Trashing the house

[Spark1111]

I believe we were discussing the moral framework of the OPs, not of the WSs. It was asked why the OPs didn't have the common decency to respect the marriage. It was then stated that what is to be considered "common decency" is dependent on which moral framework the OP has. I gave an example of a different moral framework as you can read in my post above.

 

....and that still doesn't include honesty?

 

What the H kind of moral framework is that? Anarchy? Annihilism? Existentialism?

 

Cowardice? Selfishness? Self-indulgent?

[Summer Breeze]

If my H invited someone into my 'house' knowing the destruction he was unleashing I would put him out of the 'house' and change the locks. It's the job of the spouses to protect the 'house' and not put it into a vulnerable position.

[seren]

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

 

I have to agree Trinity, I have always put love first and never expected love to be something that was simply promised, even when it was.

 

I will never understand your view, but respect that we are all different.

[Spark1111]

If my H invited someone into my 'house' knowing the destruction he was unleashing I would put him out of the 'house' and change the locks. It's the job of the spouses to protect the 'house' and not put it into a vulnerable position.

 

So, how do we fix what we do not know of? Are not informed of?

 

And those who keep the secrets are also culpable: trashing helpers, IMO.

[BetrayedH]

....and that still doesn't include honesty?

 

What the H kind of moral framework is that? Anarchy? Annihilism? Existentialism?

 

Cowardice? Selfishness? Self-indulgent?

 

She does it all for love. The love of external validation makes it all ok.

[Summer Breeze]

So, how do we fix what we do not know of? Are not informed of?

 

And those who keep the secrets are also culpable: trashing helpers, IMO.

 

Sorry to be obvious but you do don't fix it until you do know. It was the spouse's responsibility for to not let it happen. They have the key to the house and no one goes in or out unless invited.

 

The last line is your opinion and that's fine. I disagree. I disagreed when I was a BS. I fully own what I did in my A and I take responsibility for what I feel is my responsiblity in the R. I do not take responsibility for what he opened his M, 'house' up to. That was his choice and he could have kicked me out at any time.

[Furious]

I've been invited by married men to trash their homes many times in my lifetime. I basically told them to f...off.

 

Ironically, the mess in the house is fifty percent the WS's mess and instead of cleaning it up, they invite an OW to help trash it even more.

 

The truth is the house in not the problem, it's the person who would rather trash it rather than have the guts to leave it, who is the problem.

 

There are many OW who really believe that they're rescuing the WS from a lousy home and believe that by assisting in the trashing of the home is all good. They even bring their own hammers.

[CarboniteCammy]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but in a legal sense, it reminds me of a bank heist.

 

Sure, it may be the MM in the bank robbing it at gun point and stealing the money, but the person driving the get away car is just a cupable and will be charged with aiding and abetting.

 

I just don't buy that the OW has no responsibility in the matter. They may choose to ignore the destruction they're facilitating, but that doesn't make it any less real.

 

It doesn't surprise me that someone willing to sleep with a married person would have trouble taking responsibility for their actions. Usually, people who think in terms only of, "I" "me" and "mine" are going to perceive themselves of victims because they are unable or unwilling to comprehend the point of view of someone else. That few seconds of pleasure for them is worth any amount of damage they cause for someone else, because it doesn't directly affect their day to day life until the betrayed spouse figures out what's going on, and then the game is usually up.

[ComingInHot]

Sheesh! I sure missed a lot. But duty calls...work.

 

Trin & coco;

 

I chuckled. Thank you you for that. Vicor. lol.. that's funny.

 

See, he would be a Friend to the marriage* and if he Was secretly trying to get in my pants then he would no longer be a Friend of the marriage therefore Uninvited... We are both cool with that for anyone.

 

And when it was written why an outsider should respect the marriage well, because being married tells the world that this is a unity which no person shall put under (if married in a church).

 

I do get that you both dis agree and that's o.k. so long as your not thinking bout comin' into Our house.

[cocorico]

S

And when it was written why an outsider should respect the marriage well, because being married tells the world that this is a unity which no person shall put under (if married in a church)

 

Only members of a church are bound by the church's pronouncements. Catholic doctrine teaching observance of Lent, or Jewish pronouncements on keeping kosher, or Islamic rules of Halaal do not prescribe my behaviour unless I voluntarily choose to affiliate myself with those religions. Beyond that, I am bound by the laws of the country I am in and my own moral framework. Recognising that some may choose to grow long sideburns or cover their heads and respecting their right to do so does not oblige me to do the same.

