double standard

[cocorico]

An A is much more like a wallet left on the ground.

 

...only if the owner deliberately tossed it onto the ground, jumps on it, spat on it, pissed on it, kicked it and walked away knowingly leaving it there. As are not accidents. "Whoops! I accidentally had an affair!" They are the result of choices. Dropping a wallet by accident is not the same. Throwing it into the gutter and treating it like **** would be the same.

[cocorico]

Your bike analogy is off. Sure the kid could have treated the bike like trash but he cared enough to put it into the garage each night, he didn't leave it it the middle of the road and never would have.

 

Clearly he did. The "someone else" claim is like saying "my H would never have had sex with her! It was her magical vagina that bewitched him into it!"

 

Nope. Your kid - whom you trusted with the bike - left it in the road. Your husband chose to have sex with the OW. Blaming third parties is irrelevant. Your kid / H knew the deal, and *they* chose to break your trust.

[Birdies]

I'm still curious where you see all of this pressure for the Betrayed spouses to be kind and forgiving to the other woman or man. Again, in my experience, they are encouraged to view that person as a villain in the scenario and to despise them. I'm interested in the backstory behind this post because again, it seems like a pretty big exaggeration to me.

[cocorico]

BUT all that implies that BSs do not cherish or look after their marriages.

That they somehow deserve to be cheated on, that the blame of dereliction of duty is to be placed squarely at the feet of the BS.

 

Not at all - but one person cannot maintain a M on their own. And if the WS is treating the M like rubbish, they're communicating to the rest of the world that the M is rubbish. If the BS values the M, and sees the WS treating it like rubbish, it's time for MC or D. Pretending all is hunky-dory won't convince others that the M is of value when the WS is treating it like trash. Both parties need to be taking care of it, not relying on passers-by to do that for them.

[aileD]

...only if the owner deliberately tossed it onto the ground, jumps on it, spat on it, pissed on it, kicked it and walked away knowingly leaving it there. As are not accidents. "Whoops! I accidentally had an affair!" They are the result of choices. Dropping a wallet by accident is not the same. Throwing it into the gutter and treating it like **** would be the same.

 

No. Sorry. It doesn't matter what the person did to the wallet. It's still THEIR WALLET AND NOT YOURS. And even so, you're still not being a decent human being if you think you have no responsibility to not involve yourself in something they isn't yours

[aileD]

Clearly he did. The "someone else" claim is like saying "my H would never have had sex with her! It was her magical vagina that bewitched him into it!"

 

Nope. Your kid - whom you trusted with the bike - left it in the road. Your husband chose to have sex with the OW. Blaming third parties is irrelevant. Your kid / H knew the deal, and *they* chose to break your trust.

 

 

there's a reason why the people in the getaway car are still charged with murder when a robbery goes bad.

 

We will never agree. See the difference between the other commenters and you is that they all never discounted the WS responsibility in the affair, and you think the magical vaginas should have no moral obligation to be decent humans. Well his dick isn't that magical either, they could have said no.

 

The end.

Edited April 12, 2017 by aileD

[cocorico]

No. Sorry. It doesn't matter what the person did to the wallet. It's still THEIR WALLET AND NOT YOURS. And even so, you're still not being a decent human being if you think you have no responsibility to not involve yourself in something they isn't yours

 

You seem to have missed the point of the analogy.

 

And stressing ownership is irrelevant - what are you implying here is the possession that someone is interfering with? The M? As a fOW, I had nothing at all to do with their M - their toxic R was entirely between them, just as our R was entirely between us. The WS? He isn't anybody's possession! He's his own person, with his own agency and his own choices and responsibilities.

 

And yes, if someone takes their wallet out of their pocket, kicks it, and offers it to others for a game of soccer, that's entirely their choice, and their responsibilities to explain to their parent / partner latermwhy their wallet got destroyed. It is not the responsibility of the other kids who -on invitation - joined in the game. In that context, they sawmthe wallet as belonging to the kid, and his say-so governed what could ormshould be done with it. The mythical disapproving parents (or partner) don't enter into the equation. They consider the kid's agency and responsibility via a via their stuff (or Rs) sufficient.

[cocorico]

there's a reason why the people in the getaway car are still charged with murder when a robbery goes bad.

 

Poor, albeit popular, analogy. In a robbery, none of the robbers have a right to the money. They commit a crime stealing from someone else. In an A, the WS owns their body, their affections, their time. They choose who to give it to / spend it with. No crime is committed.

 

A better analogy would be Johnny promising to share his marbles with Suzie, but then next day sharing them with Margot instead. Margot is not a thief, not a getaway car driver. She is the beneficiary of Johnny changing his mind about who he wants to share his marbles with.

 

We will never agree. See the difference between the other commenters and you is that they all never discounted the WS responsibility in the affair, and you think the magical vaginas should have no moral obligation to be decent humans. Well his dick isn't that magical either, they could have said no.

 

The end.

 

Actually it is pretty magical, but that's not how it went down, either. I was the one who propositioned him. Why would I say no when I was the one instigating?

 

The end? Is this a fairytale to you?

[aileD]

You miss the point of the analogy. When you marry someone, it's no longer just their wallet. It's your SHARED WALLET. It keeps your shared money, your shared wedding pics, your marriage certificate and pics of your kids. Therefore unless the third party has permission of BOTH OWNERS then they should kept their hands off the wallet

[aileD]

Poor, albeit popular, analogy. In a robbery, none of the robbers have a right to the money. They commit a crime stealing from someone else. In an A, the WS owns their body, their affections, their time. They choose who to give it to / spend it with. No crime is committed.

 

A better analogy would be Johnny promising to share his marbles with Suzie, but then next day sharing them with Margot instead. Margot is not a thief, not a getaway car driver. She is the beneficiary of Johnny changing his mind about who he wants to share his marbles with.

 

 

 

Actually it is pretty magical, but that's not how it went down, either. I was the one who propositioned him. Why would I say no when I was the one instigating?

 

The end? Is this a fairytale to you?

 

I'm not even going to dignify any of that with an reply. We disagree. That's it. I'm done responding to you as it's pointless and we will never see eye to eye.

[wmacbride]

...only if the owner deliberately tossed it onto the ground, jumps on it, spat on it, pissed on it, kicked it and walked away knowingly leaving it there. As are not accidents. "Whoops! I accidentally had an affair!" They are the result of choices. Dropping a wallet by accident is not the same. Throwing it into the gutter and treating it like **** would be the same.

 

 

Do you honestly believe most bs treat their spouses that way? If you do, you're wrong.

 

You say you don't believe in assigning blame, and that people should be responsible for their own actions, and I actually agree with you. the problem is that, if one follows this, then there is zero reason to bring up the behavior of the bs because it is not relevant. Why is he or she the only one of the three who should have blame piled at his or her feet, which is what you did. In the situation above, you blame the bs for is or her spouse cheating.

 

Doing so assigns blame and takes away from the responsibility of the ws.

 

Even if a bs is treating her or his spouse badly, there are always choices. An mm or mw who is being treated terribly can opt to talk to their spouse, seek counseling and try other measures, and if none of those work, they can seek divorce.

 

If a ws chooses not to do so, then the A is 100 on him or her and their ap. No ow/om can force a person to have an affair, and the same is true for the bs.

 

I know it makes it more palatable for an ow to blame the bs. It's hard to accept the person you love and care about could treat someone that way, and it's also difficult to accept that the ability to break your trust is a part of their personality. As a bs, I have been there.

 

My spouse had an A. he didn't do that because of me, the ow/om etc. He did it because , at that point in time, he wanted to. No one forced the ow to get involved with him. She did that because, at that point in time, it was what she wanted to do. Without both parties, the A would not have happened. Sure, my H might have found someone else, but he didn't.

 

I also understand the need to frame our actions in the most positive light. That's a normal human reaction. We don't like certain parts of our behavior, so we rationalize why we do what we do. We don't like to think our actions can hurt others. in the case of the ow/om, their actions contributed to the pain of someone else ( and it's not for the ow/om to decide whether or not the bs is hurting). This is not a pleasant fact to face up to, and I understand that some just are not able to do so.

 

The thing is that, just like I wouldn't run up and kick some stranger who I have never met and who has done nothing to me because I was having a bad day and it would make me feel good, I'm not going to get into a relationship with someone who is married because it would make me feel good.

I would know that at home, his wife and maybe kids are going about their lives, and they stand a really high chance of being hurt if I got involved with her husband. If he comes to me griping abut his wife, I shut it down. If I sense he's really unhappy, I listen, but advise him to talk to his wife, and if that doesn't work, talk to a lawyer.

 

I may not be able to do much about the pain in the world, but I sure as hell am not going to knowingly contribute to it by getting involved with a married man.

[cocorico]

You miss the point of the analogy. When you marry someone, it's no longer just their wallet. It's your SHARED WALLET. It keeps your shared money, your shared wedding pics, your marriage certificate and pics of your kids. Therefore unless the third party has permission of BOTH OWNERS then they should kept their hands off the wallet

 

Huh? Only in some cases - in many (or most) cases, a wallet contains *that person's* money, bank cards, maybe driver's license. I don't carry my H's driving license in my wallet, nor his money, and I certainly don't carry certificates or pictures. I might carry his dry-cleaning receipt if I happened to drop his dry-cleaning off for him on my way to the pharmacy, or he might happen to carry my postage receipt f he dropped a parcel off for me at the post office, but I don't consider his wallet mine any more than I consider his clothes mine, or his job mine, or his dinner mine. He is his own person, with his own bodily integrity, his own agency, and his own choices.

 

Perhaps that's why someone feel the need to be unfaithful, as a way of asserting their own separateness and agency rather than just being seen as part of the marriage blob?

[cocorico]

Do you honestly believe most bs treat their spouses that way?

 

Not at all. But I do believe that WS (the kid) treat their M (the wallet) that way.

 

In every case.

[William]

I got a request for some cleanup here but will leave things as is and suggest the parties consider their disagreements resolved and move on. Also, let's keep the content focused on the starting post and affair double standards and not begin meta-discussions on analogies having nothing to do with affairs. Thanks!

[cocorico]

You say you don't believe in assigning blame, and that people should be responsible for their own actions, and I actually agree with you. the problem is that, if one follows this, then there is zero reason to bring up the behavior of the bs because it is not relevant.

 

 

I agree - which was why I didn't. I brought up only the behaviour of the WS (the kid, in the analogy) relative to the M (the wallet, or bike, in the analogy). I made no reference to the BS beyond their expectation / trust of the WS to look after the wallet / bike.

[wmacbride]

Not at all. But I do believe that WS (the kid) treat their M (the wallet) that way.

 

In every case.

 

Back to the topic of the thread...

 

I most cases, the bs is just an average man or woman, not perfect but not terrible either. They are just living their life. The same is true for the ow/om.

 

The a happens, then D-day, and it's all out in the open. The bs might have suspected, or it might be totally out of the blue. They react, and while there are times that can be dangerous, most of the time, it's pretty harmless.

 

If a bs calls the ow/om a couple of times, checks out their social media a few times, tells others what happened, etc. I don't see it as an issue. while these may be aggravating, they aren't harmful. I find it ironic when some complain that these are invasions of privacy.

 

Mind you, if it's constant calls, slander or libel, assault, etc., that's a different story. If a bs is telling the truth, it might not be pleasant for the ow/om, but it is what it is. If a bs is making up lies, that's not acceptable.

[wmacbride]

I'm still curious where you see all of this pressure for the Betrayed spouses to be kind and forgiving to the other woman or man. Again, in my experience, they are encouraged to view that person as a villain in the scenario and to despise them. I'm interested in the backstory behind this post because again, it seems like a pretty big exaggeration to me.

 

Do some serious reading in the infidelity section. It's most definitely there.

[cocorico]

If a bs calls the ow/om a couple of times, checks out their social media a few times, tells others what happened, etc. I don't see it as an issue. while these may be aggravating, they aren't harmful. I find it ironic when some complain that these are invasions of privacy.

 

Mind you, if it's constant calls, slander or libel, assault, etc., that's a different story. If a bs is telling the truth, it might not be pleasant for the ow/om, but it is what it is. If a bs is making up lies, that's not acceptable.

 

Agreed.

 

The difficulty is where they draw the line. The same way that some OW become obsessed by the BW post DDay, stalking their social media etc for clues about what's happening in the M (and, what chances there are of its implosion, and the rekindling of the A) there are some BS who become obsessed with the OW, seeking to have their own questions answered (or to find a less threatening target for their rage, if they've decided to reconcile). Some BS (and some OW) consider their behaviour to fall into the "what's reasonable" category, while the OW (or BS) on the receiving end may not.

 

How many profile views / comments / posts is "reasonable"? What level of detail, with how much embellishment, is still considered "truth"? How private can spilled details (about the OW, or the BS) be without it being considered an invasion of privacy? Whom is it acceptable to tell - family? Extended family? Employers? Clients? Kids? Parents? And in how much detail? I'm sure everyone would have their own views on that, but I'd expect there would be a pretty wide range, depending on where one stood.

[wmacbride]

I'm still curious where you see all of this pressure for the Betrayed spouses to be kind and forgiving to the other woman or man. Again, in my experience, they are encouraged to view that person as a villain in the scenario and to despise them. I'm interested in the backstory behind this post because again, it seems like a pretty big exaggeration to me.

 

No real back story, it's just a discussion.

[Birdies]

Do some serious reading in the infidelity section. It's most definitely there.

 

Errrrrr ok. That's not exactly a compelling statement of evidence for your viewpoint. I have read there plenty and still would like to understand where you got this idea. I think the idea that there is pervasive pressure - either here or in the real world - on betrayed spouses to be kind to the other women, or that it's viewed as wrong for them to check out their social media a couple times as you say in your post above this, is just ludicrous. I mean seriously, where is one piece of advice from any poster saying that the betrayed spouse needs to be kind to the other man or woman, and must not look at their social media ever ever?

 

There IS a (justifiable) push for betrayed spouses to not place 100% of the blame on the other man or woman, to recognize that their spouse holds the lion share of responsibility of breaking their vow of fidelity to the betrayed spouse. But that is not at all what you're talking about.

 

Again not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't see the whole premise of the discussion and I'm curious how it formed for you.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Birdies

[wmacbride]

Agreed.

 

The difficulty is where they draw the line. The same way that some OW become obsessed by the BW post DDay, stalking their social media etc for clues about what's happening in the M (and, what chances there are of its implosion, and the rekindling of the A) there are some BS who become obsessed with the OW, seeking to have their own questions answered (or to find a less threatening target for their rage, if they've decided to reconcile). Some BS (and some OW) consider their behaviour to fall into the "what's reasonable" category, while the OW (or BS) on the receiving end may not.

 

How many profile views / comments / posts is "reasonable"? What level of detail, with how much embellishment, is still considered "truth"? How private can spilled details (about the OW, or the BS) be without it being considered an invasion of privacy? Whom is it acceptable to tell - family? Extended family? Employers? Clients? Kids? Parents? And in how much detail? I'm sure everyone would have their own views on that, but I'd expect there would be a pretty wide range, depending on where one stood.

 

Honestly, who on god's green earth would an ow or om have any possible expectation of decent treatment by the bs? That's the height of entitlement and self contentedness. I haven't seen that very often.

 

I find it quite ironic when someone sees a bs's checking social media, calling the ow/om, talking abut the A to whomever they choose, etc. as being invasions of privacy, especially given the impact the A had on their life. I'm not saying I agree with a bs doing those things to excess, but I can understand the curiosity and need for him or her to tell their truth.

[Birdies]

Honestly, who on god's green earth would an ow or om have any possible expectation of decent treatment by the bs? That's the height of entitlement and self contentedness. I haven't seen that very often.

 

I find it quite ironic when someone sees a bs's checking social media, calling the ow/om, talking abut the A to whomever they choose, etc. as being invasions of privacy, especially given the impact the A had on their life. I'm not saying I agree with a bs doing those things to excess, but I can understand the curiosity and need for him or her to tell their truth.

 

there is something to be said for treating people decently even when they haven't treated you decently to begin with, and behaving in a way that you could be proud of when you look back on it later. At least that was my ex-husband's (BH's) perspective.