When good people have affairs

[despicableME]

My A with my STBXW (prior to us getting M, obviously), and my current A with my GF are more "traditional A's".

 

WHOA! Hold up. Are you telling me that your STBXW was an AP, and you cheated on her with you current GF???

 

DUDE! WTF?!?!?! You have some serious issues, my friend. You're a serial cheater.

 

This is what I'm trying so hard to avoid.

[donnamaybe]

Wow. No wonder...

[despicableME]

Yeah... why not just get into swinging or an open marriage? This way you won't have to go through the process of divorce when you tire of this new gal.

[whichwayisup]

Oh please. I'd say about the last 20-30 pages or so are way outside of being relevant to this thread.

 

Yup. And when I mentioned and suggested that a new thread should be created to continue discussing the off topic subject, I was told that it sounded like I was telling someone how to post. Which isn't true at all.

[SoMovinOn]

WHOA! Hold up. Are you telling me that your STBXW was an AP, and you cheated on her with you current GF???

 

No, to the latter portion. My STBXW was married, but in the process of splitting and getting a D when we met and started dating. It was a traditional, secret A - her H was unaware we were dating.

 

I've never cheated on STBXW and never would have if she and I were to stay M.

 

I didn't start dating my GF until STBXW and I split. GF and I are having a traditional, secret A because she is M and we keep it a secret from her H.

 

 

You're a serial cheater.

 

Captain Crunch getting involved with the Cuckoo Bird would be a cereal cheater. I, however, am not.

[donnamaybe]

Do you think you defend A's so determinedly because thecurrent and past women in your life are cheaters?

[NoIDidn't]

Do you think you defend A's so determinedly because thecurrent and past women in your life are cheaters?

 

Not to answer for SMO, but this is my take.

 

People that get what they want from the moment from behaviors that most are discouraged from doing, tend to defend those behaviors because it worked for them.

 

As the topic of this thread is when "good" people have affairs, one has to wonder when a person ceases being "good" if they continue to defend poor judgment and "bad" behaviors.

 

But since I haven't read the book and am not looking for justifications for bad behavior, I don't know if the author honestly addresses that or if she just uses this book to get clients that she ultimately isn't helping.

 

(I have a book about Good Things Happening To Bad People and about Bad Things Happening To Good Marriages, but I've not read anything telling people they are good even while in the midst of an affair. lol)

[donnamaybe]

I further wonder if this perceived defense mechanism is because there might be an underlying feeling of perhaps not being able to obtain a R with a woman who is faithful.

[Spark1111]

I further wonder if this perceived defense mechanism is because there might be an underlying feeling of perhaps not being able to obtain a R with a woman who is faithful.

 

Or out-loud, single and available.

 

Not as much fun without the rescuing, or forbidden factor?

 

I suspect for repeaters, old-fashioned, dating of available people will never release the same intensive, risky behavior brain chemicals as affairs do.

[NoIDidn't]

Or out-loud, single and available.

 

Not as much fun without the rescuing, or forbidden factor?

 

I suspect for repeaters, old-fashioned, dating of available people will never release the same intensive, risky behavior brain chemicals as affairs do.

 

I dunno Spark. I have a friend that exclusively dates women in relationships (married or otherwise).

 

He seems to like proving to himself that women aren't trustworthy and that he is a stud.

 

Doesn't seem like "risky behavior" so much as soothing a wounded, insecure, soul.

 

And I've seen him try to have a relationship with single, available women, and he just couldn't do it. He was convinced that they would cheat on him....with a guy LIKE him.

 

And, for the record, I do think he is a "good" person. Just not good relationship material at the moment.

[SoMovinOn]

Do you think you defend A's so determinedly because thecurrent and past women in your life are cheaters?

 

I don't think I defend A's

[Mme. Chaucer]

I don't think I defend A's

 

Well, reading your posts absolutely gives ME the clear impression that I am on the receiving end of a massive defense of affairs; of ALL affairs, of the general concept of affairs.

 

Whether you "think" you do it, or intend to or not, you are having that effect with your communication.

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know this.

[MissBee]

Well, reading your posts absolutely gives ME the clear impression that I am on the receiving end of a massive defense of affairs; of ALL affairs, of the general concept of affairs.

 

Whether you "think" you do it, or intend to or not, you are having that effect with your communication.

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know this.

 

I agree....

 

I do sometimes believe SMO just likes to be difficult.

[despicableME]

My STBXW was married, but in the process of splitting and getting a D when we met and started dating. It was a traditional, secret A - her H was unaware we were dating.

 

 

So she was cheating

 

I didn't start dating my GF until STBXW and I split. GF and I are having a traditional, secret A because she is M and we keep it a secret from her H.

