Being the OW

[scatterd]

Baily was you talking to me I went along with the post ahead of me I am slow at writing. I just added I wish you happiness in the end of my post.I guess I should have wrote and off the subject Bailey I wish you my best.

[ThatJustHappened]

Interesting, none of these kind of things factored in for me at all. But then again, being the OW is not against my moral system as it is yours. Maybe because of that you had a real need to justify to yourself what you were doing?

 

But don't you see? That is your justification, right there. You've designed a whole new moral system for yourself that fits perfectly with your situation and you use it as a way to absolve yourself of any guilt or responsibility. So that answers the original question.

[Bailey14]

Baily was you talking to me I went along with the post ahead of me I am slow at writing. I just added I wish you happiness in the end of my post.I guess I should have wrote and off the subject Bailey I wish you my best.

 

Thank you.

[trinity1]

But don't you see? That is your justification, right there. You've designed a whole new moral system for yourself that fits perfectly with your situation and you use it as a way to absolve yourself of any guilt or responsibility. So that answers the original question.

 

Well, it would have been true if I had designed it now when I am the OW. But it's the same moral system I had all those years as the BS of two serial cheaters.

[AnotherRound]

But don't you see? That is your justification, right there. You've designed a whole new moral system for yourself that fits perfectly with your situation and you use it as a way to absolve yourself of any guilt or responsibility. So that answers the original question.

 

I disagree. It's not a "whole new moral system" for her situation. It is HER moral system - which just happens to be different from yours. Morals are not the same across all people. In fact, the only thing that is taboo in MOST cultures is incest - and that is even acceptable in some. There is nothing that is ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong. Nothing. Not even murder.

 

The fact that some think that their moral code should apply to everyone is interesting to me. How do religious people adjust to the fact that they all have a different set of rules re what is right and what is wrong? And, what ever gave you the impression that YOUR morals are what everyone's should be? Or, that yours are correct? How do you know that yours are correct? Because more people agree with you?

 

The Nazis had a LOT of people behind them, agreeing with them. It did NOT make them right, or correct. It just made them more powerful in numbers. That has little to do with determining what is right or wrong.

[ThatJustHappened]

I disagree. It's not a "whole new moral system" for her situation. It is HER moral system - which just happens to be different from yours. Morals are not the same across all people. In fact, the only thing that is taboo in MOST cultures is incest - and that is even acceptable in some. There is nothing that is ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong. Nothing. Not even murder.

 

The fact that some think that their moral code should apply to everyone is interesting to me. How do religious people adjust to the fact that they all have a different set of rules re what is right and what is wrong? And, what ever gave you the impression that YOUR morals are what everyone's should be? Or, that yours are correct? How do you know that yours are correct? Because more people agree with you?

 

The Nazis had a LOT of people behind them, agreeing with them. It did NOT make them right, or correct. It just made them more powerful in numbers. That has little to do with determining what is right or wrong.

 

So you're comparing being an OW to being a Nazi? That's awfully harsh! I wouldn't go that far. But the Nazis were just following their own rules..just because you disagree with what they did, according to your logic, that doesn't make them wrong.

 

How do religious people adjust? Sometimes they start concentration camps, or fly planes into big tall towers or start wars or kidnap children and force them into sex slavery rings. That's how. But that was part of their moral code, so it's all ok right? Because we should all get to make up our own rules, right?

 

But that's on a pretty grand scale. People involved with affairs are only hurting one person. Or possibly 2 or 3 if the married person has children. So that's ok, right?

[AnotherRound]

So you're comparing being an OW to being a Nazi? That's awfully harsh! I wouldn't go that far. But the Nazis were just following their own rules..just because you disagree with what they did, according to your logic, that doesn't make them wrong.

 

How do religious people adjust? Sometimes they start concentration camps, or fly planes into big tall towers or start wars or kidnap children and force them into sex slavery rings. That's how. But that was part of their moral code, so it's all ok right? Because we should all get to make up our own rules, right?

 

But that's on a pretty grand scale. People involved with affairs are only hurting one person. Or possibly 2 or 3 if the married person has children. So that's ok, right?

