# Adultery and "chivalry"



## Kobold (Dec 5, 2015)

Since it's such a hot topic on here lately, I figured I may as well throw my two cents in. 

A few posters here frequently advocate for a view of female infidelity that is in opposition with how most here see things and is simultaneously a different(and less harsh) standard than which the same few posters hold cheating husbands to, under the belief that when women cheat it is due at least partially to some failure on the part of the husband to live up to his role in the family and not entirely the fault of the adulteress. Whereas when husbands cheat it is due to his own moral failing alone and not at all a reflection on his betrayed wife.

Now this is an open forum and I'm fine with others stating their opinions, viewpoints and advice on here even if I don't agree with them at all, so my intention is not to silence that worldview, but to point out the inconsistency of expecting modern husbands to be held accountable for their wives behavior while simultaneously stripping them of any and all of the means that one would need in order to be able to alter another fully grown human's behavior. 

Personally I believe that their advice would be very reasonable and even useful if we lived in a truly patriarchal society where the women are each individually subject to their own husband and therefore the blame for their bad behavior would be (at least partially)placed on the husband's shoulders in the same way the parent of a young child might have to make restitution for their child's misdeeds. Except we don't live in that world(or at least most posting here don't) so what they are in effect asking for is that the cheating wife should get to have her cake and eat it too. 

On one hand her husband is to blame for her bad behavior and yet on the other hand he has no legal nor societal right to "control" her behavior since she is a grown woman with the ability to forge her own path in life and make her own decisions however irresponsible they might be. So what's a husband to do?

Now they may claim that a man doesn't need any stamp of approval from the law or society at large to lead his wife in such a way that she would never even think about having an affair, but IMO this ignores two important issues here. One, that even good parents can raise bad kids, or in other words, a man could do everything right and still get cheated on. And two, that if a married woman wants to cheat there's nothing her husband can do(short of breaking the law) to stop her. Their advice is based under the false belief that all married women are ready and willing to follow their husband's lead(due to biology) and that it's merely the husband's lack of leadership that leaves the floodgates open to adultery.

My feelings are that if women are basically just overgrown children who need a man to guide them along every aspect of their life then that's fine by me. I can live with that arrangement if need be, but then you have to allow me the necessary tools to be that authority figure. You can't demand that I be held accountable for somebody else's screw ups after leaving me with no recourse to ever fix them let alone prevent them, that'd be like tying both my hands behind my back and asking me to knock out Mike Tyson, it ain't gonna happen. 

Now on the other hand if women are cognizant adults(which I'm also a-okay with BTW) then how the hell am I even remotely responsible for their shi**y life choices? Do you see my conundrum?


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

Gosh I never saw this its opened my eyes up :wink2:

perhaps some will look inward and contemplate..........

or not..............


----------



## Me Vietare (Nov 26, 2014)

I think of them as goose-stepping birkenstockers who are super quick to push the ban button when they take offense. Oops that probably means a weeks time out...per my Latin name.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

Okay


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Kobold said:


> Since it's such a hot topic on here lately, I figured I may as well throw my two cents in.
> 
> A few posters here frequently advocate for a view of female infidelity that is in opposition with how most here see things and is simultaneously a different(and less harsh) standard than which the same few posters hold cheating husbands to, under the belief that when women cheat it is due at least partially to some failure on the part of the husband to live up to his role in the family and not entirely the fault of the adulteress. Whereas when husbands cheat it is due to his own moral failing alone and not at all a reflection on his betrayed wife.
> 
> ...


*In a phrase, you are not responsible for their sordid actions; their self-serving justification for their very own cheating is!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VirgenTecate (Jan 4, 2016)

soccermom2three said:


> Okay


I have to agree with this

You will see of statements on why male cheating is justified here as well

But I think the majority of posters here are against all cheating

I completely am against the justifications you posted for female cheating as that infantalizes women and excuses immoral behavior.

Just don't overthink things. Morality is still morality and people will always make ****ty excuses for their behavior.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

Speaking strictly from my experience knowing women, and I've always found them profoundly intriguing, they are vastly different in their thinking. 
When a woman cheats, you can virtually always conclude they have lost most romantic interest in their mate. All I have to do to support my line of thinking is to reference the post of virtually any WW and point out the, "I love my husband but....". I harp on this point to ad nauseam because I know it to be anecdotally true.
This is not to say its always the husbands fault his wife lost interest and cheats. Sometime however it is. A man cannot "control" his wife. But when her actions are such that it is disrespectful to him and detrimental to the marriage, he can control how much he want to tolerate.
Men who cheat are more likely to cheat out of pure lust rather than a lost of interest in their spouse.


----------



## Roselyn (Sep 19, 2010)

Career woman here, 36 years married (first marriage for my husband and I), and neither have cheated. The full responsibility for the infidelity rest on the Wayward Spouse; man or woman. The blame game is nothing but an excuse and a smoke screen to get away with wrongdoing.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

A cheater is a cheater, there may be problems in the marriage caused by a ****ty spouse but that is no excuse to cheat and it most definitely is not the solution, ever.

However, we have to consider the circumstances. If a marriage is on the rocks due to infidelity and both parties want to try again then it is incumbent on both the betrayer and the betrayed to see how they might have contributed to the situation arising in the first place. Infidelity arises because of the person themselves and how they handle crisis, feeling unloved, unwanted, because they are a dirtbag, whatever.

The causes of infidelity may be the same or different depending on gender. A man is as likely as a woman to wander if he feels unrespected or unwanted at home. A woman is as likely to have a F*** buddy just because she can and due to lust. I do not believe infidelity is gender specific. 
Infidelity is wrong on every level but that does not mean there are no contributing factors - you see that in many of the stories on here. I dont think men are held to a higher standard on here I just think the standards are different due to gender.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Cheating is a character issue not a gender issue with men and women cheating at about the same levels. You are right that some here give certain genders a pass when it comes to infidelity. But if you read the other things these posters state you quickly learn they have an agenda.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> Cheating is a character issue not a gender issue with men and women cheating at about the same levels. You are right that some here give certain genders a pass when it comes to infidelity. But if you read the other things these posters state you quickly learn they have an agenda.


Completely agree.

I'm a woman. No one on this planet is responsible for my behavior except me. I will never raise my two daughters to believe they need to be led, or dependent upon anyone. They are intelligent, responsible human beings.

And posters who see the world in various hues of domination (crock) will not contemplate anything, since they already know their own concrete unchangeable truth. Fine for them. Bad for anyone who reads their posts.
without knowing this first. 
The truth I knew about myself at 20 is not the same as the truth I know about myself now.


