# Why do men hit on married women?



## julianne

Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


----------



## RandomDude

I only had a few encounters in the past, I never actively went out specifically targeting married women, though I was a flirt/fun-flirt and sometimes well... things happened

The way I saw it, if it wasn't going to be me, it was going to be someone else. So if she's fkable, hey why not? Sometimes I also had no idea until later, I once had an affair with a woman who was married with a son only 5 yrs my junior. The later freaked me out. I didn't see myself as the bane of society for what I did, I didn't accept responsibility for women's infidelity even if I capitalised on it from time to time.

Nowadays though, meh
I'm too old for that kind of stuff now


----------



## Caribbean Man

Why do some women who know that I'm happily married still hit on me?
Maybe because they have low morals?
Maybe because they live in an alternate reality?
Maybe, like a rabid dog , the have a compelling urge to spread their moral and / or sexual disease , before it consumes them , and they die?
Maybe because they think all men are horny all the time and would have sex with anything , including them, anytime?

So just flip it around and you'll see that the reasons are as varied and absurd as the persons who do it are.
Gender doesn't matter.

Whatever the reason , I don't ever let it get to me. 
I just ignore them.


----------



## Maneo

When I was 16 I worked as a dishwasher. The supervisor of the dishwashers said he always went out with married women so if they got pregnant the husband would think it was his. That was his reason for hitting on married women. I never followed his advice.


----------



## WyshIknew

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


This question has been asked before.

Apart from the obvious reason of low morals there are several, some or all may apply in any situation.

I think the two main reasons are below.

Easy sex.

Many men regard married women as easy sex. Unlike a single girl who he would have to woo and compete for against many men, once he has made the initial 'conquest' she is cheap and easy sex. And, apparently, a married woman is the easiest lay for these guys.
There is also very little upkeep to these women, all he has to do is whisper sweet nothings to her and keep her emotionally involved.
They are also unlikely to become clingy, and pregnancy is not a problem, let some other poor shmuck look after the kids

Predator.

Some sorts of predatory male 'get off' on taking another mans woman.
There is a thrill in that not only are they bonking this woman, they feel they are humiliating the husband too.
There are stories on this site of women coming back from a tryst with their affair partner and getting their hubbies to have oral sex with them immediately on their return. Sometimes this gross act of disrespect is at the affair partners urging.


And these guys know that a certain percentage of married women will respond. It might be 1 in 10, 1 in 20 whatever but they don't care, they sniff and probe until they find a woman who is in a bad place in her marriage and exploit that 'weakness'.

And by hitting on the married women they are just playing percentages.


ETA, and you can largely reverse the genders here as well. Many women play this 'game' with married men.


----------



## hambone

Caribbean Man said:


> Why do some women who know that I'm happily married still hit on me?
> Maybe because they have low morals?
> Maybe because they live in an alternate reality?
> Maybe, like a rabid dog , the have a compelling urge to spread their moral and / or sexual disease , before it consumes them , and they die?
> Maybe because they think all men are horny all the time and would have sex with anything , including them, anytime?
> 
> So just flip it around and you'll see that the reasons are as varied and absurd as the persons who do it are.
> Gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Whatever the reason , I don't ever let it get to me.
> I just ignore them.



Back when I was working... I had women I worked with... who knew how happily married I was... hitting on me.

IMO, they just wanted to screw up my life. 

Maybe test my marriage.


As a pharmacists... I had women with addiction issues hitting on me. If I ever... just once... say.. give them a refill without authorization for a little favor from them... from then on.. the OWN me. If I don't give them what they want... they turn me in to the authorities!

And you know, there are a lot of HAWT women with addiction issues.


----------



## PBear

I'm guessing guys who do that do it because they get enough positive responses for it to be worthwhile. So why do some of you women respond positively to guys flirting with you when you're married?

C


----------



## arbitrator

Maneo said:


> When I was 16 I worked as a dishwasher. *The supervisor of the dishwashers said he always went out with married women so if they got pregnant the husband would think it was his. *That was his reason for hitting on married women. I never followed his advice.