 

Nope, just showing you an example where a LOT of people were convinced that they were right, but weren't necessarily so. I don't care if I stand alone, I don't need numbers behind me or a lot of support. I'm okay with that, that in itself does not convince me that YOUR moral code is right and mine is wrong. It just proves what I already know, that they are different.

 

To expect everyone to believe the way that you do is pretty self righteous. You obviously know that there are situations and cultures who believe that murder is okay. So, are they wrong? Not necessarily, just because they disagree with you, just different.

 

And, I do believe that we should not try to make the whole world think and believe like we do. So, no, I don't agree with terrorism in the name of religion. And I'm not saying everyone has their own rules - we all follow the rules of where we live. There is no "rule" in the US that affairs are illegal, so that's not breaking a rule. That's a moral issue. And one size does not fit all, as with anything moral. Abortion is the same way - with some just knowing that they are "right", believing that they have moral superiority. When in reality, there are obviously different sets of morals from different people. How do you decide who's right? Or do you truly believe that anyone who agrees with you is right bc you have it all figured out?

[truthbetold]

What does Catholism,Protestants, Judism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Spiritulist, Native American Religion, African Religion and ALL other faiths have in Common?

 

If you believe in Jesus the Golden Rule applies, to do first unto others.

 

According to The Dali Lama They all have Compassion, Sense of Right and Wrong, Love, Kindness, Empathy, Forgiveness and doing things for others.

 

That's a whole lot of people combined. Of course there are the Agnostics and Atheists however even they ususally live by some type of self imposed moral code of bringing no harm to others otherwise they'd probably not adhere to societal rules.

[woinlove]

AR, keep in mind that the topic of this thread is how does an OW justify her A, then modified to, how does an OW reconcile an A knowing the potential pain of a BW (as Bailey does). This is a very interesting topic. And to fully debate it, one needs to come to agreement on WHY one needs to justify or reconcile the A. For those who feel there is nothing wrong with affairs, there really is nothing to justify or reconcile and so not much to say on the topic of this thread, except possibly to note that they don't need to justify/reconcile or perhaps note that they understand why others do (if they do) and discuss what they think might be relevant for others who do need to justify/reconcile.

 

In other words, acknowledging what many see wrong with dishonesty, deception, betrayal, hurting others (potentially or otherwise), is a key part to the topic of this thread, even if there are some people who see nothing wrong with this. Bailey has explained that the BW is a wonderful woman whom she would not want to see hurt and presumably suspects nothing about the A and thinks Bailey and MM are just friends. Bailey, who herself has been a BW, sees both the wrong in this and the positive she gets from it. I repeat all this, just because it is important to keep the topic/purpose of the thread in mind.

[AnotherRound]

What does Catholism,Protestants, Judism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Spiritulist, Native American Religion, African Religion and ALL other faiths have in Common?

 

If you believe in Jesus the Golden Rule applies, to do first unto others.

 

According to The Dali Lama They all have Compassion, Sense of Right and Wrong, Love, Kindness, Empathy, Forgiveness and doing things for others.

 

That's a whole lot of people combined. Of course there are the Agnostics and Atheists however even they ususally live by some type of self imposed moral code of bringing no harm to others otherwise they'd probably not adhere to societal rules.

 

Um... there are MANY religions that do not believe in jesus. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here? And doing no harm can mean a LOT of different things to a lot of different people. I don't disagree that there are a LOT of religious people in this world (although those numbers are shrinking quite rapidly each new generation, a phenomenon that is interesting to study), but they all have different beliefs, and they can't all be right.

 

If they truly do share some basic tenements, the details remain different. Obviously, there are people who believe that murder in the name of their god is acceptable - in fact, required, morally. Hence 9/11 for the US. I guess you can say that are "wrong". I simply say that I "disagree". I don't know if their actions are "wrong" or not. According to MY moral code, yes, they are outside of what I consider acceptable. But, I would never be so presumptuous to assume that I'm correct and they are not - bc I honestly have NO idea. Maybe their god is the "real" god. Maybe Allah is the real god and expects all humans to do this in his name. Maybe they have it right. How the heck do I know? I think it's delusional to be convinced that you got it right and anyone who disagrees has it wrong, bc you can't possibly KNOW the things you are stating you "know". You might strongly believe them, or have faith, or gut feelings, or whatever. But you cannot KNOW that you are right, there is no possible way to KNOW that.

