Trashing the house

[ComingInHot]

If BOTH my husband and I don't "invite" you in, well, then you shouldn't be coming in to OUR house. The marriage vow, and the two become ONE comes to mind so anything one does w/or to a third party involves the other.

Edited November 13, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[ComingInHot]

Trin;

 

When we got married it was stated to foresake all others And to let no person come in & put US under. So yes, I expected that from my husband and ALL others outside our Unity to respect as that is what it means to Be married.

 

We have FRIENDS of the marriage and we Purge enemies of the marriage.

 

My husband can and does (so do I) have relationships ( friends) outside our marriage but they all support our marriage ultimately.

[woinlove]

If BOTH my husband and I don't "invite" you in, well, then you shouldn't be coming in to OUR house. The marriage vow, and the two become ONE comes to mind so anything one does w/or to a third party involves the other.

 

I don't know about the two becoming one - that wasn't in our marital vows. But, even college roommates typically have some rules or understanding about how to share their space and they know they can't just invite anyone over for any length of time (particularly to move in) if that is against their agreement. Same goes with the marital home and with the marriage in general.

 

Typically there is an agreement of monogamy (not in my case, but in most cases) and I think the ones who argue that the A is completely separate and has nothing to do with the M, either don't care if their partners in general are dishonest and not loyal to any agreements they make, or just don't care in the case of the BS because it suits their purposes. I suspect it more often is the latter. That is how it was for me. I was selfish and wanted to be with MM, so I would rationalize that I didn't care if MM was lying and disloyal, as long as he wasn't treating me that way. I ended our R when I realized him behaving that way could not be completely confined to the BW and reflected something internal to him.

 

I think the trashing the marital home analogy cannot be completely avoided, because even if you like to think the MP is building a separate home, by doing so, he is affecting the marital home. I don't see any way around that. To say these are completely separate, one has no impact on the other, is, I think, to deny reality. One if one accepts that there is impact, then one gets to the OW/OM's role in that impact. I also cannot see how one can logically argue they have zero culpability in that impact. None of the arguments along those lines in this thread seem compelling. They seem like one is trying to absolve oneself of responsibility and culpability.

[cocorico]

Trin;

 

I expected that from my husband and ALL others outside our Unity to respect as that is what it means to Be married.

 

 

I don't get the basis for this expectation. Your H made the promise, sure, so expecting it of him makes sense. But to expect it of all others, who were not party to the vow? On what basis can you reasonably expect them to honour a vow that neither involves them nor binds them legally?

[BetrayedH]

I don't get the basis for this expectation. Your H made the promise, sure, so expecting it of him makes sense. But to expect it of all others, who were not party to the vow? On what basis can you reasonably expect them to honour a vow that neither involves them nor binds them legally?

 

Common decency?

[Got it]

This brings to mind as teenagers/or as adults when you go party at someone's house. You go, have a good time, love this friend, but don't think twice about leaving beer caps around or trash laying on the floor. Nothing against the party holder, but you hold a party, you better be ready for the clean up.

 

Sure people should think about other people and put themselves in their shoes. But how often do we do this in all circumstances in our lives? How often do we do this when it is in direct negation of something that will enhance/enliven/be desired by/wanted by us? And how often do we do this when it is invited by one party even if not known by another?

 

At the end of the day, what does it matter? We cannot control how others think or act, we can't make someone take responsibility, feel bad, be accountable. We cannot make someone else think, feel, or do simply by us telling them so, or arguing it so.

 

All we can do is have control over ourselves, know where our lines are drawn in the sand, and act accordingly when crossed.

[cocorico]

If BOTH my husband and I don't "invite" you in, well, then you shouldn't be coming in to OUR house.

 

So neither of you could ever have a friend over without the other's explicit consent? Or, if the vicar comes calling, he has to stand on the doorstep because the spouse did not leave instructions that he was to be allowed in for a cup of tea? Neither is allowed any discretion, every action needs to be signed off by both parties? Personally, I'd find a M like that rather claustrophobic.

 

But back to the house-trashing metaphor. If the H invited the OW into a house that was immaculate, stunning, clean and well cared for, and asked her to help him trash it, I'm sure most OWs would look at hi like he was crazy and discreetly slip away. But if he invited her into a house with piles of unwashed dishes in the sink, steaming heaps of dirty nappies festering on the landing, cracked windows and paint peeling off the walls, and asked her to help him trash it, she may well figure wtf, it's halfway trashed already, let's just put it out of its misery, and take a sledgehammer to the dirty dishes or torch the festering nappies. Why not - it's not as though either of the occupants cared enough to look after the place, is it?