*That's about the sorriest, low-life excuse that I think I've ever heard. With a lack of any "sincerety" and with his self-serving flippancy, I would sincerely hope that his appendage fell off! *


----------



## hambone

arbitrator said:


> *That's about the sorriest, low-life excuse that I think I've ever heard. With a lack of any "sincerety" and his self-serving flippancy, I would sincerely hope that his appendage fell off! *


It think the guy was BSing a 16 year old kid.

How much demand can there be for a dish washer supervisor?


----------



## arbitrator

hambone said:


> It think the guy was BSing a 16 year old kid.
> 
> How much demand can there be for a dish washer supervisor?


*Well, Ham! It would certainly have to be a high-end type of restaurant, similar to say, something along the lines of a Tony's in Houston.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

hambone said:


> Back when I was working... I had women I worked with... who knew how happily married I was... hitting on me.
> 
> *IMO, they just wanted to screw up my life*.
> 
> .


Definitely yes.

I think it's like a disease.

I'm not saying that married people who find themselves in an affair are sick. Sometimes because of proximity to a friend / co worker, a person might find themselves crossing marital boundaries over into affair territory.

But when people, especially single people, deliberately target MARRIED people for 
" easy sex ", I think they are mentally sick and morally depraved.

A lot of these type of people have narcissistic tendencies , they cannot help themselves.

I see it as a type of psychopathy or anti social personality disorder, almost bordering on criminal behaviour.

IMO,they are no different to con artists , pathological liars, pyromaniacs and kleptomaniacs .


----------



## chillymorn

low morals.

their parents dropped the ball on raising them or they are just broken people when it comes to morals.

why do some people steal?why do some people gossip?why do some people abuse other people?why do some people steel tax payer money to start wars or a bull$hit health care system.

no morles and greed!


----------



## Married but Happy

Maneo said:


> When I was 16 I worked as a dishwasher. The supervisor of the dishwashers said he always went out with married women so if they got pregnant the husband would think it was his. That was his reason for hitting on married women. I never followed his advice.


On another site there was a thread about this, and the reason above was one of the main reasons for men who deliberately targeted married women. Married women aren't going to reveal their affair or the reason for a pregnancy - the POSOM is often off the hook. Add that she is unlikely to get too clingy or demanding because it would backfire on her, likewise easy to break it off once he's tired of her. They also said married women can be easy prey, because so many are unhappy in their marriages and don't have the easy options of single women to do something about it - almost any attention is an aphrodisiac to some in that situation, so they can be easier to seduce. The likelihood of getting caught isn't a huge deterrent, as up to 80% of affairs are never discovered.

Not nice, but that's the way some see it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

chillymorn said:


> low morals.
> 
> their parents dropped the ball on raising them or they are just broken people when it comes to morals.
> 
> *why do some people steal?why do some people gossip?why do some people abuse other people?why do some people steel tax payer money to start wars or a bull$hit health care system.*
> 
> no morles and greed!


Yes.
They belong to that same cluster.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

arbitrator said:


> *That's about the sorriest, low-life excuse that I think I've ever heard. With a lack of any "sincerety" and with his self-serving flippancy, I would sincerely hope that his appendage fell off! *


Pretty sure that the only thing a "supervisor of dishwashers" could ever get is desperate married cheating women. It had nothing to do with pregnancy, that was the only picking ground he could cull from.


----------



## arbitrator

*If I even entertained thinking of doing something remotely like that, even today, and in my early 60's, I'd be more than fearful that my old man would crawl up out of his East Texas grave and would come down here and get me!*


----------



## chillymorn

arbitrator said:


> *If I even entertained thinking of doing something remotely like that, even today, and in my early 60's, I'd be more than fearful that my old man would crawl up out of his East Texas grave and would come down here and get me!*


sounds like you had one of the good parents!