[AnotherRound]

Owinlove - Okay, this is the second (maybe third?) time you are asking me to not contribute to a thread. Bc you don't see the value in my contribution, again, does not make it not have value. I feel I am on topic as we were talking about justifying an A, and I didn't feel the need to, which naturally led to a discussion of morality. How is that not on topic?

 

I appreciate your feedback, but if you are not finding the value of my posts, you may place me on ignore so that you aren't seeing them. It won't hurt my feelings at all. Like I said, if the OP points out to me that I am taking the topic off or a moderator does, I will gladly stop responding. I've yet to hear it from anyone but you. So, again, I value your input, and am okay if you don't value mine, or think it's not "on topic". I obviously think it is, or I wouldn't contribute it since I am quite aware of the forum guidelines. Thanks.

[truthbetold]

Um... there are MANY religions that do not believe in jesus. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here? And doing no harm can mean a LOT of different things to a lot of different people. I don't disagree that there are a LOT of religious people in this world (although those numbers are shrinking quite rapidly each new generation, a phenomenon that is interesting to study), but they all have different beliefs, and they can't all be right.

 

If they truly do share some basic tenements, the details remain different. Obviously, there are people who believe that murder in the name of their god is acceptable - in fact, required, morally. Hence 9/11 for the US. I guess you can say that are "wrong". I simply say that I "disagree". I don't know if their actions are "wrong" or not. According to MY moral code, yes, they are outside of what I consider acceptable. But, I would never be so presumptuous to assume that I'm correct and they are not - bc I honestly have NO idea. Maybe their god is the "real" god. Maybe Allah is the real god and expects all humans to do this in his name. Maybe they have it right. How the heck do I know? I think it's delusional to be convinced that you got it right and anyone who disagrees has it wrong, bc you can't possibly KNOW the things you are stating you "know". You might strongly believe them, or have faith, or gut feelings, or whatever. But you cannot KNOW that you are right, there is no possible way to KNOW that.

 

You completely missed my point. I GOT that not every religion believes in Jesus. Did you happenn to miss my reference to Buddahism or American Indian? My point is they ALL share the basic theme to bring no harm to people. To strive for peace and harmony an affair is hardly conducive to that.

 

As far as 9/11 and lumping in all Muslims have that belief it was justified??? You're kidding right? True Muslims are HORRIFIED of what some twisted group did in "Allah's" name.

[Bailey14]

I want all of you to know how much I value your input. There is a striking amount of thoughtfulness in this thread. Thank you.

 

In a very sad turn of events my MM has just found out his 29 year son has a malignant brain tumor. If you are so inclined, please say a prayer for him.

[woinlove]

Owinlove - Okay, this is the second (maybe third?) time you are asking me to not contribute to a thread. Bc you don't see the value in my contribution, again, does not make it not have value. I feel I am on topic as we were talking about justifying an A, and I didn't feel the need to, which naturally led to a discussion of morality. How is that not on topic?

 

I appreciate your feedback, but if you are not finding the value of my posts, you may place me on ignore so that you aren't seeing them. It won't hurt my feelings at all. Like I said, if the OP points out to me that I am taking the topic off or a moderator does, I will gladly stop responding. I've yet to hear it from anyone but you. So, again, I value your input, and am okay if you don't value mine, or think it's not "on topic". I obviously think it is, or I wouldn't contribute it since I am quite aware of the forum guidelines. Thanks.

 

No, rather the opposite, in fact. I was prompted by you suggesting people posting what they thought was wrong about cheating should not be posting as they are, and saying that was directly relevant to this thread - to understand that perspective. The other incidences you refer to were when you were talking about an R that did not involve a BS or WS - completely different. Don't see the connection you make between the two.

[woinlove]

I want all of you to know how much I value your input. There is a striking amount of thoughtfulness in this thread. Thank you.

 

In a very sad turn of events my MM has just found out his 29 year son has a malignant brain tumor. If you are so inclined, please say a prayer for him.

 

So sorry to hear that, Bailey. So much recent sadness has touched your life.

[AnotherRound]

You completely missed my point. I GOT that not every religion believes in Jesus. Did you happenn to miss my reference to Buddahism or American Indian? My point is they ALL share the basic theme to bring no harm to people. To strive for peace and harmony an affair is hardly conducive to that.

 

As far as 9/11 and lumping in all Muslims have that belief it was justified??? You're kidding right? True Muslims are HORRIFIED of what some twisted group did in "Allah's" name.

 

No, I didn't miss your point. I thought maybe I misunderstood that "all religions" and then the reference to jesus, that's why I asked for clarification.

 

And then I addressed that doing no harm can mean different things to different people. And to some, flying planes into skyscrapers IS striving for peach and harmony bc they believe that what they are destroying is against their god, or satanic, or whatever.

 

I didn't say all Muslims... I said that some that believe that Allah is telling them to sacrifice for him, that it is the MORAL and RIGHT thing to do. And obviously, all of these beliefs are open to interpretation, as clearly shown in the Muslim world - where they even disagree on the basics of the word of their god. That's my point exactly. There is no way to KNOW who is right and who is wrong - if there even is a right and wrong. There is just NO way. They could be right, and you could be wrong. You don't KNOW. You think, and you believe, and you have faith, and all that... but you cannot KNOW the unknowable.

 

I'm just pointing out that there are MANY different groups who "know" that they are right. Which, with deductive reasoning, tells me, that there is NO way to know who is right and who is wrong. That morality is a crap shoot - you are guessing as much as everyone else is. You might be convinced that you have it right, but I think you have just as much chance at having it wrong as anyone else (although you obviously disagree). And, the fact that there are so many people telling me that they KNOW they are right - well, I just accept that I can't know. Bc I'm not going to pretend to know things I cannot know. I will tell you what I think, and what I believe, but I will never pretend it is FACT simply bc I believe it.

[MissBee]

I think the position of having "no position" is very useful or having unnamed or unclear ones....the idea of moving targets comes to mind. If you have a clear position, you can be made accountable to a certain standard. If you have none...then you can ALWAYS say, well "those are not my morals" [while said morals are NEVER delineated] or "well who knows if xyz is REALLY right?"

 

Maybe it's just me...but I find it a weak position, esp in terms of discussion, it's like attempting to speak a language without speaking any language in particular .

 

I just find it a very suspicious move to make frankly. At least state what your morals ARE and then we can go from there. At least we can all know where you're coming from, but to speak about these morals you have that differ from other people's but no one knows exactly what they are is pointless....but good for those who want to have that slip and slide position of no position, except the position most useful at this time.

 

Criticizing other people's beliefs or questioning its rightness is futile. We were discussing that in one of my graduate seminars, and the idea was that our job while doing ethnography on religious communities is not to decide or figure out if phenomena is real or not. We cannot know that. We just know that people believe it is real and this belief influences their actions in the world. That's what matters and is no different from other "social facts". There are lots of socially constructed notions that are "not real" but people believe them to be solid and real and it influences behavior...so that's what we care about, the behavior in light of this perception.

 

Most humans have a set of codes and values, whether religious or not, that they adhere to. I feel like arguing about well can it really be right is a thinly veiled way of trying to be exempt from accountability by attempting a weak argument at not ever being able to know "absolute truth". No one can know absolute truth...even scientific findings get modified...but it doesn't mean we all freeze life until "absolute truth" is found .....what humans do is create beliefs, scientific, social, religious etc and live by them until something that makes more sense comes along. My question would be then to those saying they have a different value system or you can't know what's right from wrong (????).....OKAY fine...what do YOU believe and live by? That to me is a more useful line of discussion versus talking in circles and zigzags about undefined "different morals" and philosophical musings about the nature of reality and truth. Yea yea ...we can talk about that for fun...but in real life, everyday, what do you live by and teach your kids and hold yourself to and how does that affect you being the OW?

[AnotherRound]

No, rather the opposite, in fact. I was prompted by you suggesting people posting what they thought was wrong about cheating should not be posting as they are, and saying that was directly relevant to this thread - to understand that perspective. The other incidences you refer to were when you were talking about an R that did not involve a BS or WS - completely different. Don't see the connection you make between the two.[/quote

 

I don't remember ever telling anyone in someone else's thread that they "should not be posting as they are". Are you sure I wasn't just disagreeing with them? And, I may have two different things mixed up in that I'm not sure how many times you have addressed me bc you thought I was "off topic" or that my situation wasn't relevant to the discussion.

 

But, as far as I know, I don't normally tell people what they should or shouldn't post, but I do disagree or agree with different things. In my own threads, yes, I am much more forward with asking people to stay OT.

[AnotherRound]

I think the position of having "no position" is very useful or having unnamed or unclear ones....the idea of moving targets comes to mind. If you have a clear position, you can be made accountable to a certain standard. If you have none...then you can ALWAYS say, well "those are not my morals" [while said morals are NEVER delineated] or "well who knows if xyz is REALLY right?"

 

Maybe it's just me...but I find it a weak position, esp in terms of discussion, it's like attempting to speak a language without speaking any language in particular .

 

I just find it a very suspicious move to make frankly. At least state what your morals ARE and then we can go from there. At least we can all know where you're coming from, but to speak about these morals you have that differ from other people's but no one knows exactly what they are is pointless....but good for those who want to have that slip and slide position of no position, except the position most useful at this time.

 

Criticizing other people's beliefs or questioning its rightness is futile. We were discussing that in one of my graduate seminars, and the idea was that our job while doing ethnography on religious communities is not to decide or figure out if phenomena is real or not. We cannot know that. We just know that people believe it is real and this belief influences their actions in the world. That's what matters and is no different from other "social facts". There are lots of socially constructed notions that are "not real" but people believe them to be solid and real and it influences behavior...so that's what we care about, the behavior in light of this perception.

 

Most humans have a set of codes and values, whether religious or not, that they adhere to. I feel like arguing about well can it really be right is a thinly veiled way of trying to be exempt from accountability by attempting a weak argument at not ever being able to know "absolute truth". No one can know absolute truth...even scientific findings get modified...but it doesn't mean we all freeze life until "absolute truth" is found .....what humans do is create beliefs, scientific, social, religious etc and live by them until something that makes more sense comes along. My question would be then to those saying they have a different value system or you can't know what's right from wrong (????).....OKAY fine...what do YOU believe and live by? That to me is a more useful line of discussion versus talking in circles and zigzags about undefined "different morals" and philosophical musings about the nature of reality and truth. Yea yea ...we can talk about that for fun...but in real life, everyday, what do you live by and teach your kids and hold yourself to and how does that affect you being the OW?

 

Not sure if this was indirectly addressing me, but I have been quite clear on what MY moral code is. For instance, I wouldn't haze or bully anyone else ever, nor would I stand by and allow it. As far as As go, I would never willingly enter into a relationship with a MM, and I would never participate in lying to someone else as and AP.

 

I think the point here was the ? asked how does one justify their A - which I responded does not always need to be "justified", depending on the circumstances and details, and that led into a discussion about morality bc we define what is right or wrong by our own moral codes - and my point was simply that these codes are relative and differ form person to person.

 

It's interesting that you think my stance, in not having an absolute right or wrong, is weaker than the other stance of having an absolute. I think quite the opposite, as I have to put a lot more thought into the world around me when there is a moral question, I can't just go into "auto pilot" and pick A or B. I have to research and consider a LOT of information before I feel comfortable coming to a conclusion, not just an off the cuff yes or no. So, maybe my way "looks" easier to you, but I would have to adamantly disagree with that.

[AnotherRound]

I want all of you to know how much I value your input. There is a striking amount of thoughtfulness in this thread. Thank you.

 

In a very sad turn of events my MM has just found out his 29 year son has a malignant brain tumor. If you are so inclined, please say a prayer for him.

 

So sorry Bailey I don't pray, but healing energy and positive thoughts coming your and their way.

[Bailey14]

So sorry Bailey I don't pray, but healing energy and positive thoughts coming your and their way.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful posts. I appreciate the effort you put into them. And thank you for your positive thoughts.

[MissBee]

Not sure if this was indirectly addressing me, but I have been quite clear on what MY moral code is. For instance, I wouldn't haze or bully anyone else ever, nor would I stand by and allow it. As far as As go, I would never willingly enter into a relationship with a MM, and I would never participate in lying to someone else as and AP.

 

I think the point here was the ? asked how does one justify their A - which I responded does not always need to be "justified", depending on the circumstances and details, and that led into a discussion about morality bc we define what is right or wrong by our own moral codes - and my point was simply that these codes are relative and differ form person to person.

 

It's interesting that you think my stance, in not having an absolute right or wrong, is weaker than the other stance of having an absolute. I think quite the opposite, as I have to put a lot more thought into the world around me when there is a moral question, I can't just go into "auto pilot" and pick A or B. I have to research and consider a LOT of information before I feel comfortable coming to a conclusion, not just an off the cuff yes or no. So, maybe my way "looks" easier to you, but I would have to adamantly disagree with that.

 

TBH I'm not sure what you're speaking about. I was not specifically speaking about you but really any OW or any person whose response is "well I have different morals" but doesn't seem to make explicit what those are. I still don't know what they are. You simply gave me two examples of things you wouldn't do...that's not a moral code. I never said your way was easier...as I'm not sure what your way is. I'm saying when you're in a room full of people who seem to share similar morals and yours differ so greatly...it's useful to explain what yours are, since evidently most of the people don't know and that helps the conversation as if I know what code you're operating on it is easier to have ethical discussions, versus someone simply informing me it is "different". Different how?

 

A moral code in my mind is more general versus citing specific things you wouldn't do. A moral code is a pretty general code and then specific behaviors fall under it. The ten commandments, just by way of example is a code. It is general and then different everyday behaviors can fall under it. One wouldn't say thou shalt not bully or thou shalt not steal a bicycle as those are specific behaviors that a larger code can encompass.

 

Having absolute yeses and nos, does not allow one to relinquish critical thinking, choices and does not prevent flexibility. I have lots of absolute nos...some choices don't fall into an either or and those things I weigh and have to be pragmatic about, while still following some guidelines. Guidelines/moral codes are just that....they aren't a script for life where you are programmed to say yes or no and act without thinking...I think that is very simplistic. Businesses, schools etc have some ethos, motto, guideline for the kind of institutions they want to be. They may have guidelines for behavior or words to live by but generally people are flexible in the lived application...not robotic. The guidelines is simply that...a guide. One can be able to have a firm stance while having room for creativity, flexibility and reorganizing as you see fit. I think the best people in the world that most have come to respect are people who have firm stances but also are creative in their application and are empathetic and the best businesses and schools etc are those that can be differentiated from others by their specific stance and they're not lost in the land of no land where nothing is sure, just depends on how the wind blows. The saying "don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out" comes to mind.

[woinlove]

 

I don't remember ever telling anyone in someone else's thread that they "should not be posting as they are". Are you sure I wasn't just disagreeing with them? And, I may have two different things mixed up in that I'm not sure how many times you have addressed me bc you thought I was "off topic" or that my situation wasn't relevant to the discussion.

 

But, as far as I know, I don't normally tell people what they should or shouldn't post, but I do disagree or agree with different things. In my own threads, yes, I am much more forward with asking people to stay OT.

 

Again, I wasn't saying you were off-topic, but saying that those posting about why affairs are hurtful and/or wrong were on-topic, offering a needed perspective to this topic, and understanding that is a useful step to addressing why one would want to justify or reconcile the A. If your posts were not implying otherwise, my misinterpretation.

[whichwayisup]

I want all of you to know how much I value your input. There is a striking amount of thoughtfulness in this thread. Thank you.

 

In a very sad turn of events my MM has just found out his 29 year son has a malignant brain tumor. If you are so inclined, please say a prayer for him.

 

Too young to go through something like this...Positive thoughts only, k. Thoughts and prayers to your MM's son and his family.

[AnotherRound]

Bailey, you're welcome on the posts. I really do try to see the situation from all angles and share anything that may be helpful. I know that you have a lot going on right now, and I just don't want you to get discouraged or downtrodden bc of negative attitudes here. We all have good in us, we all make mistakes, we all make choices that we have to come to terms with sometimes - it does not define you, nor make you a "bad" person. I will always try to see the good in everyone, including you - I have no reason to judge you or your decisions, as I'm human and muddling through too. So, if anything I share is helpful, then that's all I can ask for - that at least one person takes something from what I say here, even the small amount of comfort I might provide to someone else is worth the hassle of dealing with the rest. Hang in there - you're in my thoughts.

Edited September 24, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator