Lookingforward Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 IMO, it depends on the cheater. A cheater could realize that they made a mistake and truly feel bad for what they did, or they attempt to justify what they did and try to pass blame on everyone else. To me, that determines when a reconciliation is an option. Except that according to some posters here, an A is never a "mistake". Good parenting teaches us that while we may condemn the behaviour we shouldn't condemn the person committing the behaviour.. doesn't that hold true in these cases too ? I think there are several types of cheaters, as the author says.
Pyro Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Except that according to some posters here, an A is never a "mistake". Good parenting teaches us that while we may condemn the behaviour we shouldn't condemn the person committing the behaviour.. doesn't that hold true in these cases too ? I think there are several types of cheaters, as the author says. I am a firm believer in giving a second chance, assuming of course that the other person wants to TRULY attempt to reconcile. People can change, but only if they want to.
michelangelo Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 More than anything else. I remember a few years ago here, NAMBLA types began posting about how man/boy sex is a civil right. To my astonishment, some of the most knee jerk anti-affair posters calmly listened to the mind numbing boy-love arguments, and conducted a rational discussion with men who have sex with children!. Such a calm, rational discussion, as is demonstrated time and again, is impossible here as to infidelity. I guess the NAMBLA men were not cheating on their wives with an OW, and thus there was little need to be overly critical. Wild! Bringing up a thread about sociopaths when the discussion is about a book designed to enable a cheater to rationalize their actions, to cheat, to lie about it, and to justify the adultery as good for their marriage, is more than a distraction. I don't find it particularly useful other than to serve as flamebait. The conclusions you posit about NAMBLA are absurd, deserving of no refutation or comment beyond that.
Stockalone Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 I disagree, but perhaps for you it's all black and white - anyone that has an A can't be intrinsically "good", sorta like some people believe that smoking automatically cancels out anything good about the person... I don't consider cheating to be a mistake, but a deliberate act of betrayal. Therefore I consider cheating to be black and white. You either cheat or you don't. The usual response to my opinion is that I have to see shades of grey because of human frailty. To which I reply that this is nothing but a lame attempt to justify cheating and we are back at square one. About the comparison to smoking, I assume you don't actually expect a response. In case I am wrong, I apologize. Let me know and I will post a reply. If a person who has an A cannot be deemed a "good person" then what's the rationale for taking them back and attempting to reconcile the M ? People take back cheaters back for various reasons. That is their prerogative. The main difference between those who take back a cheater and me is probably that they think that cheating is a mistake and that their partner actually loves them despite of the cheating. Under those circumstances, I can see why they are willing to forgive and give the relationship another try. I actually do believe that the cheater loves and cares for me in her own way, which doesn't stop her from cheating on me though. That is very different from my definition of love. The way I define love, it is impossible to cheat on a person I love. There is just no common ground left to rebuild that trust that was shattered. Obviously, there are more reasons, but that is the main reason why I can never take back a cheater.
luvmy2ns Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Bringing up a thread about sociopaths when the discussion is about a book designed to enable a cheater to rationalize their actions, to cheat, to lie about it, and to justify the adultery as good for their marriage, is more than a distraction. I don't find it particularly useful other than to serve as flamebait. The conclusions you posit about NAMBLA are absurd, deserving of no refutation or comment beyond that. No kidding! Talk bout "prattle..."
Lookingforward Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 slightly off topic, but just curious - I have noticed a tendency for some of the most virulent "opinions" on cheating to be posted by those who claim they have never cheated nor been cheated on........wonder why this should be
Trialbyfire Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 slightly off topic, but just curious - I have noticed a tendency for some of the most virulent "opinions" on cheating to be posted by those who claim they have never cheated nor been cheated on........wonder why this should be Previous to being cheated on, I was still virulently opposed to cheating or being involved with an MM. It's a product of my upbringing.
luvmy2ns Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Why shouldn't it be? Are people not allowed an opinion on cheating unless they've been cheated on or been a cheater or the partner of a cheater in an A? I know a good friend who WAS cheated on. I saw what it did to her. I know children of cheaters. I see what it is doing to them. Cheaters ruin the lives of numerous people. It is what it is. Enable them all you want. Many of us, however, simply have an unshakeable belief system. Conversely, I guess one might also mention that many of those on LS who are so very supportive of cheaters are either cheaters themselves, or are the person who was the OP in an affair situation.
Lookingforward Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Why shouldn't it be? Are people not allowed an opinion on cheating unless they've been cheated on or been a cheater or the partner of a cheater in an A? I know a good friend who WAS cheated on. I saw what it did to her. I know children of cheaters. I see what it is doing to them. Cheaters ruin the lives of numerous people. It is what it is. Enable them all you want. Many of us, however, simply have an unshakeable belief system. Conversely, I guess one might also mention that many of those on LS who are so very supportive of cheaters are either cheaters themselves, or are the person who was the OP in an affair situation. nope, didn't say that at all...was just wondering
Owl Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 I've seen nothing in the article about the book, or this subsequent comments in this thread that matches the SUBJECT of this thread. I've seen nothing that says "when an affair is good for a marriage". FWIW, I agree that this really just seems to be about rationalizations more than anything else. Affairs aren't beneficial for ANYONE. Even the author didn't seem to outright say that infidelity is a GOOD thing... She just advocates not telling the betrayed spouse. Which is just great, for those that believe that a marriage should be built on lies. Its ALWAYS easier to rationalize doing the easy thing (not telling the truth) than it is to convince yourself to do the RIGHT thing (tell the truth, identify the problems, and fix the issues). There's nothing theraputic here...nothing helpful to anyone other than someone who's cheated and looking for rationalizations for not telling their spouse. I'm unimpressed.
Lookingforward Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 I've seen nothing in the article about the book, or this subsequent comments in this thread that matches the SUBJECT of this thread. I've seen nothing that says "when an affair is good for a marriage". FWIW, I agree that this really just seems to be about rationalizations more than anything else. Affairs aren't beneficial for ANYONE. Even the author didn't seem to outright say that infidelity is a GOOD thing... She just advocates not telling the betrayed spouse. Which is just great, for those that believe that a marriage should be built on lies. Its ALWAYS easier to rationalize doing the easy thing (not telling the truth) than it is to convince yourself to do the RIGHT thing (tell the truth, identify the problems, and fix the issues). There's nothing theraputic here...nothing helpful to anyone other than someone who's cheated and looking for rationalizations for not telling their spouse. I'm unimpressed. yup, just a "catchy" header for an article...........
grogster Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Bringing up a thread about sociopaths when the discussion is about a book designed to enable a cheater to rationalize their actions, to cheat, to lie about it, and to justify the adultery as good for their marriage, is more than a distraction. I don't find it particularly useful other than to serve as flamebait. The conclusions you posit about NAMBLA are absurd, deserving of no refutation or comment beyond that. I'm waiting for someone from the "Scarlet "A" Crowd to read the book. Until that happens, all that's showing is the same, old hyper-moralistic fury and contempt for those less morally worthy than themselves. Some of us IMMORALS will read the book, and we'll discuss the author's ideas in a reasoned, intelligent and calm manner. But wait! By doing so, we're enabling, excusing, rationalizing, endorsing (the list goes on and on) infidelity. How evil!
luvmy2ns Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 I'm waiting for someone from the "Scarlet "A" Crowd to read the book. Until that happens, all that's showing is the same, old hyper-moralistic fury and contempt for those less morally worthy than themselves. Some of us IMMORALS will read the book, and we'll discuss the author's ideas in a reasoned, intelligent and calm manner. But wait! By doing so, we're enabling, excusing, rationalizing, endorsing (the list goes on and on) infidelity. How evil! Thank goodness you're finally catching on! When you already know right from wrong, you don't need "the book," and I say that with calm rationality and a positively serene expression.
Lizzie60 Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 I'm waiting for someone from the "Scarlet "A" Crowd to read the book. Until that happens, all that's showing is the same, old hyper-moralistic fury and contempt for those less morally worthy than themselves. Some of us IMMORALS will read the book, and we'll discuss the author's ideas in a reasoned, intelligent and calm manner. But wait! By doing so, we're enabling, excusing, rationalizing, endorsing (the list goes on and on) infidelity. How evil! Gawd.. I enjoy your post.. you are sooo good with the words.. I totally agree..
luvmy2ns Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Gawd.. I enjoy your post.. you are sooo good with the words.. I totally agree.. Of course, for you it is a good idea to enable the cheaters. It generates more revenue.
grogster Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Gawd.. I enjoy your post.. you are sooo good with the words.. I totally agree.. Thanks, Lizzie. I'm not a cheerleader for infidelity. Nevertheless, some, by their noxious attitude and stridency, make it easier to applaud "vice". They give "virtue" a bad name.
Lizzie60 Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Thanks, Lizzie. I'm not a cheerleader for infidelity. Nevertheless, some, by their noxious attitude and stridency, make it easier to applaud "vice". They give "virtue" a bad name. another great post.. I love your way with words... :love: I know your view on infidelity.. and I can appreciate different opinions as long as the exchance is done with maturity and respect.
luvmy2ns Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Nevertheless, some, by their noxious attitude and stridency, make it easier to applaud "vice". They give "virtue" a bad name. Yeah. Maturity.
michelangelo Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 I'm waiting for someone from the "Scarlet "A" Crowd to read the book. Until that happens, all that's showing is the same, old hyper-moralistic fury and contempt for those less morally worthy than themselves. Some of us IMMORALS will read the book, and we'll discuss the author's ideas in a reasoned, intelligent and calm manner. But wait! By doing so, we're enabling, excusing, rationalizing, endorsing (the list goes on and on) infidelity. How evil! Who said I wouldn't read the book? What I object to is your linking a strong distaste for the idea of adultery being good for a marriage and lying to cover it up to some discussion thread you saw regarding pedophilia. There is no linkage possible in a rational discourse on the concept of adultery being good for a marriage and the lying about it being good too with pedophilia discussions. Look, I've read a lot on infidelity, heard from "experts" and from those down in the trenches who have been hurt by an unfaithful spouse. The secretive nature of cheating used as a "protection" of their marriage. yeah, all of that. I think an argument can be made that, while hugely difficult, a couple can recover from adultery and actually get to a good space in the relationship. I just cannot get my head around the idea that lying about an affair is a good method to getting to that space. I didn't cheat on my wife. When caught, she only admitted to a one-time thing. As she dribbled out the truth, it took her a very long time, to finally admit it went on for six years. She subjected me and our kids to such a mind eff. All the while acting like she was repairing things between us she was still banging the guy. I think I can say from my own personal experience that the cheating and the long-term lying about it is dreadfully toxic. Sure, I'll read the book, but i doubt it will sway me from my opinion about the good effects on a marriage resulting from adultery and lying about it.
mental_traveller Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 A new book by Mira Kirschenbaum takes a rather more sympathetic view of affairs and those who engage in them (review here: http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/relationships/story/0,,2284505,00.html ). Contrary to popular wisdom, she advocates not telling your spouse if you've been unfaithful, except in two circumstances (you've had unsafe sex, or the affair is about to be exposed) as she believes telling does more harm than good, and reduces the odds of the WS returning to the fold. All sex is unsafe. You can catch incurable herpes or HPV (genital warts) despite using full protection. Therefore according to this woman, all cheating must be confessed. Secondly, she appears to ignore the harm done when a betrayed spouse is kept in the dark for months, years, even decades. Imagine someone had slowly siphoned away your life savings, a bit each month, and you never knew until you came to retirement and tried to cash in your pension. Would the harm have been avoided just because you didn't know about it for 20 years? Most people would want to know if their wife/husband was cheating. Thus to hide that is denying them the choice of acting in full knowledge of the truth. It is a gross deception on a key element of their life. If that is not harm, what is?
mental_traveller Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Well.. I've always thought like this author.. But you haven't been married and then cheated on, right?
mental_traveller Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 There's a simple way to sort the wheat from the chaff here. Take affair-condoner X. Have them fall in love with Y. They get married, have kids etc...then 5 years later, have X walk in and find Y in bed with the maid/pool-guy. They then confess to a 5 year affair. How does X feel? Is X ok, since affairs are mistakes that sometimes happen? Or is X enraged? If the latter, then X was full of crapola all along.
Recommended Posts