Following your heart. A question.

I am not sure how many of you read the comments section of the blog posts, but there are very interesting things happening in the comments section on two totally separate posts. Although I am NOT saying you can compare these two situations, at all, I would like to raise the debate a level and ask the following:

 Does following your heart, giving in to your passion, mean you can’t or shouldn’t be held accountable for your actions?

 On the one end of the spectrum we have a blog reader* who posted this comment in response to my heartbreak about Steve Irwin’s death:

"Okay, here's the truth... most folks i know here in the U.S. think that Steve Irwin was a total asshole for jepoardizing his life and leaving behind a wife and two kids b/c of his thrill seeking." 

 Then on the other end of the moral divide we have Rachel. Who had an affair with someone’s husband. And who responded to my “Would you look away” post with the following:

"About six months ago I began a love affair with the husband of an up-and-coming blogger. Initially, I resisted the temptation to read her blog, but curiosity got the best of me; I had to know more about this woman and what (if anything) she was saying about me. For months now I've been reading her and her sisters' blogs . She usually keeps the negative comments about me to a minimum, but her sisters, who are younger and a little further detached from the situation, can get pretty nasty; upon discovering my presence, one actually devoted a whole series of articles to disparaging me."

 Rachel felt that the vitriol directed at her was “BS”, the name-calling unfair. They didn’t know who she really was.

 You can’t compare these two situations. Not even close, and I am sure there are many who would be upset with me by mentioning them in the same breath. But I want to discuss this notion of following your heart.

 So let’s remove the individuals from these stories. Let’s instead look at circumstance and ask whether following your heart negates any accountability to others. And whether you have accept the risk that goes with the reward.

 If you are following your heart to work in a job / industry / situation (let's say a racing car driver, or a stunt man) where there is inherent danger on a daily basis, are you putting your family at risk too? And if you do, is that ok? Because, after all, all you are doing is following your heart, doing the thing/job you love?

 And if you follow your heart by falling in love with someone who belongs to another, knowing you are going to hurt people along the way (and possibly be hurt yourself), is that ok? Because, after all, all you are doing is following your heart, being with the person you love?

 If we raise this debate above the individuals concerned, can we, should we, say that following your heart exempts you from the consequences of your actions? And if consequences do follow, are you allowed to cry unfair?

 I am not going to post my opinion because I don’t want to cloud the discussion either way, other than to say that I think Steve Irwin’s death is a great tragedy, an enormous loss not only to his family, to his community and his country but the entire world.  I admired and respected the man enormously. I mourn his passing.

*(I’ve removed her name and contact details because I don’t want anyone harassing her via email. Actually, please don’t do that to anyone, no matter what they say on this blog. Some people have sent threatening emails to people who they consider my enemy or who they have taken issue with, and that can not be condoned. Threatening anyone is never on.  Let's try and keep it clean)

Comments

[CaerLiveSound]

There are many of us in the US who believe Steve Irwin was a devoted conservationist and a loving husband and father. We're so sorry for his children, but if Steve Irwin HADN'T died chasing a sting ray or wrestling a croc, death wouldn't have done him justice as an individual.

Being with the person you love (or job you love) is an honorable thing. Definitely. End of story. HOWEVER, how you go about it can be decidedly dishonorable. And since everyone knows Rachel is sleeping with my brother in law, and we all know I'm talking about her...

Steve Irwin didn't grab a manta ray and shake it. He was accidentally killed. The consequences Rachel has faced (and snarky comments are barely fit as consequences go) are all her own doing. She invited backlash by announcing herself. She didn't have to comment on this particular post. And on my now-defunct blog, she didn't have to comment for the months that she did.

For being with my brother in law, she received no consequences from my family. None. She probably should not be stalking my family online, however, and then acting outraged when we get pissed.

Quietly, on the edges of her comments, I feel a sense of guilt. There is (and has been) an awful lot of "I don't give a damn what you people think" and "It's none of your business what I do" and "I'm a single woman who can sleep with anyone, even if they're married." What's interesting is that unlike Steve Irwin, who was being true to himself by chasing sting rays, she doesn't have to be here. To be true to herself, she just needs to hang out with my brother in law and shut up. It seems as though she's hanging around to keep reinforcing to herself that everything is fine and she doesn't need to explain herself to anyone. Perhaps this is practice for real life, as people will probably raise some eyebrows when they find out the circumstances of Rachel and BIL's relationship.

As far as the relevancy of my comments goes, I may not be infertile or a mom, but I did find myself being discussed in the comments of "Would You Look Away" (oh, how ironic!) and probably could be considered the best person to weigh in on the topic of... me.

My conclusion: Steve Irwin followed his heart. So did Rachel, but then she became an exhibitionist who flaunted the fact all over the internet like a worm on a hook. She could have commented here without letting us know who she was, but she did so because she wanted a chance to tell everyone that she doesn't care what we think. It's telling.

[Boulder]

I guess, to me, it depends on whether you were following your dream when you family came to your life, or if it started after the family. Also, it depends on children and whether it is done with abandon, provocation or with good sense.

Falling in love with someone who belongs to another is, to me, selfish and foolish. I would want to be in a loving, committed, unencumbered relationship. I'd like to be able to look at myself in the mirror when I brushed my teeth and feel proud of my choices. So, to me, in that case, the answer is no, it isn't ok. Following a heart in that case hurts some one else and another family. That would't be my heart's choice to make.

You know, I didn't agree with Steve's choice to pull his child into his fray, but I'm not above making some really poor choices in my own life over the years, so I how could I let that detract from the greater good that he's done?

I'd like for Rachel to move on - but that's my opinion - and stop commenting all over other people's blogs about her liason. I guess that comes from seeing other people's lives turned upside down by people who have done what she and her partner in infidility have done.

[Boulder]

PS - What Caer said.

[andrea]

I say back of Steve, he died doing what he loves, Terri loves it to or she would have asked him to stop.

[Schnozz]

I think it depends on the seriousness of the consequences and the amount of benefit that comes from the risk. There's risk in everything, after all, so the line is going to have to be drawn. On one hand, some jobs are dangerous, but I don't think it's unloving or selfish to be a cop, even if you have a family. On the other hand, climbing Mount Everest when you have little kids at home is grossly irresponsible to me. So I guess it depends on the level of risk, and whether that risk is thrill-seeking without much tangible benefit to others or even yourself (Everest) or more helpful to someone and more socially responsible, with tangible benefit (cop).

That one guy? Who climbed Mount Everest and then knew he was going to die, so he radioed his PREGNANT WIFE so they could name the baby together before he died? It is very hard for me to understand how anyone could possibly justify the risk he took. I don't care if the wife agreed to it or even encouraged him to do it; I don't care if his entire family supported his decision. I just cannot understand. I feel for that child, who will probably grow up wondering why they weren't worth as much as an ego and a big chunk of rock. And you know what, kid? I wonder the same thing. About a lot of people.

[Katerina]

I've found the comments about Steve Irwin's "irresponsibility" quite unsettling. It is a tragedy that two small children are left fatherless, but to blame Steve for doing what he loved is pointless and offensive. Look at the example that he has set for his children, how do you teach them what is worthwhile in life if you're not prepared to wholeheartedly embrace your passions? Can you imagine what the world would be like if we didn't permit fathers to take risks? The legacy that Steve, and others like him, set not only for his own children, but for future generations is undeniable.

That's the crux, I think. By following his heart, Steve strived to make the world a better place for others. Can the same be said for Rachel and her ilk?

[jodie]

OK, I was pretty outraged by Rachel coming out and splashing her affair around and knocking the sisters for standing by family. But then when I hooked up with my now husband, he was seeing someone. Granted, he wasn't married and we were only 19. But he was seeing someone, and he cheated on her to be with me. I knew in my heart he was "the one", he knew it too. We so badly wanted each other that it seemed wrong NOT to pursue it. But I must have known it was wrong because of the guilt. And some days I still feel guilty even though we've been together 14 years and have 2 wonderful kids. And she is very happily married, has 4 kids and is still friends with my husband. Anyway, maybe I should stand back on this one, I'm in no position to judge.

As for Steve, I loved that guy. I used to cringe when I thought it was all put on, but we soon learned that was the "real deal". And I loved him for it. I loved how much his family meant to him. He was asked in an interview if he would quit if Terri asked. And he said he would, in a second, because he knew she would only ask if it had to happen.

I guess we need to remember that part of what Terri loved about him was what he did for a living and a passion. It's what his kids loved about him too. It made him who he was. So maybe he could have been safer, but then it wouldn't be Steve. That said, I do think some of his "showman" antics which had nothing to do with conservation (teasing crocs with food and jumping out of the way at the last minute) might have been a bit much, given that he was jeopardising his family's happiness for a few laughs and some adrenaline. But as I said, it made him who he was. And that was a good, decent, passionate person. There was nothing fake or nasty about him and he wasn't setting out to harm anyone.

My husband is in the Army, and I'd love him to quit. But it is so much a part of him that I could never ask him to do that. I think the world needs officers like him, even if it is my sacrifice in the end. And when he's a part of Army he is such a happy, confident and enthusiastic person I ould never take that away.

[colicmommy]

Sorry, but we are ALWAYS responsible for our actions. I don't care if you're following your heart in whatever context. We are adults. We make choices. Are we little children, swept away by our emotions, one minute that happiest little toddlers, and the next we are tantruming on the floor? Are we animals, rutting in heat because we HAVE to, because it's innate? Gawd, I hope not. We are supposed to be able to think and to say "no" to something we know is wrong even if we "feel" like it would be a really fun, gratifying thing to do. Stealing cool stuff would be fun and gratifying...free cool stuff!! cool!! Except it's wrong. And it's not only wrong if you get caught, it's just wrong by definition.

