When good people have affairs

[frozensprouts]

perhaps it is not for the person committing the act to decide whether o not it is "bad", but it is more appropriate for the person being affected to make that determination.

 

example:

 

i own a business that pollutes the environment but I make a lot of money. Am I going to see the pollution as "bad" or as a necessary by product of my happiness? I'd probably see it as a necessary by product and not "bad". I'll rationalize it anyway I have to order to justify my actions and keep getting what I want. It is in my interest to do so.

 

Now ask the person who's well was poisoned and who can no longer drink their water if what I did was"bad"... what do you think they are going to say? They more than likely will think that it's bad and won't care doing so contributes to my happiness. The same goes for the person who's air is contaminated, the tax payers who have to pay for their health care, the animals and plants that are killed, the people who live near my factory and who's view has been spoiled, the people living in the next country who get afacted by the acid precipitation caused ( in part) by the pollution from my factory, etc.

 

These people come to me and ask me to make changes but i don't because it will reduce my profit and therefore my "happiness".

 

Many would say that what I am doing is "bad" ...i don't think so because it benefits me. The fact that I donate some money to a local not for profit and maybe coach my son's soccer team does not negate the harm ( bad) I am doing.

I wouldn't say that I am the one to say whether or not what I was dong is "bad".

[findingnemo]

I think you are stretching it a lot there, really. Every person the MP claims to love is hurt?? My man loves his mum, and his siblings and they've been overjoyed he moved on AND met someone who makes him happy.

 

Even his wife (who claimed to love him...) who was hurt by the affair said that they probably should have stayed split the first time around.

 

And then there's those who do hurt people in their life, maybe by willfully losing their job, or gambling, or whatever. I don't know that we can lable those 'bad' people. Bad decisions, lazy attitude, foolishness, but I have met some 'bad' people and some of them will cheat, some won't. And some people who cheat will be 'bad' and some won't.

 

Silly Girl,

 

I didn't label anyone bad and would never use such a universal label. In the same vein, I think labeling people good is a cover up of sorts. When an A is discovered, everybody gets hurt.

 

Even an MP's siblings get hurt. This doesn't mean they wont love and accept them. MILs and parents of the MP get hurt too. Most people are disappointed by the lying and the cheating. It doesn't mean that MPs' are "bad" people, but they aren't good either. At least not in that moment. That's why I don't like the title of the book.

[Silly_Girl]

Silly Girl,

 

I didn't label anyone bad and would never use such a universal label. In the same vein, I think labeling people good is a cover up of sorts. When an A is discovered, everybody gets hurt.

 

Even an MP's siblings get hurt. This doesn't mean they wont love and accept them. MILs and parents of the MP get hurt too. Most people are disappointed by the lying and the cheating. It doesn't mean that MPs' are "bad" people, but they aren't good either. At least not in that moment. That's why I don't like the title of the book.

 

You asked whether we could call someone 'good' if they were having an A destined to hurt everyone they love?

 

My answer is two- fold. Firstly, yes a good person can do something you don't approve of. We none of us are defined by a single act or discrete period of time. But there are lines and boundaries around that.

 

And no, I can 100% assure you, without a shadow of a doubt, that my boyfriend's siblings were not HURT when they heard of his affair with me. They were cautious (concerned he was struggling due to his situation) and latterly thrilled.

 

How is it you believe they must have been hurt? Is this based on something in your own family?

[donnamaybe]

In every case? Really? You persist with that view even in response to someone who posted that that was explicitly not the case?

Did the other poster say explicitly that that NEVER happened? Did the above poster say it ALWAYS happened?

[Silly_Girl]

Did the other poster say explicitly that that NEVER happened? Did the above poster say it ALWAYS happened?

 

No. I said it didn't happen in my case. FN replied that it happens in every case.

[2sunny]

I see bad behavior as separate from the persons core being.

 

Many people- at times - exhibit bad behavior - for a number of reasons - I don't always need to know why... But if it seems to ba part their core being, that tells me about their character.

 

Their moral compass long term and with consistency (and how others are affected by their words and actions) tells/shows me whether or not they INTEND to spread love in the world or harm.