----------



## RWB (Feb 6, 2010)

Kobold said:


> A few posters here frequently advocate for a view of female infidelity that is in opposition with how most here see things and is simultaneously a different(and less harsh) standard than which the same few posters hold cheating husbands to, *under the belief that when women cheat it is due at least partially to some failure on the part of the husband to live up to his role in the family and not entirely the fault of the adulteress. *


Not sure if this is a "universal" belief regardless of how flawed, but you would be surprised how many women "comforted" my FWW with this same logic when her years of cheating was finally discovered and exposed. 

Two of her female cousins, both wrote her consoling emails that included... _"I love you Cuz, don't be to hard on yourself, "he" must of really not been meeting your needs for a long time for you to step out on your marriage."_

Interesting... in retrospect almost every one of my wife's friends were cheating on their husbands or divorced due to cheating at this time.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

I'm curious how you reconcile this statement



aine said:


> I do not believe infidelity is gender specific.


with this one.



> I just think the standards are different due to gender.


If the reasons are the same, why have different standards?


----------



## Kobold (Dec 5, 2015)

A lot of young men are now opting out of marriage and I personally see this aspect as part of the reason why. Some might say that our culture is evolving and that marriage is just kinda stuck in between the old patriarchal system and the new 50/50 system of marriage, but I think it's more ominous than that. 

I think that SOME(not all) but some women have embraced this middle of the road stance somewhere in between the old way and the new way as a means of having their cake and eating it too. They've taken their one hand and enthusiastically grabbed hold of equality and yet they've never actually let go of their other hand's grasp on dependency. 

Which is why when certain people here like to harp on this idea that the betrayed husband must have done something wrong to get cheated on, many people(myself included) just roll our eyes cause we know that this is a lose-lose scenario that's being offered to men.

It's basically telling a husband that he must be Super-Man to her Lois Lane and if she ever gets a wandering eye it's only due to his lack of manhood that she could ever fall from grace and oh yeah here's your court date to hand over at least half of your sh*t to Mrs. Lane.

Or to put it in another way, imagine that you're applying for a management position with a company and at the end of the interview they tell you that while you will be held accountable for your employee's failure to do their job, you will not have the right to reprimand them in any way for their behavior no matter what they do(or fail to do) and if you decide to fire them then you will be labeled a bad manager with the other companies and your employee's failure will be viewed as your own handiwork. 

Would you accept that position? If not, then can you really blame men for wanting to opt out of such a potentially nightmarish ordeal? Cause I sure as hell can't.


----------



## Kobold (Dec 5, 2015)

intheory said:


> I suppose the only defense is to be as certain as possible about the character of your husband/wife; before you marry them.
> 
> There's always going to be risk in human relationships. That's for sure.


Agreed, but I believe the risk factor has reached ridiculous proportions on the male side of the equation. It's not that I don't believe in marriage, cause I genuinely do, but it's becoming an impossible task for me to defend the concept of getting married when guys bring up the reality of husbands being forced to pay lifetime alimony to an adulteress or having to financially support children that are proven to be the result of an affair. 

I mean what am I supposed to say to them? "Oh that probably won't happen to you though, just get married and risk it." 

I do believe in marriage, the idea of a man and woman coming together as one flesh and raising up a family and everything that it would typically entail, but I can't defend this craziness that's been going on and I have no real cogent argument for why they should get married other than a "religious" one, which most of them don't care about anyways.

BTW thank you for the respectful back and forth dialogue we're having here.


----------



## zzzman99 (Oct 23, 2015)

Chivalry is dead... and women killed it. - Dave Chapelle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymNdfdQvdVc


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

I want to know when were going all to start to burn our Y-fronts

Come the revolution brothers...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Prenup.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

Yada, yada. More of the same. Can we go more than week without a women are evil post?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

RWB said:


> Not sure if this is a "universal" belief regardless of how flawed, but you would be surprised how many women "comforted" my FWW with this same logic when her years of cheating was finally discovered and exposed.
> 
> Two of her female cousins, both wrote her consoling emails that included... _"I love you Cuz, don't be to hard on yourself, "he" must of really not been meeting your needs for a long time for you to step out on your marriage."_
> 
> Interesting... in retrospect almost every one of my wife's friends were cheating on their husbands or divorced due to cheating at this time.


You might also be surprised at how many men cheered my husband on as he cheated and even helped by covering for him. And then when I found out they consoled him because despite his cheating they were sure he was a good guy.

There are a lot of both males and females who will give support of one kind or another to a cheating spouse. This is hardly gender specific.


----------



## Lilac23 (Jul 9, 2015)

Kobold said:


> Since it's such a hot topic on here lately, I figured I may as well throw my two cents in.
> 
> A few posters here frequently advocate for a view of female infidelity that is in opposition with how most here see things and is simultaneously a different(and less harsh) standard than which the same few posters hold cheating husbands to, under the belief that when women cheat it is due at least partially to some failure on the part of the husband to live up to his role in the family and not entirely the fault of the adulteress. Whereas when husbands cheat it is due to his own moral failing alone and not at all a reflection on his betrayed wife.
> 
> ...


Many men and women blame their partner for their own cheating, how often do men bring up lack of a sex life as the reason for their cheating? 

I am not sure what your point is here, spouses blame each other for their affairs or women act like victims when they are the ones cheating and men should be allowed to control them and since they can't, they should shoulder none of the blame when the wife cheats? It's very simple, each person is responsible for their decision to cheat, man or woman.


----------



## Kobold (Dec 5, 2015)

Lilac23 said:


> I am not sure what your point is here, spouses blame each other for their affairs or women act like victims when they are the ones cheating and men should be allowed to control them and since they can't, they should shoulder none of the blame when the wife cheats? It's very simple, each person is responsible for their decision to cheat, man or woman.


My point, if I narrowed it down to about a paragraph or two is pretty simple. There are certain posters here and people in the world at large who hold the betrayed husband to a higher standard than they do the betrayed wife, all under the guise that men are somehow morally responsible for their wife's behavior. Which would be fine by me if we lived in a society where husbands legally got to make their wife's decisions for them like one would a child, but since we don't live in such a society, I believe that this is nothing but good ol' fashioned blame shifting. I'm merely pointing that out while also pointing out the fact that the desire for this old school system of marriage on the part of certain females is really not so much a longing for traditional values as it is a desire to have some delicious cake and eat it too.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

*Re: Adultery and &quot;chivalry&quot;*

I'm kind of an old fashioned minded woman that's been responsible for being independent and owning her shyt for a long time. My ex H was a good provider financially and my contributions were a little more well rounded. I had a lower paying job, but I did all housework, laundry, 75% of cooking, and supported him emotionally through a lot. 

