherwise loving husband to stray.

In no way did I suggest that this is what happened. How would I know? The entire crux of my position is that we don't know. It disgusts me to even discuss this private matter in a public forum, but when people say they are on "Team Kim", etc. I feel the need to speak up, in the interest of fairness.

im not going to go as far as !@#$! though to be sure it did kinda seem you could have been implying such..
Rather my point was you did infer a lack of a healthy sexual relationship in that scenario completely without merit
I also agree to not enjoying this discussion but to be fair kim put it out there and we are all trying to support her. These discussions have been less gossipy than they could be like in twidder world

Part of the problem is that our society's view of what constitutes cheating on a marriage is limited to active, rather than passive, aggression. The key phrase in a marriage vow is "I do", not "I don't." In other words, marriage is a promise that not only prohibits certain behavior, such as extramarital sex, but includes DOING certain things, such as loving and cherishing your partner.

When partner A loses interest in partner B and becomes unfeeling, uncaring and emotionally absent, why is that not considered cheating, even if partner A is not sleeping with someone else? If partner B, after years of realizing this isn't going to change, seeks love elsewhere, then partner B gets blamed for cheating and in some cases, breaking up the marriage. But wasn't the marriage already broken?

I would compare this to the legal concept of "innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". "Reasonable doubt" means that, based on the facts, it's not hard to envision a scenario in which the accused is innocent. It doesn't mean that you actually believe the accused is innocent. This is why, thankfully, juries often reach a "not guilty" verdict even when they believe the accused is guilty.

i understand, but most people are not that delicate when it comes to reasoning, and they begin to argue your example as if it was reality.

it's a problem of rhetoric. i'm pointing out your bad rhetoric, not your logic, which distracts from what i thought was your main argument-- valid reasons for lying about infidelity.

but if you were actually really trying to raise 2 questions simultaneously--1. possible reasons for infidelity PLUS 2. the casuistics of dishonesty-- then i only found the latter argument relevant and/or interesting, because the former was just empty speculation framed poorly and not worth discussing.

Even in your scenario ending or even worse sabotaging a marriage is ridiculous..

Also, you went from possibly suggesting poor sexual health in the relationship to now de facto asserting Kim was "uncaring, unfeeling, and emotionally absent" so perhaps you should quit while you are only down rather than waiting to lose your shirt and get tossed out the Casino?







after all...


;) ;)

Once again, I'm not asserting anything about Kim or Thurston. I'm objecting to the fact that others are.

Sorry for making a logical inference but you realized most people weren't talking about purely rhetorical devices but the actual broken marriage of Kim and Thurston? You can't fault ones for coming to this conclusion..

Further I disagree with even your rhetorical premise regardless of whomever the marriage is.. Ending or sabotaging a marriage out of sexual issues is not necessarily a very "adult" thing to do.. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying its not justified.

rip sonic youth they were no scissor shock but they were still really good and prob even up there with great 20/21st century bands

all this someone elses relationship crap - all i got to say is fuck her right in the pussy whoever she is and let that be the fucking end of it.

oh, batería, why must you sink so low? if you're attempting irony i think it's being lost. i'm purposely not quoting you so as not to perpetuate.

wtf?

dude if you're suggesting i dont actually think scissor shock are better than sy then you're wrong.

but this goddamn thread and all the others.

its all NONE of our business.

wish it would all be deleted along with all the stupid speculation.

i don't agree the discussion is none of our business as it's part of a book-- at this point it's like discussing the entangled relations of anna karenina and vronsky and karenin and their son and kitty and levin.

i find the speculation distracting and irrelevant and in poor taste in spite of any good intentions, but that's a specific issue not a general one.

Scissor Shock was worse than famine and AIDS combined in the same African, GAY child. Truly one of the worst bands of our time.

Hence why I didn't read the book nor decide to actually speculate into the details of the situation rather to refute all such speculations as unnecessary to begin with. I agree and Magic already mentioned it as well, we really shouldn't be discussing all this shit..

im not against the book or anyone INVOLVED saying whatever they want.

its when people start their interrogative speculatory horseshit that always has some sort of weird hetero-libidinal agenda which turns into insulting kim or t-dog or just BEING NOSY CREEPS then it shouldnt happen

excellent quote should have been an album blurb

well, YES.


ha ha! yes to that too.