Okay, so having an affair is wrong no matter how your heart feels. Even if the guy wants to too. Just because 2 people want to steal together doesn't make the stealing right. Too bad, the guy is someone else's. So go and mourn over your heart break, then move on and find another, single guy. Lots of guys in the world. And you can find someone to love that isn't attached. Hey, if the guy really wanted to live with you forever? He'd make that happen. Legally.

As for dangerous jobs, well, I think Steve was a little foolhardy with him having small kids. These choices have to be made with the whole family, I guess. I'd never marry a man who did risky stuff like that. I don't think he was morally "wrong" in the same sense, but yes, he was responsible for his actions, and so is his wife if she agreed to his actions. I guess if I saw her being sad, I'd understand, but maybe if I saw her going "It's not fair! It's not fair!" I would think, "well, you kind of asked for it, with what he does..." Plus, his stunt with the baby and the crocodile never sat too well with me....

[Working From Home Today]

My guess is Steve's wife fell in love with his energy and enthusiasm. If he became any less for marrying, he wouldn't be the man she fell in love with. Being who he was inspired those who were around him, including his children. He may have died early, but he also LIVED every day.

[Kelly]

No one is except from the accountability because that is just life - our choices will result in a series of events whether we like it or not. Will another's choice affect me, yes, but I have no control over what they do. But, isn't that what relationships are about? For example, in a romantic relationship we choose another person but they don't belong to us, we don't own them and we don't have any control whatsoever what they choose to do with their lives. They make choices and we also have choices on whether we want to live with their "choices" or not. I always try to live my life by the golden rule that is so simple but so true "do onto others as you would have done to you." Simple, but effective. As for the crocodile hunter - he had an amazing, dangerous career - I don't think he did anything to put his family in harm's way. He was living and sometimes living involves risk. His family accepted and encouraged his career - that was their choice and that is part of having realtionships with other people. Comparing his passion for his career to having an affair with a married person doesn't really work for me - they are so different. I have no clue who this Rachel person is or the circumstances of an affair because I don't follow that type of stuff but I will say whenever I hear of an affair with a married couple my first thought is never "oh that person must have followed their heart." The reality is they followed their ego - not their heart. Bottom line: having an affair with a married person is wrong. Trying to justify it with explaining the "circumstances" "feelings" etc. involved is just whitewashing reality - if you willingly break up a family, yes that is your choice but it speaks volumes to one's character. To be offended that people say something about your choice shows a continued pattern of immaturity....

[Chickenpig]

I'm from the US, and I don't think that Steve Irwin was an asshole. A little careless when he was feeding the crock with his child perhaps, but not an asshole. Anything you do in this world for pleasure can be risky and cause an untimely demise, should you stop doing them because of the risk? I don't think so. Christopher Reeve loved horses, but should he have refrained from jumping them because he was going to break his neck? No. In the case of Irwin, he was doing what he loved when his wife met him, and it would be expecting too much to ask him to change. We don't expect our children to do "safe" jobs when the grow up to make us happy, so they shouldn't expect us to do safe jobs just for them, although some modification of behaviour (maybe taking a less risky beat if you're a poice officer?) may be advisable.
As far as following your heart in love.... I don't think that falling in love with someone when you have made vows to someone else is enough to validate destroying another person's life. Rachel is not the person who made that vow, so the ball is really in his court, not hers. I am not a religious person in the technical sense, but I do believe that if you break a vow, there will be consequences and that a promise made should not be taken lightly.

[jenny]

That comment about Steve Irwin is upsetting, his wife worked with him so didn't she put herself in the same danger? That is like calling a police officer or miner a jerk for putting his life in danger. I can tell you that Canadians don't share that view. I still tear up everytime I see something about his family on tv.
As for the other situation, if you are involved in the break up someone's marriage you have to be prepared for the fact that the other person and their family will not like you. It is ridiculous to assume otherwise. Why should they get to know you, why should they give you a chance?

[Flicka]

While I fully expected steve Irwin to get seriously hurt one day I don't think he was an asshole for doing what he loved. Sarge did dangerous stuff all the time when we were engaged and first married. It was his job. He has some medals that I'm not allowed to know what they're for. Did I expect him to get hurt and maybe be killed? Sure. But I'd never have asked him to stop. It's what he loved. I was okay with letting him go do it, knowing that he'd never be a whole man if I didn't. He was forcibly retired due to illness before he could get himself killed. But if he had been killed, I'd have been proud. Because someone has to do the dangerous stuff, even when it seems silly or unnecessary or not PC to us. I liked Steve Irwin and admired him for the family man and conservationist that he was. Period. And I think his wife is a wonderfully caring woman to have let him pursue his dream without reproach.

As for following your heart right into another's marriage...that's just wrong. Full stop. Your rights end where another's begin. A woman (or a man, for that matter) has the right to expect her spouse to keep his promises to her. She has a right to expect her marital home to remain inviolate. If you and a married man feel you belong together, then let him obtain a divorce before you start seeing each other. It's alot less crappy that way and that way the "other woman" is above reproach. There's still hurt and it's still a terrible thing for a husband to do to his wife. So don't expect to ever be liked. But at least that way you could conceivably expect respect. But cheating because you are "meant to be?" Is just lust, disguised as love. Love doesn't hurt people with an affair. Love says "I'll wait until you're free so we don't have to carry this weight of shame."

[Pink]

Wow. I don't even know who this person Rachel is, who she's having an affair with, or why in the name of God she thinks it's a good idea to talk all about it online with complete strangers. And, frankly, I don't care. This should be between her, this guy, and the man's wife. And while there's the one side of the argument that she was single so why shouldn't she sleep with whoever she wants? there's also the side that says sleeping with someone who's married is wrong. Point blank. Follow your damn heart to someone who isn't already committed or ask that person to extract themselves from their committed relationship and then be with them.

In terms of Steve Irwin, I feel terrible for his family, but Terri made a choice to be with him and if she couldn't live with his career choice then she had the right to either ask him to stop or not be with him. He did nothing wrong.

[Laura(southernxyl)]

I think you have to let your head rule your heart. "Because I wanted to" isn't a viable excuse for outright wrongdoing after about age 4 or so. "Follow your heart to somebody who isn't married" sounds about right to me.

I suspect that Irwin was kind of addicted to that adrenaline rush, which a lot of people are, or we wouldn't have paramedics and military people and so forth. I also suspect that he didn't know as much about stingrays and their behavior as he thought they did; his first impulse was to interact with the thing rather than to study it and understand it. Tragic outcome.

[Shelley]

I've never been "the other woman" and plan to do everything I can to avoid it -- I'm sure there are some instances where the marriage was falling apart anyway, or whatever. Not for me to judge. But: the thing that amazes me about women who get involved with married men, cause a divorce and then marry them... it doesn't seem to occur to them that the same damn thing is likely to happen to them, that is, that he'll meet someone new somewhere down the road and leave.

Anyway. Yes, I think one should follow one's heart. But no, that doesn't mean you can abdicate responsibility for the consequences of your actions. And one should consider the consequences *first* and figure out if it's really and truly worth it.

[Lisa]

Oh brother. I think saying that you're following your heart by pursuing a relationship with a married man is naive at best. Why on earth would you want to be with someone who takes marriage vows and commitment so lightly? Does that speak well of his character (not to mention yours?) Would you want your children to know this is how mommy and daddy met? I just have no respect for anyone who takes marriage so lightly, whether it's the married person or the single person involved. Initial attraction and lust is ephemeral...and all of this "oh but we're meant for each other" nonsense is just that. If someone can walk away from their marriage vows once, they can do it again. And if they've done it once, it's much easier to do it again. I've seen it happen.

Regarding Steve Irwin, I think it's tragic and I personally would not have wanted him to keep on with his career had I been his wife. But this was between them so it was for them to decide. I do feel badly for his wife and children.

[Shelley]

I've never been "the other woman" and plan to do everything I can to avoid it -- I'm sure there are some instances where the marriage was falling apart anyway, or whatever. Not for me to judge. But: the thing that amazes me about women who get involved with married men, cause a divorce and then marry them... it doesn't seem to occur to them that the same damn thing is likely to happen to them, that is, that he'll meet someone new somewhere down the road and leave.

Anyway. Yes, I think one should follow one's heart. But no, that doesn't mean you can abdicate responsibility for the consequences of your actions. And one should consider the consequences *first* and figure out if it's really and truly worth it.

[nope]

I am one American who does not think that Steve Irwin was an asshole. He died doing what he loved. He knew the chances he took every single time he faced an animal capable of damage. So did his wife. I am heartbroken for her and her children. As far as him holding his newborn son while feeding a croc- do you think Terri would have let him do that if she didn't completely trust him? NO ONE protects her children more than a mother. If she had thought for one second that he would put that child in harm's way, she would not have let him do that.

As far as Rachel goes, she needs to grow up. Impulse control is something she has never learned.

[Amy]

Just my two cents: Steve Irwin died doing what he loved and it seems fairly obvious that his wife was aware of that as well. I'm sure at some point early in their relationship she did some serious soul searching to determine if a man that lived life dangerously was the right kind of man for her and her future. Apparently she did and along with her love for him took a risk that he could die on the job (so to speak). As some of you have mentioned, your spouses have dangerous jobs also and I'm betting you had some conversation of the impact on that job and the potential for family.

In terms of the affair issue: I'm a child of divorce where my father cheated on my mother not only once but twice. My stance since I've been old enough to understand what love is and how it can majorly mess up your head is that you can't help who you fall in love with but you can help what you do once you discover you love someone. My big question in this scenairo is why are we focusing on the woman? She certainly made a poor choice by acting on her feelings for a married man but what about the man? Doesn't it take two to make an affair? Why is he not being chastised for violating his vow of marriage? Where is the microscopic examination of his actions in this discussion?