----------



## arbitrator

Married but Happy said:


> *The likelihood of getting caught isn't a huge deterrent, as up to 80% of affairs are never discovered.*


*Such a sad, sad, statistic!*


----------



## thunderstruck

Thread title should be, "Why do people hit on married people?" Guys aren't the only predators. Over the past few years I've had a few women who ignored my ring and made it clear that they want to play.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


Don't say "guys" as in the entire male gender. Odds are you're not going to get ANY responses from the TYPE of guy who does this on this site. We're all here because we either need help in our marriage, or have gone through good and bad and can offer insight.

There is a SPECIFIC type of guy who hits on married women. That guy is a player looking for an easy lay. Sad to say but there is a group of married women who are easy pickings. Maybe they're bored, feel unappreciated, like to spice their life up, assign any number of reasons we hear WW's give, but they are easy with the right "game". So if you're a guy who wants an easy lay with little to no chance of it being long term, married women are perfect. You know you'll score, maybe 10% of the time (no idea what the numbers are, but they're higher than 1% I'm sure). This is also going to be a woman who will probably do a lot more sexually. 

It's all part of the game. Sadly.


----------



## unbelievable

Nobody misses a slice off a cut loaf.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

hambone said:


> It think the guy was BSing a 16 year old kid.
> 
> How much demand can there be for a dish washer supervisor?


You have read about a lot of the POSOM in the CWI section right.

This guy sounds like a SCORE compared to some of the other OM.


----------



## WyshIknew

thunderstruck said:


> Thread title should be, "Why do people hit on married people?" Guys aren't the only predators. Over the past few years I've had a few women who ignored my ring and made it clear that they want to play.


:iagree:


----------



## WyshIknew

Dad&Hubby said:


> Don't say "guys" as in the entire male gender. Odds are you're not going to get ANY responses from the TYPE of guy who does this on this site. We're all here because we either need help in our marriage, or have gone through good and bad and can offer insight.
> 
> There is a SPECIFIC type of guy who hits on married women. That guy is a player looking for an easy lay. Sad to say but there is a group of married women who are easy pickings. Maybe they're bored, feel unappreciated, like to spice their life up, assign any number of reasons we hear WW's give, but they are easy with the right "game". So if you're a guy who wants an easy lay with little to no chance of it being long term, married women are perfect. You know you'll score, maybe 10% of the time (no idea what the numbers are, but they're higher than 1% I'm sure). This is also going to be a woman who will probably do a lot more sexually.
> 
> It's all part of the game. Sadly.


:iagree:


----------



## hambone

Caribbean Man said:


> Definitely yes.
> 
> I think it's like a disease.
> 
> I'm not saying that married people who find themselves in an affair are sick. Sometimes because of proximity to a friend / co worker, a person might find themselves crossing marital boundaries over into affair territory.
> 
> But when people, especially single people, deliberately target MARRIED people for
> " easy sex ", I think they are mentally sick and morally depraved.
> 
> A lot of these type of people have narcissistic tendencies , they cannot help themselves.
> 
> 
> I see it as a type of psychopathy or anti social personality disorder, almost bordering on criminal behaviour.
> 
> IMO,they are no different to con artists , pathological liars, pyromaniacs and kleptomaniacs .




These were mostly married women. 

You know, want to take you to lunch... then all they want to talk about is how unhappy they are in their marriage... how their husband is not meeting their needs....

They start touching your arm... picking lint off your shoulder...

The first time it happened, I was so stupid and naïve... I'm trying to solve her problems... give her marriage counseling. Didn't take me long to realize that this wasn't about fixing her marriage.

Then, I became very uncomfortable. 

CM... I've got a great marriage. I am not so stupid as to do anything that will damage it. I mean, if I had an affair and we worked things out and stayed married. It would NEVER be the same. That total trust and commitment would be gone.

I love my way way too much to hurt her like that. 

Bottom line.. I've never been tempted to cheat.


----------



## WyshIknew

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


There is a thread called a players confession, not sure if it is real it sounds a bit dear penthouse to me.

There is also a post that gets shown sometimes by an ex member called fivestringpicker who explains why he hit on married women.