 

 

 

And she is also.

 

Either way. It would seem that you pursure women that are married and/or in current relationships. You might have a fetish for attatched women. Then again, they have a part to play in this also.

Edited December 7, 2011 by despicableME

[SoMovinOn]

Well, reading your posts absolutely gives ME the clear impression that I am on the receiving end of a massive defense of affairs; of ALL affairs, of the general concept of affairs.

 

Whether you "think" you do it, or intend to or not, you are having that effect with your communication.

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know this.

 

I know full well how people think they read my points. It's more than clear based on the responses.

 

I am used to that because it's how I always am. I can see both sides of an issue and am willing to say so. Those who hold "religious" views on either side always tend to see my understanding of the "opposing side" as support for "the bad guys" and lack of support for "the good guys".

 

I even see it with dumb things, that shouldn't matter, like motorcycles. Many people who ride the same brand as I do feel I should share their religious worship of that brand as the one and only. That I should share in their slamming of every other brand and the people who choose to ride them. Sorry, I don't drink the Kool-Aid, I just like bikes. I own this one because it suits my riding style right now, but I've owned those other brands and styles of bikes to, and all of them do exactly what they are designed to do and do it well. There is nothing wrong with those bikes, and certainly nothing wrong with the people who choose to ride them.

 

That's how I am. I see things as they are. Whichever side I "prefer", doesn't require me to demonize the other side.

[SoMovinOn]

So she was cheating

And she is also.

 

Yes and yes.

 

Either way. It would seem that you pursure women that are married and/or in current relationships. You might have a fetish for attatched women. Then again, they have a part to play in this also.

 

If those were the only two relationships I've had in my life, that would be a reasonable assessment. They, of course, were not. If you are keeping track though, I have been involved with a M woman, while I was single, 5 times (including the two above), although 3 of them were not A's in that they were known to everyone (including the H). Aside from that, I have dated probably hundreds of single women, a dozen or so of them for some period of time (and even married one of them).

 

So... whatever your tally and assessment is of that ...

[donnamaybe]

I know full well how people think they read my points. It's more than clear based on the responses.

It goes beyond that for me. It's as if there is a pathological need to make A's okay.

[Mme. Chaucer]

It goes beyond that for me. It's as if there is a pathological need to make A's okay.

 

And, an obsession against believing that there are any such things as "right" and "wrong," along with a firm stance AGAINST taking a stand for ANYTHING.

 

That is the one thing you, SMO, seem to actually stand up for! Not taking any stand, ever.

 

I have a sister like this. We got in a big fight because I used the phrase, "the fact is," and her argument was that there are no facts; everything in the universe is open to interpretation and interpretation supersedes all. She worked for my company, so it made her a little difficult to manage!

 

Honestly, to each his/her own, and SMO, it's clear that you are not interested in adopting a different point of view.

 

Personally, I do count on knowing that people close to me WILL live by their word, and stand strongly for what they believe in and against what they don't. This is not "Kool-Aid" drinking.

 

I think it's more like "Kool-Aid" drinking for people to get "traditionally" married, evidently because it's the socially and culturally prescribed thing to do, when they have no intention, ability or desire to keep any vow.

[donnamaybe]

Personally, I do count on knowing that people close to me WILL live by their word, and stand strongly for what they believe in and against what they don't. This is not "Kool-Aid" drinking.

 

I think it's more like "Kool-Aid" drinking for people to get "traditionally" married, evidently because it's the socially and culturally prescribed thing to do, when they have no intention, ability or desire to keep any vow.

Yes. Perfectly stated!

 

Especially in light of all the factswe are already aware of.

[woinlove]

I know full well how people think they read my points. It's more than clear based on the responses.

 

I am used to that because it's how I always am. I can see both sides of an issue and am willing to say so. Those who hold "religious" views on either side always tend to see my understanding of the "opposing side" as support for "the bad guys" and lack of support for "the good guys".

 

I even see it with dumb things, that shouldn't matter, like motorcycles. Many people who ride the same brand as I do feel I should share their religious worship of that brand as the one and only. That I should share in their slamming of every other brand and the people who choose to ride them. Sorry, I don't drink the Kool-Aid, I just like bikes. I own this one because it suits my riding style right now, but I've owned those other brands and styles of bikes to, and all of them do exactly what they are designed to do and do it well. There is nothing wrong with those bikes, and certainly nothing wrong with the people who choose to ride them.

 

That's how I am. I see things as they are. Whichever side I "prefer", doesn't require me to demonize the other side.

 

Is this a parody or are you serious?