With my parents situation I'm fairly certain my father lied to his mistress but that doesn't complete negate her actions. Unless my father was divorced, she had absolutely no business having any kind of physical or emotional relationship with him.

[Jul]

While I think Steve Irwin was a delightful guy, and it was wonderful to watch someone doing what he really, truly loved... personally, the extreme risk-taking stopped the day those two fuzzy pink lines appeared. Period. The kid needed for me to be alive more than I myself needed to skydive or bungee-jump or try China white JUST ONCE.

Yet again, I probably do things which OTHER mamas would consider "unneccessarily risky"... so, obviously, it's a personal thing. Irwin knew his stuff - for HIM, maybe croc-wrangling didn't seem unduly risky.

As far as affairs go... well, my personal maxim is the neurosurgery one - "First, do no harm." I realize this is probably gonna be unpopular, but I have minimal problems with infidelity itself - only when people are stupid/flagrant enough to get caught and destroy a family. You want to get your kicks? Go right ahead. But YOU shoulder the guilt and pain, because it's YOUR construct. If you want out, be a man/woman about it, and minimize the harm by doing so in the least-traumatic manner possible.

[beth]

the audacity it takes to read and comment on someone's blog when you are SLEEPING WITH THEIR HUSBAND is making me too angry to objectively look at that situation.

as for steve irwin, i had a similar (if milder) reaction...not that it was irresponsible of him to be who he was and have the interests he had, but he often took huge risks when interacting with the animals. however, that was not the case with the way he died. and i think his wife and children, from what i know of them, would prefer for him to have been who he was and die the way he did than to be someone else, someone they loved and admired less.

[Em]

In terms of jobs, I almost think you must follow your heart to be happy and satisfied with the life you've chosen. That doesn't mean, though, that you take unnecessary risks. My husband is a cop as well. I wouldn't ask him to quit for anything but one of the ways he takes care of us is by taking care of himself. I expect that of him. I expect him to continue his training, wait for backup, wear his vest. I don't think Steve Irwin avoided unnecessary risks (not in the case where he died, that seems like a freak thing. On the other hand, what was the name of the documentary he was filming? It was something like "The Seas DEADLIEST creatures"?). I do not think he was an "asshole" for doing what he loved but I was not surprised to hear he had died. Saddened, for sure, especially for his family, but not surprised.

I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said regarding "following your heart" into someone else's marriage that hasn't been said. You just don't. You don't HAVE to follow your heart you know and it doesn't mean you will life a life unfulfilled.

I don't think it is ever possible to seperate actions and consequences. Every move we make, big and small has consequences that affect ourselves, other people. Everyone makes mistakes but its a bigger mistake to continue on with something you know is actively harming someone (or yourself).

[Meg]

I firmly believe that the world needs risk takers. I also think those genes need to be passed on. We need firefighters and police officiers, and men and women who are willing to risk their lives daily so that the rest of us may remain safe. It's an amazing thing to me that people are willing to do that, and i'm grateful to them every day.

I probably have more of a problem with dangerous careers that i consider 'useless'. Not Steve's - i think conservationists are desperately needed in a world where our natural resources are being depleted at an appalling rate. I think that the voiceless need advocates who are willing to speak for them and raise awareness of what is going on in the world. I have more of a problem with say,a parent who is a race car driver. It's dangerous and to my mind, has little or no redeeming value. (I'm well aware that NASCAR fans will probably disagree, lol.)

As far as the other - love is patient. If two people truly believe that they are meant for each other, the honorable thing to do is to wait for the committed person to end their prior relationship. If one has taken marriage vows, that's probably the least that one owe's the partner, even if they both no longer choose to love, honor, cherish, and obey. At least end it with some semblence of dignity instead of skulking around in cheap hotel rooms for months beforehand.

[Amy]

Just a clarification to my earlier post: I am in no way, shape or form supporting or condoning the woman in the specific situation mentioned rather commenting on the lack of response to the responsibility of the male in the situation. If nothing else I find him more guilty of violating the vow of marriage than her for being a total piece of crap for pursing a married man.

[Slim]

I think it's a risk/reward question, with a follow-up question of "Risk and reward to whom?"
And yeah, even in my head, it'd be "whom."

Someone who's committing adultery is risking hurting other people who have nothing to gain from the act. It is selfish, pure and simple. If your heart is telling you that you come first, always, I think your heart is not serving you or anyone else well.

I think following his passion required Steve Irwin to take some risks. Did it require him to take all the risks he did? I'm thinking not--would it really have made him less of who he was to stay just a little further away from the stingrays, say, or to observe alligators but not wrestle them? I'm another one who was pissed off by his feeding a croc while holding an infant, and by his inability to see that doing so was wrong, rather than educational for his son.

His two-year-old is asking where Daddy is. That breaks my heart.

[Egg Donor]

When I read those comments about Steve that you mentioned in this post, I was reminded of a long time ago on this blog where someone posted something nasty to *you* Tertia saying (as best I can remember because I'm to lazy to go find it) that she hopes your daughter gets raped or attacked to show you how stupid and irresponsible you are for choosing to stay and raise her in a country with the crime problems of S.A.

Are there safer places to live? Sure. But that doesn't mean you should give up your entire life as you know it to go somewhere that theoretically you would be safer. By that analysis, everyone should be living in small rural communities in western countries that don't allow handguns (all us Americans need to move to Canada or something, I guess). What nonsense. Comments like that are so astonishingly ignorant of life, economics, reality, and display such a dearth of analytical ability, that I have difficulty believing people who say them are allowed to exist.

Similarly, Steve worked with animals his whole life and loved it. Are there safer jobs? Sure. But there are more dangerous ones, too. More dangerous, and more mundane. Does the person who posted that think that whenever someone gets married or has a kid that they should give up anything that causes them risk? So there should be no married cops, firefighters, fishermen, coal miners, soldiers, etc? And also no married marathon runners (it's not uncommon for us to die in races), rock climbers, sky divers, etc? People *can't* just change what they do because someone depends on them, nor should they. Steve didn't have a death wish (as I think any reasonably intelligent person who watched those shows would understand), his WIFE DID THE SAME THINGS, BY THE WAY, and people should not give up everything in their lives because it could be "safer". Great. A miserable boring life where the most adventurous thing to do is take a walk down the block (but oh no not on a street with traffic!) just in case you might get killed. The argument just degrades into damning all of us to a life being shut in and doing nothing simply to stay alive (even if you don't enjoy it) for the longest time possible.

I think Steve Irwin was the best person in the world at what he did, and what would be very risky and stupid for most of us was not outlandish for him to do. I would make the same argument about a cop chasing a drug dealer through the projects - they are trained and the risk is lower than if I decided to do it.

I do think people need to balance their personal choices with their family choices (e.g. you may personally want to sleep with that woman, but you should consider that you are married and not do it), HOWEVER, it is a bad argument to say that one must reduce all risk from every area of their life simply because they have a family.

So that long winded commenting over, I'll just say that I don't think the comment about Steve Irwin really has anything to do with our philandering commenter. Her posting all over the blogs of the sisters of the woman whose marriage she ruined really isn't following her heart (nor is it very classy). It isn't doing much of anything. It doesn't deserve to be discussed in the context of Steve Irwin either :)

[Keri]

Hiya, I'm a first-time commenter here since I just started reading your blog a few days ago (found it via Blogging Baby).

About Steve Irwin, I was heartbroken when I learned of his death and immediately thought of his children. While Steve took risks, I am positive his children will always be proud of him for doing something he loved and for educating the public. In fact, he died while filming his daughter's television show. That shows me that he was an involved father, sharing his passions with his children.

As for Rachel, I really feel that it is none of our business to judge or comment on that situation because we are not involved. None of us knows the whole story. However, I do feel that Rachel acted inappropriately by talking about it and should have kept it private.

[ls]

This is interesting,Tertia. I don't really fault Steve Irwin, although I think he did a bit of harrassing wildlife by jumping on gators, etc. Had he been killed by a croc, I would say he was foolish. But the stingray seems like a true, accidental, freakish death. Bottom line is that he, and Rob Hall, the Everest climber are adults, doing what is, lik eit or not, their job, and quite perhaps their calling. Thier wives were fully cognizant of this; it is part of who they are and what they fell in love with. But Rachel? Grow up. Adultery is wrong. Lying, cheating; all of it, wrong. Instead of following YOUR heart and engaging in an affair destined to hurt someone, why doesn't he follow HIS, get divorced, and then enter into an honest realtionship with you? Perhaps because he doesn't want to? You would be devastated if someone did this to you. Part of being grown-up is doing what is right, in the short-term, in the long-term.

[ls]

Sorry to chime in again, but the most recent issue of Outside magazine has a 10 year retrospective on the 1996 Everest disaster, and Rob Hall's wife is interviewed. It is very interesting and gives a first-hand perspective about a realtionship with someone that engaged in a high risk career.

[Stephanie]

I guess for me it comes down to whom will be hurt, what is the probability and do they accept it. Terry accepted the risk she would be hurt if Steve died or was injured, but it wasn't a certainty, and acceptedthe risk. Rachel, on the other hand, didn't care someone (the wife) would be hurt, and the wife certainly wasn't given the choice to accept being hurt or not. That's wrong. Wrong for the husband, too, but she's the one I'm hearing of who's being in your face about it. So she wants to cause hurt. That's wrong.

[akeeyu]

On the one hand, we have Steve Irwin. Seems like a hell of a guy, death was clearly a freak accident ("How weird is that?" I asked Sam the other night, "that he died while filming the brief part of the show where he's NOT bothering animals?"), bla bla bla. I don't think he 'deserved to die' or anything, but clearly, death at the hands (paws? claws?) of nature was a real risk involved with his career, and he chose that career, so, yes, he died doing what he loved. We should all be so lucky.

