rwcarter said:
In an ideal world, when the two people decided that they were going to be a couple and they were going to be exclusive with one another, they would have had a talk about boundaries and what's considered crossing those boundaries. Cause Person A can't really cheat on Person B if A and B never had a discussion about being "exclusive." If B just assumed that A would never stray cause they were a couple but never had that discussion with A, A is under no obligation to meet B's unspoken expectations.
I guess I was assuming! lol I just "assume' that if a man married a woman taking the vows of 'forsaking all others" that they didn't need to separately then talk to each other about being exclusive.
I guess I can only speak in my personal life, but it was clearly understood in marriage and serious dating that we were exclusive and if he cheated.. he was out the door. I also said that if you ever find someone else that you want to be with.. tell me.. I will divorce you, and be on your way.
I am not being mean.. I just figured it is stupid to have someone cheat when we are all free to do what we want after we let the other person know.
If a client/sitter asks about 'cheating" then it clearly is that there was a 'talk", vow, something that suggests that. The question/twist that I threw in came when I heard that a guy said that cheating is "when they have another girlfriend/mistress/etc behind the wife's back. They can even have an 'emotional" relationship". Then when asked further if 'casual sex" like a one night stand or with 'no love" .. that same person said that it would not be cheating. Now.. I KNOW if that person had told his wife that before marriage or during dating.. well lets just say that they would NOT be married. That relationship would not have continued past that point. {Which he knew and even stated}. So.. that is a creep who could kill his wife. So for me.. I don't have an issue with letting his wife know if he cheats or not. LOL He should be man enough to say himself, but lets be honest.. they usually aren't.
rwcarter said:
Having a feeling that one's mate is cheating may be quite valid. But on the other hand if I am insecure and see every gesture my mate makes that's not directed toward me as a sign of my mate cheating, my "feeling" may not be as valid.
Then as a reader we can say.. "It seems that you may just be afraid that your mate will cheat, but there doesn't seem to be any signs at this time that it is happening or will". Don't you think that the person deserves some peace even if they are just insecure, jealous, whatever. Saying that could really help that person. Especially those who believe all of this.
rwcarter said:
I don't think anyone was suggesting that a "what's wrong with you" position is needed. You'll come across clients who have a valid suspicion that something's amiss in their relationship but who for whatever reason don't want to confront their mate about it. But as I tried to indicate above, you'll also come across clients who are seeing things that aren't there.
Sorry! I guess I thought that since there was so much talk about 'clearly the person is just insecure, jealous, something wrong with them as it could never be that someone gets an accurate feeling of their spouse cheating", I think someone did actually suggest a [why are you feeling so insecure position}. That to me, IS a [what is wrong with you spread}. That is assuming that the cheating spouse/mate isn't cheating when the reader hasn't even done a reading and has no way of knowing. Like I stated in my originial post, atleast for females, when someone thinks their partner is cheating.. they usually are. That is just having a ton of female friends and being one myself.. it is just weird how that works out. Some could just have been in denial, but others just have this 'gut' feeling that seems to always be true. So, if someone comes to me and asks {female} if their spouse is cheating... I probably wouldn't do a position on why they are insecure. I may reword it to say.. why do you have these suspicions , but not why are you insecure.I think using 'insecure" is rude and assuming they are stupid.
rwcarter said:
So I believe that a position that addresses why the Querent thinks their partner is cheating is at least equally as valid if not much more valid than a position that addresses whether the partner is cheating. (Especially in a spread on infidelity, I would caution against any positions that amount to a Yes/No on the subject. As a reader, you don't want to emphatically say, "Yes, your mate is cheating on you" or "No, your mate isn't cheating on you" and be wrong. You want to present the info to the sitter in such a way that they make up their own mind about the answer.)
Totally agree!
Why the querent thinks their partner is cheating is good!