 

And don't worry, your house is quite safe as long as your H does not invite me in and convince me to help him to trash it.

[eleanorrigby]

 

And don't worry, your house is quite safe as long as your H does not invite me in and convince me to help him to trash it.

 

smh:rolleyes:

[ComingInHot]

coco;

I call foul on your last line there w/a five minute penalty*

 

Well, nough' said.

[eleanorrigby]

coco;

I call foul on your last line there w/a five minute penalty*

 

Well, nough' said.

 

Yup she really broke out the 'ole "I'll take your man." phrase.

[ComingInHot]

yep. I have pulled out the old threats myself (regarding other matters). I usually resort to that when I already know I'm not gonna "win" an argument.

 

I do appreciate the enthusiasm of ALL the posters here though! I take a lot away from both sides. (Course I'm still right though. )

[cocorico]

Yup she really broke out the 'ole "I'll take your man." phrase.

 

The should have clued you in that it was a joke.

 

Her H is safe (from me, anyway). I have my own.

[eleanorrigby]

The should have clued you in that it was a joke.

 

Her H is safe (from me, anyway). I have my own.

 

ahh don't back pedal now.

 

"There's many a true word spoken in jest."

[Got it]

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.

 

Wo - sure argue it, debate it but like religion and politics how much impact is actually effected in this? There are just certain things that you are going to have little impact on the way another reacts. I think it is very optimistic thinking to think that an internet debate is going to effect behavioral change.

 

I am not saying you aren't able to do so. Take a billboard out about it. But there are certain exercises in futility and I think this is one of them. Ultimately we cannot force behavioral changes onto another so there will ALWAYS be someone else out there that could tempt your spouse. If your spouse does not prioritize, protect, and secure their primary romantic relationship it is a pie in the sky believe that anyone else is.

 

A different way to look at it, most products are sold on supply and demand - capitalism. When there is limited supply the demand can increase and profits go up. When the consumer decides that they aren't interested in the product, don't think its worth the expense, they won't seek it out. The price falls and no one values the product. There is a domino effect and there are people/events/things that will influence change. When someone of authority/influence for said product indicts it is not of value to them, many will follow suit. Suddenly the product is found in the bargain bin for a 2 for 1 or 75% mark down. It is no longer in demand.

 

The marriage is a product that both parties should hold in heavy demand. If one shows they don't value it it is asking a lot for other parties to see it as more valuable than one of the influential individuals. Sure, would be nice if they did, but realistically it isn't going to happen.

 

You are obviously not going to be in an affair. But there are many who have taken that stance when suddenly when the chemistry is flying do a 180. Many a BS who becomes a OP. People say they are or aren't going to do a lot of things, but with 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year, usually about 80 years in a lifetime, a lot can change what they say and what they do.

 

I have not made a history of trashing people's houses, didn't see myself as a partier or a house trasher, commonly have helped clean up and respect people's things and spaces. My history would show a better pattern of this than of the opposite. But I have a house trashing in one home.

 

I don't claim the stance that the OP is responsible is wrong. I don't necessarily agree but can see the logic in it and respect that others feel differently. I have never held that belief in my past life and put the onus on my romantic partner or myself. But what does it matter? What matters is what the primary people in each situations feels. If as a BS you believe it, then that is the truth in that situation and focus and attention will go there.

 

I guess what I am saying is I don't believe there is any universal truth or fact on who is responsible, who isn't, how much, when, etc. It is subjective and really universally doesn't matter. What matters is for each particular situation.

 

In closing, argue to the cows come home, its the internet and you are free to do so. I was giving my opinion which is in no way assuming that anyone is going to follow suit.

[nofool4u]

I have been thinking really hard of a way of describing what it means when an AP gets involved with a married person. I have seen and accepted in part the argument that the AP isn't breaking any vows so they have less culpability than the married person.

 

Agreed. But less doesn't equal none.

 

 

They owe nothing to the marriage or the BS.

 

I disagree. They owe the BS basic human decency. To do unto others as they'd have done to you.

 

But I know APs feel this way. It gives them a license to be a complete ass to the BS.