I assume he's somewhere, laughing and saying "Crikey, that was a FIESTY one, wasn't it?"

On the other hand, we have...Rachel.

Look, I don't care how you want to justify it, following your heart into someone else's husband's pants doesn't make you noble and stuff, it makes you sound like a homewrecking *cough*, so...people DO get to say you're a homewrecking *cough*. If you don't like it, don't date a married man.

Speaking of which, why in the world are you dating ANY man who thinks it's acceptable to put you in this position? Why are you in a relationship with a man who thinks it's acceptable to hurt his wife in this way? He married her and gave her a ring and promised not to be a dick to her in front of God and everyone (which is, presumably, more than he has done for you) and yet he treats her so shabbily?

And you're hanging around waiting for sloppy seconds of that meal and saying "More, please"?

What?

Run, Rachel, run.

[Melanie]

The glaringly obviously wrong thing about saying Steve was irresponsible to me is this:

Chances of dying of heart disease: 1 in 5
Chances of dying of cancer: 1 in 7
Chances of dying on Mt. Everest: 1 in 10
Chances of dying of stroke: 1 in 24
Chances of dying in a car wreck: 1 in 84
Chances of dying of a hornet, wasp or bee sting: 1 in 56,789
Chances of dying of a stringray barb through the heart: Only 17 stingray deaths recorded in Australia since 1969. I don't do math. Someone else figure out the odds.

Total chances of dying period: 1 in 1 for God's sake!

We all take chances every single day. We don't eat as well as we should. We don't visit our doctors regulary. We pretty much all get in cars every single day.

Who are we to judge Steve?

So, now on to how Steve's job choice compares to infedility - I can't even compare the two.
A failure of my small mind maybe but they seem so different to me so I'm not going to touch it.

[Rachel]

I have nothing brilliant to add here that hasn't already been said. Steve's wife knew and embraced his chosen life. *They* took the chance together, it was not a one-person decision. As for affairs and marriages - like someone else above I met my husband when he was dating (and I stress *dating*) someone else. Yes, there's a twinge of guilt there, but had he been married I can assure you we would not be married now. Marriage is a vow before God and the state. It is a legal and maral committment and it should be held inviolate by both those in and those outside of it. Seriously, that's just wrong.

That being said, for the love of all people named Rachel, I swear we're not all horrific homewreckers! There are some rather nice Rachel's out there!

Okay, just had to put that in.

[Rachel]

Darn it, I missed Melanie's comment when I posted mine.

As I pointed out to my husband, it's much like getting killed by a kitten. Sure, it *could* happen, but seriously? It just goes to show you that freak chance can hit anyone, regardless of occupation or level of care.

[mama-beans]

Follow your heart.. if it doesn't put others around you in danger. Steve Irwin had a passion, a passion his wife supported. TRAAGIC that he died but it was a risk he and those around him were willing to take. Rachel, on the other hand.. followed her heart right into someone elses bed. She caused pain to others. Yes, it was the husbands job to honor his vows and ultimately it was his "fault"... but she was the tool that was used. She knew he was married. Had she not encouraged the affair he would never have "fallen in love" with her and she would never have fallen for him. At some point she decided she didn't give a flying fu*& that he was married with a CHILD and she was going to give in to the impulse to flirt, etc. to take her passion to the next painful and horrifing level. Follow your heart, follow your passion, but only when you don't cause harm to others. Steve Irwin? SO much good came out of his following his heart. Rachel? The only people she made happy are herself and her cheating partner. She hurt everyone else.

[Orange]

So, what? Steve Irwin should have found an office job that didn't make him happy and fulfilled, that earned a lot less money and drew a lot less attention and funding to conservation issues? I've seen dads who hate their jobs, and their kids know it. That's a terrible example to set. And while money doesn't create happiness, the Irwins' kids will have every material advantage they need, which counts for something.

Of course, every time my husband says he'd like to buy a motorcycle, I say, "Hell, no!" because it's too dangerous. But that's me. Terri presumably felt differently about the tradeoffs for the risks her husband assumed.

As for infidelity, I believe the best choice is open discussion between the two who are married. The average spouse wouldn't say, "Oh, okay, go ahead and sleep with him/her. Do you mind if I have someone on the side, too?" But it's respectful to discuss problems in a relationship, or one party's interest in someone else, before the affair has actually begun. It's the betrayal and lies more than the extramarital sex, isn't it?

That out of the way, I'll say this: One of my best friends had a two-year affair with a married man. He said his arranged marriage was loveless, but that he couldn't leave because of the kids. While the whole experience was incredibly painful for my friend, she also learned that deep, true love was possible for her, and she hadn't known that before. So on balance, I'm glad that she had the experience, because everyone should know what it is to love and be loved. Her task now is to find a single man to fill that role—and she finally realizes that she deserves true love, which she didn't know before. (And she honestly didn't even recognize that they were falling in love at the start—self-awareness wasn't her strength then.)

IMO, the married man's the one with the responsibility to his wife, not the single woman in the affair. However, it's unconscionable for the single woman to pester the man's (ex-)wife and her family. Ballsy! Just unheard of. Where does that crazy sense of entitlement come from? The man left his family for you, so leave them be. You're the reason "the other woman" has such a terrible reputation!

[Peach]

Here's the thing, while Rachel may have been "following her heart" and thinking that was OK.. she was also choosing deliberatly to disrepect her affair's wife. If Rachel knew the man was married and still chose to sleep with him, she deliberately disrespected the wife. She deliberately made the choice that the wife didn't deserve her respect or compassion.

So yeah, she's made her own bed and in addition to the husband screwing up - SO DID SHE. I know for a fact the sisters aren't going on about how the husband was tricked and it wasn't his fault... he's getting his share of the blame, but it doesn't all rest with him. Rachel ALSO chose to disrespect the wife and she has to accept that consequence.

Steve Irwin made his decision with his wife and family - as another poster said upthread. He didn't choose to disrespect his family by going against their wishes. The "other woman" did.

[CariP]

Another American here who thinks Steve Irwin was a pretty cool guy. He died doing what he loved and was good at. His family loved it too.

It was a freak accident, and though most of us are not likely to get done in by a sting-ray barb in the heart, freak accidents can happen any time, anywhere, to anyone, and there's no point in getting pissed at the Croc Hunter for being passionate about animals and using his God given gifts to make the rest of us passionate about animals too.

As for Rachel...

Oy.

The man is a skunk for cheating on his wife. You should be very proud to call him your own, Rachel.

Leave his ex-wife and her family alone for pity's sake. You called them out with your cyber stalking and threats, now you can deal with the consequences.

luv'ya Tertia!

[Spacemom]

Two completely different situations:

I was commenting to my husband today that taking a child into the area where you are feeding a croc is probably less dangerous than driving your child to daycare.

Steve Irwin died in a freak accident. His love of animals put him in some risky situations, but in truth, he knew what he was doing. He was safer than most people in doing what he did because he respected the animals he worked with. Even when he was bit once, he blamed it on himself and defended the croc.

I fell in love with a friend. When we first slept together, we were both dating other people. We were both in situations that made us want to leave. My ex told me "If he is leaving her for you, then he will leave you too" The truth is no. We were both keeping our relationships going for different reasons although we knew they were over.

My ex was hurt, but he would have been whether I was dating someone new or not. His ex was well, crazy and was dating someone else too.

But I have been with him for 14 years. Does this make it wrong?

[Sarah]

I felt really bad when I heard of Steve Irwin's death. I'm from Oz and they kept replaying loads and loads of his videos. I just feel so sad, especially when I see videos of him and his daughter. But, he followed his heart, did what he loved and sadly, accidents do happen.

As for Rachel, I'm in no position to judge that infidelity but after reading her comments on that previous post all I can say is WOW. I've never seen anyone who is as "classy" as she is. Granted, they were "meant" for each other or whatever reasons they might have but, I think that's enough pain for the wife to bear! And she has the audacity to hurt them even more by going around to say such nasty things to the wife? What shocked me most was the fact that she announces her relationship when there isn't a need to, and still speak with such pride. Since she chose to announce it herself, then maybe she was inviting everyone else to judge her..

[Judy]

Okay, first of all, I can't stand days when I get here all everyone already says what I have to say! WAH!

Secondly, thanks anyway for all of you above me who DID say what I wanted to say, because now I don't need to say it!

Steve Irwin - a global loss.

This chick in the affair - I don't even know where to begin with her.

Here's the main deal - everything you do carries risks and consequences. Heck, sitting on the sofa, eating bon-bons and watching soaps has a risk (I would love to experience it and tell you what it is) and a consequence. We are all big people, and no one has the right to cry "unfair" over something that they need to take responsibility for. Steve's death was a freak accident. Do I think it was fair? Not really, but he knew the risks anytime he worked around animals. Even in a freak situation like that.

As for chick with the low moral value system...I am just not going there. So many others of you have already done that for me. Thank you.

[smmo]

Scnozz: (way up top) I know! I was pregnant when I read Into Thin Air and it just killed me. If my husband had called me in that situation I would have told him to fuck off. Ok, not really, but man... I guess we have to hope that Steve Irwin's wife accepted the risks. I bet he was an exciting parter, lots of fun, made good money. Sad, though.

Rachel: I've read Jul's blog, which is great, funny, well written, poignant. She's been remarkably civilized, much much more than I would have been. I always wondered what kind of woman has an affair with a man not only married but with a new baby. Now I know! A self-deluded princess who thinks a few comments on her boyfriend's SILS' blogs is somehow comprable to breaking up a family. Get a grip.

[Lynn]

We are responsible for our actions, bad and good. To pretend that our actions have no bad consequences is to act like children. What sealed it for me was when Rachel said that children do not suffer because of divorce!

