Is anyone out there??? *raises a flag*

[NoIDidn't]

This is so far off topic and such a tired old saw that I'm not even going to bother to respond. Honestly, if this is the depth of discussion you can bring to a general point about respect for members and their situations (which, for the record, includes BSs but I'll attach a special rider to that now and exclude certain imbecilic ones who refuse to return the courtesy) then it's pointless engaging and I'll respond to those others - which include some constructive, mature and emotionally intelligent BSs - whose responses are worth the effort of reading.

 

 

Wow! This is the longest NON-response that no one ever bothered to give that I ever read!

 

Again, OWoman, your posts are filled with hypocrisy and needless insults. She asked honest questions whether or not you felt they were on-topic. All you did was say how tired you are of hearing the questions and claiming to not bother to respond.

 

Tsk. tsk. tsk.

[OWoman]

She asked honest questions whether or not you felt they were on-topic.

 

"Honest questions" don't take moralising tones by starting with "quite frankly" and are not phrased in leading ways like "surely..." or "maybe you should've...", but if it makes you happy ....

 

 

Why on earth should the BW do that?

 

Answered above

 

Did you focus on her situation when you entered into an affair with her husband?

 

Whose - the OPs? Which OP - which thread in particular are you referring to? Or the BW? If the latter, then yes, I did give thought to her situation (though perhaps not focus. I don't go around focusing on other people's live - that's their business. I focus on my own, and my kids', and my other dependents'.)

 

And productive for whom? The OW?

 

The OP - whether OW, BW, MM or other. It's their thread, their issues, their concerns that need to be the focus of subsequent posts - not some hijacker (whether BW, OW or anything else). That's why people get asked politely to start their own threads and quit jacking someone else's (like this reply is doing - hence my not wanting to engage).

 

Surely the person the BW needs to be focussed on is herself after D day?

 

Then she should do that and not threadjack random threads on discussion boards - she should start her own thread and stick to that or similar. How would you like it if someone whose dog had just been run over hijacked your "my husband cheated on me" thread, just because they needed to focus on themself in the wake of their tragedy?

 

And she's doing just that by exposing her pain to the OW and/or asking questions.

 

This is not a question, so I won't attempt to answer it.

 

Quite frankly if that makes you feel bad in anyway, maybe you should've thought of that before becoming an OW?

 

I don't feel remotely bad about "becoming an OW" and never have, so this question does not apply.

 

 

There you go - honest answers to "honest" questions...

[Mr. Lucky]

As you and I both know, spouses can change rules after marriage. A BS could actually have "decided" to minimize sexual relations for whatever reason or he or she could have decided to put more energy into a career. This change of rules may have been the reason for the affair. So when it comes to a code of conduct, honesty needs to come from both sides.

I agree with what you say and those are all reasons that might lead one to rethink their role in a marriage. If the issues are serious enough, they may contribute to the ending of the marriage. But none of them justify engaging in an affair, either emotional or physical, while married.

Nothing has to be a part of any discussion, but morality should be a part of a discussion that revolves around a vow and commitment.

A point that doesn't get made often enough here...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Mr. Lucky]

" I don't feel remotely bad about "becoming an OW" and never have, so this question does not apply.

Perhaps you feel that you've already answered this question OWoman, but I wanted to simply ask you this:

 

Do you feel that adultery is wrong? If one is married, is it wrong to engage in an affair with another person?

 

Mr. Lucky

[bentnotbroken]

BS, kicked his arse to the curb. Happier than I have ever been. I guess I am one of the moral minority. I only view life from that prospective. I have very little tact, and no stomach for stupidity. With that said, there are a few OP on here who privately I have gotten to know a little about and we have a few good laughs.

[OWoman]

Do you feel that adultery is wrong? If one is married, is it wrong to engage in an affair with another person?

 

If one is married (though marriage usually involves two ) I'd say that whether or not it is "wrong" to engage in an A with another person would depend on the terms of that M and whether or not promises of sexual exclusivity were made. (Unlike many on this site, it seems, I hail from a progressive country where the state has no interest in what goes on in people's bedrooms and does not require them to promise sexual exclusivity to each other, hence that is not part of standard vows - unless one chooses a religious wedding, in which case one's religious affiliation may choose to add that).

 

Do I feel that adultery is wrong? I find the notion of "adultery" - like slave ownership - to be archaic and based on notions of people as property. I don't "believe" (in the sense of, subscribe to) in notions of required sexual exclusivity, I don't believe nuclear families are healthy, I don't believe that legislation designed to protect the purity of the bloodline for the purposes of transfer of property retains relevance in this modern age and I don't think it's any business of the state what one's domestic arrangements are since we are no longer subjects or belongings of some monarch. So, I feel that the system that creates the notion of adultery is wrong. I don't recognise it as a concept that has any meaning in my life, hence it is neither wrong nor right but simply irrelevant (like slide rules and whalebone corsets and monocles).

[jasminetea]

Thank you for your 'explanations' OWoman, I have to say its given me an insight into a type of person who becomes an OW.

[frannie]

Nothing has to be a part of any discussion, but morality should be a part of a discussion that revolves around a vow and commitment.

 

While I think it should include the right and wrong as based on "Thou shalt not commit adultery," this can be excluded and still morality will be a part of the discussion.

 

Is it wrong to break a vow to another person without his or her knowledge? Is an affair simply about the "health" of someone?

 

Yes, there are many aspects that can be included in a conversation regarding adultery/affairs. IMO it should include how an affair affects family and partners, how it affects the people involved, and how it affects the future of everyone involved...physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Excluding any aspect of one's life simply gives only a partial picture.

 

Perhaps there's a greater argument to be said for including morality in the discussion if you're talking to the WS rather than the OP. Unless the OP themselves are also married and breaking vows.

 

However, I still disagree. I don't think morality 'should be' necessarily part of any discussion. I think people are so used to using morality as an argument for or against a decision that they can't see that a debate can be had without it.

 

For example, when we go out to eat, and debate what to have from the menu, people may or may not choose to include a debate on food miles, vegetarianism and the morality of one choice over another. But we may just choose to think about which dish is more likely to contribute to heart disease. Or we could muddy it up a bit and wonder if we're morally fine to go killing ourselves with fat when we have children we might orphan.

 

And then, you can say that if a person has made themselves ill through their diet choices, and perhaps face major surgery and they're in emotional distress, does it solve anything to say, 'well you shouldn't have made the choices you did, they were bad moral choices?' Or do we offer practical, supportive help?

 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use our own moral sense when making choices in life, as far as that is possible. I think we all do that. For example you James, seem to have used a moral argument for yourself in not indulging in an affair even though you weren't happy with things at home. But someone else might argue, on perfectly sound moral grounds (though perhaps not in agreement with your personal morality), that if your wife wasn't giving you what you needed, and you'd asked and informed her an affair was likely, that you were justified in getting your needs met elsewhere. Just to clarify, I wouldn't argue that way, I'd argue for divorce, but then I've never been married and had kids so I don't presume to say what I'd do in a situation I've never been in.

 

So, morality is useful in deciding on personal behaviour, yes. But to make 'group morality' (if there could even be such a thing) a part of offering advice to people already in a difficult situation is, to me, of questionable usefulness. I could even question the morality of kicking someone when they're down.

 

It's entirely optional whether to moralise over an issue or not.

[JamesM]

Frannie, you use good examples to prove your point, but none of them can be directly related to adultery.

 

Why?

 

Because your examples use inanimate objects as the target of "choice." For instance, choosing between foods based on the health of MY heart does not involve a vow with another individual.

 

Choosing an affair because it feels good involves two other individuals, but mainly it involves the secret destruction of a vow made with another individual.

 

This is where the morality issue enters into the picture.

 

While I see what you are saying when you use my situation with another man who chooses an affair in the same situation, it cannot be compared to deciding between a healthy meal or an unhealthy meal.

 

The meal has never made a commitment to me in any way shape or form.

 

The biggest reason that one should stay out of affairs is because of the other person in the marriage covenant. And this person trusts that when faced with the temptation of choosing something that is against the vow made, his or her partner will remember the vow made.

 

It is not about MY health only, but it is about OUR marriage health.

 

Two people make a vow of fidelity. It is a moral issue if one breaks that vow.

[OWoman]

The meal has never made a commitment to me in any way shape or form.

 

Neither have I, as the OW, made a commitment to the BW in any way shape or form.

 

The MM may have - depending on the details of their wedding agreement - but that's his issue. If he's cool with "breaking contract" and willing to face the consequences, that's HIS CHOICE. That contract is not binding on me, as an outsider, but on the two signatories to it.

[Trialbyfire]

No offense frannie but taking morality out of a discussion about an affair is like taking food out of a food poisoning discussion. No food, no concerns about salmonella or E.Coli!

[JamesM]

Neither have I, as the OW, made a commitment to the BW in any way shape or form.

 

The MM may have - depending on the details of their wedding agreement - but that's his issue. If he's cool with "breaking contract" and willing to face the consequences, that's HIS CHOICE. That contract is not binding on me, as an outsider, but on the two signatories to it.

 

I agree.

 

What I meant is that the MM is breaking one public contract without the other party's knowledge and entering into another private "contract" (even if unsaid) when he has no right. Hence, while you are correct in that you are not helping him break his first contract, you do not have the "right" to enter into another with a man who has not officially ended his first.

[LavendarGirl]

Frannie, you use good examples to prove your point, but none of them can be directly related to adultery.

 

Why?

 

Because your examples use inanimate objects as the target of "choice." For instance, choosing between foods based on the health of MY heart does not involve a vow with another individual.

 

Choosing an affair because it feels good involves two other individuals, but mainly it involves the secret destruction of a vow made with another individual.

 

This is where the morality issue enters into the picture.

 

While I see what you are saying when you use my situation with another man who chooses an affair in the same situation, it cannot be compared to deciding between a healthy meal or an unhealthy meal.

 

The meal has never made a commitment to me in any way shape or form.

 

The biggest reason that one should stay out of affairs is because of the other person in the marriage covenant. And this person trusts that when faced with the temptation of choosing something that is against the vow made, his or her partner will remember the vow made.

 

It is not about MY health only, but it is about OUR marriage health.

 

Two people make a vow of fidelity. It is a moral issue if one breaks that vow.

 

Hi James,

These are your moral values, and that's cool. But other people's moral values may be a bit different. Not better or worse, just different.

 

 

For example,

• A MP has a spouse that refuses to have sex with them. Being married, took a vow of fidelity. Is continued, ongoing abstinence in itself breaking that vow of fidelity?
  
• A person's religion views divorce as a sin. Which, then, is better for that person... having an affair or getting a divorce? Where do you draw the moral boundary here? If the BS is abusive? Neglectful?
  
• A person's commitment to another is not by marriage (legal or religious), but they betray their SO by getting involved with an OP. Is this better or worse in terms of morals to a MP getting in an A?
  
• An OP has been promised by an MP that they are in the process of a divorce. But that divorce never materializes. Is that OP on better moral grounds to an OP who knew the MP was in a happy marriage? Or an unhappy marriage with no chance of a divorce?
  

[OWoman]

Hence, while you are correct in that you are not helping him break his first contract, you do not have the "right" to enter into another with a man who has not officially ended his first.

 

Polygamy is legal in my country...

[JamesM]

Hi James,

These are your moral values, and that's cool. But other people's moral values may be a bit different. Not better or worse, just different.

 

This is called relativism and it has been shown to be in many ways a fallacy. I think it is okay to abuse children....you don't. That's cool. Neither of us is better or worse than the other...just different. Yes?

 

I know you will say it is my opinion, but if opinions are how we now make our laws, then why have any laws?

 

For example,

• A MP has a spouse that refuses to have sex with them. Being married, took a vow of fidelity. Is continued, ongoing abstinence in itself breaking that vow of fidelity?

 
Technically, no, because the vow said fidelity and infidelity is unfaithfulness to a moral obligation. Yet as I have been known to argue...is forced celibacy infidelity also?
 
However, is having an affair then justified and no longer morally wrong? Does one wrong justify making it right for another? No.
 
Could this type if infidelity be grounds for divorce? This is another discussion, but still it does not justify additional infidelity.
 

A person's religion views divorce as a sin. Which, then, is better for that person... having an affair or getting a divorce?

 
Third choice not presented....fix the marriage. Yet still divorce IS accepted by most religions when there is infidelity, because the adultery broke the vow made before God.
 
The Bible does not condemn all divorce, but it does condemn all adultery.
 
There is a commandment which is part of all of the major religions...."Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery."
 

Where do you draw the moral boundary here? If the BS is abusive? Neglectful?

 
So does abuse justify adultery? If we cannot agree on where the boundary is, then does that mean there are no boundaries?
 
I have never said that a BS is innocent in affairs. I have been known to take quite a beating for saying that, but perceived neglect or abuse..or even obvious abuse does not justify adultery. And I think most religions certainly include abuse with adultery as reasons for divorce.
 

A person's commitment to another is not by marriage (legal or religious), but they betray their SO by getting involved with an OP. Is this better or worse in terms of morals to a MP getting in an A?

 
First, since you quote most religions, cohabitation is called "living in sin." The answer then would be adultery which involves a marriage vow.
 
Second, no public vow has been legally or religiously made, so technically, no vows have been broken. Again, adultery is "worse."
 

An OP has been promised by an MP that they are in the process of a divorce. But that divorce never materializes. Is that OP on better moral grounds to an OP who knew the MP was in a happy marriage?

 
Again, since there is no divorce, then a public vow is still in place...both religiously and legally. It is still adultery. Neither is in a better position....both are in adulterous affairs.
 

Or an unhappy marriage with no chance of a divorce?

 

As I can say personally, an unhappy marriage is no grounds for an adulterous affair. It is still adultery when there is a marriage vow being broken.

 

The situations mentioned either involve marriage or they don't. When they involve marriage, there is a vow spoken before the law, people, and God. Any affair is a breaking of that vow and a betrayal of the other party of that vow.

 

While I do not support divorce, this is a public and legal means of ending the commitment. Adultery is ALWAYS condemned morally, while divorce is not.

[JamesM]

Polygamy is legal in my country...

 

Then to be technical...if that is the case, then I am guessing that a marriage vow would include that in its description. For those don't, then it would include fidelity to one person.

[LavendarGirl]

Hi James,

Thank you for your well thought out reply. My point was simply that your moral values are YOURS, while someone else's moral values can be different. To define one common, absolute moral foundation for this forum is pointless. Your answers to the scenarios are solid to your morals, I am certain. But to another person, their perspective might be totally different.

 

For example, Susan believes that affairs are horribly wrong. But she can understand and sympathize with her sister who is finally leaving her alcoholic jerk of a husband for an OM. In Susan's perspective, her sister's situation was acceptable to Susan's morals. But in another person's, it is not. Yes, I got it. Relativism.

 

Frannie's point (I think) is that the heavy moral hand does not have to slap every OP or MP who posts on the LS. It should be assumed that any person who's posting in the OM/OW subforum is sort of -beyond- the shock value of an A.

 

Ironic that a thread originally posted to see if there are any OW/OM's on the forum is now sort of thread jacked on the issue of morality. Hmm.

[JamesM]

Hi James,

Thank you for your well thought out reply. My point was simply that your moral values are YOURS, while someone else's moral values can be different. To define one common, absolute moral foundation for this forum is pointless. Your answers to the scenarios are solid to your morals, I am certain. But to another person, their perspective might be totally different.

 

The perspective might be different, but that does not change reality.

 

For example, Susan believes that affairs are horribly wrong. But she can understand and sympathize with her sister who is finally leaving her alcoholic jerk of a husband for an OM. In Susan's perspective, her sister's situation was acceptable to Susan's morals. But in another person's, it is not. Yes, I got it. Relativism.

 

You are jumping from sympathy and understanding to morally acceptable. While Susan may understand and sympathize, it does not mean she accepts adultery even in this situation. Does Susan suddenly now accept all adultery as acceptable? Funny thing is...people adjust morals to rationalize their own immoral activities, but that does not change what is morally correct even in their own eyes.

 

Many people on LS, too, will give reasons for their behavior, but even then they recognize that what they are doing is morally wrong. They just feel that their situation makes it okay...for them.

 

Frannie's point (I think) is that the heavy moral hand does not have to slap every OP or MP who posts on the LS. It should be assumed that any person who's posting in the OM/OW subforum is sort of -beyond- the shock value of an A.

 

I actually agreed with this, but that does not mean morals cannot be a part of the conversation. There are ways of saying things as I stated before that become constructive, and there are ways to say things that simply do nothing for the person receiving the advice.