He was a [email protected] captain. He wouldn't initiate on anything, he was a slob at home, he couldn't hang a picture, and everything requiring diy would result in a call to his handy dad rather than learn skills himself. He was brilliantly lazy and lazily brilliant. He was very inherently smart. Gifted. In Mensa. Amazingly talented at his job. Zero patience for "dumb" people that didn't have book smarts. He was also psychopathic and had zero ability to empathize. He was a big kid (most men are - sorry guys) but to the level that made you realize his mom did way too much of the menial stuff because he had way more important things to do. He was utterly unsupportive of anything not relating to his own interests. If he didn't wanna, he wouldn't. Period. He'd donate money to a cause but you wouldn't catch him dead serving at a soup kitchen. He made sure we always had money. That is and will be something I will always appreciate his efforts on. He either had staunch friends or bitter enemies. Nothing in-between. 

I found myself having to go the extra mile when it came to being the classy, nurturing, empathetic, mature face of the relationship. I have always been a do-er. I have not always done what was right. I would have appreciated a more oak of a husband. It wasn't my job to teach him to be a responsible, contributing member of society when all he wanted was to play on Xbox until 4am. But, as an old fashioned broad, I just happened to love and accept him for all his imperfections and behavior that eventually drove me up the wall. That love and acceptance got pretty overlooked. I definitely lost my way at times, when it would have helped if I'd I had a more present husband. 

My point (I do have one) is that I certainly didn't sign up for the role of mom to a teenage man of 30. I signed up for the role of wife and first mate. Just as I'm sure that men don't sign up for the role of dad to a teenage woman of 30 (or insert age). However, going back to that old fashioned model for a moment, I do think, perhaps unfairly (?) that men lead (in relationships, for example). Men that lead and inspire in all things get my respect in a way that men who coast and are just along for the ride do not. I become a better, harder working, more caring and loving being because of a man's leadership. 

Men don't see much value these days in marriage, I get it and I understand. Well, women are as crappy as you allow them to be, especially when they can be. I'm no modern, radical feminist. I detest most of the shytty behavior cards women try to play, just as I detest overgrown teenage men with Peter Pan syndrome. Women are always testing for firmness because they want firm men. Let me be specific rather than speak for others: I want a firm man. Not because I'm hopeless without him, but because I want a damn good reason to stay glued to that man! He's going to make sure we're gonna be ok in this world! Maybe he'll respect a woman that has learned to be a partner, can save her own dumb arse, and takes responsibility. If he really values what I bring, and adores me, even better! With our powers combined, etc......! 

This is the dynamic I have with my SO, and it's exactly what I wanted, but I had to choose wisely, and there wasn't a whole heck of a lot out there to choose from. I got incredibly lucky, but really, I'd intended to be alone with 40 cats. He had to choose wisely, as well. Men are just as in control of their destiny as women are.

Will Smith was interviewed on the red carpet recently and asked what kept him and Jada together. Without hesitation he said (to paraphrase the secret was being the best individuals they can be. Working on their own problems, owning their own shyt, growing as individuals, and THEN coming together. The respect and love stays steadfast, even grows. Wow, I thought, he gets it. Maybe listening to him, others will take it on board by example.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

intheory said:


> Now, I think this is the result of the "no-fault" divorce, which is now the only type of divorce, pretty much, right??? Sorry, I'm not overly familiar with the categorizations of divorce.
> 
> For men and women, this doesn't necessarily work out as well as anticipated; for the reasons you state. I mean if there is adultery, if someone has a gambling addiction, or is a crackhead, or beats their spouse; then someone IS at fault; and although it's going to be more of a mess to get it sorted out, perhaps it is worth sorting it out --- in the long run.
> 
> ...



No-fault divorce (which is only one basis for divorce) was developed because the evidentiary standards for establishing infidelity or cruel treatment are so high, they are almost impossible to meet. In many states, you literally have to have proof of the two people in bed, and that proof must be admissible in court. Having a PI follow them to a motel and monitor the door overnight is not adequate proof that the couple inside the hotel room engaged in sexual relations. So people who could not catch their SO in the act, or who weren't put in the hospital by abuse could still divorce a lying, cheating, abusive spouse. Going back to that system is NOT progress, and IMO would not help the state of marriage.


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

soccermom2three said:


> Yada, yada. More of the same. Can we go more than week without a women are evil post?


https://bluenred.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/hillary-clinton-eyes.jpg[/URL]

Soon ...very soon...the world will be mine waaahahahahaha


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Pluto2 said:


> No-fault divorce (which is only one basis for divorce) was developed because the evidentiary standards for establishing infidelity or cruel treatment are so high, they are almost impossible to meet. In many states, you literally have to have proof of the two people in bed, and that proof must be admissible in court. Having a PI follow them to a motel and monitor the door overnight is not adequate proof that the couple inside the hotel room engaged in sexual relations. So people who could not catch their SO in the act, or who weren't put in the hospital by abuse could still divorce a lying, cheating, abusive spouse. Going back to that system is NOT progress, and IMO would not help the state of marriage.


You realize that saying "hey, maybe we should make people get paternity tests (or at least allow them to)" is not the same as saying "no more no-fault divorce" right?

I don't think intheory was advocating for going back to the old system but making tweaks as we go forward.

ETA: It's comments like this that give the appearance of being in support of these laws.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Kivlor said:


> You realize that saying "hey, maybe we should make people get paternity tests (or at least allow them to)" is not the same as saying "no more no-fault divorce" right?
> 
> I don't think intheory was advocating for going back to the old system but making tweaks as we go forward.
> 
> ETA: It's comments like this that give the appearance of being in support of these laws.


One has nothing to do with the other. 
And your comments give the appearance of being in support of the "all women are evil" I'm sure that's not what you mean.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

Blah blah blah can we ever have a discussion without "but men do it too" or "women do it too"? You know, when a very specific group is identified.


----------



## Quigster (Aug 1, 2015)

aine said:


> A cheater is a cheater, there may be problems in the marriage caused by a ****ty spouse but that is no excuse to cheat and it most definitely is not the solution, ever.


There are the hypothetical ideals that you uphold, and then there's reality.

For example, let's say that you are strongly against the idea of taking another human life. You oppose capital punishment and dislike military invasions of other countries because of the lives lost. You feel that your beliefs are rock-solid and you've never been given any reason to question them.

Then, one night, a burglar invades your home. He injures your spouse and threatens your kids and you're backed up against the kitchen counter. You have no way of calling for help and your choices are to try and stop this guy yourself, or stand there and die. So, you grab the nearest steak knife and end him. 

People would say that this was justified. We have all these different degrees of killing someone (murder, homicide, manslaughter, etc.) and each carries a slightly different connotation. In context, this was still the taking of a human life, but given the circumstances surrounding it, it was warranted. Tweak the situation just slightly (he was running away from your home after a botched burglary attempt and you pursued and killed him) and suddenly it may not be so forgivable.