I have a brother who rides a motorcycle even after 3 people we know, including 2 dear friends, died on motorcycles this year. He has tried to excuse by saying we should not feel bad if he dies, because he will die doing something he loves. That also is childish, because it does not recognize the devastation we will suffer if he dies. He pretends his action has no bad consequences instead of owning up to them.

My father died when I was a little girl and I will never get over it. I personally feel very strongly that I need to be honest about what I am doing if I ever place myself in harm's way. I don't know Steve Irwin well enough to know, so I am just very sad for him and his family.

[L.]

Lots of commenters so far have made the point that people really ought to follow their hearts AND their heads -- not one or the other. Be fully informed and fully aware of all risks before you take them, and consider all possible outcomes for everyone involved.

"Following one`s heart" is easier to justify when it has wider potential benefits than just personal satisfaction.

(Personally, I have a healthy fear of the destuctive powers of nature, and would never put myself in most of the situations Mr. Irwin chose. I also try to refrain from flashing my titties on other people`s blogs, just to get attention.)

[Shandra]

I think there are ethical ways to follow your heart and unethical ways to follow your heart. Having a dream of being rich doesn't mean stealing is a good way to get there, etc.

For Steve Irwin, I presume that he and his wife discussed the risks prior to their marriage and after their kids were born, and that he did the proper things to protect his family (like a good insurance policy).

My husband has a motorcycle, which he loves to ride - I mean it brings joy into his eyes like very few other things do. I know the risks of him riding it are higher than I might like. When we didn't have kids, I was completely willing to live with those risks. Since my first pregnancy we have discussed whether it's still okay to ride it with kids and we have decided - yes, but perhaps not in all the situations in which he rode it before, and with good insurance and /always/ with proper safety gear.

I think that's an ethical decision because he's consulted with me and considered our family. Other people would make different decisions and that's fine too.

It was very hard after losing our daughter to step back and let him ride his bike again; the fear I had that he would die too was really huge. But in thinking about it a little more deeply what I regretted most about my daughter's death was that she didn't get to experience /life/, and truncating my husband's joyful experiences didn't seem like a good way to honour that. However, it really is a grey area. Because choices people make affect those around them.

But we /all/ take risks. And bad things do happen to perfectly good people doing their best. It is all too easy to point out someone else being risky and then get in a car and drive (risk!) to a fast food outlet (poor health!).

For the affair thing - I think that really is quite different. There are many more ways to respect a strong love-connection than to help someone break vows they took and injure others in the process. At the same time, in my early 20s I was extremely in love with a married man and I'm not sure that anyone could have explained to me at that time that sleeping with him would have diminished something more fundamental inside me. It was something I had to come to appreciate after my own marriage.

[Jill]

Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.

--T. S. Eliot

[becky]

I haven't read the other comments because I don't want them to influence my answer.

In Steve Irwin's case, he did that stuff before marriage and kids. His wife married him, had children with him, fully knowing that was the life he led. I think in that case, it's fine: we have 2 mature adults with informed consent.

I think it's different when a spouse decides to take up a dangerous pursuit, a job with lots of travel, etc. AFTER marriage and children without the other spouse's blessing. In that case, you are putting your family in jeapardy, and I do not believe it is right or moral.

The other situation is just ridiculous. You don't just take what you want just because you want it! Didn't we all learn that when we were, I don't know, THREE? There's been lots of things I've wanted but haven't gone after because I knew it wasn't right or would hurt someone else. How many of us had crushes on friend's boyfriends, and maybe even knew said boyfriend had a bit of the hots for us? Most of us don't act on that. Why? BECAUSE IT'S WRONG! Hurting other people to make yourself happy seems like a crazy way to pursue happiness. i don't know about you guys, but knowing that someone else was suffering would pretty much dim my joy.

[Lisa]

Rachel needs to realize that when a man marries his mistress, he leaves a vacancy in that position.

[SarahD]

To me, following your heart means that you know there are consequences and are prepared to accept them, because the cost is worth what your heart desires. It does not mean you're exempt or get to tell others how to feel about it. You can hope other people understand your passion for it, but they aren't required, anymore than you are required to answer to their desires.

I saw a biography on Steve Irwin that he and his wife had done some years back on Animal Planet last night and cried and cried. His heart was truly with the animals, and so is Terri's; they knew something like this could happen, and their passion was such that they accepted the risk. The way they loved the animals are the way they loved each other and their children, and all passion at that level has inherent risk. Maybe not everyone understands, and that's probably just fine with him. It's a terrible thing and a real tragedy for the world to lose someone as passionate as him.

By the way, to counter a poster upthread, he was not filming a segment for the Deadliest Animals at that moment, but rather a puff piece for a show he was putting together with his daughter Bindi. He would have never expected a stingray to be deadly, because except in freak cases like this, they aren't. And the thing is, he would be the last guy to blame the stingray.

Also, wrestling alligators wasn't something Steve Irwin invented. He was brought up wrestling alligators with his dad, and doing the same with his own kids, so if we want to blame someone, how about them? He's always been cautious, he just was never afraid.

[anne nahm]

Everyone who knew Steve knew what he was doing. They had their opportunity to square with him to his face while he was doing it. That seems a lot more respectful.

[jersey]

I didn't read most comments because I didn't want them to influence my answers. I am also posting as anon because I never talk about my affair anywhere, expect now.

Steve Irwin died doing something he loved, it can happen anytime anywhere.

When I was single a couple of years ago, I was very good friends with a married man. We did not go into the affair lightly and knew that no matter what someone was going to get hurt. It lasted about six months. I ended it because I didn't want anyone but me get hurt. I do and don't regret the affair. If I had to do it all over again I wouldn't but I wouldn't trade the love I felt for him for anything.

As for Rachel, keep your mouth shut why blab about it all over the web? You are only hurting yourself by doing that.

[Kathleen]

Following ones heart in an effort to serve humanity is one thing.

Fucking someone elses spouse because you lack the maturity to wait until the person leaves their relationship in an honorable way, and your lover lacks the respect for their spouse to do so, is something entirely different.

As the spouse of a Marine who recently returned from his second tour in Iraq, I feel very insulted that dangerous work that benefits us all is even being compared to adultry.

In fact, I think you are giving far too much credit to those who chose hurtful actions and then hide behind the bullshit, "I was only following my heart."

Hearts are not selfish, immature and pleasure-seeking.

I can't speak on this anymore.

[aliasweepingwidow]

Having been the victim of an affair I wish to say that the homewrecker has no clue of the detritus left in the wake of an affair...a broken-hearted wife, and countless other relationships (both family and friends) either irreparably damaged or destroyed.

There are plenty of single men to fuck out there. Leave the married ones alone. Was my husband responsible for his actions. Oh yeah buddy you better believe it. But if the singles will make it more difficult for the cheaters to cheat by pursuing only other singles.

The most awful consequence of my husband's affair is that a year later he was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of unknown origin, an insidious, beastly cancer that took his life in just 49 days. And he went to the grave convinced that this was a result of "what he had done to me". I was with my husband when the oncologist passed his ghastly sentence; all my darling husband could manage to choke out was "instant karma's gonna get you...".

Vicki

[DrJ]

Both myself and my husband have been on every side of a "love triangle", admittedly though before we ever got so serious as to marry and decide to have kids with those partners. It´s easy to say the other woman is always wrong (hey, I didn´t even KNOW I was the other woman - that prize bit of information was kept from me until well after that partner ended his previous relationship) but every situation is different. There is no way that it won´t cause pain, probably to more people than just the one being left behind, whatever the outcome.

It comes down to the three people (and their children)involved and no one else. Every situation is different, and it is not my place to judge any of them. HOWEVER if someone is so blatantly provocative and, frankly, egotistcally bitchy to bring this onto the web and into the forum of the most injured party then she deserves all the nastiness thrown at her. That is an individual doing everything she can to rub the wife´s face in it, to keep the pain open and to get her personal pleasure out of being the winner.

[Anne]

Before Terri Irwin met Steve, she ran a wildlife refuge in Oregon called "Cougar Country." She worked closely with large, "dangerous" mountain lions. She also did much of the same work Steve did (helping capture crocodiles and poisonous snakes, for example). She not only knew what she was getting into before they married, she was right there with him.

Would I marry someone who did that kind of work? Probably not. I'm not a big physical risk-taker. Now that I'm pregnant, I've basically forbidden my husband to get a motorcycle because of the increased danger. But I loved Steve Irwin, thought he made a major, positive impact on the way people view aka "dangerous" animals, and do not think his behavior with the sting ray was inherently risky (compared to what most of us do everyday, such as drive on the freeway).

BTW, I am also an American.

[FishyGirl]

Steve Irwin grew up taking the kinds of risks he did - his parents were zoologists/conservationists, too. I'm sure that he had a view of the risks involved that is very different than how we would look at it. Clearly, that was something Terri fell in love with, and was part her passion, too. He also died in a freak accident, which could happen to any of us - my grandmother died tripping over her dog and falling down the stairs when she was in her fifties - who the hell would imagine that? So I have no problem with the risks that Steve faced in his life, and truly mourn his death.

With the Rachel situation, I feel that is inexcusable. It is one thing to fall in love with someone who is married, but those parties involved have a moral obligation to hold off on getting involved with each other until after the divorce. My husband and I respect and love each other to the degree that if either one of us met someone that we felt was "right" for us more so than each other, we would end the marriage first before getting involved. It is the right thing to do. You can follow your heart and still be moral and respectful to all parties. In particular, if there are kids involved, it is imperative that this is the route that is taken.

[projgen]

Damn. Everyone else has already said what I want to say.

Steve Irwin - thought he was great. Terri was right in there while she was pregnant with their daughter. People ski for a living - you can die doing that. Should they stop? If you have a young family and THEN decide to start taking on death-defying situations, maybe that's not so cool, and requires lots of family discussions.