----------



## thunderstruck

Another thing I've learned about many married women when it comes to cheating...no games, they make their intentions known quickly. 

Easy for a player to hit on a bunch all day, and then move in on the easy scores.


----------



## hambone

WyshIknew said:


> There is a thread called a players confession, not sure if it is real it sounds a bit dear penthouse to me.
> 
> There is also a post that gets shown sometimes by an ex member called fivestringpicker who explains why he hit on married women.


How do you know they aren't just a bunch of wannabe's telling their fantasies?

My dad had this friend.. he was always relaying to me his friends sexploits. I never met the guy, didn't know him from Adam. Well, I had this friend with benefits. This was 40 years ago. Today, she would be classified as a cougar. We were at a night club and she nodded at a guy, rolled her eyes and said, "There's so and so. And, it was HIM. It was my dad's friend... the legend! I asked.. "you 'know' him?" She replies, "Yeah" in a very negative way. So, I told her, "My dad says he's a real ****sman!" OMG... she unloads on me. She didn't have anything good to say about his abilities in the BR. And, when she got to the end... she put her thumb next to her little finger and said, "And his peter is just about this big!"

The myth was destroyed. After all the bragging my father had done about this guy.. I couldn't wait to tell him...

ETA: I have no respect for a guy who kisses and tells.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Dad&Hubby said:


> Don't say "guys" as in the entire male gender. Odds are you're not going to get ANY responses from the TYPE of guy who does this on this site. We're all here because we either need help in our marriage, or have gone through good and bad and can offer insight.
> 
> There is a SPECIFIC type of guy who hits on married women. That guy is a player looking for an easy lay. Sad to say but there is a group of married women who are easy pickings. Maybe they're bored, feel unappreciated, like to spice their life up, assign any number of reasons we hear WW's give, but they are easy with the right "game". So if you're a guy who wants an easy lay with little to no chance of it being long term, married women are perfect. You know you'll score, maybe 10% of the time (no idea what the numbers are, but they're higher than 1% I'm sure). This is also going to be a woman who will probably do a lot more sexually.
> 
> It's all part of the game. Sadly.


Another thing I've learned about many married women when it comes to cheating...no games, they make their intentions known quickly. 

Easy for a player to hit on a bunch all day, and then move in on the easy scores.

------

The above two posts are my experience as well. To put it bluntly, they're women that want excitement in their lives and good sex. They're bored and they're tired of their husbands.


----------



## WyshIknew

hambone said:


> How do you know they aren't just a bunch of wannabe's telling their fantasies?


I agree. That's why I typed that it sounded a bit 'dear penthouse' to me.

The post in the player confession thread that sickened me to the stomach was about the NBA star who got this guy ejected out of a club so he could bang the guys wife in a back room of tjlhe club.


----------



## thunderstruck

hambone said:


> How do you know they aren't just a bunch of wannabe's telling their fantasies?


I have no PUA game. Hell, I'm not even trying, and women are approaching me, making small talk about kids, job, etc, and then switching over to talking about s**.

It's not hard for me to believe that the player stories are mostly true. A decent looking guy with some "game" could probably score all day with a bit of effort.


----------



## hambone

Dad&Hubby said:


> You have read about a lot of the POSOM in the CWI section right.
> 
> This guy sounds like a SCORE compared to some of the other OM.


IS there a specific thread?


----------



## hambone

thunderstruck said:


> I have no PUA game. Hell, I'm not even trying, and women are approaching me, making small talk about kids, job, etc, and then switching over to talking about s**.
> 
> It's not hard for me to believe that the player stories are mostly true. A decent looking guy with some "game" could probably score all day with some effort.


It's a different world than when I grew up. 

You might be right. My son is in college and I've seen the photos he receives from girls... some he doesn't even know.  But, these are all single women.


----------



## chillymorn

Married but Happy said:


> On another site there was a thread about this, and the reason above was one of the main reasons for men who deliberately targeted married women. Married women aren't going to reveal their affair or the reason for a pregnancy - the POSOM is often off the hook. Add that she is unlikely to get too clingy or demanding because it would backfire on her, likewise easy to break it off once he's tired of her. They also said married women can be easy prey, because so many are unhappy in their marriages and don't have the easy options of single women to do something about it - almost any attention is an aphrodisiac to some in that situation, so they can be easier to seduce. The likelihood of getting caught isn't a huge deterrent, as up to 80% of affairs are never discovered.
> 
> Not nice, but that's the way some see it.


where did you get the 80% at?

seems like that would be a hard stat to come up with.

I've seen and read on here that most affairs eventually come to light sooner or later.


----------



## lisab0105

Easy. Married women are no strings and they think they will drop their panties in a second if they are even the slightest bit in need of attention. 

Women hit on married men because they want the ego boost of getting another girls guy. It makes her feel like she is the hottest chick on the planet when a guy wants her more than he loves his wife. 

They are both scum.


----------



## samyeagar

Married women are low hanging fruit. Many women, even in happy marriages convince themselves that they would never ever cheat, and they let their guard down thinking that the ring makes them immune because after all, they are married and would never do something like that right? Well, they let their guard down, and before they know it, they are tangled up in something they said they never would be.


----------



## RandomDude

Morality can be a joke really, it took STBX years before I even trusted her to be loyal and even throughout my marriage I still kept my eyes open. Hell I don't even believe her completely even now that she's stayed away from sex with other men since seperation despite having proved herself throughout the years. Other women in the past even if they were cheating with me not on me made me wary of women's supposed fidelity.

If people can get away with it, they will. For the most part at least, sure some people may have morals, but for the most part its just words and their own pride. Cheating has unfortunately become socially acceptable to some level, even amongst some of my friends if it was justified (if the guy was a jerk etc) cheating on him was acceptable.

Ironically this is also one of the reasons why I've always been casual towards the idea of open relationships. My last gf before my wife I shared around with the belief 'if I can't ensure her loyalty, might as well enjoy her infidelity and be in control of it'. Lost respect for her to the point I had an emotional affair with my STBX who I later married. STBX however never entertained the idea, but most probably because she's a been there done that kinda girl.


----------



## hambone

lisab0105 said:


> Easy. Married women are no strings and they think they will drop their panties in a second if they are even the slightest bit in need of attention.
> 
> Women hit on married men because they want the ego boost of getting another girls guy. It makes her feel like she is the hottest chick on the planet when a guy wants her more than he loves his wife.
> 
> They are both scum.


Is that true of Married women? Why are they hitting on married men?


----------



## committed4ever

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Pretty sure that the only thing a "supervisor of dishwashers" could ever get is desperate married cheating women. It had nothing to do with pregnancy, that was the only picking ground he could cull from.


A "supervisor" of dishwasher is probably telling women he is the manager of the restaurant. He might even BE the manager.


----------



## PHTlump

Married people usually don't want a relationship. If you're looking for casual sex, a married person is your perfect partner. Also, the path to sex is faster. Married women usually can't go on dates, so there's not much work to put in before the sex starts. It is an F-buddy relationship from the start.

Of course the morals are low. But sex has a way of overriding morals.


----------



## RandomDude

Why would one hire a dishwashing supervisor anyways? Even in large hospitality outlets (such as a hotel) where I've worked in the past, you could have one dishwashing station, 2 dish-pigs (as we like to call them) for 3 outlets. In my business it's just 2 outlets, but the bar takes care of its own and even in full service with hundreds of covers I've only had to use 2 dish-pigs MAX. Unless of course you Americans throw around jobs like nobody's business lol


----------



## hambone

RandomDude said:


> Why would one hire a dishwashing supervisor anyways? Even in large hospitality outlets (such as a hotel) where I've worked in the past, you could have one dishwashing station, 2 dish-pigs (as we like to call them) for 3 outlets. In my business it's just 2 outlets, but the bar takes care of its own and even in full service with hundreds of covers I've only had to use 2 dish-pigs MAX. Unless of course you Americans throw around jobs like nobody's business lol


I'm thinking there were 2 dish-pigs... The 16 year old kid and the more senior employee... his "Supervisor"


----------



## RandomDude

Haha! Yeah that makes more sense lol

The lowly dish-pig calling himself supervisor


----------



## thunderstruck

hambone said:


> How much demand can there be for a dish washer supervisor?