The point, for the purposes of this scenario, is that you were faced with a real-life situation, were forced to quickly re-examine your convictions, and made a decision to go against a belief you've held all your life because it was the right thing to do at that moment.

There are no varying levels of adultery. You don't have a second-degree affair that is somehow more forgivable than a first-degree affair. However, there are myriad different reasons it happens, just as there are many different reasons to take a human life.

No, adultery is not an offense on the level of murder. However, the reason I'm drawing this comparison is precisely because people on this forum look down upon adulterers as if they were the worst offenders imaginable, regardless of the situation or the circumstances.

I always believed very, very strongly in preserving the sanctity of the family unit at the cost of all else. My parents were divorced when I was young, and it was a defining moment in my life that influenced every single thing I did, and decision I ever made, after that point. In some ways, I learned from it and it made me stronger, but in other ways, it broke me emotionally. I knew at a very young age that if I ever married and had kids, I would never, ever do that to them under any circumstances.

When my first marriage was falling apart at the seams, when I was miserable every day, when I had to make a daily choice between protecting my kids from their mom's regular rage attacks or presenting a united front and siding with her, I was pushed to the limit. Was preserving the family unit more important than my kids feeling loved and being well-adjusted? Was staying married to my wife more important than my own sanity? At least I only had a handful of childhood memories of my parents shouting at each other before they split up. If I continued to go down the same path, my kids would have years and years' worth of those memories.

Then, I met my affair partner. She was a co-worker and a supportive friend at first, during a time when I had no emotional support system and no one to turn to. She made every effort to help me try to salvage things and repair my marriage, because she cared about me and wanted me to be happy. At some point, I realized that I would be far, far happier with her. Someone who didn't belittle me or yell at me constantly. Someone who listened to me and liked what I had to say. Someone I enjoyed spending time with and would want to live under the same roof with.

I considered very carefully how this would affect my kids. Removing myself from the household meant there would be no more constant shouting matches for them to endure. It meant I could have them all to myself on weekends and holidays and impart what I wanted to teach them without fear of constantly being interrupted or corrected. It meant I would cherish the time I spent with them, and vice versa, rather than enduring night after night of a living hell.

However, people never see that here. They see me mention an affair and, in my mind, I'm instantly a complete piece of crap who is selfish and evil and cares nothing about the people I hurt or the lives I destroy. I think that if they recognized me on the side of the road they would go out of their way to run me over. (It would be vehicular homicide, not murder, which somehow makes it okay!)

So, sure. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater. No extenuating circumstances, no justification, no excuse. Also, don't ever take a human life, no matter what. Let's see how those rigidly-defined convictions serve you when you've got your back to the wall with nowhere else to turn.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Quigster said:


> There are the hypothetical ideals that you uphold, and then there's reality.
> 
> For example, let's say that you are strongly against the idea of taking another human life. You oppose capital punishment and dislike military invasions of other countries because of the lives lost. You feel that your beliefs are rock-solid and you've never been given any reason to question them.
> 
> ...


You must be awfully tired after jumping through all those hoops.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

GusPolinski said:


> You must be awfully tired after jumping through all those hoops.


And it all could have been "I had a ****ty wife so I divorced her and met someone great" instead of "I had a ****ty wife so I ****ed someone else to make sure I had someone to go to before I left her."

Because that's all I read.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

marduk said:


> And it all could have been "I had a ****ty wife so I divorced her and met someone great" instead of "I had a ****ty wife so I ****ed someone else to make sure I had someone to go to before I left her."
> 
> Because that's all I read.


Don't forget the hilarious attempt at drawing a cogent parallel between self-defense and infidelity.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Adultery and &quot;chivalry&quot;*



Satya said:


> I'm kind of an old fashioned minded woman that's been responsible for being independent and owning her shyt for a long time. My ex H was a good provider financially and my contributions were a little more well rounded. I had a lower paying job, but I did all housework, laundry, 75% of cooking, and supported him emotionally through a lot.
> 
> He was a [email protected] captain. He wouldn't initiate on anything, he was a slob at home, he couldn't hang a picture, and everything requiring diy would result in a call to his handy dad rather than learn skills himself. He was brilliantly lazy and lazily brilliant. He was very inherently smart. Gifted. In Mensa. Amazingly talented at his job. Zero patience for "dumb" people that didn't have book smarts. He was also psychopathic and had zero ability to empathize. He was a big kid (most men are - sorry guys) but to the level that made you realize his mom did way too much of the menial stuff because he had way more important things to do. He was utterly unsupportive of anything not relating to his own interests. If he didn't wanna, he wouldn't. Period. He'd donate money to a cause but you wouldn't catch him dead serving at a soup kitchen. He made sure we always had money. That is and will be something I will always appreciate his efforts on. He either had staunch friends or bitter enemies. Nothing in-between.
> 
> ...


Yep. I know where you are coming from.

I married a PhD with the mental age of about 13. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Quigster (Aug 1, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> Don't forget the hilarious attempt at drawing a cogent parallel between self-defense and infidelity.


Thank you for your mockery of my position. It must have taken a lot of courage to type that from behind the safety of your keyboard.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Lets keep in mind that different points of view are allowed on TAM. When a poster is attacked, it shuts down people from opening up and sharing.


----------



## Ceegee (Sep 9, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> Don't forget the hilarious attempt at drawing a cogent parallel between self-defense and infidelity.



The f***ing was a life or death situation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nomorebeans (Mar 31, 2015)

Quigster said:


> Thank you for your mockery of my position. It must have taken a lot of courage to type that from behind the safety of your keyboard.


So, you cheated on your "horrible" wife, with whom you had more than one child, instead of leaving her honorably for the supposed betterment of your children's lives first, or at least telling her you met someone you thought you'd be happier with and leaving her then and there so you could pursue that relationship freely and honestly, and you call someone else a coward?

How nice it must be to never have to be accountable for one's own actions.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Quigster said:


> Thank you for your mockery of my position. It must have taken a lot of courage to type that from behind the safety of your keyboard.


None at all, actually.

Precisely how would one apply one's courage to his or her participation in an online forum?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Quigster said:


> Thank you for your mockery of my position. It must have taken a lot of courage to type that from behind the safety of your keyboard.


Look, here's the deal man.

Do you feel good about what you did?

If you could do it differently, would you?


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

Sorry but you could see the punch line halfway through the wall of words


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Quigster said:


> There are the hypothetical ideals that you uphold, and then there's reality.
> 
> For example, let's say that you are strongly against the idea of taking another human life. You oppose capital punishment and dislike military invasions of other countries because of the lives lost. You feel that your beliefs are rock-solid and you've never been given any reason to question them.
> 
> ...


That was pretty dumb. There are justified times to take life. There is never a justification for becoming a lowlife, cheater, betrayer of vows, love and trust.