 

 

I have worked so hard to clear H's OW of all blame and more or less managed it. But I can't quite shake the feeling that the the AP *is* partially culpable too.

 

They are, just not near the culpability of the cheating spouse.

[ComingInHot]

eleanorrnigby;

 

I want to laugh too but... what does smh mean?!

[eleanorrigby]

eleanorrnigby;

 

I want to laugh too but... what does smh mean?!

 

*shaking my head*

[Spark1111]

Okay, let's say it is all on the one who invited you in to trash the house.

 

You went along with it.

 

Every step of the way.

 

If it makes you feel better or more honorable or more justified to realize you were invited in, so be it.

 

Keep your sideburns any way you want to. As long as they don't curl into my window or plate of spaghetti, who cares?

 

But remember this: I reserve the right to intensely dislike you as the exercise of your freedom of choice encroached on my own.

 

I, and the court of public opinion, find you guilty of aiding and abetting the trashing of my home.

 

Where do you folks hang that makes it all okay for you?

 

Hurt my child, I'm angry. Trash my house, I'm angry. Hurt my marriage? I'm angry.

 

Withoutor without anyone's permission to do so. I'm still angry at you too.

 

And I am not alone.

[Summer Breeze]

This just all goes back to the thread I started about the act of infidelity. I was betrayed by a man who committed the act of infidelity. It didn't matter if it was once or a thousand times. It didn't matter if it was with a man, woman, or blow up doll. It didn't matter if it was 1 AP or 30. He committed adultery. He trashed my house. The action against me was his and his alone. I can kind of understand where a BS holds onto blaming the OP but not really. It's like an OW blaming the BS if they find out about the A and decide to stay. To some people it makes sense but not to me. I kind of get it but to me it's more diverting blame off the 1 person who has control of what happens in that M (or R if not married).

 

I also don't really get the whole trashing the house thing. My xH threw a party and it was his responsibility as to who he let in. If he knew it was someone not welcome he should have stood firm at the door and slammed it in their face. Whether or not she was willing to step over the threshold doesn't matter at all because he should have never opened the door to her. If you don't let someone in your house they can't trash it. If they break in and do their best then you deal with that in a totally different way. Not to mention together.

[cocorico]

Okay, let's say it is all on the one who invited you in to trash the house.

 

You went along with it.

 

Every step of the way.

 

If it makes you feel better or more honorable or more justified to realize you were invited in, so be it.

 

Keep your sideburns any way you want to. As long as they don't curl into my window or plate of spaghetti, who cares?

 

But remember this: I reserve the right to intensely dislike you as the exercise of your freedom of choice encroached on my own.

 

I, and the court of public opinion, find you guilty of aiding and abetting the trashing of my home.

 

Where do you folks hang that makes it all okay for you?

 

Hurt my child, I'm angry. Trash my house, I'm angry. Hurt my marriage? I'm angry.

 

Withoutor without anyone's permission to do so. I'm still angry at you too.

 

And I am not alone.

 

I don't have any problems with this view. Why would anyone?

[waterwoman]

Anger I can understand. Expecting someone to be altruistic and give up their love when you yourself are not willing to give up yours is just plain self-centered and selfish to me.

 

OK. I guess I see that. Once the affair has started and been established it has as much existence as the marriage, rightly or wrongly, and saying things like 'well I was there first' sound more than a bit childish . I suppose I am questioning why anyone would choose to get involved in the first place(or chuck the first glass of red on the shag pile to stretch a struggling metaphor just that bit further), if you have enough empathy not to wish to be the cause of hurt and damage.

 

As for 'when you yourself are not willing to give up yours' - that all comes to whether the BS knows anyone is asking them to or not. I didn't know until after the affair was over.

[Spark1111]

Anger I can understand. Expecting someone to be altruistic and give up their love when you yourself are not willing to give up yours is just plain self-centered and selfish to me.

 

I did. The day I found out. The day I could make an informed choice and exercise my moral code.

 

I altruistically gave up the love of my life so he could be with his soulmate.

 

I am, and will always be, a woman of honor and integrity. I will never be anyone's default choice of Back-up Plan B.

 

I could never love someone who did not inform all others, including his spouse and family, that he too loved me and intended to pursue it.

 

I like my men to have my moral code.