I worked as a waiter in college, and I was surrounded by available women every night. I'm sure the dish super did okay if he looked decent and had a little swagger.


----------



## RandomDude

Mate... we keep our dish-pigs AWAY from the floor for a reason!
Floor staff are different, you have to groom/look good, so it's a different story.


----------



## Married but Happy

chillymorn said:


> where did you get the 80% at?
> 
> seems like that would be a hard stat to come up with.
> 
> I've seen and read on here that most affairs eventually come to light sooner or later.


I read it on the internet, so it must be true! :smthumbup:

However, it may be higher than 80%, according to this article based on a (admittedly non-scientific) survey:




> A new survey has found that _almost _100 per cent of women who cheat on their partners never get found out, but men are not as good at covering their tracks with 17 per cent admitting to getting caught.
> 
> The research carried out by a dating website for married people found 95 per cent of women and 83 per cent of men claim to have successfully conducted illicit encounters without their spouses finding out


Almost all women who cheat never get caught by their partners.... but a fifth of men DO get found out | Mail Online


----------



## Married but Happy

Another set of interesting - and scary - statistics:



> Percentage of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional: 41%
> 
> Percentage of *men* who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: *57%*
> 
> Percentage of *women* who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: *54%*


Infidelity Facts - Infidelity Statistics


----------



## RandomDude

Stats like that don't surprise me, based on my experience anyways, which makes me wonder if I'm ever going to really move on from STBX. It took her years to gain my trust and even then it's never been complete as I mentioned.

So hey, rather embrace singlehood.


----------



## treyvion

hambone said:


> It think the guy was BSing a 16 year old kid.
> 
> How much demand can there be for a dish washer supervisor?


People think like this though, it's the real world.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't hit on married women, but I do flirt with them. Difference of intent.

If I'm hitting on someone I'm trying to charm them for the purpose of escalating toward a date or whatever. Flirting, I'm just being playfully friendly... makes me feel good, makes her feel good, but it doesn't mean I want her. Heck, I flirt with old ladies and they love me for it, but I'm certainly not hitting on them.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8, that's called fun-flirting... at least in my vocabulary 

I fun-flirt with gay folk even - as I'm not homophobic, yet 100% straight, its just fun and laughs for me.


----------



## MaritimeGuy

Hitting on a married person is like picking off a weak one from the herd. It's not hard to figure out which married women are craving attention and a little positive reinforcement. As others have pointed out, to the predator it's perfect because she won't get too clingy.


----------



## Married but Happy

MaritimeGuy said:


> As others have pointed out, to the predator it's perfect because she won't get too clingy.


That, and some married women are actively looking for affairs. Prey preying on predator.


----------



## arbitrator

MaritimeGuy said:


> Hitting on a married person is like picking off a weak one from the herd. It's not hard to figure out which married women are craving attention and a little positive reinforcement. As others have pointed out, to the predator it's perfect because she won't get too clingy.


*... and all in the name of getting themselves a quick, easy piece of strange. And also add to the advantage column that a married woman is highly unlikely to be carrying any STD's!*


----------



## arbitrator

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *I don't hit on married women, but I do flirt with them. Difference of intent.
> 
> If I'm hitting on someone I'm trying to charm them for the purpose of escalating toward a date or whatever. Flirting, I'm just being playfully friendly... makes me feel good, makes her feel good, but it doesn't mean I want her. Heck, I flirt with old ladies and they love me for it, but I'm certainly not hitting on them.*


*Then what would you consider to be the primary difference in "flirting," as opposed to "hitting" on women?*


----------



## RandomDude

I'm assuming it's the difference of intent as he mentioned, I'm the same way.



