Accepting personal responsibility

[pureinheart]

You are a beautiful person, Pure. The above speaks of such maturity.

 

Thank you:)!!!!! Who loves ya Jennie ((((((((((hugs)))))))))))!!!!!

[pureinheart]

Dude it is called a MIDLIFE CRISIS.

 

You crack me up!!!! Anyway, some midlife crisises are not a bad thing, and one definition stated that it is part of the maturing process.

 

Hey BTW PF, thanks for not being upset about all of my tj's on your last thread....I would say "sorry about that", although why bother because I'll just do it again!

[NoIDidn't]

OTC - it was in no way an attempt to shift the responsibility solely to them. But I did want them to know what they were getting into, and to make their decision on the basis of that information. For me, the power dynamics would have been skewed if I didn't do that. I needed them to be choosing as freely - under no duress - as I was. It had to be their decision as much as it was mine. Not more, but not less.

 

I understand. The bolded made me chuckle. I'd certainly feel I was under duress when being told the risks of my possible decision. Honestly, I'd feel that way in your position and in the MPs. LOL.

[someday]

Or maybe it's not possible for some people to see that some marriages, truly, should never even have existed in the first place and that some good can come out of the ending of a bad marriage.

 

Nope not hard to accept at all- it's the honest truth of the matter. Still...*Still*...regardless of whatever words are used to justify action...IMO, it's the action that counts. If the M is truly dead then let it die. No need to kick at it. If it's truly dead the MM should leave to be with the OW, IMO, anyway. I wonder why the MM doesn’t do this more often...ah, but that opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?

 

I can honestly say that when my H was out of our house and openly with her I did continue my intimate relationship with my H and didn’t much care that it pissed her off. I was going to continue to have him in my life as long as I chose to have him in my life and he was willing to be in my life. She was hurting, yes. She was pissed, yes. I honestly didn’t care.

[2sure]

Unless the BS has the same value system as the unapologetic OW/OM ...he or she has been unknowingly and forcibly compromised by someone Else's life rules.

 

Involving oneself in someone Else's life anonymously and being okay with it yourself is fine if that is how you are comfortable operating. I think the ownership of it comes in when OW/OM attempts to convince others that their actions did no damage to anyone. I mean, if you dont care you dont care but dont think it didnt happen. An affair undermines a marriage, a persons life - whether the results are direct and on the table or not.

 

Own it, dont justify it.

 

Also, although the words "he made me do it" are not something I see spelled out by anyone here...they just do it differently:

 

He lied. He called me. He said this, but did that.

 

Its all the same.

[Lauriebell82]

Sure, there probably are some OWs or OMs who don't care who they hurt.

 

Then, as described earlier, there are others who care - but not sufficiently to change their behaviour.

 

Then, there are others who care about hurting some, but care less (or not at all) about not hurting others - for example those who are comfortable (to a degree) with the BS getting hurt, but not with others (the kids, the extended family, the MP) getting hurt; or those who would never have an A with a friend's spouse (so as not to hurt the friend) but would more readily have an A where the BS is a stranger.

 

And then there are those who care very much about others getting hurt, and land up in tortured agonies about what hurt their actions may have wrought...

 

All of those can, and do, exist; even in the microcosm of LS.

 

But how does caring / not caring who gets hurt relate to the notion of accepting personal responsibility?

 

I think it indirectly relates, in that in order to accept personal responsibility for actions, a person needs to acknowledge that they were doing the behavior and not try to justify or excuse it by saying "oh, their marriage was already dead." In my mind accepting responsiblity for actions means that you change behavior and often OW don't change their behavior. So it seems that they only accept being the OW.

[OWoman]

In my mind accepting responsiblity for actions means that you change behavior and often OW don't change their behavior.

 

To me, these are two different things - changing one's behaviour implies one feels remorse, and remorse is different to responsibility IMO.

 

If I'm talking in class while the teacher is out, and she walks back in and asks who was talking - and I stand up, admitting that I was talking - I'm taking responsibility for my actions, accepting my punishment and facing the consequences of what I did.

 

That doesn't mean I won't do it again, or that I was sorry I did it. It meant that I accepted responsibility without necessarily feeling remorse or undertaking to change my behaviour in the future.

[Lauriebell82]

To me, these are two different things - changing one's behaviour implies one feels remorse, and remorse is different to responsibility IMO.

 

If I'm talking in class while the teacher is out, and she walks back in and asks who was talking - and I stand up, admitting that I was talking - I'm taking responsibility for my actions, accepting my punishment and facing the consequences of what I did.

 

That doesn't mean I won't do it again, or that I was sorry I did it. It meant that I accepted responsibility without necessarily feeling remorse or undertaking to change my behaviour in the future.

 

Very valid points. But what is the point in "accepting responsiblity" if you are going to keep doing the behavior?

[someday]

To me, these are two different things - changing one's behaviour implies one feels remorse, and remorse is different to responsibility IMO.

 

If I'm talking in class while the teacher is out, and she walks back in and asks who was talking - and I stand up, admitting that I was talking - I'm taking responsibility for my actions, accepting my punishment and facing the consequences of what I did.

 

That doesn't mean I won't do it again, or that I was sorry I did it. It meant that I accepted responsibility without necessarily feeling remorse or undertaking to change my behaviour in the future.

 

Sometimes, some people, simply do not care how their actions will impact others. You seem to be that type of person. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand.

 

Let’s go with the talking in class scenario, what if there was a student in that class that was struggling with comprehension of the text and they wanted to use that time to reread the material...and there you are talking, talking, talking....if that student spoke up as said to you "Please be quiet I am reading." would that make a difference to you? Would you even notice that student reading? Would you even care that you've disrupted their study time? So next time the teacher leaves the room, you do notice this particular student is reading- would you still talk, talk, talk while the teacher is out of the room? And why is it that you are talking when the teachers out of the room? Why not talk, talk, talk when the teacher is present?

[OWoman]

Very valid points. But what is the point in "accepting responsiblity" if you are going to keep doing the behavior?

 

Uhm - because that's what being an adult is all about? Because it's part of living your life with authenticity and integrity? Because it allows you to make informed choices in the future, when considering whether or not to repeat your behaviour? And sometimes, because it's consistent with your values and even the negative consequences can't sway your conviction to your chosen path of action?

 

Aung San Suu Kyi continued to speak out against the Burmese Junta, knowing she'd suffer consequences. She accepted the consequences, complied with the conditions of her house arrest and "took her punishment" - but did not stop speaking out. For her, the (moral) consequences of not continuing the "behaviour" outweighed the negative (physical) consequences of her punishment.

 

It's not always a moral issue, but the same principle holds. Considered rationally, sometimes the benefits of the continued behaviour outweigh the negative consequences of the behaviour, in whatever dimensions.

 

I chose no longer to be an OW not because I felt any remorse or regret - I don't - but because, rationally considered, what my current lifestyle choice offers me suits me better right now than previous lifestyle choices. It's not always negative consequences that change people's behaviour - sometimes it's the positive consequences of a different choice.

[Lauriebell82]

Sometimes, some people, simply do not care how their actions will impact others. You seem to be that type of person. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand.

 

Let’s go with the talking in class scenario, what if there was a student in that class that was struggling with comprehension of the text and they wanted to use that time to reread the material...and there you are talking, talking, talking....if that student spoke up as said to you "Please be quiet I am reading." would that make a difference to you? Would you even notice that student reading? Would you even care that you've disrupted their study time? So next time the teacher leaves the room, you do notice this particular student is reading- would you still talk, talk, talk while the teacher is out of the room? And why is it that you are talking when the teachers out of the room? Why not talk, talk, talk when the teacher is present?

 

I like your example. It kind of mirrors what an A is like. BS is the student trying to comprehend and can't, OW is the one who continues to talk even though the student is studying, and lets add MM who is the student who comforts the "chatterbox" after her punishment and helps the "trouble comprehending" student with their reading..then makes up a lie to leave to go and continue to comfort "chatterbox."

[OWoman]

Sometimes, some people, simply do not care how their actions will impact others. You seem to be that type of person. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand.

 

And you seem to be the type of person whose prejudices prevent them even from trying to understand anything or anyone. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand anything beyond your own prejudice.

 

Let’s go with the talking in class scenario, what if there was a student in that class that was struggling with comprehension of the text and they wanted to use that time to reread the material...and there you are talking, talking, talking....if that student spoke up as said to you "Please be quiet I am reading." would that make a difference to you? Would you even notice that student reading? Would you even care that you've disrupted their study time? So next time the teacher leaves the room, you do notice this particular student is reading- would you still talk, talk, talk while the teacher is out of the room? And why is it that you are talking when the teachers out of the room? Why not talk, talk, talk when the teacher is present?

 

If you hadn't worked it out - that was a hypothetical situation. If you even understood the kind of person I am in the slightest, you'd realise how unlike me that scenario was. I was never the kid who talked in class - with or without the teacher present - because my nose was always buried in a book.

 

Nice try - but no cigar. Better luck next time....

[Lauriebell82]

And you seem to be the type of person whose prejudices prevent them even from trying to understand anything or anyone. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand anything beyond your own prejudice.

 

I think you have some prejudice as well..towards those who are pro-marriage.

 

If you hadn't worked it out - that was a hypothetical situation. If you even understood the kind of person I am in the slightest, you'd realise how unlike me that scenario was. I was never the kid who talked in class - with or without the teacher present - because my nose was always buried in a book.

 

Nice try - but no cigar. Better luck next time....

 

Well, I mean you were using the hypothetical situation as an analogy, so it seemed as though you (as an OW) were trying to make the student the "OW" who accepts responsibilty but feels no remorse. Someday tried to challenge your thinking and your defenses kicked in.

[Star_Bright]

You say you care but your actions say you don't care. What has more weight? Action or word? You do what you do becuase you want to do it and your happiness outweights the happiness of his W and children. What is so hard about saying this and accepting this?

 

To me it seems like you don't want to be the 'bad guy' in this senerio (I'm not saying that you are the bad guy, either) so you do some fancy word-work to make try to make it ok.

 

IMO.

 

I haven't read this whole thread but I completely agree with this, in terms of my own former sitch.

 

I feel personally responsible for helping to inflict pain on exMM's family. For me it is worse than the normal sitch because I worked with both exMM and his wife. I saw her every day at work and she helped run the business and helped with things I needed. I'm not saying she was super nice to me or went out of her way to help me - she wasn't even very competent at her job and was (later, it proved to be rightly so) suspicious and disliking of me. But she did do what was necessary for me business-wise, and we were even social friends of sorts who all hung out on holidays, work events or after work sometimes; she even invited me to her house.

 

So I fully knew they were married, I knew their kids, I knew them pretty personally and I had no business injecting myself into their marriage. I rationalized it all kinds of different ways: she was his OW in his first marriage, so she knew what she was getting into (ummmm, yeah, I was definitely the pot calling the kettle!), she wasn't right for him, I believed his bologna about how she was causing problems to their marriage, etc.

 

But once I actually started examining the situation and my part in things I realized these were just excuses. I did feel bad for hurting her, after D-Day. I felt a lot of guilt and I wondered how I could do that to someone.

 

I began to realize that my values weren't matching my actions. I *thought* I believed in the golden rule, but I would hate it if my husband's employee carried on a relationship with him right under my nose! Yes, I would hold my husband primarily responsible but I would also feel rightfully betrayed by her and so upset that she would do that to me. So how could I have done it to her?!

 

I also realized that if I just stepped out of the picture, he would work on things with her. I know him and he was just having both of us because we would let him. So the simple fact was that he could not continue to hurt her and betray her if I was not there to allow it. Sure, some might say he'd find another OW, but why did I want to be the one helping him inflict hurt on her? I didn't want to be. I thought I believed in not causing harm to others but there I was doing it.

 

When I really thought about my beliefs versus my actions I realized that I had to stop doing what I was doing. Yes my time with him brought me pleasure (and pain!) but that was at her expense and I could see that it was slowly destroying me because I do not want to be that person. I was, but I wanted to not be, and now I'm not. Now I'm working on forgiving myself because sometimes I just hate that I did that. I don't hate myself but I hate that part of me that let me do it and I hate that I am someone who did that. I often wish I could apologize to her but I know it would not help. I know I already did the only thing she would want me to do which is to get out of her marriage and leave her husband alone.

 

That was a great post someday and really thought-provoking, thank you.

[OWoman]

I think you have some prejudice as well..towards those who are pro-marriage.

 

Nope - I have prejudices against those who are anti-intellect.

 

Well, I mean you were using the hypothetical situation as an analogy, so it seemed as though you (as an OW) were trying to make the student the "OW" who accepts responsibilty but feels no remorse. Someday tried to challenge your thinking and your defenses kicked in.

 

Huh?? I was using it as an illustration, not as an analogy. I was demonstrating by way of example rather than argument that the two concepts need not be the same - so I chose an example pretty much as far removed as I could think of from the A scenario, to avoid exactly the kind of petty blame-slinging finger-pointing juvenile response that it managed to elicit anyway

 

And yes, I do get defensive when someone who doesn't know me from a bar of soap makes assumptions based on their own unwillingness to engage their grey matter and read what's in front of them instead of assuming they know what it would say. That's called prejudice, and there's more than enough of it in the world without encouraging more!

[Owl]

Here's where I struggle...

 

 

...it's hard for me to understand having no remorse when you're engaging in actions that you're completely aware (as part of that accepting responsibility) are likely to result in emotionally devestating someone else.

 

I absolutely see the point you make about the difference between the two...and it even makes sense that they ARE different.

 

But it's difficult for me to wrap around the idea of not regretting or feeling remorse if I know what I'm doing is likely to eventually end up hurting someone in that fashion.

[someday]

And you seem to be the type of person whose prejudices prevent them even from trying to understand anything or anyone. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand anything beyond your own prejudice.

 

If you hadn't worked it out - that was a hypothetical situation. If you even understood the kind of person I am in the slightest, you'd realise how unlike me that scenario was. I was never the kid who talked in class - with or without the teacher present - because my nose was always buried in a book.

 

Nice try - but no cigar. Better luck next time....

 

I have my beliefs that I will stand up for, regardless of what others want me to believe...kinda like you?...Are these beliefs based on prejudice? Yes, I suppose to some degree some of them are- I can freely admit that & I don't see how it could be any other way. I've no reason to defend myself or my beliefs to you...I will say this tho- you are the one who's posting about not understanding what it means to accept personal responsibility.

 

Yes, I do understand that it was a hypothetical situation (duh?) and you’re the one who brought it up. I thought that maybe taking your lead on this would help you understand where I was coming from...but no. And of course I don't understand you nor do I know you obviously I only information I have about you is what you post- and a very small sample at that. So, what do you think? In relation to your hypothetical situation and my thoughts on that? Or is that too much??

[desertIslandCactus]

And you seem to be the type of person whose prejudices prevent them even from trying to understand anything or anyone. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand anything beyond your own prejudice.

 

 

..

 

Oh, so now righteousness and truth have been replaced by the accusation of 'prejuduce'.

 

It's not a gray world. It's black and white.

[OWoman]

Here's where I struggle...

 

 

...it's hard for me to understand having no remorse when you're engaging in actions that you're completely aware (as part of that accepting responsibility) are likely to result in emotionally devestating someone else.

 

I absolutely see the point you make about the difference between the two...and it even makes sense that they ARE different.

 

But it's difficult for me to wrap around the idea of not regretting or feeling remorse if I know what I'm doing is likely to eventually end up hurting someone in that fashion.

 

Owl, you were in the military, IIRC, so you must be familiar with the term "collateral damage"? Whether or not an individual BS - whom you may know personally and dislike; may know of and dislike; may have had "demonised" and reduced in your opinion or whatever by the MM (I'm not offering these as excuses - I'm trying to explain how the concept / person of the BS gets reduced as a factor in the eyes of the OP) - qualifies as an acceptable level of collateral damage to offset the benefits of the "operation's" success will depend on the individual OW / OM in that particular situation. Where the collateral damage is higher - BS, kids, work colleagues, etc - then the benefits of success would need to be higher for that to work - otherwise it would be like discovering your smart bomb had just wiped out a wedding.

 

If it's only one person at risk of being hurt - and not a very nice person at that - and many more who stand to gain happiness, fulfillment etc from a successful outcome - well, that's a lot easier.

[Lauriebell82]

 

If it's only one person at risk of being hurt - and not a very nice person at that - and many more who stand to gain happiness, fulfillment etc from a successful outcome - well, that's a lot easier.

 

That's like saying you only murdered one person and they were asking for it. That's a rationalization plain and simple.

[woinlove]

Sometimes, some people, simply do not care how their actions will impact others. You seem to be that type of person. If that's the case than, IMO, you'll never truly understand.

 

I don't agree with the implication that such a person will never truly understand. People can change. For the specific trait you are talking about, caring about how engaging in an affair with a married person impacts on others, I changed from someone who didn't really care (my own desires and needs came first and I didn't feel compassion toward a wife who I had never met) to someone who does care.

 

On the other hand, when I didn't care, arguing on an anonymous forum was not going to change my mind, and I think that is true for most people who think and feel that way. Nevertheless, one can learn more about how others think, even if you are unlikely to convince them to place a higher value on honesty and compassion toward others when trying to balance these with their own desires.

 

I do see some of my old self in some "unapologetic" OW who post here, but my former mindset doesn't even make much sense to me anymore! People can change, even if they aren't going to change right now. My own experience is that some deep and important real life experience is needed to facilitate real change, hopefully a positive one (like being truly loved) but I suspect a negative crisis can also change one in this way.

[desertIslandCactus]

Owl, you were in the military, IIRC, so you must be familiar with the term "collateral damage"? Whether or not an individual BS - whom you may know personally and dislike; may know of and dislike; may have had "demonised" and reduced in your opinion or whatever by the MM (I'm not offering these as excuses - I'm trying to explain how the concept / person of the BS gets reduced as a factor in the eyes of the OP) - qualifies as an acceptable level of collateral damage to offset the benefits of the "operation's" success will depend on the individual OW / OM in that particular situation. Where the collateral damage is higher - BS, kids, work colleagues, etc - then the benefits of success would need to be higher for that to work - otherwise it would be like discovering your smart bomb had just wiped out a wedding.

 

If it's only one person at risk of being hurt - and not a very nice person at that - and many more who stand to gain happiness, fulfillment etc from a successful outcome - well, that's a lot easier.

 

Not "one person" in most instances it is a whole family.

 

To compare this with the military is ludicrous .. They are on a mission and under orders.

 

Breaking up a marriage is premeditated and with selfish intent of one or two.

[Owl]

Owl, you were in the military, IIRC, so you must be familiar with the term "collateral damage"? Whether or not an individual BS - whom you may know personally and dislike; may know of and dislike; may have had "demonised" and reduced in your opinion or whatever by the MM (I'm not offering these as excuses - I'm trying to explain how the concept / person of the BS gets reduced as a factor in the eyes of the OP) - qualifies as an acceptable level of collateral damage to offset the benefits of the "operation's" success will depend on the individual OW / OM in that particular situation. Where the collateral damage is higher - BS, kids, work colleagues, etc - then the benefits of success would need to be higher for that to work - otherwise it would be like discovering your smart bomb had just wiped out a wedding.

 

If it's only one person at risk of being hurt - and not a very nice person at that - and many more who stand to gain happiness, fulfillment etc from a successful outcome - well, that's a lot easier.

 

 

I understand what you're saying. And I can believe that this is the thinking that many OW/OM follow. And I've seen any number of stories here that support what you're saying...where the BW/BH was "de-humanized" in the eyes of the OW/OM to the point where hurting them was much simpler and easier for them to justify.

 

It's easier to hurt a faceless "thing" than it is another living, breathing human being. Especially if you believe that they "deserved it" or "earned it" in some fashion.

 

I can see how that would work...but I can't say that I personally agree with it. But thank you for that clarification.

[OWoman]

So, what do you think? In relation to your hypothetical situation and my thoughts on that? Or is that too much??

 

OK, let's look at the scenario

 

Let’s go with the talking in class scenario, what if there was a student in that class that was struggling with comprehension of the text and they wanted to use that time to reread the material...and there you are talking, talking, talking....if that student spoke up as said to you "Please be quiet I am reading." would that make a difference to you?

 

If you're talking about some hypothetical OW / talking kid, I can't answer because I can't relate. I've never been the kid who talked in class. I've usually been the kid telling the others to shut up, because I didn't want the whole class to have to stay in if the culprits failed to own up (as they so often did).

 

But if it was me - and someone asked me to be quiet, because they were reading (as opposed to listening to the cricket on their radio) then I'd offer to help. More likely, if they were struggling, they'd have asked me to help, since I was the class swot. I was often in trouble for helping out struggling classmates, instead of leaving them to figure it out on their own - I usually had "better" (quicker, easier) ways to understand the concept than the way the teacher pushed, so why not share?

 

Would you even notice that student reading? Would you even care that you've disrupted their study time? So next time the teacher leaves the room, you do notice this particular student is reading- would you still talk, talk, talk while the teacher is out of the room? And why is it that you are talking when the teachers out of the room? Why not talk, talk, talk when the teacher is present?

 

Again - I can't relate to that since it's so far from my lived experience. I've never been one of those kids so can't even guess at their motivation or their reasoning.

[OWoman]

That's like saying you only murdered one person and they were asking for it. That's a rationalization plain and simple.

 

Perhaps to you. To me, I'd rather create the most happiness for the most people - including those dear to me, than pander to the misery of an individual who means nothing (or less) to me.