Particpant to Cheating, What constitutes responsibility?

[RecentChange]

Perhaps there has been a shift in the minds of the courts, and the public's push to "prosecute" - because we aren't talking about PROPERTY, we are talking about human beings.

 

This isn't a car that was hit. This isn't a TV stolen during a robbery.

 

Back when marriage was primarily a contract based on economics - perhaps it made sense to change the perpetrator with a crime for "stealing a wife".

 

But these days, where marriage is primarily a contract based on love - and not economics - it doesn't make much sense to prosecute for "stealing her heart"

 

Spouses aren't property. They are adults with free will. Contract or not.

[jen1447]

I feel like I have to be the fact check cop here since there's so much obfuscation going on. As to the criticism of cocorico's hockey analogy, let's have a look at it again -

 

If you participate in a situation where other people are hurt then you are responsible in part for that hurt.

An analogous situation: hockey trials. The team has 11 players, plus maybe a reserve. 20 kids show up for the trials. I've never been much into sport, but I've decided to give it a go, and it turns out I'm really nippy on the left wing,many I get given a place in the team. Tina, who played left wing last hockey season, is devastated not to make the team.

 

Who is responsible for Tina's hurt? Me, for going along to trials rather than backing off, because Tina was left wing last year and so it's "her" spot in the team? The coach, for choosing me rather than Tina, given that I'm a noob while Tina lives for hockey? Tina, for spending all summer on the beach instead of the athletics track, getting out of condition and performing badly in the trials?

 

Should I feel remorse, withdraw from the team, because Tina's feelings got hurt when coach chose me instead of her for left wing? Should I regard Tina as collateral damage - 20 kids for 11/12 places was always going to leave someone on the sidelines? Should I express sympathy to Tina while hanging on to my place?

 

If, as the quoted post claims, I am responsible for Tina's hurt because I chose to participate in trials, then we are all constantly responsible for the hurts of others, whether we know it or not. You got the last chocolate donut? It's your fault the kid further back in the queue is crying. You earned a promotion at work? It's your fault Bob's wife is going to walk out on him for being such a loser to get bypassed again. You won the lottery? It's your fault Meg from Blackpool will be out on the streets tomorrow...

 

We live in a capitalist world order. We constantly compete for scarce resources. Some people get, others don't. I find it bizarre that people that embrace capitalism and its basic philosophy feel so outraged when that same principle is applied in personal relationships. Someone gets out competed in the workplace? That's life. In a personal relationship? You horrible horrible person, you! Go sit on the naughty step!

 

An honest and thorough read above shows that cocorico was not drawing a comparison between hockey trials and relationships, but she was illustrating her assertion that velvette's claim that participation universally = culpability is wrong by drawing an analogy to competitive sports. velvette's statement was properly quoted for context, so this really shouldn't be unclear.

 

This is important bc assuming the former is bscly saying "cocorico believes that relationships are like hockey - may the best man win!" whereas what she was actually saying is that APs are no more responsible for the upset that an affair causes a BS than a hockey player is another hockey player they displaced on the team.

 

Knowingly arguing sth other than what the arguer offered for consideration is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

[Liam1]

Perhaps there has been a shift in the minds of the courts, and the public's push to "prosecute" - because we aren't talking about PROPERTY, we are talking about human beings.

 

This isn't a car that was hit. This isn't a TV stolen during a robbery.

 

Back when marriage was primarily a contract based on economics - perhaps it made sense to change the perpetrator with a crime for "stealing a wife".

 

But these days, where marriage is primarily a contract based on love - and not economics - it doesn't make much sense to prosecute for "stealing her heart"

 

Spouses aren't property. They are adults with free will. Contract or not.

 

Exactly.

 

If a spouse is having an affair, it is unlikely that things are hunky dory at home.

 

IMO, a grown up can understand that lust is far different than love.

 

As a grown up, I would never consider divorcing my wife over an affair. As a grown up, I would have to take into consideration the way the spouse treats me in aggregate. And, also the way I had been treating her before the affair.

 

It really surprises me that people talk about hurting children and such, but IMO, a divorce is far more harmful to a child than a discreet affair.

 

IMO, defaulting straight to divorce, at the slightest wrinkle in the marital fabric, is peculiarly American.

 

IMO, it takes a particular level of maturity to accept that an affair need not end a marriage.

 

Now there are some people who flaunt there affair, and that would be harmful for the children.

 

Still, if it is true that 50 percent of spouses do not ever learn that an affair has occurred in a marriage, IMO, most people are being discreet.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Liam1
typo

[purplesorrow]

It takes a certain level of maturity to find ways other than cheating to solve marital issues.