[cocorico]

In some states they are bound legally. Alienation of affection. I love that law!

 

A couple of bits of one country. And possibly a couple of other countries. So if you live outside of those, it's all fine?

 

I don't live in any of those places, so I'm cool with that

[cocorico]

Common decency?

 

It's only "common" if you share the same moral framework. Otherwise it's alien. I might be vegetarian but I don't feel that my vegetarianism obliges others to eschew eating meat.

[cocorico]

I ALWAYS stay to help clean up.

 

.

 

Me too. I'm a night owl so always have lots of energy after a party. I also enjoy cleaning up after parties we host. I find it helps nicely to transition from the excitement into a calmer space.

 

If the MM invited me into a house his BW had trashed, though, and asked me to help him clean up, would I be so keen to help? I guess it would depend on many things. If I knew she'd simply trash it again, probably not.

[waterwoman]

I don't get the basis for this expectation. Your H made the promise, sure, so expecting it of him makes sense. But to expect it of all others, who were not party to the vow? On what basis can you reasonably expect them to honour a vow that neither involves them nor binds them legally?

 

You can't expect them to, any more than you can expect someone to honour other unwritten 'rules' such as don't drop litter, don't bully, don't act cruelly to others. It is an act of empathy not to hurt other people regardless of whether you know them or not. And regardless of what the law says.

 

I think the 'vow' is irrelevant - if I weren't married to my H I'd be just as hurt by his cheating.

[woinlove]

This brings to mind as teenagers/or as adults when you go party at someone's house. You go, have a good time, love this friend, but don't think twice about leaving beer caps around or trash laying on the floor. Nothing against the party holder, but you hold a party, you better be ready for the clean up.

 

Sure people should think about other people and put themselves in their shoes. But how often do we do this in all circumstances in our lives? How often do we do this when it is in direct negation of something that will enhance/enliven/be desired by/wanted by us? And how often do we do this when it is invited by one party even if not known by another?

 

At the end of the day, what does it matter? We cannot control how others think or act, we can't make someone take responsibility, feel bad, be accountable. We cannot make someone else think, feel, or do simply by us telling them so, or arguing it so.

 

All we can do is have control over ourselves, know where our lines are drawn in the sand, and act accordingly when crossed.

 

I would say that is not all we can do. We can argue, debate, encourage, discourage, with the goal of leading people to treat both themselves and others with more kindness, caring and compassion. Some, of course, are immune, but the arguments are out there for all to see, and even if they don't impact on those who are not open to bringing more honesty and kindness into their lives, there are others who will be impacted. This particular thread, on partial culpability of the OW/OM, debates an issue where more caring and compassion for others can lead to less deceit and hurt. And for some, this debate will reinforce their resolve to not get involved with a MP and for others it may make them think whether that is a choice they would make again. To treat the homes of others with respect, if you like.

 

Perhaps for others what they see here will make them feel more at ease about being involved with a MP. For those who want to encourage that, they are free to. We can all argue to encourage the type of behavior towards ourselves and others that we would like to see.

 

Personally, I have no desire to help anyone trash anyone else's home or to secretly build a second home while pretending to maintain the first home. I think greater happiness lies in respecting others homes and that means choosing not to get involved in secret A or, if you are in one, having either the M or the A end, so that the deception can end.

[cocorico]

So you're saying kindness, compassion, and integrity are foreign concepts to you? .

 

No, that's very clearly not what I was saying.

 

I was saying that *assuming* that everyone else in the world necessarily shares the same moral framework as you do and _ought_ thus to be bound by promises made by others is risky and flawed, because there will always be those who do not.

[cocorico]

You may be cool with that, but I promise you that one day you'll reap what you have sown. It may not be legally, but it will happen.

 

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. Are you suggesting that BSs are reaping, through betrayal, what they sowed? Or that they somehow deserve what happened to them? It doesn't seem consistent, somehow. Either stuff just happens to all of us randomly irrespective of whether we live morally perfect lives or not, or everything that happens to us is the direct result of our own actions, and we "earn" what befalls us. I choose to believe the former, that no one deserves cancer or rape or to be rear-ended by a drunk driver, but if you believe otherwise, fair enough. We can agree to disagree on that.

[BetrayedH]

It's only "common" if you share the same moral framework. Otherwise it's alien. I might be vegetarian but I don't feel that my vegetarianism obliges others to eschew eating meat.

 

What moral framework? The absence of one? Are we only to be concerned with ourselves? What morality does that represent? Why trash the house at all?

 

The only thing that I agree with you about is that decency isn't as common as it should be when people are only concerned with is what they are "obliged" or "legally" bound to do.

[seren]

If the MP is so unhappy with their current 'housemate' why they don't just move out either into their own place or into the new place is surely not such a stretch. If they are so unhappy with their arrangements, why not just end the contract? in that way, the BS is free to seek different accomodation, either alone or with another and the MP is also free to do so.

 

I don't see how they can be fully invested in either while keeping a foot in both. For the AP, it is obvious that you will not get agreement on the Infidelity board, especially as the BS in situations on here are, largely, now aware of the existence of an A or AP, which is differen, in most cases, from A's where the BS is still in the dark.

 

My main problem is that the trashing goes on while many BS are still investing time, money and emotion and mostly with the WS only to pleased to be getting that. if they weren't, why stay? If people have a problem with marriage, or think it antiquated, fine, don't get married, or at least tell the person you are still convincing this is what you want, that you have changed your mind. Few do and I wonder why that is. It isn't a competition, nor is it just a house that is trashed, unfortunately, houses don't have feelings, people do, and I include the AP's who believe what they are told by MP who have no intention of leaving. There is no need to trash anyone's house, just end the dammed lease.

[cocorico]

What moral framework? The absence of one?

 

No, a different one. There is not only one conceivable moral framework.

 

 

Why trash the house at all?

 

.

 

Ask the spouse, whose idea it was?

[BetrayedH]

No, a different one. There is not only one conceivable moral framework.

 

 

 

 

Ask the spouse, whose idea it was?

 

I ask again, what moral framework is there that espouses a blatant disregard for others unless they are legally bound? That's an absence of morality.

 

And I don't care whose idea it was to trash the house. Again, why participate in trashing the house at all? It was the other persons idea? Really? That's your argument? Take no responsibility and just point at the other person when the co-owner walks in? Amazing how this justification only comes from unrepentent OW/OM.

[frozensprouts]

hmmm....

 

if it's perfectly okay for someone to trash someone else's house, ithe wy is it suddenly not okay for their own house to be trashed?

 

( to put that into words that make sense...

 

to some other men and women, why is it okay for an affair to totally mess up someone's life and family...as long as it's that of the betrayed spouse....the married person is great and wonderful and who cares about the damage done...but should the wayward spouse end the affair, why is the affair suddenly a horrible thing and how could the wayward spouse wreck their life like that, when before everything was a-okay?

in other words...why is the wreckage so bad only when it happens to them?

[seren]

A moral framework where love is put first not vows, where love is something that can not be promised.

 

I think if both in the relationship think this and don't value marriage or monogamy then great. Two like minds and all that, trouble with most A's is that the WS is saying one thing and doing another and by staying is still living with the contract he made during those vows, which to me, suggests he still has an investment in the original contract.

Personally, I wish every potential WS would just be honest, it isn't that difficult, people end marriage contracts each and every day and survive just fine.

[Spark1111]

A moral framework where love is put first not vows, where love is something that can not be promised.

 

If you can't keep the vows, if you don't love the wallpaper anymore, than TELL ME AND GET THE F OUTTA MY HOUSE!

 

I'll pack yur bags for you and call the moving truck today!

 

.....and stay the hell off my couch too....

[BetrayedH]

A moral framework where love is put first not vows, where love is something that can not be promised.

 

Love for whom? Yourself?

[BetrayedH]

Unrepentent as opposed to repentent? So we do have different categories of OW...

 

Most certainly.

 

Some make a mistake that hurts others and they try to make up for it. Forgivable in my book.

 

Some didn't even have the luxury of knowing they were an OW.

 

Others keep up their harmful behaviors and spin a bunch of nonsense to excuse it. I don't look favorably on that position.

[Spark1111]

Forget morality!

 

I'm talking simple human decency to all the cowardly, self-sentered, cake-eating cheaters.

 

Can't keep the vow? Tell me!

 

Can't promise love? Fine. TELL ME!

 

I'll get a new coat a paint on, in about three to five years, and just maybe, I will still be able to respect you because you did the decent thing: TOLD ME THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR INABITLITY TO tolerate the wallpaper here.

[BetrayedH]

.....and stay the hell off my couch too....

 

I would have to agree with this part.