double standard

[wmacbride]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of double standards when it comes to affairs?

 

Why do some people give bs such a hard time? Why are bs expected to just meekly sit there and let both the ws and ow/om walk all over him or her, and if they react, the ow/om paints them as being unstable and "how dare they be angry at me. I owe her/hm no reprehensibility to stay away form his or her spouse"

 

Fair enough, but how about we apply that same standard to the om/ow? Why should a bs feel any sort pressure to forgive or be gentle to the ow/om? After all, the bs owes no reprehensibility to them. I'm not saying they should be hostile or unkind, but I honestly don't understand why some ow/om feel entitled to this.

 

The really ironic thing is that these same ow/om ( and this is by no means all fo them-many would never do this) feel so incredibly slighted if the bs doesn't see them as some sort of Vitim.

 

Also, why is it that the same om/ow will make every excuse for their AP treating his/her spouse badly, and they are fine with that. It only become as porblem when the A ends.All of a sudden, the mm/mw is a huge liar. Never mind the fact (s)he's been doing that all along to his bs. I guess, in their mind, the only pain that counts is theirs.

 

Mind you, many ow/om are nothing like that.they do feel remorse for the A, and will never get involved in an A again. I can respect that, and I hope people in that situation can find a way to heal their wounds and find happiness in their life with a single man or woman who can love them well. It's the entitled view of the minority of ow/om I don't understand.

 

To sum it up...

If you ( general you) are an ow/om who helped to hurt the bs ( and make no mistake, you did, as A's can't happen with just one person in them) then why are you surprised when the bs reacts? What did you expect? A bouquet of roses and a sympathy card? Better to leave the mm and his bs to sort themselves out and not expose yourself to them lashing out. It helps no one and just exacerbates the hurt for all, including you.

[mikeylo]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of double standards when it comes to affairs?

 

Why do some people give bs such a hard time? Why are bs expected to just meekly sit there and let both the ws and ow/om walk all over him or her, and if they react, the ow/om paints them as being unstable and "how dare they be angry at me. I owe her/hm no reprehensibility to stay away form his or her spouse"

 

Fair enough, but how about we apply that same standard to the om/ow? Why should a bs feel any sort pressure to forgive or be gentle to the ow/om? After all, the bs owes no reprehensibility to them. I'm not saying they should be hostile or unkind, but I honestly don't understand why some ow/om feel entitled to this.

The really ironic thing is that these same ow/om ( and this is by no means all fo them-many would never do this) feel so incredibly slighted if the bs doesn't see them as some sort of Vitim.

 

Also, why is it that the same om/ow will make every excuse for their AP treating his/her spouse badly, and they are fine with that. It only become as porblem when the A ends.All of a sudden, the mm/mw is a huge liar. Never mind the fact (s)he's been doing that all along to his bs. I guess, in their mind, the only pain that counts is theirs.

 

Mind you, many ow/om are nothing like that.they do feel remorse for the A, and will never get involved in an A again. I can respect that, and I hope people in that situation can find a way to heal their wounds and find happiness in their life with a single man or woman who can love them well. It's the entitled view of the minority of ow/om I don't understand.

 

To sum it up...

If you ( general you) are an ow/om who helped to hurt the bs ( and make no mistake, you did, as A's can't happen with just one person in them) then why are you surprised when the bs reacts? What did you expect? A bouquet of roses and a sympathy card? Better to leave the mm and his bs to sort themselves out and not expose yourself to them lashing out. It helps no one and just exacerbates the hurt for all, including you.

 

People who are in affairs are extremely selfish, self centered and narcissistic. I guess that sums up everything.

 

If they weren't, they wouldn't do this to BS in the first place. Very few are really remorseful. Very few BS are able to forgive the truly remorseful. Again, very few able to work together to make it work again. The entire effort is on WS to make use of the chance they get and THAT NEVER sits well with OM/OW. Their ego is hurt. The WS rose colored glasses come off and statistically, a WS , when a guy , rarely leaves his wife for OW. Her ego is challenged. The wrath begins, making reconciliation difficult.

[wmacbride]

People who are in affairs are extremely selfish, self centered and narcissistic. I guess that sums up everything.

 

If they weren't, they wouldn't do this to BS in the first place. Very few are really remorseful. Very few BS are able to forgive the truly remorseful. Again, very few able to work together to make it work again. The entire effort is on WS to make use of the chance they get and THAT NEVER sits well with OM/OW. Their ego is hurt. The WS rose colored glasses come off and statistically, a WS , when a guy , rarely leaves his wife for OW. Her ego is challenged. The wrath begins, making reconciliation difficult.

 

I agree with some of what you said.

While being in an A is, on its face, a selfish act, I don't think that all om/ow or mm/mw are selfish. I've met some who were anything but, and the A nearly destroyed them because it went completely against who they are and their personal values.

 

I also have a friend who started dating after her divorce. Her husband had cheated on her, and she ended her marriage because of it. She later met a man and started seeing him, him telling her he was single.

 

When she found out the truth that he was married, it nearly broke her. She ended the A, and is working hard to recover.

 

There should be a special sort of punishment for how he treated her. He out and out told her he was 100 percent single.

[road]

I agree with some of what you said.

While being in an A is, on its face, a selfish act, I don't think that all om/ow or mm/mw are selfish. I've met some who were anything but, and the A nearly destroyed them because it went completely against who they are and their personal values.

 

I also have a friend who started dating after her divorce. Her husband had cheated on her, and she ended her marriage because of it. She later met a man and started seeing him, him telling her he was single.

 

When she found out the truth that he was married, it nearly broke her. She ended the A, and is working hard to recover.

 

There should be a special sort of punishment for how he treated her. He out and out told her he was 100 percent single.

 

She needs to tell the BW ASAP.

[cocorico]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of double standards when it comes to affairs?

 

Nope - there are many double standards. For example, a MM / WS is the "worst creature on god's green earth" unless a BS decides to reconcile, and then he suddenly becomes some poor victim of mental health or circumstance. Or, the OW / OM "doesn't matter at all - it could have been anyone"; but yet the BS feels a need to direct all their hostility at the OM/ OW rather than accept that their WS was the one who owed them loyalty. Or, "the A was all about sex", yet the BS was "putting out" all the time, loads of hot loving, the WS had a permanent smile on their face.... It almost never adds up. People tell themselves whatever they need to believe, and consistency is an early victim.

 

Why do some people give bs such a hard time? Why are bs expected to just meekly sit there and let both the ws and ow/om walk all over him or her, and if they react, the ow/om paints them as being unstable and "how dare they be angry at me. I owe her/hm no reprehensibility to stay away form his or her spouse"

 

I'm not sure anyone owes anyone else "reprehensibility", but more generally: the OW / OM does not owe the BS any duty of care. That is on the WS, who may have explicitly made vows promising such, but either way, the WS is the on in a contractual agreement with the BS. The OW / OM is not. The OW / OM is bound only by the law, and by the foreseeable consequences of their behaviour. So no, the BS cannot "be expected to sit there meekly" - but the BS is expected to behave within the dictates of the law, and with cognisance of the consequences of their own behaviours - same as the OW / OM.

 

Fair enough, but how about we apply that same standard to the om/ow? Why should a bs feel any sort pressure to forgive or be gentle to the ow/om? After all, the bs owes no reprehensibility to them. I'm not saying they should be hostile or unkind, but I honestly don't understand why some ow/om feel entitled to this.

 

Again, I don't feel anyone owes reprehensibility to anyone, but nor do I feel the BS owes the OW / OM gentleness or forgiveness. Just behaving within the confines of the law, and a willingness to accept the consequences of their own behaviour - exactly the same as the AP.

 

The really ironic thing is that these same ow/om ( and this is by no means all fo them-many would never do this) feel so incredibly slighted if the bs doesn't see them as some sort of Vitim.

 

I don't know who or what Vitim is, but I'm assuming it's meant to be victim? In which case, I don't get that either. Unless someone was deceived regarding marital status, or raped, or held prisoner, etc - then it was a consensual R between adults. The same way the OW / OM didn't conjure the WS into the A with a magic penis / vagina, both parties knew what they were doing. Yes, people have vulnerable periods and some people take advantage - in love as in business or any other arena - but ultimately you as an individual are still responsible for your own life choices. Victim mentality or blame shifting is immature and unattractive in anyone.

 

Also, why is it that the same om/ow will make every excuse for their AP treating his/her spouse badly, and they are fine with that. It only become as porblem when the A ends.All of a sudden, the mm/mw is a huge liar. Never mind the fact (s)he's been doing that all along to his bs. I guess, in their mind, the only pain that counts is theirs.

 

I agree with this. I also agree that its converse - that the pain inflicted on the AP (post DDay) is just "par for the course", while the pain inflicted on the BS is "the only pain that matters" - is equally problematic. Either all pain matters, and the WS being a total bastard to the AP post-DDay is as problematic as the WS being a total bastard to the BS pre-DDay, or no pain really matters, and each person should just accept the pain as the foreseeable consequence of having entered a R and trusted someone who wasn't to be trusted. (My own view tends to the latter.)

 

I don't think centering oneself in the middle of the universe and constructing a morality that justifies ones own pain, or behaviour, while condemning others for exactly the same thing, is anything other than hypocrisy - regardless of who's doing it.

[wmacbride]

Nope - there are many double standards. For example, a MM / WS is the "worst creature on god's green earth" unless a BS decides to reconcile, and then he suddenly becomes some poor victim of mental health or circumstance. Or, the OW / OM "doesn't matter at all - it could have been anyone"; but yet the BS feels a need to direct all their hostility at the OM/ OW rather than accept that their WS was the one who owed them loyalty. Or, "the A was all about sex", yet the BS was "putting out" all the time, loads of hot loving, the WS had a permanent smile on their face.... It almost never adds up. People tell themselves whatever they need to believe, and consistency is an early victim.

 

 

 

I'm not sure anyone owes anyone else "reprehensibility", but more generally: the OW / OM does not owe the BS any duty of care. That is on the WS, who may have explicitly made vows promising such, but either way, the WS is the on in a contractual agreement with the BS. The OW / OM is not. The OW / OM is bound only by the law, and by the foreseeable consequences of their behaviour. So no, the BS cannot "be expected to sit there meekly" - but the BS is expected to behave within the dictates of the law, and with cognisance of the consequences of their own behaviours - same as the OW / OM.

 

 

 

Again, I don't feel anyone owes reprehensibility to anyone, but nor do I feel the BS owes the OW / OM gentleness or forgiveness. Just behaving within the confines of the law, and a willingness to accept the consequences of their own behaviour - exactly the same as the AP.

 

 

 

I don't know who or what Vitim is, but I'm assuming it's meant to be victim? In which case, I don't get that either. Unless someone was deceived regarding marital status, or raped, or held prisoner, etc - then it was a consensual R between adults. The same way the OW / OM didn't conjure the WS into the A with a magic penis / vagina, both parties knew what they were doing. Yes, people have vulnerable periods and some people take advantage - in love as in business or any other arena - but ultimately you as an individual are still responsible for your own life choices. Victim mentality or blame shifting is immature and unattractive in anyone.

 

 

 

I agree with this. I also agree that its converse - that the pain inflicted on the AP (post DDay) is just "par for the course", while the pain inflicted on the BS is "the only pain that matters" - is equally problematic. Either all pain matters, and the WS being a total bastard to the AP post-DDay is as problematic as the WS being a total bastard to the BS pre-DDay, or no pain really matters, and each person should just accept the pain as the foreseeable consequence of having entered a R and trusted someone who wasn't to be trusted. (My own view tends to the latter.)

I don't think centering oneself in the middle of the universe and constructing a morality that justifies ones own pain, or behaviour, while condemning others for exactly the same thing, is anything other than hypocrisy - regardless of who's doing it.

 

So by this standard, anything that's not against the law is acceptable?

 

There are plenty of behaviors that are not illegal, yet they are reprehensible. It's a pretty sad state of affairs if the law is the only moral compass a person has.

 

As per your second statement. Most ow/om go into an A eyes wide open. The same with the mm/mw. The bs was not given that choice.

 

btw....it says something if the best part of one's rebuttal is a grammar check

Edited April 10, 2017 by wmacbride

[basil67]

I think that one of the reasons people understand the BS taking out their emotions on the OM/OW is because they are assuming that the BS will be using logic alongside emotion.

 

But when faced with a horrible situation - especially not one of our own doing, many people will be driven by emotion and not by logic. Heck, this whole board is full of people who aren't taking a logical approach to their relationships because they can't see through the haze of positive/negative emotion.

 

For what it's worth, I agree that it's not logical to take out the anger on the OM/OW. But I certainly understand that people can have a disconnect between logic and emotion. I could even imagine doing it myself if an OW approached me.

[cocorico]

So by this standard, anything that's not against the law is acceptable?

 

As a minimum, i.e. that which anyone can reasonably expect, yes. Individuals have their own moral codes on top of those, but those differ from person to person, and it would be naive (or egocentric) to assume that anyone else happens to share one's own personal moral code. Safer to assume the essential level, and anything else is a bonus.

 

There are plenty of behaviors that are not illegal, yet they are reprehensible. It's a pretty sad state of affairs if the law is the only moral compass a person has.

 

I'm sure that's true for some people; for others, even the law does not provide a moral framework. However, for most people, their moral framework sits atop the legal framework, as I stated earlier. However, as this differs from person to person, even within a "culture", one cannot assume universality of one's own framework unless one is extremely naive or egocentric. For example, I'm a vegetarian, but I don't hold others to my moral code if they choose to eat meat. I live in a community where livestock farming is the main occupation, and most of my neighbours depend on others to be carnivorous. I can accept that, and that their moral frameworks differ from mine. I'm a grown up - moral relativism doesn't cause my universe to implode.

 

As per your second statement. Most ow/om go into an A eyes wide open. The same with the mm/mw. The bs was not given that choice.

 

It's naive to imagine that the possibility of being hurt - through betrayal or otherwise - ceases to exist when you choose to trust someone in a R. People suspend distrust willingly. That's certainly "going in with your eyes open" - or should be, unless they choose not to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and to blame others for what goes wrong in their lives. My first M sucked and I left it. I don't blame my xH for being an oxygen thief - I recognise that I should have chosen more wisely.