[velvette]

I feel like I have to be the fact check cop here since there's so much obfuscation going on. As to the criticism of cocorico's hockey analogy, let's have a look at it again -

 

 

 

An honest and thorough read above shows that cocorico was not drawing a comparison between hockey trials and relationships, but she was illustrating her assertion that velvette's claim that participation universally = culpability is wrong by drawing an analogy to competitive sports. velvette's statement was properly quoted for context, so this really shouldn't be unclear.

 

This is important bc assuming the former is bscly saying "cocorico believes that relationships are like hockey - may the best man win!" whereas what she was actually saying is that APs are no more responsible for the upset that an affair causes a BS than a hockey player is another hockey player they displaced on the team.

 

Knowingly arguing sth other than what the arguer offered for consideration is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

 

 

Its not a good analogy because everyone involved is playing by the rules of hockey or any other competitive sport. If anyone is to blame for Tina's hurt, its probably her parents who haven't taught her that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in competitive sports.

 

 

Marriage is not a competitive sport first of all. And, where an affair is going on two people are not playing by the rules. One person is breaking the contract and the other person is aiding and abetting that violation of the contract. Lets face it if the two people who are having the affair thought their behavior was not wrong, they wouldn't be slinking around secretly in the shadows of society.......the majority of whom believe that what they are both doing is wrong.

[velvette]

It takes a certain level of maturity to find ways other than cheating to solve marital issues.

 

Exactly. Cheating is the province of those who don't have the personal resources to solve their problems, take a stand for what they want or if necessary make it clear that they will end the marriage per the contract if the other spouse doesn't work with them to fix the marriage so that both people are happy.

[velvette]

Exactly.

 

If a spouse is having an affair, it is unlikely that things are hunky dory at home.

 

IMO, a grown up can understand that lust is far different than love.

 

As a grown up, I would never consider divorcing my wife over an affair. As a grown up, I would have to take into consideration the way the spouse treats me in aggregate. And, also the way I had been treating her before the affair.

 

It really surprises me that people talk about hurting children and such, but IMO, a divorce is far more harmful to a child than a discreet affair.

 

IMO, defaulting straight to divorce, at the slightest wrinkle in the marital fabric, is peculiarly American.

 

IMO, it takes a particular level of maturity to accept that an affair need not end a marriage.

 

Now there are some people who flaunt there affair, and that would be harmful for the children.

 

Still, if it is true that 50 percent of spouses do not ever learn that an affair has occurred in a marriage, IMO, most people are being discreet.

 

 

No one has suggested this.

[Sub]

Exactly.

 

If a spouse is having an affair, it is unlikely that things are hunky dory at home.

Find me a M where things are ALWAYS hunky dory. If that's the line to cross for A's being understandable, we should all be cheating.

 

IMO, a grown up can understand that lust is far different than love.

All A's are about lust? Have you spent time reading some of the threads in the OW/OM forum? I believe there are a lot of OW who would disagree.

 

It really surprises me that people talk about hurting children and such, but IMO, a divorce is far more harmful to a child than a discreet affair.

It depends on the divorce. Many people have amicable divorces, or they at least act mature enough towards each other for the sake of the children's best interests. I'm sure we all know plenty of them. And just because an A is "discreet" doesn't make it potentially less harmful in the grand scheme of things. It's not like you were being polite or something. "Yes, I wasn't being honest to you. But it was the polite kind of dishonesty."

 

 

IMO, it takes a particular level of maturity to accept that an affair need not end a marriage.

I didn't let an A end my marriage, but I don't think it has to do with maturity. It's about the foundation of the M before things got bad. There are plenty of mature people for whom A's are a deal breaker. It doesn't make them less evolved emotionally.

[jen1447]

Its not a good analogy because everyone involved is playing by the rules of hockey or any other competitive sport. If anyone is to blame for Tina's hurt, its probably her parents who haven't taught her that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in competitive sports.

 

 

Marriage is not a competitive sport first of all. And, where an affair is going on two people are not playing by the rules. One person is breaking the contract and the other person is aiding and abetting that violation of the contract. Lets face it if the two people who are having the affair thought their behavior was not wrong, they wouldn't be slinking around secretly in the shadows of society.......the majority of whom believe that what they are both doing is wrong.

 

You can argue the effectiveness of the analogy all you want, but again she wasn't using it to draw correlations between marriage and competitive sports. It's important to speak to what ppl are actually saying bc otherwise you end up arguing sth that has nothing to do with anything. Like in the case of all this energy that's been expended here critiquing an argument cocorico didn't make.

[velvette]

You can argue the effectiveness of the analogy all you want, but again she wasn't using it to draw correlations between marriage and competitive sports. It's important to speak to what ppl are actually saying bc otherwise you end up arguing sth that has nothing to do with anything. Like in the case of all this energy that's been expended here critiquing an argument cocorico didn't make.

 

The argument she made was a situation that did not involve anyone doing anything wrong vs a situation where at least one party the WS is doing something wrong in majority of peoples opinion. The question of the thread is degree of responsibility of the third party....the AP.

 

 

Not an analogy...........the two situations are entirely different.

 

 

There are lots of situations in life where everyone is doing what they all agree is the right thing.....i.e. following whatever the established procedure for that thing happens to be and people still get hurt.

 

 

That is an entirely different situation than one where a person enters into a situation in violation of the established/understood rules with the sure knowledge that that someone will be hurt.

 

 

You can argue differently all you want, but even the majority of people conducting affairs know that what they are doing is wrong. They just don't care.

 

 

Not sure which is worse.......being so selfish you don't care or being so far off the scale that you are bordering on sociopathy.

[jen1447]

The argument she made was a situation that did not involve anyone doing anything wrong vs a situation where at least one party the WS is doing something wrong in majority of peoples opinion. The question of the thread is degree of responsibility of the third party....the AP.

 

She didn't address wayward spouses or affair partners at all in the hockey trials analogy, she addressed your general assertion, stated in your quote, that participation in a scenario where someone is hurt automatically implicates you as sharing guilt for the hurt. The hockey analogy served to attempt to illustrate that as invalid by giving an example of a situation where your conclusion doesn't follow your premise - someone who won a spot on the team isn't guilty of hurting the person who didn't make it. That's all.

[velvette]

She didn't address wayward spouses or affair partners at all in the hockey trials analogy, she addressed your general assertion, stated in your quote, that participation in a scenario where someone is hurt automatically implicates you as sharing guilt for the hurt. The hockey analogy served to attempt to illustrate that as invalid by giving an example of a situation where your conclusion doesn't follow your premise - someone who won a spot on the team isn't guilty of hurting the person who didn't make it. That's all.

 

Yes you are technically correct as I can see I left out the word intentionally and the fact that you would know chances loom large for someone being hurt in an affair.

 

 

However, coco is smart, and I'm sure she understood that's what I was saying as after all that is what was being discussed.

 

 

So, again, not the same things or anywhere similar. You and coco win on a technicality lol. The person intentionally participating in something they know will likely cause hurt to someone else is still wrong. Especially when they are acting outside the boundaries of what most people agree are acceptable.

 

 

As again, if they thought they were right, they wouldn't be acting in secrecy. I notice that although this point has been addressed repeatedly, no one who believes the AP is not wrong is willing to address it.

[wmacbride]

Exactly. Cheating is the province of those who don't have the personal resources to solve their problems, take a stand for what they want or if necessary make it clear that they will end the marriage per the contract if the other spouse doesn't work with them to fix the marriage so that both people are happy.

 

it's also always the ones who caused the harm in the first place who feel entitled to tell a bs where they should allocate responsibility, whether or not they should be hurt, whether or not it hurt their children, etc.

 

If they are talking about their own family, that is one thing, but to say that discrete affairs are better than divorce, that this doesn't hurt children or a bs is bull.

[jen1447]

Yes you are technically correct as I can see I left out the word intentionally and the fact that you would know chances loom large for someone being hurt in an affair.

 

 

However, coco is smart, and I'm sure she understood that's what I was saying as after all that is what was being discussed.

 

 

So, again, not the same things or anywhere similar. You and coco win on a technicality lol. The person intentionally participating in something they know will likely cause hurt to someone else is still wrong. Especially when they are acting outside the boundaries of what most people agree are acceptable.

 

 

As again, if they thought they were right, they wouldn't be acting in secrecy. I notice that although this point has been addressed repeatedly, no one who believes the AP is not wrong is willing to address it.

 

Well I'm glad we're finally talking about her actual argument then.

 

I think her point still stands - a hockey tryout who knows (I assume that's what you mean by intentionally) that winning a spot over another tryout will cause them pain isn't guilty of "hurting" that player either - but I'll leave it to her to make that case.

[wmacbride]

Find me a M where things are ALWAYS hunky dory. If that's the line to cross for A's being understandable, we should all be cheating.

 

 

All A's are about lust? Have you spent time reading some of the threads in the OW/OM forum? I believe there are a lot of OW who would disagree.

 

 

It depends on the divorce. Many people have amicable divorces, or they at least act mature enough towards each other for the sake of the children's best interests. I'm sure we all know plenty of them. And just because an A is "discreet" doesn't make it potentially less harmful in the grand scheme of things. It's not like you were being polite or something. "Yes, I wasn't being honest to you. But it was the polite kind of dishonesty."

 

 

I didn't let an A end my marriage, but I don't think it has to do with maturity. It's about the foundation of the M before things got bad. There are plenty of mature people for whom A's are a deal breaker. It doesn't make them less evolved emotionally.

 

It's also odd to say that it's preferable to avoid divorce, but the to turn around and rationalize something that, should it be discovered, has a high potential of leading to divorce, and a really bitter one at that, makes no sense.

[Sub]

It's also odd to say that it's preferable to avoid divorce, but the to turn around and rationalize something that, should it be discovered, has a high potential of leading to divorce, and a really bitter one at that, makes no sense.

 

Yes, if D's do damage in and of themselves, where do D's where the WS leaves for the AP land on the "maturity" scale?

[velvette]

it's also always the ones who caused the harm in the first place who feel entitled to tell a bs where they should allocate responsibility, whether or not they should be hurt, whether or not it hurt their children, etc.

 

If they are talking about their own family, that is one thing, but to say that discrete affairs are better than divorce, that this doesn't hurt children or a bs is bull.

 

 

Yes, although in my experience, the things entitled people say are usually pretty funny especially entitled cheaters or affair partners.

 

 

My H OW literally went ballistic when I called her H to tell him she was still contacting my H. She wanted to know "How dare you talk to my H and interfere in my M?'' Really??? You think its ok to have an A with my H, but you're foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog because I had a phone convo with yours?

 

 

You really cant make this stuff up. I laughed for days over that.

 

 

Entitled people live by different rules than the rest of us. They are selfish, self centered and don't care about other people unless its in their interest to do so. Best to just keep them out of your life. Fortunately, its pretty easy to spot them.

[cocorico]

I feel like I have to be the fact check cop here since there's so much obfuscation going on. As to the criticism of cocorico's hockey analogy, let's have a look at it again -

 

 

 

An honest and thorough read above shows that cocorico was not drawing a comparison between hockey trials and relationships, but she was illustrating her assertion that velvette's claim that participation universally = culpability is wrong by drawing an analogy to competitive sports. velvette's statement was properly quoted for context, so this really shouldn't be unclear.

 

This is important bc assuming the former is bscly saying "cocorico believes that relationships are like hockey - may the best man win!" whereas what she was actually saying is that APs are no more responsible for the upset that an affair causes a BS than a hockey player is another hockey player they displaced on the team.

 

Knowingly arguing sth other than what the arguer offered for consideration is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

 

You can argue the effectiveness of the analogy all you want, but again she wasn't using it to draw correlations between marriage and competitive sports. It's important to speak to what ppl are actually saying bc otherwise you end up arguing sth that has nothing to do with anything. Like in the case of all this energy that's been expended here critiquing an argument cocorico didn't make.

 

She didn't address wayward spouses or affair partners at all in the hockey trials analogy, she addressed your general assertion, stated in your quote, that participation in a scenario where someone is hurt automatically implicates you as sharing guilt for the hurt. The hockey analogy served to attempt to illustrate that as invalid by giving an example of a situation where your conclusion doesn't follow your premise - someone who won a spot on the team isn't guilty of hurting the person who didn't make it. That's all.

 

Well I'm glad we're finally talking about her actual argument then.

 

I think her point still stands - a hockey tryout who knows (I assume that's what you mean by intentionally) that winning a spot over another tryout will cause them pain isn't guilty of "hurting" that player either - but I'll leave it to her to make that case.

 

Thank you

 

I thought it was pretty clear, but it seems I was wrong. Thank you for translating

[cocorico]

However, coco is smart, and I'm sure she understood that's what I was saying as after all that is what was being discussed.

 

I prefer to stick to what people actually write, rather than projecting what I might think they meant to write.

 

As again, if they thought they were right, they wouldn't be acting in secrecy. I notice that although this point has been addressed repeatedly, no one who believes the AP is not wrong is willing to address it.

 

I assume no one addressed it because no one deemed it relevant. However, since it's clearly bothering you, I'll address it.

 

We did not conduct our A "in secrecy". We were pretty open - not in the sense of flaunting it, but not hiding it, either. All our friends, family etc knew us as a couple. The only one who didn't know was the then-BW. And, when it was necessary for her to know, he told her.

[cocorico]

You chose to use a sport team tryout as an analogy - including how Gina (or whatever her name is) didn't keep up in the gym over the summer and thus lost her skillz ...

 

You must have chosen that very physical analogy for a reason.

 

I did - the reason being that it provided a clear illustration of the argument I was making.