 

What they DO tells me most of what I need to understand.

 

IF they are selfish and thinking of themself - that would never work for me.

 

Does a person in an affair spend time and energy thinking of themselves - usually! Do they also spend time and energy trying to get what they want? - usually. Do those actions tend to cause others harm? - usually.

 

Good reasons why I never date any man until his divorce is final.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I am JUST speaking for myself.

 

Entitling a book "When GOOD People Have Affairs" is making a very obvious moral judgement, right? Introducing a book with such a title is inviting a discussion on moral values, like "GOODNESS," isn't it? And assuming that there are "GOOD" people having affairs also means that affairs are being had by the not so good people, right?

 

I can't know if anyone here is really a "good" or a "bad" person, but I think it's fair for me to apply my own morality to the situation that is presented in this OP, without earning the label of "moral-antagonist."

 

Here it is:

 

I believe that people who are inherently "good" can make very "bad" decisions, mistakes, choices, behavior.

 

I even think that such "good" people can become so entrenched in those "bad" things that they loose touch with their own power to change them. Lots

of destruction can be wrought because of the human weakness of the "good" person who is doing wrong.

 

BUT - there is still another line to be crossed, and that is when the so - called (usually by themselves! ) "good" person becomes completely invested in pleasing themselves and abandons any sense of accountability or moral obligation to the traits valued IN OUR CULTURE like honesty, fairness, honor, unselfishness, etc - NOT because they have got themselves in over their head in a mess, but because they WANT to deceive in order to please themselves.

 

Sociopaths live that way 100% of their lives. They are not "GOOD" people. Not to say that some of those extreme rationalizers and justifiers among the affair boosting community here are sociopaths. I'm not saying that.

 

But, when a person lives like that - then I personally could not view them as a GOOD person.

[Severely Unamused]

I take it the second bolded statement is your own. It sounds too sensible for this author and would negate her title.

 

Nope. It was from somebody that reviewed this book.

[nofool4u]

I recently read Mira Kirshenbaum's "When Good People Have Affairs"

 

I do love a good book from the fiction section now and then.

[SoMovinOn]

I just find it rather odd that you side with those who justify cheating for romantic reasons.

 

I don't intend to side with anyone, but I can see how it might appear that way. Really, I just read posts and respond to them individually. I think I am most often addressing individual concepts or ideas, without regard for the whole of the message (for example, judging people for all they are and do, rather than based on a single action).

 

And certainly you can understand why I visit LS four years after DDAY. i come here to deal with my resentment. And my resentment is huge.

 

I understand what you're dealing with, but on a personal level, I don't understand why you hold on to it this long. I know I'm unusual, but I just can't hold onto anything bad for very long. I used to. I realized how toxic it is, how it eats away at you, destroys you, consumes you. I decided I'd rather get rid of it, move forward to whatever good things were ahead of me. I don't know *how* I do that, other than to say, I just do - I just let it go.

 

I was actually considering starting a thread asking about long term posters here - why they are still here, if they are still holding onto pain, hurt, resentment - if so, why? ... perhaps I should.

[SoMovinOn]

SMO, I agree that for some people conflict avoidance is or rather, can be one of the reasons people have A's rather than look at, talk about or admit that they have issues that need to be discussed with the person they are sharing their life with. It isn't just BS who bury their heads in the sand, many times it is the BS who asks and asks what the problem is only to be told nothing, or worse still, have things turned around so they are the problem. I still cannot for the life of me understand how an A is easier than talking, nor do I think that it gives someone carte blanche to lie.

 

Totally agree. Some people lie only because they are cowards. I don't think anything gives anyone carte blanche to lie. Saying I understand why people do, doesn't mean I approve.

 

 

Drugs, alcohol, gambling I could have dealt with, breaking trust and playing with my emotions took longer.

 

The context in which I brought up those and other examples was as things people lie about and hide from their spouses. In that respect, I would think the lies and deceit should result in the same destruction of trust. Somehow though, it is my impression that is usually not the case.