 

btw....it says something if the best part of one's rebuttal is a grammar check

 

It says something else if you found that the "best part", or that you parse responses in that way. I tend to take other posters at face value and assume them to be in good faith rather than marking their posts like assignments, but hey, to each their own.

[seren]

One of my very best friends was an OW for over 15 years, she knew my views on affairs, even before H had one, but she was my friend and the A was her own boat to row. I saw how she hurt when he didn't turn up, didn't attend important events in her life when he had said he would and no amount of my saying he was lying to her was heard. He future faked so well, he lied so well, he compartmentalised so well I think he must have had real personality issues.

 

I understand what you are saying about the whole double standard thing, but also think that the AP believed the WS as we BS believed them, they were told X,Y or Z and based their understanding of the WS's life or relationship upon what they were told. We can say no, it wasn't like that until hell freezes and won't be believed or told we are lying or being delusional or making excuses, because of illness or PTSD. TBH, until it happened to me and I dealt with the A and my H's PTSD I might have been sceptical too, but that won't mean diddley squat to a person who doesn't know me and H and our life, nor would I expect them to understand, as to whether I think the AP deserves, needs or wants my empathy? I can only speak for the OW in our marriage and yes, she did expect that I understand she had been 'dumped', her words not mine.

 

My view was that I did feel sorry for her hurt, that's more about me as a human being and how I feel about others than anything else. I didn't owe her empathy, I didn't owe her anything, I didn't expect her to owe me anything either, but, when she made it about me personally and about my son personally, then she crossed a line that had nothing to do with the A and more about me and mine. Then I felt no empathy.

 

I know, without a doubt I wouldn't have an A, it has nothing to do with morality and more about that I don't knowingly share the person I am having a relationship nor could I knowingly take part in one knowing there was someone who would be hurt, my whole life has been about not knowingly doing harm. But, it doesn't mean I hate everyone who has an A. There are some truly terrible tales on here and elsewhere about people who believed the marriage was over, the BS was a harridan, with holding sex or whatever. Of course the AP doesn't want to hear that this wasn't the case, nor that in many cases we are blindsided or that yes, PTSD can cause such dramatic changes that people do things out of character. No one wants to hear that. Neither do BS want to hear there was talk of love, that plans had been made. It's all horses for courses.

 

Some A's are because marriages break down because the WS hasn't the balls to leave or to be truthful, of course, some make excuses and say it was for the kids, the money, while they had an epiphany. I was a, it will never happen to me person, thought my marriage was bomb proof and until it happened to me I empathised with people who had found out, but, also thought OK, you should be over it now and then it happened to me and one thing I have learned, it is different for everyone, there is no one size fits all, I reserve the right to feel as I feel about the person who hurt me, my H, but, I also reserve the right to feel as I do about the OW and she, me.

 

I try to feel empathy for the OP, AP or BS in regards to their feelings, what they are asking and stay away from the finger pointing, but, yes I do see that at times BS are expected to not talk back or comment. Some posters can be vitriolic about the BS, but that's their boat to row.

[wmacbride]

As a minimum, i.e. that which anyone can reasonably expect, yes. Individuals have their own moral codes on top of those, but those differ from person to person, and it would be naive (or egocentric) to assume that anyone else happens to share one's own personal moral code. Safer to assume the essential level, and anything else is a bonus.

 

 

 

I'm sure that's true for some people; for others, even the law does not provide a moral framework. However, for most people, their moral framework sits atop the legal framework, as I stated earlier. However, as this differs from person to person, even within a "culture", one cannot assume universality of one's own framework unless one is extremely naive or egocentric. For example, I'm a vegetarian, but I don't hold others to my moral code if they choose to eat meat. I live in a community where livestock farming is the main occupation, and most of my neighbours depend on others to be carnivorous. I can accept that, and that their moral frameworks differ from mine. I'm a grown up - moral relativism doesn't cause my universe to implode.

 

 

 

It's naive to imagine that the possibility of being hurt - through betrayal or otherwise - ceases to exist when you choose to trust someone in a R. People suspend distrust willingly. That's certainly "going in with your eyes open" - or should be, unless they choose not to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and to blame others for what goes wrong in their lives. My first M sucked and I left it. I don't blame my xH for being an oxygen thief - I recognise that I should have chosen more wisely.

 

 

 

It says something else if you found that the "best part", or that you parse responses in that way. I tend to take other posters at face value and assume them to be in good faith rather than marking their posts like assignments, but hey, to each their own.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

I just find it incredibly interesting how some people will run down bs, especially the one int heir situation, when they sure as hell didn't act any better.