The other situation? When someone gets married, they make a commitment to another person. They make a vow to that other person. To break that vow is vile. To be a party to a person breaking that vow is only slightly less vile. I don't put cheating on a boy/girlfriend in the same category; you don't swear loyalty and faithfulness in front of God and your community when you decide to date someone.

[Jenn]

My thoughts on Steve Irwin have been fairly well-stated by the previous commenters. His career path was chosen before he met his wife, and she was apparently fine with it. Although his career involved personal risk, his contributions to conservation and education have certainly benefitted many many people.

As for little Rachel..... sigh. Having come from a family literally torn apart by a parent's infidelity, it may be hard to fully articulate my thoughts without tossing out the word "fuck" and "gutter slut". I shall do my best though.

As someone else stated, your rights to follow your heart end where others' rights begin. I just don't see any excuse for entering into a relationship with a married man. "It just happened" doesn't cut it. Why would any self-respecting and considerate person even put themselves into the position where it could "just happen"? If you don't walk that line, then you don't run the risk of crossing it.

I have confidence in myself and my ability to take maintain control of my life and find my own happiness. If I really thought I had to pursue a certain relationship in order to make myself happy, what a sorry person I'd be! Your life and your happiness are what you make of them. Rachel has chosen to make hers illicit and seedy.

[jessie]

Regarding the "Okay, here's the truth... most folks i know here in the U.S. think that Steve Irwin was a total asshole for jepoardizing his life and leaving behind a wife and two kids b/c of his thrill seeking.", comment
I'd say that's not how I view it at all. Actually from most of the people I've talked to that heard about his death were extremely sad, and some even cried about it.

I think it was stupid for that commenter to make such sweeping generlizations about Americans views on Steve Irwins death

[Schnozz]

This has been a really interesting discussion. Especially from the commenters who began their relationships with infidelity, but those relationships have turned out well.

Breaking your word or commitment to someone in a cowardly manner is still wrong. That doesn't make your entire subsequent relationship bad or wrong; it just means you could have gone about it in a more mature, responsible fashion. I don't see the connection between "but our relationship is still going strong!" and "so the infidelity turned out to be not so wrong." Your relationship would still be great if you had dumped your significant others first. In fact, it might be better without all the drama and guilt. Unless ... you know ... you LIKE drama and guilt. And some people certainly do.

I don't think every cheater is the same; the implication is not that every cheater is an awful person or is going to have some miserable life. It's still wrong, though. Even if you cheated but you've now been together for twenty years and now you have six kids and a big beautiful house and you do charity work all day long, and even your dog is well-behaved. (Seriously, not one accident on the carpet. EVER.)

The good news is, everyone makes mistakes. I don't think it's necessary to use your great, successful life today as evidence that breaking your commitment to someone behind their back wasn't so bad then. It was wrong, but just forgive yourself and move on. We all screw up. I don't think less of someone just because they cheat, but I DO think less of them when they swear it wasn't wrong to their dying day. That's more cowardly than the impulse of cheating itself. I think Rachel thinks people are angry at her because of the infidelity. I think they're more angry because she is displaying such childish, petulant lack of remorse. I find that much more disturbing.

For the record, lest you think I'm on my high horse and I don't understand, I have cheated. It was extremely wrong, and I regret it. Knowing how horribly guilty I felt (to the point that I was literally retching over the toilet with self-hatred for weeks), it scares me to death that some people can just keep going with scarcely a shudder.

[Egg Donor]

Right on , melanie.

[Nicole]

I've been thinking about this all day and keep coming back to two things: responsibility and self-control.

As individuals, we are not responsible FOR each other's emotional well-being. I cannot MAKE you happy, I cannot MAKE you feel fulfilled. However, we are responsible for ourselves . . . to know/learn about ourselves, to listen to our hearts and decide to follow them or not. We are also responsible to control ourselves. Self-control is a virtue.

I also believe that we are responsible TO each other. Responsible to consider another's feelings before we act, responsible to be honest and respectful of others.

So for me if I KNEW that following my heart would create heartache for another, then the situation would give me great pause. Is there any other way? In the case of the philandering husband, if his marriage is truly over, then I believe he is responsible to honestly tell his wife that is the situation. Cheating is not avoiding his wife's pain, it is only postponing it. imo, the honorable and honest thing for him to do is end his marriage and then he would be free to 'follow' his heart.

I think Steve's situation is very different in that he did not KNOW for certain that his occupation would bring about pain and suffering for his family. In fact, quite the contrary b/c it was their livelihood. Yes there were risks involved, but I do believe that he and his wife were both aware of these risks and did everything possible to minimize risk. I don't believe that he was acting irresponsibly.

[Foster]

Both my husband and his brother think that skydiving is the shit. However, my SIL and I think that it is taking the fastrack to widowhood. Before any of us got married, it was made known that, upon marriage, there would be no skydiving, or no marriage. Both men, obviously, chose to give up the idea of skydiving again.

I think that if a person acts a certain way or does certain things before you marry them, you knew it going in, and it is not fair to demand that they change after you are married. This is why skydiving was ironed out before I got married. It showed me that he was serious about this. There is a reason I could not ever marry an enlisted man. I do not want to live my life in fear of him dying or being away from me for so long. That being said, I agree w/ the commenter who wanted to know why climbing a mountain was more important than being a father. I am not mad at Steve Irwin (I didnt know him), but, cmon, everyone knew he was going to die this way. Personally, once there was a child, Id be done doing risky things.

[Kay]

I'm sad about Steve Irwin. I thought he was kinda over the top on some things. The feeding incident gave me a Michael Jackson at the window kind of pause. However, I do believe that he took precautions and was not reckless.

For all those who say that risk should be given up once you have kids, which jobs would that be? Firemen, policemen, military personnel, construction people who build skyscrapers, window washers? Some people might not consider what Steve did a "job", but it was *his* job. Should we all stop driving too? That's pretty much the most risky thing you can do around here.

As to the 2nd part, Rachel seems to be bragging about the affair. I think that is sick, sick, sick. Infidelity is one thing - but being a prick about it to the wife, is just inhumane. I don't think infidelity has ANYTHING to do with following your heart - more like following your private parts.

I cheated once when I was dating a guy(it wasn't even real sex according to Bill Clinton - Ha). I felt horrible and instantly came home and broke up with my boyfriend. I was in college, it was spring break, there was alcohol, yada yada yada - but the guilt was too much. I thought he should have the option to kick me to the curb but good. We got back together a few months later for 3 more years. He ended up leaving me for someone else and ended up marrying her. He did have the balls to break up before he went out with her though. I admire him for that.

[Kay]

Also - a motto I've always heard.

If they will cheat with you, they will cheat ON you.

[Foster]

Everyone has been saying that Terri accepted Steves job and all that jazz.. All good and well, as she is an adult. A child, however, has no real say in his/her parents job(s), so I want to know how Steves kids feel about him dying. Probably pretty fucking sad. And how will they feel in 1, 5, 15 years? Probably pretty fucking sad. SO, when we say things like, well, his wife thought it was fine, thats okay, because she is an ADULT, but she is not the only one hurt here. In fact, she is not the one that was hurt the most; his KIDS were (are). Kids are always the ones who are victims to adults whims and moods, and any time adults want to "follow their hearts." No one consults them or asks how they feel and they are the ones with the least control and who shoulder the biggest impact. In closing, yes, I think that Steve was very irrisponsible for keeping the dangerous parts of his career after his first child was born. Personally, Id rather have a dad who hated his job than to have no dad at all.

[Melanie]

Foster, please go back and read my first comment. If you really feel this way, stop driving, stop eating fatty foods. Do you smoke? Stop. Do you exercise? Why not?

You know what - why don't you just lock yourself in your house? That's your safest bet.

[Jenn]

Foster, I whole-heartedly disagree with your comment. I feel it's a parent's right, nay obligation, to one, teach our children to go after things that bring them enjoyment. And two, to show our children that mommy and daddy have interests, hobbies, and passions outside of them, that we are humans who need to have these things met. As far as I'm concerned, one doesn't go into marriage without knowing their spouse and knowing their interests, risky or not.

I firmly believe that Steve had Terri's full support and encouragement to live that lifestyle and in agreement to raise their family in the same way. I do not think he was the slightest bit irresponsible in choosing his career. When his children grow and look back on their father's life, they will see a man who was passionate and committed to this lifestyle. I dare say they'll be proud to call him "Dad".

As for the Rachel situation, I cannot even go there. I cannot understand the rationale or logic that would lead a woman to believe it is her "right" to take another woman's husband, just because hormones are calling to her. I'm grateful that I am not such a woman, nor are the woman around me like that. I think the whole situation is incredibly sad...

[lorrie]

I agree with Foster.

[kathleen999]

For me, it boils down to this:

There's nothing immoral or wrong about having a dangerous job, especially one that you love and through which you are doing good. We admire our firefighters, don't we?

But you can guess what I do think is immoral. And I don't think it was all her fault, but she must feel terrible about herself to keep flaunting it all over the net. Obviously she is not happy with herself, or she would stay away from Jul and her sisters. I think she mentioned doing it as penance?

Sadly for her, it probably isn't the only penance. It's rare that someone comes out of a long-term relationship and immediately gets into another one. The person who conveniently is there to hop in the sack is called a "transitional object." And unfortunately for her also, now he knows all about cheating, so he'll probably do it again.

[sarah]

I kind of feel bad for Rachel. I mean, it's quite evident that she's somewhat "off". And the kind of guy who would fall for her and leave his family is obviously not exactly quality material either. Not only does she sound slightly crazy-ish, but she's hooked up with someone who LIKES her, which says something a bit "off" about him, only she can't see that because, well, she seems to have kind of got the crazies. Or at least that's how she comes across in her posts. But again, she can't see that because she's...you know.