 

You see things as they actually are, unlike those who disagree with you who...well...don't see things as they actually are! Those you label as holding "religious" views -- and what does that mean? I'm an atheist, so I don't usually label people religious unless they label themselves that way. You seem to use it synonymous with closed minded which seems like an unfair putdown of those who are religious. Why not simply say closed minded or whatever it is you mean?

 

SMO, I think your perspective is very useful here, but I don't think it is quite as special as you make it out to be - the bearer of reality and truth compared to others. To me, it largely looks like the rationalization of someone who is currently benefitting from deception and cheating and wants to feel good about themselves and that is fairly common human nature and many others (although not all) who are in the same situation will have a similar response to you.

[SoMovinOn]

Those you label as holding "religious" views -- and what does that mean?

 

People who believe in something religiously - like Chevy is #1 and every other brand of car sucks. Their belief is based on their desire to believe more than on anything else. They will not change their belief ever, for any reason.

[MissBee]

And, an obsession against believing that there are any such things as "right" and "wrong," along with a firm stance AGAINST taking a stand for ANYTHING.

 

That is the one thing you, SMO, seem to actually stand up for! Not taking any stand, ever.

 

I have a sister like this. We got in a big fight because I used the phrase, "the fact is," and her argument was that there are no facts; everything in the universe is open to interpretation and interpretation supersedes all. She worked for my company, so it made her a little difficult to manage!

 

Honestly, to each his/her own, and SMO, it's clear that you are not interested in adopting a different point of view.

 

Personally, I do count on knowing that people close to me WILL live by their word, and stand strongly for what they believe in and against what they don't. This is not "Kool-Aid" drinking.

 

I think it's more like "Kool-Aid" drinking for people to get "traditionally" married, evidently because it's the socially and culturally prescribed thing to do, when they have no intention, ability or desire to keep any vow.

 

My ex is also like this...he tried to brand it as being open-minded and he had a pathological need to declare that he wasn't conservative (even when no one was asking). However, I grew to realize that no you are not open-minded, you are a free for all. Which is entirely different! I am open-minded...open-minded does not negate you having standards or being able to see in black and white or have a stance.

 

He was very annoying and fickle, as all was permissible and subjective to him and it just depended on what day of the week. It's also very hard to be like this, so it made him also very contradictory.

 

Anyway, as I have learned people can employ and mobilize whatever strategy they want to serve a particular end. So the stance of having no stance comes in handy for a particular purpose. Those who never have a stance and only see things in shades of grey have just as much adjustment to do as those who are rigid and can only see in black and white.

[MissBee]

as someone who reads more than posts, you definitely do defend affairs. you defend the right to be in one, you glorify your actions and behaviors and demonize the married woman you are having an affair with's husband, the tone of your posts can be condescending to anyone who doesn't buy into your views and theories and seem to enjoy poking fun at others.

 

 

 

i agree with you mme. chaucer.

 

 

Funnily hockey, I would think that being so "open-minded", one would have a dose of introspection and be able to take into account that various people, who have different perspectives, seem to observe the same things about you and then take that and at least consider if it could be true...or if we are all really wrong...how come we've all gotten the same wrong idea? That itself says a lot.

 

But it has not happened....

 

The great thing is...no matter what a single individual says...the overarching presentation and idea still remains the same. And as much as we believe what other people think of us doesn't matter....yea it does...in terms of, it doesn't matter what you THINK you're doing...if everyone reads it differently then something has to give. Conscientious people at least look into it. Anyway, a lot of people aren't dumb and many on LS are very prudent and can see through certain behaviors and just don't even bother.

[MissBee]

Is this a parody or are you serious?

 

You see things as they actually are, unlike those who disagree with you who...well...don't see things as they actually are! Those you label as holding "religious" views -- and what does that mean? I'm an atheist, so I don't usually label people religious unless they label themselves that way. You seem to use it synonymous with closed minded which seems like an unfair putdown of those who are religious. Why not simply say closed minded or whatever it is you mean?

SMO, I think your perspective is very useful here, but I don't think it is quite as special as you make it out to be - the bearer of reality and truth compared to others. To me, it largely looks like the rationalization of someone who is currently benefitting from deception and cheating and wants to feel good about themselves and that is fairly common human nature and many others (although not all) who are in the same situation will have a similar response to you.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

 

But then again...you, and everyone else who has come to similar conclusions at different points, are probably on the side of an altered reality

Edited December 8, 2011 by MissBee

[Owl]

People who believe in something religiously - like Chevy is #1 and every other brand of car sucks. Their belief is based on their desire to believe more than on anything else. They will not change their belief ever, for any reason.

 

So the numerous posters who have observed your posts on this forum and have come to a conclusion about these posts and the motivations behind them are wrong (because they 'want to believe that they're right')...and you're right because you posess some mystical ability to perceive reality that the rest of the world lacks?

 

Ok...