[understand50]

wmacbride,

 

I think the hardest thing a BS can do after D-day, and then deciding to recognize, is to forgive, while clearing see just what their WS really is. You want to forgive, but you must remember, that the WS was selfless, and broke their vows. It is a natural human condition to try and blame something else, in this case the AP. You do yourself, and your WS, a huge disservice, in doing this, as you never have a change to understand WHY they did this. Sugarcoating the WS just ether leads to it happening again, or doubts in the marriage going forward. There is also the whole, "if I am going to forgive, I need to know just what I am forgiving".

 

Doing this is hard and painful, but is the price the BS and WS must pay to have a good true reconciliation, with remorse. Getting back to your double standard, I think it does come down to who and what the AP was. If it was a single person who believed the WS, in that they were free, I think some compassion is in order. The AP that is married, or knows the WS is married, not at all. They are part of the evil in the situation. I would also, point out some affairs happen, because one part was venerable and the other takes advanage. Does not let them off the hook, but if nothing would have happen if they had not met the other, I can see some compassion for them. BTW, this is not my wife's, then G/F, issue she had a bet she could sleep with her AP.

 

So you are right, double standards are not good. Not only does it hide issues that need to be addressed, it also gives the WS cover, when everything needs to be in the open. I think in the end it hurts reconciliation, as the contradictions pile up, until it can bring that down, or both just rug sweep. When a BS is deciding if they should give the gift of a 2nd chance, they need to look at the WS with open and honest eyes. You need to know what you are forgiving, all of it. It is hard enough getting the truth from the WS, you must not make you own truth as well.

 

 

My two cents......

[road]

I think that one of the reasons people understand the BS taking out their emotions on the OM/OW is because they are assuming that the BS will be using logic alongside emotion.

 

But when faced with a horrible situation - especially not one of our own doing, many people will be driven by emotion and not by logic. Heck, this whole board is full of people who aren't taking a logical approach to their relationships because they can't see through the haze of positive/negative emotion.

 

For what it's worth, I agree that it's not logical to take out the anger on the OM/OW. But I certainly understand that people can have a disconnect between logic and emotion. I could even imagine doing it myself if an OW approached me.

 

It is one hundred percent logical for the BS to take every last

bit of anger out of the AP.

[wmacbride]

As a minimum, i.e. that which anyone can reasonably expect, yes. Individuals have their own moral codes on top of those, but those differ from person to person, and it would be naive (or egocentric) to assume that anyone else happens to share one's own personal moral code. Safer to assume the essential level, and anything else is a bonus.

 

 

 

I'm sure that's true for some people; for others, even the law does not provide a moral framework. However, for most people, their moral framework sits atop the legal framework, as I stated earlier. However, as this differs from person to person, even within a "culture", one cannot assume universality of one's own framework unless one is extremely naive or egocentric. For example, I'm a vegetarian, but I don't hold others to my moral code if they choose to eat meat. I live in a community where livestock farming is the main occupation, and most of my neighbours depend on others to be carnivorous. I can accept that, and that their moral frameworks differ from mine. I'm a grown up - moral relativism doesn't cause my universe to implode.

 

 

 

It's naive to imagine that the possibility of being hurt - through betrayal or otherwise - ceases to exist when you choose to trust someone in a R. People suspend distrust willingly. That's certainly "going in with your eyes open" - or should be, unless they choose not to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and to blame others for what goes wrong in their lives. My first M sucked and I left it. I don't blame my xH for being an oxygen thief - I recognise that I should have chosen more wisely.

 

 

It says something else if you found that the "best part", or that you parse responses in that way. I tend to take other posters at face value and assume them to be in good faith rather than marking their posts like assignments, but hey, to each their own.

 

This is one of the strangest things I have ever read. It's not the fault of your ex for treating your like crap, but it's your fault for choosing him?

 

By this logic, an abused individual is responsible for their abuse because they should have picked a different spouse. A person who is defrauded by a business should have known better, a woman or man is responsible if they get mugged because they should have picked a different way to walk etc.

 

To me, it makes more sense to hold the person(s) who are causing you pain accountable for their actions. That can look very different to different people.

[wmacbride]

It is one hundred percent logical for the BS to take every last

bit of anger out of the AP.

 

It's not as if there is a limit on responsibility. I held my spouse accountable for his actions, and I held her accountable for hers. Neither was forced into the A, and both made the choice to get involved with one another.

[Birdies]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of double standards when it comes to affairs?

 

Why do some people give bs such a hard time? Why are bs expected to just meekly sit there and let both the ws and ow/om walk all over him or her, and if they react, the ow/om paints them as being unstable and "how dare they be angry at me. I owe her/hm no reprehensibility to stay away form his or her spouse"

 

Fair enough, but how about we apply that same standard to the om/ow? Why should a bs feel any sort pressure to forgive or be gentle to the ow/om? After all, the bs owes no reprehensibility to them. I'm not saying they should be hostile or unkind, but I honestly don't understand why some ow/om feel entitled to this.