So, it's really sort of a sad cycle, and it makes me a little sorry for her, because she's probably trying so hard right now (has probably tried all her life)to make her life look and seem and feel "right", but she can't see that it will never quite get there. And not because she's had an affair with a married man, but because she really thinks that the kind of guy who would leave a family and love her is going to make whatever is broken in her better. And that's not following your heart. That's following a representation of your own self-loathing. And that's sad.

[Anon]

Great comment Sarah, I cannot agree more.

[Bea]

O...kay...

Well, I'm not going to enter the debate from an individual level, but I don't think "following your heart" excuses you from consequences.

You have to be responsible for your actions.

You have to be considerate of your fellow human beings.

You should always consider how your actions affect others.

And sometimes, you will decide that following your heart is right. And sometimes, you will decide that someone else is going to pay too high a price, and you will do the noble thing and turn away from your dream.

Bea

[Sharon]

Did not read the other comments yet.

Yes, we should all be held accountable for our actions. Natural consequences always follows.

Yes, anyone can cry "unfair." Whether it is or not.

*I loved and admired Steve Irwin. He was the essence of true passion. He inspired, motivated, and educated. I will also dearly miss him.

[Kim]

I really liked Steve and I am sure he thought he was taking as many precautions as he could. I am sure he had read up on the behaviour of all these animals and what not to do etc but you can never calculate the exact risk or imagine the unpredictable. bet he thought it would never happen to him. That stingray attack was a freaky rare one and only 3 ever had occurred exactly like that in Australia or so they said.Usually a sting ray barb won't kill. How could he have ever predicted that? He may have thought the risks were low compared to wrestling with croc bare handed. That means it was rarer than diving into the sea and getting eaten by a shark in Australia and who thinks that is going to happen? Do you not dive into the sea there because you have children? I imagine he probably tried to be responsible as much as he could but the unimaginable happened and which he would never have thought would.

When it comes to relationships and following your heart well, I personally wouldn't get involved with a married man. I think you can choose no matter how in love you feel yourself to be. I wouldn't bother with a married man because they often lie that they will leave their wives but don't and second I feel myself worth much more than being the 'other woman'. Maybe I would get involved if they actually left the wife for me before we started anything physical but I just wouldn't want to waste my time with a married man and I also feel that if they have done it to someone else then they will most likely do it to me too.

I don't think the heart has to rule over the head all the time. I think that you can choose the head over the heart sometimes no matter how hard it seems.

[Jennie]

I made my opinion fairly clear on the initial post about Steve's death, I'm still saddened and in my opinion the world and it's crazy wild animal inhabitants is worse off for his passing.

Onto risks, I have lost 3 members of my family, my father, my partner and my daughter in car accidents, yet I drive daily am I foolish or an asshole for doing that? apparently to some the answer is yes. risks are what we make of them we can swaddle ourselves in cotton wool and be totally miserable or we can face facts and realise that breathing is deadly and get on with living while we can.

my thoughts on sleeping with another person's husband/wife are that it's wrong, but I'd ask why they have so little self respect that they would take lust wherever / however they can get it.

[debi]

i think the 'follow your heart' thing is western individualistic crap. we would do well, in general and not just with these two specific cases, to learn from other cultures that put the well-being of the family/society above the well-being of the individual. our western culture is far far too egoistic and selfish. that's what i think.

[Bwc]

I agree with Kathleen about the lady in question.
Steve Irwin, on the other hand took calculated risks. What happened to him was an unfortunate and unforseeable accident.
"follow your heart" Is a romantic expression meant to capture the sense of taking a chance and going with your gut, presumably when one needs courage to take a chance or make a change. But choice is involved and responsibility, always. it's not a carte blanche to do ANYTHING with no regard for the consequences.

[Alice]

NOTHING exempts you from the consequences of your actions. I do not care if you are a "good, law-abiding person" or a "drug-addicted murder", whether you are "following your heart" or "just going along with the crowd" - you are responsible. Furthermore, "if you are just following your heart" and you get hurt or hurt someone else you are still responsible, whether that means you get into a relationship with someone else's partner or you die doing something you "love" - AND YOU DO NOT GET TO CRY FOUL when things does not go YOUR WAY.

[goodsandwich]

The job one is tricky for me. I know I specifically refused to look for a partner among the dangerous professions because I want my man home and safe - so cops, soldiers, firefighters, and apparently stuntmen/racedrivers/Steve were all just immediately unattractive to me as husband material. But there seem to be many potential twists: what if the passion arrives after the kids do? (A friend became a firefighter while wife was pregnant w/#2.) What if the danger involves helping others? (Like cop/firefighter/soldier.) And in a case like Terry & Steve (rest his soul) - it seems there was an understanding in their marriage. Not that it was ever ANY of my business, but -- if adults come to an understanding with each other AND believe they are doing their very best to keep their kids safe, I don't think I can question them. Especially at a time like this. I think we can send the survivors our understanding without bashing their dear departed.

As for the affair/cheating -- that's just poor form. Yeah, love of my life blah blah BLAH. If you're going to break death-do-us-part promises, get the divorce. If you don't respect the "other woman" or "other man's" marriage vows, it's shows severe lack of character, usually disguised as "passion" (an overrated quality, esp. by the young). And I have some experience with this. My best friend was almost "the other woman" for a short while - his marriage was apparently hideous, and everything did work out in the end - they've now been together 15 happy years and have a wonderful happy 13-year-old son. Despite being totally on her side, I was 100% against any relationship starting until divorce was happening AND he had tried marriage counseling w/wife #1. "Once a cheat, always a cheat" did not look good to me as a fate for a friend.

[bisb]

An observation. The phrase "follow your heart" appears to refer to a concept which is defined differently for and understood differently by most of the commenters. Almost all of the comments are not arguing about the merits of the concept, but rather, about the definition. Many people have heard of the "scientific method" but very few truly understand it or use it. Step one is, define the problem very precisely, clearly and above all simply. If this is achieved, in my experience, the solution to the problem more often than not becomes instantly obvious. For me, "follow your heart" denotes action based upon emotion only (I want - therefore I act to satisfy the want). Most intelligent people will instantly recognize the pitfalls (intellectual, moral and otherwise) associated with action based on emotion only. Successful living/survival requires a different approach/concept, and that is - reason/deliberation/risk assessment followed by action followed by emotion (with emotion determined by success or failure). This process or concept is not symbolized by the phrase "follow your heart". I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Steve was not following his heart (by my definition), but rather, did reason/deliberate/risk assess before acting. Under these circumstances no condemnation of his actions and the subsequent outcome is possible or even necessary (life is not risk free for anyone and does not come with an instruction manual). As for Rachel, yes, she "followed her heart" (with all the implications and consequences that follow action based on emotion only). With apologies to Tertia, the question/problem really should have been stated more precisely/clearly. God, do I love and hate language.

[Menita]

Akeeyu nailed it.
And I agree - comparing Steve Irwin and folks like Rachel is insulting to Steve Irwin. Treading on someone else's sacred space, regardless of whether there was consent or not, is a filthy, filthy thing to do.
I am in awe of Jul's grace and class in all of this. I am not sure I would be capable of that much self-possession. And man does that woman write well.
I'd class Steve Irwin with Jul (thumbscre.ws), if you like. That WOULD be a way to honor gutsy people with huge hearts. And loyalty to those they love.

[Ellen]

I love you, Tertia, but oh come on. It's not like Steve Irwin was having an affair with a married crocodile.

Steve was a croc hunter/stingray swimmer/python wrangler way before he met and married Terri. They were out there every day jumping on top of reptiles, sticking their thumbs up the croc's bum and yelling, "Yep! This beauty's a female!" together. Terri knew every single day that Steve might get killed, as did he. Actually, she was probably in a better place-- preparedness-wise-- than the rest of us because she probably dealt with her spouse's mortality a long time ago. Our spouses are all going to die. Just perhaps not in such a violent or public fashion.

"Following your heart" to a married man's pants is not following your heart. It is following your lust. Plus, it is disrespectful to another woman and to yourself. I don't believe that truly "following your heart" ever leads to the pain of another person.

[Ellen]

Oh, and forgot to add: I just read Foster's comment and I also agree with that wholeheartedly. After he had kids, Steve probably would have done well to lay off the dangerous stuff for awhile. A wife can choose to accept her husband's risk-taking all she wants, but a child is just an innocent bystander. In my opinion, the responsibility of family trumps responsiblity to a job (passionately felt or not) any day.

That said, I will still miss Steve dearly.

[Sami]

Following your heart like Steve Irwin did is something entirely different than sleeping with someone else's spouse.

What is different about it is that this was his career... this was his wife's career as well. They were raising their family amidst all the craziness of nature and loving it. We don't yell about missonaries who take their children to third world countries exposing them to disease, hunger, and armies that may or may not view them as friendly - yet some are saying that Steve got what he deserved. No one deserves to die in their prime of life - but it happens. Generally we're all sad because of it, and wondering what if... what if that was one of us. All we can do is live today as if it was your last and let your loved ones know that you love them. I'm praying for Terri, Bindi and Bob and his parents as Steve left some very big shoes to fill.

Infidelity on the other hand is a conscious effort by two parties to cheat on another person... Rachel knew what she was doing was wrong... Rachel deliberately outed herself in your comment sections - rather than keeping quiet, just reading no one would have hopped on the bandwagon if she hadn't done the things she did. I think her behavior is awful... yes she's following her heart, however she left decency at the door when she decided that she wanted to be "out" about her relationship. I would have had no idea about her if she hadn't outed herself. Now whether her relationship is "true love" or not I have no idea - I just don't want to know about it.

[goodsandwich]

Ellen said above, "I don't believe that truly 'following your heart' ever leads to the pain of another person."