Married but Happy said:


> That, and some married women are actively looking for affairs. Prey preying on predator.


And hit on young studs like I was back in the day. But now I'm an old stud, but a rich stud  hehe


----------



## treyvion

arbitrator said:


> *... and all in the name of getting themselves a quick, easy piece of strange. And also add to the advantage column that a married woman is highly unlikely to be carrying any STD's!*


Well if their banging all these guys on the side, how do they have a lower risk for having an STD?


----------



## RandomDude

^ That's tied in with the assumption that married women get much less action with multiple partners then your typical single girl down the road.


----------



## thrall

Caribbean Man said:


> Why do some women who know that I'm happily married still hit on me?
> Maybe because they have low morals?
> Maybe because they live in an alternate reality?
> Maybe, like a rabid dog , the have a compelling urge to spread their moral and / or sexual disease , before it consumes them , and they die?
> Maybe because they think all men are horny all the time and would have sex with anything , including them, anytime?
> 
> So just flip it around and you'll see that the reasons are as varied and absurd as the persons who do it are.
> Gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Whatever the reason , I don't ever let it get to me.
> I just ignore them.


I agree with this guy. :iagree:

A cheater is a cheater, period.


----------



## Sanity

A man who willfully without shame targets another man's wife is a scumbag and one of the lowest forms of life on the planet. 

I remember one of my subordinates was joking around and he told me he was sleeping with somebody from work who I knew was married. I asked him if he knew this and he said without shame yes. I then told him that I do not respect nor trust a man who sleeps with another mans wife regardless of its consensual. A man who does this has no morals and cannot be trusted.


----------



## Created2Write

lisab0105 said:


> Easy. Married women are no strings and they think they will drop their panties in a second if they are even the slightest bit in need of attention.
> 
> Women hit on married men because they want the ego boost of getting another girls guy. It makes her feel like she is the hottest chick on the planet when a guy wants her more than he loves his wife.
> 
> *They are both scum.*


Yup. My husband, whose wedding band is not easy to miss, was at a car parts store buying something for his car. The chick at the cash register struck up conversation about his car, and after only a few sentences, asked him if he wanted to get coffee or dinner(or something like that). He held up his ring finger and said, "I'm married." She just looked at him and said, "So?"

It's a good thing I wasn't there or it would have been ON! Course, knowing my DH, he would have just started making out with me. Only way to make the point and keep me from pulling some chick's hair out of her head. 

And I've had guys hit on me, even though they know I'm married. It starts with mutual interests, feigned desire to be friends, and then just leads to flattery and pushing the boundaries. Creeps. It hasn't happened a lot these days. I'm less naive than I was before, giving people the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have.


----------



## RandomDude

Sanity said:


> A man who willfully without shame targets another man's wife is a scumbag and one of the lowest forms of life on the planet.
> 
> I remember one of my subordinates was joking around and he told me he was sleeping with somebody from work who I knew was married. I asked him if he knew this and he said without shame yes. I then told him that I do not respect nor trust a man who sleeps with another mans wife regardless of its consensual. A man who does this has no morals and cannot be trusted.


Guess that puts me on the stake to be burnt then

Especially considering I still feel no guilt or regret for that particular page of my history

EDIT: Curious now actually, is a man really to blame for women's infidelity? Especially when he did not actively seek out such an opportunity? How much responsibility should a man accept when it comes to unfaithful wives?


----------



## Created2Write

If the man knows she's married and chooses to have sex with her, yes, that is his responsibility, regardless of who sought it out. It still communicates that neither has respect for marital boundaries.


----------



## Created2Write

And as for flirting not being hitting on someone, I'm not comfortable with that conclusion. Flirting can start as "harmless", without the intention of taking things further, but it can still open the door for immoral opportunities. Flirting can lead to others things without either person intending for it to, depending on the people involved. Flirting with an old lady...not likely to lead to much, and is probably more akin to playful banter than out and out flirting. But flirting with a younger married woman...still wrong, imo.