 

I could have used a different analogy - a promotion at work, auditions for a role in a play, applying for a job, queuing for the last donut - oh, wait, I think I did mention at least some of those! I guess I must be riven with conflict, so many different - contradictory - fixations....

 

YI don't know anything about you at all, that's for sure! I don't think I've ever read any posts by you. I just think you sounded like a teenager or very young 20's to liken a longterm, committed relationship to annual rugby team tryouts! Where every spot is open every year and free for the taking by the most able competitor.

 

I was thinking that as you matured you might develop a different view of how people choose to forge meaningful and lasting relationships ... rather than seeing them as a combo between competitive sports where the physically most able will prevail, and a form of free market economy! :( That just makes me feel super sad, honestly. I mean what is the point of marriage if there is no room for love, honor, trust, honesty, integrity, support, etc.?

 

 

There is plenty of room for those things in my M. That's what we do.

 

But if we stopped doing those, and he found a better "fit" elsewhere as a result, it would still be his choice and not the fault of the woman he deemed a better fit.

[Sub]

Someone earlier in the thread, I believe, offered up the "if it wasn't with me, it would have been with someone else" line of thinking as a way of deflecting any responsibility in these scenarios. I'll assume that the OW who ended up marrying their MM wouldn't agree this is always the case. So, where do we put the % at of WS's who this is true of. I can say with a lot of certainty that wasn't the case with my W. And of the other A's I know of amongst family members and friends, it was similar. Almost all of them evolved out of associations that were convenient: work, circled of friends, etc. Perfect storms of circumstances.

[wmacbride]

I really think there is some deliberate thickness going on.

 

Just to make things clear.

 

People are not saying the om or ow are completely responsible for the A, that they are more responsible for it that them. What they are saying is to take the mm and ow/om and ask whether or not the are responsible.

 

No one is talking about legally responsible. They are talking about ethically responsible. Some may not have a set of ethics that see infidelity as wrong, and even if they do see it as wrong, they don;t feel that they hold any responsibility for it happening, since they are not the one married.

 

The question then becomes this. Let's say Jane meets Dick. Dick is married to Ann. For whatever reason, they become involved, and though Jane knows Dick is married, she still chooses to get involve dint he A.

 

Anne finds out. Anne is hurt by the A. The A hurt Anne.

 

Who are the two involve din the A? Dick and Jane. Who is responsible for the A happening? Dick and Jane. Sure, if Jane had said "no", Dick might very well have moved on to Nancy, but Jane didn't say "no".

 

i find it really strange how some are very willing to hold anyone and everyone else responsible for the A except the ow/om, , and that person is one of the two people who were involved in it.

[mellywell]

I really think there is some deliberate thickness going on.

 

Just to make things clear.

 

People are not saying the om or ow are completely responsible for the A, that they are more responsible for it that them. What they are saying is to take the mm and ow/om and ask whether or not the are responsible.

 

No one is talking about legally responsible. They are talking about ethically responsible. Some may not have a set of ethics that see infidelity as wrong, and even if they do see it as wrong, they don;t feel that they hold any responsibility for it happening, since they are not the one married.

 

The question then becomes this. Let's say Jane meets Dick. Dick is married to Ann. For whatever reason, they become involved, and though Jane knows Dick is married, she still chooses to get involve dint he A.

 

Anne finds out. Anne is hurt by the A. The A hurt Anne.

 

Who are the two involve din the A? Dick and Jane. Who is responsible for the A happening? Dick and Jane. Sure, if Jane had said "no", Dick might very well have moved on to Nancy, but Jane didn't say "no".

 

i find it really strange how some are very willing to hold anyone and everyone else responsible for the A except the ow/om, , and that person is one of the two people who were involved in it.

 

Excellent post, but for those without empathy or whose decisions do not gtake others into account, it is wasted effort,

[velvette]

I prefer to stick to what people actually write, rather than projecting what I might think they meant to write.

 

.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

 

So now that I have clarified what I meant, are you sticking with your analogy? Do you actually believe that participating in an affair is the same as trying out for a hockey team, getting in line for donuts, and competing for a promotion?

 

 

I personally fail to see any similarity between all these activities. But, please feel free to enlighten the rest of us.

[velvette]

 

We did not conduct our A "in secrecy". We were pretty open - not in the sense of flaunting it, but not hiding it, either. All our friends, family etc knew us as a couple. The only one who didn't know was the then-BW. And, when it was necessary for her to know, he told her.

 

 

Thanks, its not bothering me, because I already know the answer.

 

 

The majority of people conducting affairs do so in secrecy. So, if they don't think they are doing anything wrong, why all the secrecy.

Edited April 24, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator