//Here is my question – if you caught your spouse cheating on you right in front of you (fully naked and doing it) and he/she says she can explain and its not what it looks like (and remember, there is a history and your best friends and family keep telling you), how many of you would believe the story and still stay with that person/// – comment #17 by Bigjoe on October 5th, 2009 08:27.

This an interesting analogy. Generally no one likes to be cheated! Many a man will take the nearest weapon on sight, whether gun or hatchet, and despatch either wife or paramour or both in a fit of what they often call a “crime of passion”, let alone continue to stay with her.

Having said that, one also notes that the degree of reaction by spouse is a function of relativism depending on gender and culture.

Would the reaction of a man in a culture of monogamy catching his spouse cheating be the same as a wife in a culture of polygamy catching the husband cheating be the same?

I like to take the analogy further.

Take the case of the wife brought up in a culture believing in polygamy as having following benefits:-

1. Husband having another playmate also means she has special privileges of another household helpmate solving day-care dilemma, dividing housekeeping chores, and lessening domestic isolation and boredom;

2. under polygamy, the No. 1 wife has special privileges in that she rules the pecking order by bossing around the second and third whom her husband hornily humps but probably can’t talk to and distribute less money, obviously the first gets more in recompense for her acquiescance to the licence of what he does.

Will her worldview be parallel to the case of the first cited case of a man in monogamy?

Probably not.

The man gets angrier not only because cheating is violation of the promise of sexual exclusivity but also he loathes being made a cuckcold of. The wife cheated may have a more tolerant view because polygamy does not promise exclusivity. Secondly being a woman she cannot be made cuckcold of.

At the end of the day, the point is factors of gender and culture do affect the reaction of the cheated spouse. One therefore cannot expect a uniform reaction to a cheating spouse without considering these cultural and gender factors.

The word “justification” and “justify” have been bandied about.

I take it that we all know and have no dispute on the meaning of “to justify” or “justification” – ie an act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning (whether based on legal, moral, or logic) and to show and demonstrate that a certain an action/attitude is reasonable or necessary and of merit.

I also take it that we know the difference between describing a certain action/attitude that subsists or may subsist as distinct from justifying it.

” If you would stick to such style Mr. Limkamput would be less inclined to hammer you ? lkt-56

You mean I have to change my style for people like Lim Kam Put who shoot from their mouths before they have understood properly the context or nuances in what was written?

I don’t think so.

I could do a lot top explain but it would hog the blog’s bandwith ow:D

LimKamPut,

Is there a restriction here on what to comment or discuss?

Some of us will “describe things as they are” (even if many would claim they already know what is already happening) at one time, and at other times, and together with some others, may choose to “discuss things they ought to be” (which many would equally claim they already know what ought to be).

The important – and constructive – thing is how to bridge the gap between what it is, that is already happening, and what it ought to be.

Since you hold claims consistently to being a substantial contributor of this blog we’re all ears and I am sure Pakatan Rakyat will be indebted to your ingenious input as to how make things from what they are to what they ought to be.

//There certainly is a place for unambiguous speech.// – Orang Rojak

//To be heard one must speak with clarity and no ambiguity.// – lkt-56.

Unfortunately we’re not in Hyde’s Park.

In the Malaysian Gulag, one must know what, when and where to speak with clarity and no ambiguity and when otherwise.

Yes you contribute again – like your comment #3 on October 5th, 2009 15:18 in thread “Najib’s defence of Isa’s corruption offence a mega-tonne explosion demolishing his NKRA to “fight corruption” -“Yes some criminals deserve a second chance but they don’t get a second chance to be an ADUN or potentially to become a MB who may affect the livelihood of millions” – which was ‘coincidentally’ similar to my comment #3 slightly earlier on same day October 5th, 2009 13:07 in preceding thread “Bagan Pinang…there is no Plan B (part two)” on Najib saying even a criminal gets a second chance –“No one questions that every person including a convict deserves 2nd chance at rehabilitation but whether the second chance is by way of a chance to hold public office as Yang Berhormat and the peoples’ representative in state legislature.”

Yes you contribute again – ROTFL

It suffices to just briefly mention (i) guarantee is not same as letter of support/awareness. What the document is (guarantee or support) issued by former transport ministers is not dependent on its description but the substance of its contents and wordings; (ii) under FPA no guarantee or incurring of financial liability may be issued unless with Treasury/MOF approval. So if (i), construing their wordings is actually mere support letters not necessarily incurring liability from public finances, then contravention of (ii) does not arise. (ii) (contravention of FPA) will arise only if construing the substance of the wordings of letters issued, they are found not to be mere support letters but guarantees ie govt promises to be answerable for debt of the debtor to another creditor. Then the third question arises, that if guarantees were void for contravention can govt subsequently ratify retropectively a void guarantee to make it valid??? Also other questions arise whether if the void guarantees cannot be “ratified” and made valid, whether govt is actually upholding “spirit” of it and morally assuming the liability to protect confidence in future dealings betwen govt agencies like PKA and the market.

I didn’t bring up FPA because it is a technical subject boring to a lot of people but since you brought it up, I elaborated on it’s ramifications. Thats all.