 

The really ironic thing is that these same ow/om ( and this is by no means all fo them-many would never do this) feel so incredibly slighted if the bs doesn't see them as some sort of Vitim.

 

Also, why is it that the same om/ow will make every excuse for their AP treating his/her spouse badly, and they are fine with that. It only become as porblem when the A ends.All of a sudden, the mm/mw is a huge liar. Never mind the fact (s)he's been doing that all along to his bs. I guess, in their mind, the only pain that counts is theirs.

 

Mind you, many ow/om are nothing like that.they do feel remorse for the A, and will never get involved in an A again. I can respect that, and I hope people in that situation can find a way to heal their wounds and find happiness in their life with a single man or woman who can love them well. It's the entitled view of the minority of ow/om I don't understand.

 

To sum it up...

If you ( general you) are an ow/om who helped to hurt the bs ( and make no mistake, you did, as A's can't happen with just one person in them) then why are you surprised when the bs reacts? What did you expect? A bouquet of roses and a sympathy card? Better to leave the mm and his bs to sort themselves out and not expose yourself to them lashing out. It helps no one and just exacerbates the hurt for all, including you.

 

I'm not sure where you're seeing this pressure on BS to be kind and forgiving to the OW / OM.

 

Likewise, I don't see any pressure in the Real World for people who have been cheated on to be kind to the affair partner. That person is generally considered to be a/the villain in the situation, and the BS is encouraged to hate them, takes part in vilifying them with friends and family, etc. Unless you're talking about BS being discouraged from doing flat out illegal activities such as stalking or harassing. I think we can all agree that those are inappropriate reactions.

 

Ps I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I guess I just don't see this as a standard thing. Sure there are some OW / OM who probably feel 100% like a victim even when they knew the guy was married, or expect the BS not to react at all - but I certainly don't think that's the usual case, and I really don't see any pressure on BS to be kind.

Edited April 11, 2017 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
language ~T

[cocorico]

This is one of the strangest things I have ever read. It's not the fault of your ex for treating your like crap, but it's your fault for choosing him?

 

See, I don't buy into the whole discourse of "fault" or "blame", or of "perp" and "victim". In a consensual R (or any consensual situation) we are each responsible for our own choices and our own actions. We both consented to being M - he did not hit me over the head and force me at gunpoint to say yes.

 

Did he set out during the M to treat me "badly", or were his mental health issues (subsequently formally diagnosed - he's now on a disability pension as a result) such that that was how he responded to finding himself co-responsible for a young, utterly dependent baby? Ultimately it doesn't matter to me - what matters to me is that I found his behaviour difficult, not conducive to raising a baby and an older child, and so I chose to leave with the kids. No blame, no "fault", just me taking responsibility for my own choices and actions. My xH was - and is - responsible for his choices and actions; I am responsible for choosing to be with him, choosing to stay with him while I did, choosing to leave him and choosing how to let his behaviours affect me.

 

We both consented to being in that R, and when it stopped working for me, I withdrew that consent and left the R. There is no need for blame or fault. If I had stayed longer, I would have to own my choices of enabling just as he would have to own his of his behaviour. There is no point in blaming a lion for eating an antelope; the lion is just being a lion. If the antelope chooses to stay with a lion, the antelope needs to take responsibility too for its choices, it can't just blame the lion for being a lion.

[Tulipwood]

Except that the antelope can't take responsibility because the antelope will be eaten up and dead. Similar to what a bad marriage can do to a individual who has been played with and treated poorly. (Again similar to what an animal does before the kill)

[somanymistakes]

Most bad marriages aren't literally fatal (though some can be, sadly)

 

It's difficult in general to try to strike the balance in discourse between talking about choices without laying blame.

 

If you knowingly choose to do something slightly dangerous, it's still not necessarily your fault that things go badly. For one thing, ain't nothing in life that isn't at least a little dangerous, so it becomes a never-ending pile of blame if you go that way. Shouldn't have gone outside, now you've got skin cancer. Shouldn't have gone shopping, now you were hit by a car. It's silly. And some people will really push these ideas, because by making it the victim's fault, they reassure themselves that THEY would never be so stupid and therefore nothing bad will ever happen to them.

 

It's not wrong to talk about risks. It's not wrong to say "Hey, you know, spending too much time outside without sunscreen actually can be bad for you." The wrong part is only when you push it to the point of having no sympathy for the cancer victim because they "should have known better".

 

So, like, if you're in a bad relationship and it's obviously gone bad. That doesn't make it your fault that your partner is mistreating you. It would probably be a good idea for you to get out of that relationship and protect yourself. Choosing not to do so STILL doesn't make it your fault, though it's probably a bad choice. Actively telling your partner it's okay to treat you badly? Well, okay, maybe then at that point it's partly your fault.

 

But it's hard to say anything along the lines of 'this was a bad choice' at all, and not just because people get defensive. Quite often it ends up being baked into law, where the perpetrator gets off because the victim is declared to have contributed to the incident. And bringing it back around to the issue of adultery in marriage, in places where adultery is still a 'fault' in divorce proceedings, it is often thrown out if it can be proved that the betrayed spouse knew and didn't do anything immediately because after that point it's their own fault for staying, in the eyes of the law.

 

It's complicated.

[aileD]

There a few things I strongly believe.

 

One is that no matter how bad a marriage is, it's not an excuse for an affair. Divorce is an option. I guarantee "you" (collective you) that there have been people in "your" same exact situation where you feel you can't get divorced, that get divorced and make it work. It is never ok to use a ****ty marriage as an excuse to break your vows.

 

Secondly, I will never believe that the AP owns NO part of the pain of the BS just because they weren't the one in the marriage breaking their vows. It takes two people to have an affair and both parties are responsible for the pain THEY inflict on an innocent and unknowing spouse. you do have a responsibility to be a decent person and to not intrude, invited or not, on someone else's relationship and family--unbeknownst to the person. And by saying this, it does not the WS off the hook, I'm just stating it is always the fault of BOTH the WS and AP for causing pain to the BS.

 

The answer to most your original questions for me is just that people are self centered. Their word revolves around themselves. Th BS often lashes out st AP because they are seen as an intruder jet must be removed and vanished before they can begin to rebuild their home and trust and relationship from the damage that the WS helped cause by having an affair. BS are possessive, and rightfully so since they are bound by law, vow, religion, paper, to their spouse and the AP is a threat to that.

 

The AP is self centered as well. If they weren't they would have never got into the affair on the first place. They must believe certain things about the BS in order to justify their self centeredness in their mind (assuming they're not someone with no conscience). They must believe bs is demanding, neglecting, sexless, more interested in career, fat, etc. anything that will give them an excuse to step over the line.

 

The WS is a mess on both sides.

[Jersey born raised]

I wrote this a long time ago, and see no reason to modify:

 

 

Who is the other person*

 

There are moments in a persons life that transcends time. That emotion on the day of and day after their wedding, the birth of a child and that first moment you holding the child. They inform us, they are not what makes life worth living, they are life.

 

In the same way, adultery has transformed us. The echoes of the uncertainties and raw emotional pain will always be a part of us. *Hopefully overtime it has and continues to evolve into a source of empathy. The empathy that enables us to understand others pain and fear, both in matters like this and others.*

 

The OP and those who enable are not nice people. They had a choice to support *your marriage. *They could have helped your spouse to fight and win to save your marriage. They choose to use the opportunity to try to fill a void in their own life. In doing so they choose to inflict the pain and loss I wrote above.*

 

Understand they choose to be the one. * They choose to enable. To say "if not him/her then..." does not work. They *choose it to be them and no one else. In this they *are *lacking in character. So, they could be a fine person, *but so are addicts until they need a fix.

 

So what is, is. I have gained acceptance, I have greatly healed. I have gain empathy and awareness, and a great deal of indifference. It is from indifference I say "no they are not a nice person". *It is from the same place I would comment on a persons second DUI. No when a person allows there own weakness to create actual harm or create a real threat of harm, they cannot be truly be considered a nice person

[cocorico]

The OP and those who enable are not nice people. They had a choice to support *your marriage. *

 

Um, if even your spouse, who is a party to the M, who made promises and vows to protect it, treats it like rubbish and shows everyone else that in his eyes it's worthless, why is it more incumbent on some passerby with no interest or investment in your M to show it more respect and support than the person who promised t do so? That strikes me as a major cop-out and abnegation of responsibility.

 

If you bought your kid a bike, and the kid treated it like trash, didn't maintain it, regularly left it lying in the middle of the road on its side, etc, and then one night some guy driving down the road in a pantechnikon drives over it, whose fault is it? The guy driving his truck who didn't stop in time, pick up the bike, take it into his workshop and service it, fix the dented mudguards and punctured wheels, spruce up the paint job and put it away neatly in your garage where your kid should have stowed it - or your kid for treating it like trash and leaving it in the road where *of course* he could have imagined it would likely be driven over?

 

This makes me think of people who allow their kids to act like brats in public places and expect others to do the parenting for them, and then if the kid gets into trouble they get aggressive with the law enforcer for not preventing it earlier. Uh, no - the responsibility (for your bike, your kid's behaviour, or your M) lies with **you**, not with the rest of the world to take responsibility where you can't be arsed.

[aileD]

Um, if even your spouse, who is a party to the M, who made promises and vows to protect it, treats it like rubbish and shows everyone else that in his eyes it's worthless, why is it more incumbent on some passerby with no interest or investment in your M to show it more respect and support than the person who promised t do so? That strikes me as a major cop-out and abnegation of responsibility.

 

Because it's still expected for you to be a decent person even when others aren't. Just because you don't know the person and other people treat them like **** doesnt mean it's okay for you to do it too.

 

Your bike analogy is off. Sure the kid could have treated the bike like trash but he cared enough to put it into the garage each night, he didn't leave it it the middle of the road and never would have. It was put there by someone else who was trusted not to do things like that. There's a difference between the truck driver "not stopping in time" versus the truck driver who did stop, got out and took a look at the bike, asked the trusted person who dumped it in the road to hop in the truck with them, then purposefully runs the bike over, backs up and repeats because it made them feel good and who cares it's not their bike anyway.

 

Point is, both the WS and the AP had an opportunity to be decent human beings and they both instead chose to be selfish and fulfill their own needs at the expense of another person.

[elaine567]

Um, if even your spouse, who is a party to the M, who made promises and vows to protect it, treats it like rubbish and shows everyone else that in his eyes it's worthless, why is it more incumbent on some passerby with no interest or investment in your M to show it more respect and support than the person who promised t do so? That strikes me as a major cop-out and abnegation of responsibility.

 

If you bought your kid a bike, and the kid treated it like trash, didn't maintain it, regularly left it lying in the middle of the road on its side, etc, and then one night some guy driving down the road in a pantechnikon drives over it, whose fault is it? The guy driving his truck who didn't stop in time, pick up the bike, take it into his workshop and service it, fix the dented mudguards and punctured wheels, spruce up the paint job and put it away neatly in your garage where your kid should have stowed it - or your kid for treating it like trash and leaving it in the road where *of course* he could have imagined it would likely be driven over?

 

This makes me think of people who allow their kids to act like brats in public places and expect others to do the parenting for them, and then if the kid gets into trouble they get aggressive with the law enforcer for not preventing it earlier. Uh, no - the responsibility (for your bike, your kid's behaviour, or your M) lies with **you**, not with the rest of the world to take responsibility where you can't be arsed.

 

BUT all that implies that BSs do not cherish or look after their marriages.

That they somehow deserve to be cheated on, that the blame of dereliction of duty is to be placed squarely at the feet of the BS.

[wmacbride]

Um, if even your spouse, who is a party to the M, who made promises and vows to protect it, treats it like rubbish and shows everyone else that in his eyes it's worthless, why is it more incumbent on some passerby with no interest or investment in your M to show it more respect and support than the person who promised t do so? That strikes me as a major cop-out and abnegation of responsibility.

 

If you bought your kid a bike, and the kid treated it like trash, didn't maintain it, regularly left it lying in the middle of the road on its side, etc, and then one night some guy driving down the road in a pantechnikon drives over it, whose fault is it? The guy driving his truck who didn't stop in time, pick up the bike, take it into his workshop and service it, fix the dented mudguards and punctured wheels, spruce up the paint job and put it away neatly in your garage where your kid should have stowed it - or your kid for treating it like trash and leaving it in the road where *of course* he could have imagined it would likely be driven over?

 

This makes me think of people who allow their kids to act like brats in public places and expect others to do the parenting for them, and then if the kid gets into trouble they get aggressive with the law enforcer for not preventing it earlier. Uh, no - the responsibility (for your bike, your kid's behaviour, or your M) lies with **you**, not with the rest of the world to take responsibility where you can't be arsed.

 

 

An A is much more like a wallet left on the ground. Many people will pick it up and look inside. Some will try and find the owner to return it. A few will just grab the credit cards and cash. If one follows your model, they would take the money and credit cards, as hey, if they are just lying there, no one cares about them and they don't mind if someone takes it. Then they'll say that it's the fault of the person who lost the wallet.

 

I understand the need to blame shift and say its the bs's fault the ws cheated. It's the same as a bs who solely blames the ow.

 

I just don;t understand how the same person ( in general) who would go out of their way to not step on a worm or who will take other actions to avoid hurting others will make a million excuses to explain why the pain of the bs is irrelevant.

 

I guess it's possible you have to have experience the situation yourself to fully understand it.

[wmacbride]

BUT all that implies that BSs do not cherish or look after their marriages.

That they somehow deserve to be cheated on, that the blame of dereliction of duty is to be placed squarely at the feet of the BS.

 

It also implies that the ws is somehow pushed into cheating by the bs.

 

It's interesting how both bs and ow/om can sometimes be so willing to protect the mm/mw/ws. To them, either the ow/om or the bs is responsible for the A.

 

If a mw/mm feels they are being treated badly by their husband or wife and decides to slap them, is that also acceptable because they felt pushed into it?

 

Having an A can hurt a bs every bit as much as a slap would ( and if they say that's their reality, people really should take that at face value), so why is that pain okay? Why do some feel its an acceptable price for the bs to pay for them to be happy?