Pretty off and terrible examples.

I know both soldiers and officers who are expected to take lives to protect the innocent.

How is fvcking your AP even a comparison?
Quite a stretch and even insulting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_You rationalized your affair instead of just moving to divorce first. You were not backed into a corner of your kitchen by an invader and forced to stick your penis in another woman to save everyone! LOL!

Sorry your marriage sucked but you cheated because you wanted to and you did become a lowlife for a while.

Doesn't sound like you formed a habit and I don't want to physically harm cheaters.

I just don't think them worthy of the trust it takes for marriage.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

While there is a great deal of what the OP talks about in mainstream relationship advice, that a woman should have full rights and respect but responsibility should be on the man. I do not agree it is as common on TAM. There are a few voices that will always voice that the woman is merely misunderstood, but they are a minority and typically have their views criticized.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

Wow. Infidelity and self defense is lumped together in this thread and in another suicide and a sore throat.

It must be weird comparison day today.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

phillybeffandswiss said:


> Wow. Infidelity and self defense is lumped together in this thread and in another suicide and a sore throat.
> 
> It must be weird comparison day today.


Yup.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> That was pretty dumb. There are justified times to take life. *There is never a justification for becoming a lowlife, cheater, betrayer of vows, love and trust.*
> 
> Pretty off and terrible examples.
> 
> ...


This may sound out of character given much of what I post, but I wouldn't take it that far. After all, I've said it before... given the unhealthy and even toxic marital environments in which many waywards find themselves (and I'll table any discussion w/ respect to who contributed what percentage of dysfunction to the marriage... for now) prior to engaging in adultery, it is sometimes _understandable_ that they choose to look for affection outside their marriages.

(I seem to remember a somewhat lengthy discussion about this in one of KingwoodKev's threads. In fact, I remember going round and round w/ @altawa about it.)

Now... that's not to say that I'd choose the same path, because I honestly don't think that I would. In fact, there was a time in my marriage -- I'd say about 10 years ago -- that I felt particularly disconnected from my wife, and I can tell you that cheating was just about the furthest thing from my mind. (Oh, and also...? When my wife expressed her unease at the fact that I was working and traveling w/ an attractive, somewhat scantily-clad, and flirty older woman...? I actively took steps to mitigate any time spent alone w/ her.)

Anyway, does that understanding somehow justify or excuse the infidelity? No, not at all. There is, after all, quite a difference between understanding that the environment and events that preceded a transgression _could conceivably lead to said transgression_ and allowing that understanding to somehow absolve or excuse the transgression.

Sooo... @Quigster, assuming that everything that you contributed in your earlier post is true, _I can understand why you cheated._

There, I said it.

Do I think you were a horrible person?

No, not necessarily.

Do I, however, think that you conducted yourself in a rather weak-willed and cowardly manner?

Yes, I do.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

Can someone explain to me the criteria whether or not a poster gets slammed for having an affair? Is the type of affair? Or how long they've been here? Or how much they post? 

It's just that a week or so ago a lot of people seemed okay with another poster admission to an affair.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

soccermom2three said:


> Can someone explain to me the criteria whether or not a poster gets slammed for having an affair? Is the type of affair? Or how long they've been here? Or how much they post?
> 
> *It's just that a week or so ago a lot of people seemed okay with another poster admission to an affair.*


Got a link?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

soccermom2three said:


> Can someone explain to me the criteria whether or not a poster gets slammed for having an affair? Is the type of affair? Or how long they've been here? Or how much they post?
> 
> It's just that a week or so ago a lot of people seemed okay with another poster admission to an affair.


Is there a criteria sticky?

If so, I sure missed it.

I think individuals just post what they think.

Don't you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Got a link?


Tech's thread.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

soccermom2three said:


> Can someone explain to me the criteria whether or not a poster gets slammed for having an affair? Is the type of affair? Or how long they've been here? Or how much they post?
> 
> It's just that a week or so ago a lot of people seemed okay with another poster admission to an affair.


Speaking only for myself, I am fairly hard on waywards until they begin to demonstrate remorse. @LosingHim comes to mind, even if I am outspoken on how little I think of her husband's behavior.

I have very little patience for the rationalizations and justifications that seem to come part and parcel with waywards. The only integrity problem worse than lying to others is lying to yourself.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lilac23 (Jul 9, 2015)

*Re: Adultery and &quot;chivalry&quot;*



MattMatt said:


> Yep. I know where you are coming from.
> 
> I married a PhD with the mental age of about 13.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Most PhD's are about that age mentally...or socially...or emotionally.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

"For example, let's say that you are strongly against the idea of taking another human life. You oppose capital punishment and dislike military invasions of other countries because of the lives lost. You feel that your beliefs are rock-solid and you've never been given any reason to question them"

Comparing sticking your d*** or letting someone else stick their d*** other thanthe a spo to killing someone in self defence is illogical. You are comparing chalk and cheese. Unless of course, someone is standing there with a gun to the person’s head and making them engage in the act of cheating. Possible but highly unlikely!


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

soccermom2three said:


> Tech's thread.


?


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

soccermom2three said:


> It's just that a week or so ago a lot of people seemed okay with another poster admission to an affair.


Hmmm.... I got the "I don't want to get banned" edge from most posters and a few were okay. I'll have to go back and read it again. I know Conan didn't approve.


----------



## Voltaire2013 (Sep 22, 2013)

This Gus guy seems to nail it. ;-)

Not so long ago I came here. As a victim I tell you! Sexless marriage and a department full of attractive women telling me how awesome I was and how lucky my wife was. They were all reading the worlds worst Soccer Mom sex book, my wife and the entire department. The dept talked to me about it (before I knew boundaries, friends) my wife never. This killed me, these married or otherwise engaged women could share with me these intimate things and then tell me how I was so different and they loved me for it. (for the record i told them it was juvenile trash, and if Judy Blume wrote a sex book it would be better)

So I'm in Brooklyn a short while later, at a friends bar, and I'm bitter, and drunk and lonely and feeling like my wife doesn't even acknowledge me and this art restorer does. She digs me and starts and very stimulating conversation. She seems cool too, and is suprised that I have an inkling of what she does. (Thanks History Channel)

We go out for a smoke, and she tries to kiss me. I pull back and tell her I appreciate it, but I'm married and don't roll that way. She seems nonplussed but moves on to the next guy. My friend at the bar texts me 'oh she tried to kiss you? She usually blows randoms in the bathroom!'

I feel less special and call it a night. Unbeknownst to me, this was all playing out simultaneously on my IPad at home for my wife to see as the devices were linked. 

I'm glad I took the high road, but I came home to a lot of awkward questions. 

I could have rationalized doing something that night, but I couldn't have been able to live with it. 

