- Oct 27, 2019
- 118
- 94
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Divorced
...wow. I’m trying to understand how people came up with two completely opposite interpretations of her words. I suppose one was a technically correct interpretation, but lacked mercy. And the other was read between the lines, but was compassionate.
Yes, deprivation could and often does lead to pushing the other spouse into a vulnerable position for temptation to become unfaithful. However, usually this deprivation is the result of an emotional shutdown caused in response to some area of pain or neglect in the marriage that is not being addressed by the one or both partners. So if one wanted to be technical about where the actual blame should go, then usually both parties would shoulder some portion of responsibility, even if you were to go back to the “deprivation” technicality.
Regardless, even if she had been guilty of depriving him without justifiable cause and pushing him into a vulnerable position of temptation, he is not absolved for his adultery. He is still responsible for making his own choices.
As for “threatening” her, whenever an individual makes unwanted advances towards another individual, in our culture it is considered threatening. We have a contextual relational “space” that we consider our invisible boundaries. This will vary by culture mostly, and slightly by age, gender, and even índividual. But unwanted advances within these invisible “boundaries” are considered violations of our space and therefore ourselves. We consider these to be threats. Even though actual physical harm is not technically carried out, it is implied.
So no, “technically” she was not physically threatened in the sense that he physically assaulted her. But in trying to hug and kiss her, he was making unwanted physical advances towards her and thereby violating her boundaries and making her feel threatened. No one should have to spell this out because this should be common sense knowledge. However this person forced the argument by insisting that she was not technically threatened. Reminds me of the story of the unmerciful servant.
Yes, deprivation could and often does lead to pushing the other spouse into a vulnerable position for temptation to become unfaithful. However, usually this deprivation is the result of an emotional shutdown caused in response to some area of pain or neglect in the marriage that is not being addressed by the one or both partners. So if one wanted to be technical about where the actual blame should go, then usually both parties would shoulder some portion of responsibility, even if you were to go back to the “deprivation” technicality.
Regardless, even if she had been guilty of depriving him without justifiable cause and pushing him into a vulnerable position of temptation, he is not absolved for his adultery. He is still responsible for making his own choices.
As for “threatening” her, whenever an individual makes unwanted advances towards another individual, in our culture it is considered threatening. We have a contextual relational “space” that we consider our invisible boundaries. This will vary by culture mostly, and slightly by age, gender, and even índividual. But unwanted advances within these invisible “boundaries” are considered violations of our space and therefore ourselves. We consider these to be threats. Even though actual physical harm is not technically carried out, it is implied.
So no, “technically” she was not physically threatened in the sense that he physically assaulted her. But in trying to hug and kiss her, he was making unwanted physical advances towards her and thereby violating her boundaries and making her feel threatened. No one should have to spell this out because this should be common sense knowledge. However this person forced the argument by insisting that she was not technically threatened. Reminds me of the story of the unmerciful servant.
Upvote
0