[SoMovinOn]

Perhaps a change in methodology is in order. Rather than having people on this board say "Well hey, I'm not so bad and neither is this affair (I thought that life was so morally complex that words like good or bad were redundant. Hence why the title of this book sounds like a cheesy marketing ploy and nothing more)" one could say "I know that what I'm doing is ethically wrong in respect to person X's feelings, but I simply don't care enough to stop because of my own personal reasons".

 

Of course, this is a rather callous way of putting it. Maybe people don't like admitting that they are more callous than they think they are?

 

I have said that about my A with my GF from the beginning - that we choose to be involved in our R now for nothing more than selfish reasons, because we want to, because we don't want to wait until we are both D.

[SoMovinOn]

I wouldn't say that I am the one to say whether or not what I was dong is "bad".

 

I am more of a realist than that sprouts. When I do something "bad", I know it's bad, I will acknowledge it's bad, and tell you it is my choice to do it and I am fine dealing with whatever consequences there may be.

[Severely Unamused]

I do love a good book from the fiction section now and then.

 

What happened to not judging a book by its cover?

 

I have said that about my A with my GF from the beginning - that we choose to be involved in our R now for nothing more than selfish reasons, because we want to, because we don't want to wait until we are both D.

 

I understand. While my stbxH was the one involved in an affair, I consider myself to be more unethical and selfish overall. I do feel that it is important to accept personal responsibility when I do my dirty deeds.

 

My belief in this type of thinking has little to do with morals or ethics. I just find it illogical to deny something (in one's own mind) that is basically true on some level, just to feel better.

 

For instance, would you agree that practising long-term deception is inherently manipulative and controlling? Now, we are all free to think of ourselves as "good people" but we do have to acknowledge that (during the period of deception, at least) we are demonstrating extremely manipulative and controlling behaviour. It just seems...emotionally cowardly to downplay our uglier aspects (IMO).

 

SMO, I actually wonder about your gf's husband. Do you suppose that he is the introspective type? Or simply an emotional coward? I'm leaning towards the latter even though I don't know him.

 

The reason I bring this up is because...while I do have some experience with abusive men, I can honestly only think of two men that didn't delude themselves with their acts of cruelty. I don't include recovering alcoholics/drug addicts that acknowledged and halted their abusive actions once they got help.

[findingnemo]

You asked whether we could call someone 'good' if they were having an A destined to hurt everyone they love?

 

My answer is two- fold. Firstly, yes a good person can do something you don't approve of. We none of us are defined by a single act or discrete period of time. But there are lines and boundaries around that.

 

And no, I can 100% assure you, without a shadow of a doubt, that my boyfriend's siblings were not HURT when they heard of his affair with me. They were cautious (concerned he was struggling due to his situation) and latterly thrilled.

 

How is it you believe they must have been hurt? Is this based on something in your own family?

 

All that is true but my argument is about the use of that title. It's an oxymoron to say that a good person is having an affair!!! As include lying, smearing around, gas lighting, living a double life. There is no way (however liberal one is) that that behaviour can be considered good in that moment or any other moment for that matter.

 

Another thing, whose talking about your A specifically? I'm talking about As in general. People get hurt and it doesn't have to be the same people for each A. I can't figure out what triggered your reaction? There hasn't been an A in my family that hurt my siblings. In fact my siblings hated my H's guts so much that when I told them about his As, they couldn't care less. It was just a confirmation of what they thought of him.

[findingnemo]

Did the other poster say explicitly that that NEVER happened? Did the above poster say it ALWAYS happened?

 

Thank you.:bunny:

[findingnemo]

What happened to not judging a book by its cover?

 

 

 

I understand. While my stbxH was the one involved in an affair, I consider myself to be more unethical and selfish overall. I do feel that it is important to accept personal responsibility when I do my dirty deeds.

 

My belief in this type of thinking has little to do with morals or ethics. I just find it illogical to deny something (in one's own mind) that is basically true on some level, just to feel better.

 

For instance, would you agree that practising long-term deception is inherently manipulative and controlling? Now, we are all free to think of ourselves as "good people" but we do have to acknowledge that (during the period of deception, at least) we are demonstrating extremely manipulative and controlling behaviour. It just seems...emotionally cowardly to downplay our uglier aspects (IMO).