We're better now and I'm glad I never crossed that line. 

Cheers,
V(13)



GusPolinski said:


> This may sound out of character given much of what I post, but I wouldn't take it that far. After all, I've said it before... given the unhealthy and even toxic marital environments in which many waywards find themselves (and I'll table any discussion w/ respect to who contributed what percentage of dysfunction to the marriage... for now) prior to engaging in adultery, it is sometimes _understandable_ that they choose to look for affection outside their marriages.
> 
> (I seem to remember a somewhat lengthy discussion about this in one of KingwoodKev's threads. In fact, I remember going round and round w/ @altawa about it.)
> 
> ...


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

phillybeffandswiss said:


> Hmmm.... I got the "I don't want to get banned" edge from most posters and a few were okay. I'll have to go back and read it again. I know Conan didn't approve.


The focus seemed to turn to how horrible his ex wife was and, in my opinion, the under current was, "she was horrible so it was okay what he did", though no one came out and said that. If we are to tow the TAM CWI line that it's never the BS fault for the affair then it didn't matter how horrible she was.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> All that you bolded are what takes place when people cheat Gus.


Eh... I'm not fond of generalizations.

Generally speaking, that is.





ConanHub said:


> Not necessarily everyone of them in every instance of cheating.


Agreed.

For example, I'm likely to have a much harsher view of a wife and mother who, despite having a solid, stable, hard-working, and affectionate husband, hits middle-age, starts bar-hopping multiple nights a week, functionally leaving her family w/o a wife and mother, and before long winds up in an affair (if not affair_s_) than I am a woman who, after suffering years of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her drunken, deadbeat husband, winds up in an affair w/ the neighbor.



ConanHub said:


> I was really put off by the self defense comparison.


That was a complete and total misfire.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

It's all academic anyway.

He is banned by request.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> > There is never a justification for becoming a lowlife, cheater, betrayer of vows, love and trust.
> ...


I have to differ. I think that if someone is capable of 'becoming' a lowlife cheater, betrayer of vows, love and trust, that they were actually that type of person all along, even if in less severe ways before cheating, and that it was very likely that behaviour that contributed to the toxic marital environment in the first place.

Someone who is untrustworthy and solves problems by running away into someone else's arms probably has a history of being selfish or disrespectful with their spouse and unwilling to address problems in the marriage in an open fashion.

I guess I've untabled your discussion about dysfunction in the marriage, but I don't think it can be set aside like that. I think it's intrinsic.

Also, understanding why someone did something is not the same as saying what they did was justified.

Understanding that someone could be selfish enough to want to seek affection outside their marriage instead of dealing with the marital problems respectfully still does not justify the cheating. Understanding that someone is a coward is not the same as saying running away from problems is the right thing to do.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I have to differ. I think that if someone is capable of 'becoming' a lowlife cheater, betrayer of vows, love and trust, that they were actually that type of person all along, even if in less severe ways before cheating, and that it was very likely that behaviour that contributed to the toxic marital environment in the first place.


I'd challenge you to a) take cheating out of the picture and b) think of a few ways in which a spouse could become "a betrayer of vows, love, and trust".

Oxford commas rule, by the way.



Hopeful Cynic said:


> Someone who is untrustworthy and solves problems by running away into someone else's arms probably has a history of being selfish or disrespectful with their spouse and unwilling to address problems in the marriage in an open fashion.


Eh... maybe.

That said, what such a person probably has in spades is a tendency to allow the behavior of others to dictate the terms of his or her own morality.



Hopeful Cynic said:


> I guess I've untabled your discussion about dysfunction in the marriage...


Not really. Or at least not in a meaningful way. What you have done, however, is to assert your opinion that anywhere from nearly 100% to 100% of any pre-affair dysfunction within a marriage is on the wayward.

Sorry, but that's extremely naive.



Hopeful Cynic said:


> ...but I don't think it can be set aside like that. I think it's intrinsic.


I'd agree, but -- again -- you're _still_ putting it all on the wayward.



Hopeful Cynic said:


> Also, understanding why someone did something is not the same as saying what they did was justified.
> 
> Understanding that someone could be selfish enough to want to seek affection outside their marriage instead of dealing with the marital problems respectfully still does not justify the cheating. Understanding that someone is a coward is not the same as saying running away from problems is the right thing to do.


That's more or less exactly what I said earlier.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Eh... I'm not fond of generalizations.
> 
> Generally speaking, that is.
> 
> ...


I'm the same. Vows are always broken and a betrayal takes place. Sometimes the biggest betrayal is of the cheaters own values.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

farsidejunky said:


> It's all academic anyway.
> 
> He is banned by request.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


BANNED.....What happened?


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

G.J. said:


> BANNED.....What happened?



Oh I found another post by him and he wasn't a happy bunny so he asked to be banned,,,guess he couldn't face the guilt.....or didn't think he measured up to the 'chivalry' code...or



> Quigster is banned at his own request.


----------



## RWB (Feb 6, 2010)

marduk said:


> And it all could have been "I had a ****ty wife so I divorced her and met someone great" instead of "I had a ****ty wife so I ****ed someone else to make sure I had someone to go to before I left her."
> 
> Because that's all I read.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My personal favorite... "The Devil Made Me do IT... Defense".


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

RWB said:


> My personal favorite... "The Devil Made Me do IT... Defense".


Well, Elizabeth Hurleys version of the devil would make me at least consider it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> I'd challenge you to a) take cheating out of the picture and b) think of a few ways in which a spouse could become "a betrayer of vows, love, and trust".
> 
> Oxford commas rule, by the way.


I do love my Oxford commas, however I was copying ConanHub's phrasing there.

Hmmm. After infidelity, finances are the next big thing to break up a marriage. I'm sure that people who find out their spouse has been accumulating secret debt or gambling away the family assets feel quite devastated by the betrayal.

Finding out that your so-called life partner has been selfishly taking advantage of your hard work earning money for the family and has ruined the retirement you had been envisioning is rough.



GusPolinski said:


> Not really. Or at least not in a meaningful way. What you have done, however, is to assert your opinion that anywhere from nearly 100% to 100% of any pre-affair dysfunction within a marriage is on the wayward.
> 
> Sorry, but that's extremely naive.
> 
> I'd agree, but -- again -- you're _still_ putting it all on the wayward.


I'm saying that a dysfunctional marriage with someone who turns out to be wayward is 50% to 100% caused by the wayward. For all I know, the other spouse could be just as evil.

But I AM saying that we can only blame the other spouse for 0 to 50% of the dysfunction.