I'd have to disagree with that. If my kid grows up to think substantially differently from me politically or religiously, I will feel some pain. When my sister and I traipsed off to live in Mexico City, my mother felt a great deal of pain and trepidation. When I gently told a sweet boy once that I did not love him, he certainly felt pain.

One doesn't have to be a jerk, but the pain of another may result nonetheless. What one can do is try to keep it to a minimum - say, by not sleeping around while you're married.

[Veronica]

We loved Steve Irwin and his shows until he took his son into the crocodile exhibit and then it began to seem that he had more on his mind than just conservation and doing his job. He was reckless with his own child for publicity and attention and you know after little Bob sees that on video some day, he'll be in therapy. Terri was just as much at fault for allowing that to happen.

I agree with Foster 100%.

My father died in a work accident and my brother was a year old and doesn't even remember him. He, as an adult has so many problems now that are related to not having a father. It's been very difficult for him and I don't think he'll ever be okay emotionally. Children don't "adjust" to losing a parent.

Irwin's children will not be comforted by the fact that he died doing something he loved. They'll just have a difficult life because they are missing their father. They'll be further damaged knowing that his job was more important to him than they were.

When you have children, I think, you choose to be responsible for them until they are grown and can be responsible for themselves. He should have not had children if he wasn't prepared to do everything he could do to be safe even if it meant giving up all that attention and publicity that he loved so much.

As for Rachel, if this is really following her heart (though she shouldn't be dating a married man anyway) she should be doing everything she can to be compassionate toward a woman (the wife) who is now raising her cheating husband's child by herself, instead of going around and leaving comments to try to rub it in or cause more problems. Her comments are just a reflection on her character. But karma will take care of that situation in the end. The man in question has got to be a pretty big loser!!

Don't people think about their kids anymore. Parents should be parents first, no matter what their situation is or who/what gives them a hard-on.

And yes there are plenty of parents who do have to work in dangerous jobs and they don't have a choice and they try to not take unnecessary risks when they go to work. Some of those people even decide to change professions once they have a family, if they can.

I don't think we can put soldiers, firemen and policemen in the same category as someone like Steve Irwin. I'm sure he had enough money to give up the risky stuff and still be able to stay in a profession that he loved. He kept doing it because he couldn't give up the attention. Also, soldier don't take their children to war and firemen don't take their babies along when they go to fight fires so they can get attention.

Steve Irwin was just a big kid that should never have had children in the first place.

Children should come first or don't have them. If you have them accidently then step up and be an adult and take care of them even if it conflicts with your big fat ego or whatever/whoever gives you a hard-on.

[Ellen]

You know, I've been thinking about what I wrote (even before Goodsandwich's comment) and I want to edit it a bit... I don't believe that truly "following your heart" ever comes at someone else's heart's expense. It's true, following your heart might bring someone else pain. (That was a pretty sweeping statement, wasn't it?)

If your decision IS causing the broken heart of another, I would question whether you are actually "following your heart" and not just your own selfish desires and/or lack of maturity.

[goodsandwich]

Couldn't let Veronica's comment go by either: I guess "children come first or don't have them" depends on what kind of danger the parent is in. I thought Steve Irwin was doing more than just seeking personal attention; I thought he, like a firefighter or other public servant, saw himself as caring for all living beings. I got the impression that he felt we are all important - humans, animals, the land we all live on. Securing protections for all the beloved creatures of the earth *including* your children, seems different to me from just thrill-seeking without regard for anyone's safety. The fact that it also thrilled him (and his viewers) really seemed ancillary.

[Rachel B]

Poor old Steve. Over in Australia here he has generally been thought of as a twit, because we've all had entire lifetimes being told which animals not to touch, which spiders to look out for, how to not get bitten by snakes, etc. I think it didn't sit well with Australians culturally to have him then go and poke the darn things.

That said, his Australia Zoo is a lovely little place. We went there as kids. And I have deep admiration for anyone who uses their profits to start buying up a vanishing wilderness to keep it safe from developers and the mining industry.

I think we all wouldn't have been that surprised to hear that he'd gotten taken by a crocodile one day. Poor bugger. I feel for Terri and the kids. I'll always remember her on one of the shows years ago, covered in mud, attempting to pin down a crocodile while Steve nattered on for the camera. She looked like she wanted to belt him one, and I've always admired her ever since then.

As for the Rachel thing? She must very badly want to be told that she's ok, or to have some sort of acceptance. Why else would she persue her lover's ex-wife's family with view of forming friendships? Looks like the dear's searching for validation of her actions, in all the wrong person. Why bring down the wrath of so many people who wouldn't care of have an opinion otherwise. I wonder if she'd feel vindicated if there was even one comment identifying with her on the issue.

Or perhaps she's just addicted to thrills and drama. Somehow I wonder if her lover will be quite as into that sort of thing as she is. I wouldn't find it particularly endearing to involuntarily have my love life splashed all over the internet for a bunch of strangers to pass judgement on. But that's just me.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Foster. We all must take responsibility for our actions, but, the children in this case did not get a choice. How is it fair to them that they will never again see their father? Steve Irwin would have done well to avoid the extremely dangerous stuff after having his kids. I think that once you get your positive pregnancy test your standards and values must shift out of necessity. Yes, we should all be fortunate enough to do what we love and , yes, we should all teach our children our children to do what we love, but, i believe we should leave the ultra-hazardous actitivities to those who are child-free. His having $$ or insurance will in no way compensate for the loss of having a father. To compare feeding a crocodile while holding your infant to skiing or driving a car or eating fatty foods is beyond ridiculous...
I used to take calcuated risks in my life before i had my children. Now i won't so much as get as on a motorcycle, have more than 2 drinks in an evening and drive or scuba dive anymore. I am an only parent to my children and possess enough self control, brains and selflessness to know that they alone come first. Period. End of story.

[Monica]

But he didn't get killed by a crocodile. He was killed in a freak accident that could have happened to any random swimmer. Heck swimming with the stingrays is a tourist attraction in the Cayman Islands.

Steve Irwin did not die because of his dangerous job, he died in a situation that could happen to any of us here - something completely benign that takes a random twist. Very similar actually to the commenter above's description of her grandmother's death.

[Monica]

But he didn't get killed by a crocodile. He was killed in a freak accident that could have happened to any random swimmer. Heck swimming with the stingrays is a tourist attraction in the Cayman Islands.

Steve Irwin did not die because of his dangerous job, he died in a situation that could happen to any of us here - something completely benign that takes a random twist. Very similar actually to the commenter above's description of her grandmother's death.

[Monica]

But he didn't get killed by a crocodile. He was killed in a freak accident that could have happened to any random swimmer. Heck swimming with the stingrays is a tourist attraction in the Cayman Islands.

Steve Irwin did not die because of his dangerous job, he died in a situation that could happen to any of us here - something completely benign that takes a random twist. Very similar actually to the commenter above's description of her grandmother's death.

[Grace]

I agree with most of what's been said here, so I won't rehash. But I would like to revisit the idea that Rachel didn't just begin a relationship with Jul's husband, cause the end of her marriage, and move into her home.

She then read Jul's journal, struck up aquaintances with her sisters, and began frequenting Jul's online haunts. She began commenting, trying to make a name for herself, and when that didn't work, she in effect said, "Hey! Look at me! I'm not a nobody! I'm the chick that stole Jul's husband!"

Doesn't it seem less and less like it was Jul's husband she 'followed her heart' to, and more like it's Jul's life she wants?

[CaerLiveSound]

Grace, that's an awesome interpretation.

[jen]

Wow. Grace nailed it.

Love is a choice. I could "fall in love" with the next guy who walks into my office, but that doesn't mean that I have to make the choice to build a relationship with him at the expense of my marriage. I don't always like my husband, but I make the choice to love him on those days because that's what love means to me. Real love isn't about following your heart -- it's about stretching it. Besides, the one guy I've cheated on in high school (I fell in love with someone else and broke up with him, only to give in and get back together in a few days later...that weekend, the other guy kissed me and I didn't stop it, and I broke up with the first guy again on Monday) was still pretty angry and bitter about it as recently as a year ago, so I don't think I could inflict that again if I wanted to.

I've read Jul's blog for a while and cried through the posts about the affair and the aftermath...she's just THAT GOOD a writer that when she talks about waxing, I feel the rip. I wish her only the best, and I feel she's handled this with more grace than I would have done.

[Priscilla]

Grace nailed it and painted it purple with pink stripes! And Jen gives us a lot to think about...

Looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who's been married for 60% of her life, I would have to admit that we sometimes don't love our partners at all for awhile. There's times when we wake up in the middle of the night, stare over at the other pillow and say, "Maybe I should just smother it for everyone's sake!" But we have taken sacred vows, and the consequences of breaking sacred vows are too awful to contemplate, so we hang in and ride out the storm.

There are predictable times in a marriage, occurring at about 5-7 years, about 10-12 years, and at about 20-25 years (roughly)--times when changing life events cause the nature of our relationship to change. We don't really wind up with the same people we married when we were young and light-years different, but we wind up with a shared history of making moral decisions for the good of the family, defending our home base against outside influence and creating a solid rock upon which our family can stand. Our fundamental faith is that, if we work together using a mutually-accepted basis of honor and integrity, we can get through the toughest situations life can throw at us, building a healthy family and a fulfilling existence.

And, if we keep ourselves on track, we sometimes manage to rack up 35, 45 or 55 years with a kindred spirit who chooses to remember those words we said so long ago, with such naiveté, such hope and faith, words which reflected our best understanding about living a decent life which will bring us pride in our accomplishments for all our years to come. That's what you're sensing when you smile at an elderly couple holding hands in the park.

I believe Jul will find such a person because she deserves such a person. People usually get what they deserve in the end, don’t they?

[Kay]

Priscilla - that was awesome. I think I might send your post to my husband.