 

SMO, I actually wonder about your gf's husband. Do you suppose that he is the introspective type? Or simply an emotional coward? I'm leaning towards the latter even though I don't know him.

 

The reason I bring this up is because...while I do have some experience with abusive men, I can honestly only think of two men that didn't delude themselves with their acts of cruelty. I don't include recovering alcoholics/drug addicts that acknowledged and halted their abusive actions once they got help.

 

That's my issue with the books title. How many people say that being in an A is a good thing in of itself? It's ok to be delusional but it's not okay for people side-step reality to sell a book? Why do normally good people engage in bad behaviour? Why would an otherwise good person have an A? Now that's a title that would ring true without white-washing the bad act.

 

Just as I think labeling a person a bad parent because of an A is taking things too far, I feel that labeling a person good who is an A is extremist. Fairness, principles and honesty are to me the definition of good ( one could add a lot more qualities here). But when in an A, those 3 things cease to be true for the duration of the A. Why not say I'm a good person but I made a bad judgement? All it takes really is emotional maturity.

 

I just can't get over the title and so perhaps find that my responses are kind of fixated on the whole "good" thing. As for the advice on what to do to help you choose between staying M and leaving for your AP, heck the more advice there is the better for everybody concerned.

[Elizabeth Southerns]

Why do normally good people engage in bad behaviour? Why would an otherwise good person have an A? Now that's a title that would ring true without white-washing the bad act.

 

That is exactly the premise of the book. The book does not claim that having an A makes someone a good person. But it does recognise that good people can also find themselves having As, and that those people may want to understand why that happened and how they can address their situation to restore some semblance of the "goodness" they associate with themselves.

[seren]

That is exactly the premise of the book. The book does not claim that having an A makes someone a good person. But it does recognise that good people can also find themselves having As, and that those people may want to understand why that happened and how they can address their situation to restore some semblance of the "goodness" they associate with themselves.

 

I like this, of course good people do all sorts of things they might not otherwise do. Good people may have A's, doesn't make the decision to have an A good.

[Elizabeth Southerns]

I like this, of course good people do all sorts of things they might not otherwise do. Good people may have A's, doesn't make the decision to have an A good.

 

No, the author would agree with that!

 

The book is aimed at those "good people" who find themselves in an A, to help them resolve the situation that led to them having the A, so that they can move beyond it - either to reconcile and rebuild the M, or to leave the M (whether to be with the AP or not). The book does not aim to support people to continue in an A - it sees that as a lack of resolution.

 

If the book saw being in an A as a good decision, it would encourage people to have, and to remain in, As - which is not what it's about, at all.

[donnamaybe]

I agree there is no such thing as "finding oneself in an A." It takes a long process of decisions that are no accident.

[silktricks]

I was actually considering starting a thread asking about long term posters here - why they are still here, if they are still holding onto pain, hurt, resentment - if so, why? ... perhaps I should.

 

Good idea - though if you phrase it as stated, some people will assume you intend to imply that we should not post here.

[Silly_Girl]

. It's an oxymoron to say that a good person is having an affair!!!

 

Perhaps in your view. So are people automatically 'bad' if they engage in an affair? Or just can't be called good?

[Silly_Girl]

Another thing, whose talking about your A specifically? I'm talking about As in general. People get hurt and it doesn't have to be the same people for each A. I can't figure out what triggered your reaction? There hasn't been an A in my family that hurt my siblings. In fact my siblings hated my H's guts so much that when I told them about his As, they couldn't care less. It was just a confirmation of what they thought of him.

 

You replied to me (below) and said siblings 'would' be hurt by an affair. As I know it's not the case, and have never really come across that in my life, I wondered what meant that you had that view? Wondered if it was based on anything or just assumptions.

 

 

When an A is discovered, everybody gets hurt.

 

Even an MP's siblings get hurt. This doesn't mean they wont love and accept them. MILs and parents of the MP get hurt too. Most people are disappointed by the lying and the cheating.

[nofool4u]

What happened to not judging a book by its cover?

 

 

First show me where I ever said that.