People willing to cheat have severe character flaws in the honesty, consideration, self-control, and empathy departments. That has no doubt been manifesting in the marriage all along even before the cheating. The other spouse may or may not have also been contributing to the dysfunction. We don't know anything about their character flaws except what the person known to be dishonest and selfish tells us. And we also know that people who cheat often try to justify their actions by retroactively magnifying their partner's flaws.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

Voltaire2013 said:


> Not so long ago I came here. As a victim I tell you! Sexless marriage and a department full of attractive women telling me how awesome I was and how lucky my wife was. They were all reading the worlds worst Soccer Mom sex book, my wife and the entire department. The dept talked to me about it (before I knew boundaries, friends) my wife never. This killed me, these married or otherwise engaged women could share with me these intimate things and then tell me how I was so different and they loved me for it. (for the record i told them it was juvenile trash, and if Judy Blume wrote a sex book it would be better)


Uh... Judy Blume HAS written a sex book. It's called _Wifey_, and it's very sexually explicit. 

I found my mom's copy when I was a teenager. (TBH, she didn't hide it, it was right on the bookshelf next to all the other regular books that I was welcome to read.) Best sex education I ever had...


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> For example, I'm likely to have a much harsher view of a wife and mother who, despite having a solid, stable, hard-working, and affectionate husband, hits middle-age, starts bar-hopping multiple nights a week, functionally leaving her family w/o a wife and mother, and before long winds up in an affair (if not affair_s_) than I am a woman who, after suffering years of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her drunken, deadbeat husband, winds up in an affair w/ the neighbor.


Meh... I was the woman who suffered years of emotional abuse from my drunken husband. I was desperate for affection. There were men who made offers--not sleazy, exploitative men, but men who would have given me love and treated me well--and I still didn't cheat. Because I was married, and I made a vow, and if I was going to be with another man, I was going to get un-hitched first.

Then again, I've also been told that I hold myself to incredibly high standards.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

FeministInPink said:


> Meh... I was the woman who suffered years of emotional abuse from my drunken husband. I was desperate for affection. There were men who made offers--not sleazy, exploitative men, but men who would have given me love and treated me well--and I still didn't cheat. Because I was married, and I made a vow, and if I was going to be with another man, I was going to get un-hitched first.
> 
> Then again, I've also been told that I hold myself to incredibly high standards.


I'd say your avatar is appropriate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

FeministInPink said:


> Meh... I was the woman who suffered years of emotional abuse from my drunken husband. I was desperate for affection. There were men who made offers--not sleazy, exploitative men, but men who would have given me love and treated me well--and I still didn't cheat. Because I was married, and I made a vow, and if I was going to be with another man, I was going to get un-hitched first.
> 
> Then again, I've also been told that I hold myself to incredibly high standards.



http://cdn.talkaboutmarriage.net/images/TAMarriage_2015/smilies/tango_face_kiss.png


----------



## Voltaire2013 (Sep 22, 2013)

Well how about that. Ordered. 
Thanks,v(13)



FeministInPink said:


> Uh... Judy Blume HAS written a sex book. It's called _Wifey_, and it's very sexually explicit.
> 
> I found my mom's copy when I was a teenager. (TBH, she didn't hide it, it was right on the bookshelf next to all the other regular books that I was welcome to read.) Best sex education I ever had...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

FeministInPink said:


> Uh... Judy Blume HAS written a sex book. It's called _Wifey_, and it's very sexually explicit.
> 
> I found my mom's copy when I was a teenager. (TBH, she didn't hide it, it was right on the bookshelf next to all the other regular books that I was welcome to read.) Best sex education I ever had...


Interesting. I'll check it out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

FeministInPink said:


> Meh... I was the woman who suffered years of emotional abuse from my drunken husband. I was desperate for affection. There were men who made offers--not sleazy, exploitative men, but men who would have given me love and treated me well--and I still didn't cheat. Because I was married, and I made a vow, and if I was going to be with another man, I was going to get un-hitched first.
> 
> Then again, I've also been told that I hold myself to incredibly high standards.


I think your standards are good and normal.

Everyone else must be dumpster diving in the dignity and morals department!

I really like the avatar as well!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Maxo (Mar 8, 2016)

soccermom2three said:


> Yada, yada. More of the same. Can we go more than week without a women are evil post?


Well,they are,aren't they?


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Maxo said:


> Well,they are,aren't they?


Yep, I thought Kobold's initial post was spot on


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

CPR on this thread?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Maxo (Mar 8, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> Meh... I was the woman who suffered years of emotional abuse from my drunken husband. I was desperate for affection. There were men who made offers--not sleazy, exploitative men, but men who would have given me love and treated me well--and I still didn't cheat. Because I was married, and I made a vow, and if I was going to be with another man, I was going to get un-hitched first.
> 
> Then again, I've also been told that I hold myself to incredibly high standards.


Yep. I was in an abusive one,too. Never crossed my mind to cheat and I was reasonably hot back then,pretty marketable.
But,the men hitting on you,despite outwardly appearing normal,were dirtbags.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

Maxo said:


> Yep. I was in an abusive one,too. Never crossed my mind to cheat and I was reasonably hot back then,pretty marketable.
> But,the men hitting on you,despite outwardly appearing normal,were dirtbags.


Some probably were. Some were just trying to give some comfort and support. Would those men take it farther? Probably, if she made the first move.

The reasoning the men seem to engage in is (a) I'm not her father or her keeper, (b) That she's married is something she needs to honor. If she won't why should I, and (c) I'm not thinking of taking her away from her husband, in fact a lot of my advice to her has been about how to win him back.


----------



## Maxo (Mar 8, 2016)

sidney2718 said:


> Some probably were. Some were just trying to give some comfort and support. Would those men take it farther? Probably, if she made the first move.
> 
> The reasoning the men seem to engage in is (a) I'm not her father or her keeper, (b) That she's married is something she needs to honor. If she won't why should I, and (c) I'm not thinking of taking her away from her husband, in fact a lot of my advice to her has been about how to win him back.


They sound so honorable,so much integrity. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

"That she's married is something she needs to honor. If she won't why should I"

Ummmm.....the Golden Rule.....that's why....which is also the basis of the Social Contract Theory our entire social and government system is based on.

I refrain from injuring you....in return you reciprocate.

Some sh*tbags just don't get this and decide 'it's the BH's fault, if he was taking care of his business she wouldn't be here with me.'.....an ironic attitude given the topic of this thread to start, as it reinforces the flawed argument OP was speaking against.

The fact is, this is a f*cked up, sh*tty excuse....and a complete dirtbag's flimsy excuse for inexcusable behavior.

A good analogy is this.....If I saw someone jump out of their car at the gas station to run inside, leaving the motor running....I might think that is a foolish thing to do.....but it sure as h*ll doesn't give me the right to just jump in and drive away.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

sidney2718 said:


> Some probably were. Some were just trying to give some comfort and support. Would those men take it farther? Probably, if she made the first move.
> 
> The reasoning the men seem to engage in is (a) I'm not her father or her keeper, (b) That she's married is something she needs to honor. If she won't why should I, and (c) I'm not thinking of taking her away from her husband, in fact a lot of my advice to her has been about how to win him back.


When I was younger I was physical with some engaged and married women. Since then, I have learned to be on the look out and not expect all married or engaged women to let you know. I agree a man has responsibility to actively look out for the fact a woman is secretly married, but my younger self was naive rather than a dirt bag.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Kobold said:


> Since it's such a hot topic on here lately, I figured I may as well throw my two cents in.
> 
> A few posters here frequently advocate for a view of female infidelity that is in opposition with how most here see things and is simultaneously a different(and less harsh) standard than which the same few posters hold cheating husbands to, under the belief that when women cheat it is due at least partially to some failure on the part of the husband to live up to his role in the family and not entirely the fault of the adulteress. Whereas when husbands cheat it is due to his own moral failing alone and not at all a reflection on his betrayed wife.
> 
> ...


*Implicitly!

My RSXW had that play well drawn up in her playbook!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

Dyokemm said:


> "That she's married is something she needs to honor. If she won't why should I"
> 
> Ummmm.....the Golden Rule.....that's why....which is also the basis of the Social Contract Theory our entire social and government system is based on.
> 
> ...


This is why the argument that the "only person BSs should be angry with is their WS" makes me want to wrap my head in duct tape to prevent explosion. Yes, I acknowledge that the WS made the vows, but that doesn't excuse the OM/OWs behavior in any way. I was angry with her, with him, with my wife's friend who knew and didn't say anything, with myself for being so oblivious. I have plenty of anger for all involved. I don't care if she made the vows, if stealing a car is illegal and what two consenting adults do isn't, or if he was the effing POTUS. What he did was wrong, and there's no way around it.

Back on point to Kobold's post though. Blame shifting is wrong, regardless who it happens to. I'm not sure how severe I'd define this problem to be, but certainly is common enough to cause concern. I see the criticism pretty quickly when it's a man doing the blaming for his infidelities. The concern I have is I've seen articles written by supposed therapists claiming that women wouldn't cheat if their needs were being met at home. Either women have this compulsion to be constantly controlled by men, society, or others; or they're thinking conscious individuals with their own personalities and responsibilities. Just basing this off of the current feminist movement, I'd wager it's the later.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

Retribution said:


> This is why the argument that the "only person BSs should be angry with is their WS" makes me want to wrap my head in duct tape to prevent explosion. Yes, I acknowledge that the WS made the vows, but that doesn't excuse the OM/OWs behavior in any way. I was angry with her, with him, with my wife's friend who knew and didn't say anything, with myself for being so oblivious. I have plenty of anger for all involved. I don't care if she made the vows, if stealing a car is illegal and what two consenting adults do isn't, or if he was the effing POTUS. What he did was wrong, and there's no way around it.
> 
> Back on point to Kobold's post though. Blame shifting is wrong, regardless who it happens to. I'm not sure how severe I'd define this problem to be, but certainly is common enough to cause concern. I see the criticism pretty quickly when it's a man doing the blaming for his infidelities. The concern I have is* I've seen articles written by supposed therapists claiming that women wouldn't cheat if their needs were being met at home.* Either women have this compulsion to be constantly controlled by men, society, or others; or they're thinking conscious individuals with their own personalities and responsibilities. Just basing this off of the current feminist movement, I'd wager it's the later.


I don't buy this. Someone can be having all their needs met and still cheat, because they are a sh!tty person with poor morals.

And then you have people like me. My needs weren't being met, in fact my XH was emotionally abusive. But I never cheated. I divorced him over that, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be a cheater.


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> I don't buy this. Someone can be having all their needs met and still cheat, because they are a sh!tty person with poor morals.
> 
> And then you have people like me. My needs weren't being met, in fact my XH was emotionally abusive. But I never cheated. I divorced him over that, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be a cheater.


Yes! My point exactly. If only more of us had spouses with your kind of character.


----------



## Maxo (Mar 8, 2016)

I agree, Retribution. It never ceases to amaze me how some folks cannot grasp the relatively simple concept that placing blame on the OM or OW does not preclude blaming the WS, as well. One would think that it is obvious the two are not mutually exclusive.
Yet, time and again, I see some posts by folks with limited analytical abilities, apparently, who cannot grasp this simple concept. 
And, they seem to have no grasp of the concept of that, despite the fact that one is not in some type of relationship with another human being, we have moral obligations to others. I shudder to think how these folks go through their lives, pocketing found wallets, accepting incorrect change in their favor from cashiers, etc.
Mind boggling their level of morality. But, you see this crap all around.


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

"despite the fact that one is not in some type of relationship with another human being, we have moral obligations to others."

Unfortunately, this has become almost an alien concept in American culture and society today....and in a lot more situations than just adultery.

Look at the blatant frauds conducted by Wall Street in recent years.....the concept that they (the bankers) might have a moral obligation NOT to swindle the public seems to be non-existent.

We truly are living in a completely laissez-faire society, a type of Ayn Randian h*llhole, where its every person for themselves....and the essential motto to live by in dealing with others is caveat emptor (buyer beware) because trusting someone to behave ethically or keep their word is a risky proposition all too often.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Just for fun, I'm going to submit this for everyone's reflection.

And then back away. Slowly.



> Abstract
> Molecular genetic data contain information on the history of populations. Evidence of prehistoric demographic expansions has been detected in the mitochondrial diversity of most human populations and in a Y-chromosome STR analysis, but not in a previous study of 11 Y-chromosome SNPs in Europeans. In this paper, we show that mismatch distributions and tests of mutation/drift equilibrium based on up to 166 Y-chromosome SNPs, in 46 samples from all continents, also fail to support an increase of the male effective population size. Computer simulations show that the low nuclear versus mitochondrial mutation rates cannot explain these results. However, ascertainment bias, i.e., when only highly variable SNP sites are typed, may be concealing any Y SNPs evidence for a recent, but not an ancient, increase in male effective population sizes. The results of our SNP analyses can be reconciled with the expansion of male effective population sizes inferred from STR loci, and with mitochondrial evidence, by admitting that *humans were essentially polygynous during much of their history. As a consequence, until recently only a few men may have contributed a large fraction of the Y-chromosome pool at every generation. The number of breeding males may have increased, and the variance of their reproductive success may have decreased, through a recent shift from polygyny to monogamy, which is supported by ethnological data and possibly accompanied the shift from mobile to sedentary communities.*


A Recent Shift from Polygyny to Monogamy in Humans Is Suggested by the Analysis of Worldwide Y-Chromosome Diversity - Springer


----------



## Maxo (Mar 8, 2016)

Genghis Kahn.


----------