 

Ironic that a thread originally posted to see if there are any OW/OM's on the forum is now sort of thread jacked on the issue of morality. Hmm.

 

I know....I was thinking that earlier. Ya gotta love LS.

[LavendarGirl]

You are jumping from sympathy and understanding to morally acceptable.

 

Alrighty then...how about more sympathy and understanding on LS and less on whether an A is morally acceptable.

[JamesM]

Alrighty then...how about more sympathy and understanding on LS and less on whether an A is morally acceptable.

 

No argument from me.

 

Have you not seen how certain BSs have laid into me for "defending cheaters?"

 

Truthfully, I have to agree that while morals cannot be excluded, in most cases they do not have to be hardly mentioned...at least not on the OW/OM forum. The only purpose the are usually mentioned...sadly...is to browbeat the OW/Om for the betrayal that the poster (usually a BS0 received. Or so it seems.

[OWoman]

The Bible does not condemn all divorce, but it does condemn all adultery.

 

There is a commandment which is part of all of the major religions...."Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery."

 

Ah - but the Bible (at the time of writing the commandments, ie Old Testament) and all the other major religions also provide for polygamy. In fact, in the Old Testament, it's quite OK to have numerous wives, concubines and to have sex with one's slaves. It's only if a woman is already married to another man that she's off limits to a horndog - in fact, "adultery" seems to apply only in the case of MWs, not to MMs at all (assuming the OW is single).

 

Since we're being technical...

[NoIDidn't]

Ah - but the Bible (at the time of writing the commandments, ie Old Testament) and all the other major religions also provide for polygamy. In fact, in the Old Testament, it's quite OK to have numerous wives, concubines and to have sex with one's slaves. It's only if a woman is already married to another man that she's off limits to a horndog - in fact, "adultery" seems to apply only in the case of MWs, not to MMs at all (assuming the OW is single).

 

Since we're being technical...

 

Let's not be technical. Let's try accurate.

 

Christianity exists because of the New Testament, in addition to the Old. You are right about the Old, but neglect the words of the Man that so many here always use to say "don't judge me".

 

Jesus said that to even think improperly about a woman was adultery. Clearly that was directed at MM. Paul said that each spouse should keep to their OWN spouse (husband to his own wife and not to someone else, and vice versa).

 

So, yes, in the Old Testament polygamy was tolerated. But not so in the New. There aren't any stories in the New Testament about a man with more than one W. And none of the *leaders* mentioned had more than one W either.

[NoIDidn't]

For example, Susan believes that affairs are horribly wrong. But she can understand and sympathize with her sister who is finally leaving her alcoholic jerk of a husband for an OM. In Susan's perspective, her sister's situation was acceptable to Susan's morals. But in another person's, it is not. Yes, I got it. Relativism.

 

I don't know that I would call it Relativism. I know it fits but I would still attach "situational ethics" to it as well. Unless the terms are interchangeable.

 

I won't even try to say its wrong though, because we ALL do it. We might not be having affairs but we are fudging the numbers on our taxes, or returning items to stores and claiming defects for a refund when we know we did it. And it doesn't make it right when we do it in those situations either.

 

Just my 2.

[frannie]

Frannie, you use good examples to prove your point, but none of them can be directly related to adultery.

 

Why?

 

Because your examples use inanimate objects as the target of "choice." For instance, choosing between foods based on the health of MY heart does not involve a vow with another individual.

 

I used examples where eating of food impacts on other people. The children left behind if you die of heart disease. The people exploited if you choose to eat food that deprives farmers of a fair wage. Further animate objects: the animals exploited in factory farming. And the wider impact on the environment caused by food miles which affect all of us sooner or later.

 

These are all moral issues. We can choose to take them into consideration when selecting from the menu, or we can choose not to.

 

As for the possibility of discussing affairs without morality, I manage it virtually every time I post in response to an individual in this situation. So, it can be done. Including morality in your response to posts a choice, not a given.

[frannie]

I actually agreed with this, but that does not mean morals cannot be a part of the conversation. There are ways of saying things as I stated before that become constructive, and there are ways to say things that simply do nothing for the person receiving the advice.

 

Just to make clear, I didn't say morals could not or should not be part of the conversation. My point was, they do not have to be (and was in response to someone asserting they had to be part of the debate).