My friend, your last response echoed of resentment for not having benefited (?) from the astute editorial advice I have been privileged to receive in the past couple of days. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the editors must have decided that, of the two of us, my twisted entries required more work, and that they would devote some time and energy in making my rambling dialogue "camera-ready".

You touched on several issues that had left you either nodding in agreement or shaking your head in disbelief. I will try to address those concerns in this exchange as clearly as possible:

First, I felt that I had expanded on my formative years as suggested. I did not feel it was either necessary or productive to go into more detail because the point (in my opinion) was driven home, and additional info would have been overkill.

Second, I am perplexed that you would interpret my account as a tale of "came, saw, conquered". Although I do admit I did have something of a cavalier attitude toward relationships in my twenties (slightly tempered now), I have never been in a relationship of any duration that was as easy as all that. I'll admit, part of the problem was youthful exuberance, but I do not see it as a lack of experience or maturity. Quite the contrary. I was quite clear as to what I wanted out of my relationships, and was quite vocal about that realization. I am of the opinion, in fact, that it is the ultimate sign of maturity to understand that one is not ready for a certain level of commitment and make that fact known. (I have this running argument with one of my sisters about this point. She contends that my unwillingness to settle down has to do with the fact that I have not reached a certain level of maturity. I counter that I believe the real sign of maturity on this topic is one's capability to assess and conclude that one is not ready for the commitment, and not jump into it to please others, or because "it is the right thing to do".)

Third, I did not mean to imply that "relationships, by their very nature, imply a matrimonial path." Quite the contrary, again. I merely stated that there are many people with that mind-set. (Note: You stated that "relationships are built on many things, and ... their foundation and ultimate goals shouldn't be implicit". I am assuming you meant that they should be implicit.) I am totally with you on the "buyer beware" analogy, however. If a woman has the benefit of full-disclosure, and still decides to continue the relationship, the onus is on her to live with the consequences of her decision. If she feels that the relationship itself is sufficient a reason to stay together, so be it. If she doesn't, she should immediately "kick it to the curb".

Fourth, I prefaced my earlier comments about fidelity/infidelity with a disclaimer. I will agree with you that on a theoretical level, the definition of what constitutes infidelity is (should be) quite clear. In practical terms, however, I would beg to differ. I know that this will come across as self-serving, but it's quite a different matter in the real world. Yes, I know, certain acts cross the line from "gray" into "dark black" very quickly, but others are quite innocent and dependent on the other party's interpretation. For instance (swaying hips example aside), I have witnessed mini-Hiroshimas erupt instigated by something as benign as a partner accused of dancing too close to a third party (of a different gender, that is --- variations on this theme are probably reserved for another Seleda issue). I also believe that your views on infidelity happening in one's mind are a bit extreme. Lord, I do not think there would many relationships left standing if that was the yardstick we consistently used to measure infidelity. I think the litmus test has to be a bit more tangible (i.e., "Did the person act on their impulses?").

Let's face it, forbidden fruit is forbidden fruit, and it sometimes might be difficult to come up with satisfying (bad choice of words, perhaps --- "compelling") reasons not to act on the impulse. I know, readers are probably saying, "The relationship itself should be all the compelling reason required". That is very true and very rational, but I do not think the act of infidelity is really rational on any level (Aynay ma wedajish, alanchi alay ale, ...hoday new telatish, ihil belto adere). A person who is about to cheat on a relationship does not go through a checklist of why he/she is about to do the deed. It is usually impulsive, and the "strategory" (good ol' W) check list does not come into play until after the fact. If one were to actually do the pros and cons before the fact, we would probably see a marked reduction in these kinds of affairs. In fact, one may not do the assessment/analysis until they have dipped their toes into the pool several times (you know what they say, "... a taste of honey is worse than none at all.") I agree with you in that I myself do not have any appetite for sharing what is mine, but I have to be honest and say that I have personally strayed in the past, and rationalized about my actions (ergo, the disclaimer at the top). There is something of a double standard at play, I know, but defending it is half the fun.....

I think the difference between how men and women view infidelity has to do with their fundamentally disparate views on sex and love (a broad generalization, I know, but I have sufficient empirical evidence to conclude that there is some grain of truth to what I am espousing). Men, by their very nature, do not equate (or rather confuse) the act of sex necessarily with the state of being in love. Women, on the other hand, do not see the distinction between sex (the act of "making love") and being "in love". I know that this statement will probably draw the wrath of Khan, Thor, and Camile Paglia --- but hear me out.

To a man, the act of sex is mostly just that --- an act of instant attraction followed (unfortunately) by somewhat instant gratification. We have been conditioned (I will not get into the "nature vs. nurture" argument here) to view the act as justification enough for the pursuit. There do not have to be many (any?) underlying themes to the activity, as long as the attraction and the occasion present themselves. (Mind you, I have run into a number of women who also genuinely view this interaction the same way). Women, I have noticed, place a significantly greater emphasis on the connection between the "act of" and "state of being in" love. I had an interesting conversation on this same topic last night with a female acquaintance, and was pleasantly surprised to find that my observations were not far off the mark. The conclusion we arrived at was that while men staunchly defend their point of view, and do not waver from their position much, a woman may start out with the male mindset (i.e., "This is just sex, no emotions, please"), but quickly slides over to the opposite side of the spectrum. I assume it is an untenable position for her to occupy. (Female readers, please enlighten!!!) I do understand the shift at some level. A great deal of energy and exposure (no pun intended) is invested in the sexual act, and the rationale may be that a woman does not want to go through all that fuss (especially more than once) if there is really no vested interest/beneficial gain on the horizon. A man, on the other hand, is completely satisfied with the transitional nature of the interaction. I rest my case....

Well, Shiftaw, this has been an interesting exchange, and I am glad a particular editor arm-wrestled me into agreeing to participate. I hope that I will not have offended the virtuous Seleda readers with some of my forthright comments and observations, but I do hope that they understand that it was all written in the spirit of fair and democratic give-and-take. While it might be reaching too far to say that our exchange was enlightening, I do hope that it was at least thought provoking.

I do understand that our tete-a-tete of the past couple of days does contain seemingly inflammatory material that may affect my future social life. I, therefore, have taken the precaution of erasing any information that may hint at my identity, including closing the email account used for this exchange. (You are not paranoid, my friend, they are watching you.......)

Regards.

Garedew

***

My dear friend, be careful what you wish for...! I complained about not having been contacted by the editors. Well, now not only have I been contacted by them but they keep insisting that we haven't explored one particular area, "How do you know when you have met the right person?" Having recently made that determination in the course of my own life, I was to be the expert of record on this issue. Therefore, I am prepared to accept full blame for any shortcoming in this particular area.

In my defense, however, one need only read our exchange. While I will be the first one to admit it is not the definitive word on how our side operates (say what you will), it was honest, uncompromising and to the point. Therefore, while we didn't present a detailed blueprint, we have supplied the answers to a few important equations. Feres yadersal ingee ayewagam.

In conclusion, I only wish to add, for those who have the inclination and the courage to take the risk, the final result is well worth the trip.

Garedew, your last note has presented me with a perfect conclusion, any further elaboration will only be a waste.

As always a pleasure,

Shiftaw