I can get accurate yes/no readings, but to be honest.. it doesn't account for certain things that I think you are talking about. Is my partner cheating? Can also come up that yes.. they are [cheating} on a test, etc. lol So.. that can definitely be tricky. I am new to reading for strangers and it is amazing all the things I have encountered with the simple way of "wording questions". The yes/no can also do exactly what you were saying too.
I am not sure that I like the person makes up their own mind about the answer. I went to one reader about something {didn't go back} for that same reason. As a paying customer.. if they don't give me anymore info than I had, why pay them? How have they helped? Again.. instead of taking these sitters or questions, I think the reader should tell the person upfront that they are not going to tell them what they want to know. It just saves time and frustration for both parties. I also think that most people going to a Tarot reader aren't doing so for 'self improvement" but rather to find something out. {I am solely speaking from a paying client viewpoint and the people that I have known that have gone to one}.
rwcarter said:
Whether or not you as a reader can address the subject of whether a person who's not present at the reading may be doing something that the person who is present at the reading would consider cheating really depends on if there are any positions that address that issue and how they are worded.
Yes, I totally agree! The wording of a question is very important. I had actually overlooked that.
rwcarter said:
Forgetting for a moment my aversion to Yes/No positions in spreads, if there were a position labeled "Is the partner cheating on the Querent?", you as a reader really don't know from whose perspective to answer that question. You could assume that you should answer it from the Querent's perspective, but the cards may be answering from the partner's perspective. And if those perspectives are vastly different, you could give the wrong answer. That's why I believe there would need to be two different positions related to that question - one from the Querent's perspective and one from the partner's perspective. (And they shouldn't be Yes/No questions for the reasons I've already stated.)
Yes.. this was why I was asking about the twist. lol So, how would we word the question to actually find out {not yes/no} if the querent's partner is actually cheating. {even just casual sex with no love or meaning}.
rwcarter said:
And as I've already said, I don't believe that I as a reader can say one way or the other if someone will ever do something.
No, I realized that too. I do think we can say for the next year or so though. If the person asking is already suspecting.. I am sure if it isn't already happening.. it soon will be. [ if it were to happen at all}.
rwcarter said:
I have avoided the ethical question about reading for someone who's not present and will continue to do so. Ethics are a personal choice and therefore are up to each reader to decide for themselves.
Definitely. I don't have a problem with it though because I think if it affects another person.. then it is their right to know. {especially if it could cause death to the unknowing party}.
rwcarter said:
Even if a reader does a whole Broadway production number about the reading reflecting energies that are present at the moment and those energies often change so that what's said could easily not come to pass because something has changed, that won't stop the client from hearing "this is what's going to happen regardless of what I do." That's one of the reasons I tend to avoid predictive readings and instead prefer to do insight readings. It's the difference between "this is what's going to happen in your relationship with X" and "this is what you need to understand about your role in the relationship...." While there are lots of people who think differently, at the end of the day we each can only control our own actions. We can't control the actions of another.
I think if there are a lot of major arcana cards,.. it will happen. That is my experience with the cards. It is rare, but it does happen. My professional reader friend who is also psychic, taught me that. Like I stated above, I am learning that Tarot and being psychic aren't the same. lol I was going on people being psychic not just looking at cards. I guess that would definitely make all the difference. I am still learning, but that is major to know for me.
I am not sure that all people realize this. I can honestly say that I definitely did not know that.
rwcarter said:
I prefer "discussion" but that's probably a to-may-to/to-mah-to distinction.
Oh okay! I haven't participated before and it seemed like a 'debate" so that is good to know. Discussions are good.
rwcarter said:
Who said we weren't continuing
I think we created a spread to address the original constraints. We've been discussing the salient points that need to be included in a spread for the wrinkle that you threw in. And until we come to some consensus on what positions need to be included, we can't really continue with the creation of the new spread.
I thought since there was an debate.. errr.. discussion on ethics and the querent is crazy.. that no one wanted to make the spread.
rwcarter said:
(If you agree that we've created the original spread you were looking for, the creation of the second spread should be done in a separate thread.)
Rodney
Sounds good! I will go look at the spread. Thanks so much!