----------



## hambone

Sanity said:


> A man who willfully without shame targets another man's wife is a scumbag and one of the lowest forms of life on the planet.
> 
> I remember one of my subordinates was joking around and he told me he was sleeping with somebody from work who I knew was married. I asked him if he knew this and he said without shame yes. I then told him that I do not respect nor trust a man who sleeps with another mans wife regardless of its consensual. A man who does this has no morals and cannot be trusted.


I'm sorry, but the primary responsibility to remain faithful lies with the married party.

The way I see it... if a married woman (or man) wants to fool around.. if it weren't that guy... it would just be someone else.


----------



## RandomDude

@Created2Write

Interesting viewpoint, and understandable, even though I disagree.

As I mentioned on the first page - if it wasn't going to be me, it would have been someone else, why not capitalise on such?

Then again, my morality has always been fluid since my teens due to my experiences, I had to learn the difference between right and wrong (makes the whole bible story origin moot to me as well)

@Hambone

Agreed! Thank you from saving me from the stake! Heh


----------



## Created2Write

But if the other man or woman knows this person is married, they are still willfully participating in adultery. _They_ may not be cheating on anyone, but they're encouraging someone else to cheat. Who cares if might be someone else, if it wasn't them right now? The point is that it _is_ them right now, and they're choosing to be a part of it. 

They're just as wrong as the person cheating on their spouse, imo.


----------



## RandomDude

In the past I didn't see what I was doing as encouraging them to cheat, hell they were cheating already by hitting on me instead of their husbands.

Now in an ideal world, sure, if everyone were super resistant to cheating spouses, to the point they had no where to go, wow it would be a great world wouldn't it? However, we both know that is not possible realistically. We are human.

I personally feel the responsibility still lies with the married party who initiated the seduction. I also feel if this responsibility is passed over to the party who is seduced, it will rob the married party from taking responsibility of his/her own actions, which in my opinion would be more damaging to society as a whole in terms of morality.


----------



## hambone

Created2Write said:


> But if the other man or woman knows this person is married, they are still willfully participating in adultery. _They_ may not be cheating on anyone, but they're encouraging someone else to cheat. Who cares if might be someone else, if it wasn't them right now? The point is that it _is_ them right now, and they're choosing to be a part of it.
> 
> They're just as wrong as the person cheating on their spouse, imo.


It is my wife's responsibility to remain above temptation. She is the one that made a vow to me to forsake all others.

If she is having an affair... I hold her accountable. 

She is the one that needs to tell anybody who hits on her.."Sorry, not interested".

I certainly am not going to spend 24.7 paranoid that every guy I see is a potential paramour for my wife. '

BS... She just needs to keep her panties up. And if she doesn't, I will not allow her to shift the blame to anyone else.


----------



## Created2Write

If I were single and a married man, even an unhappily married man, came to me wanting sex, the last thing I would do is think, "Well, if I don't do it some other woman will". I don't even think that thought would, ever, cross my mind. I'm not going to encourage someone to cheat on their spouse. If they're, really, that unhappy, it's time to end the marriage. _That_ would be my reaction. I'm not having sex with someone who's married, even if they're seeking it out. Someone else can be the culprit in encouraging this guy's desire for an affair. It won't be me. His actions could likely devastate the rest of his family. I'm not going to be coupled with that responsibility. Cause, as the person saying "Yes" to his advances, I would be just as responsible.


----------



## treyvion

Sanity said:


> A man who willfully without shame targets another man's wife is a scumbag and one of the lowest forms of life on the planet.
> 
> I remember one of my subordinates was joking around and he told me he was sleeping with somebody from work who I knew was married. I asked him if he knew this and he said without shame yes. I then told him that I do not respect nor trust a man who sleeps with another mans wife regardless of its consensual. A man who does this has no morals and cannot be trusted.


I can't really admire a guy who is going after other mens wives. The same as a woman going after husbands. Especially if they have a family.

I never thought it was an extra notch to bang a wife anyway.


----------



## RandomDude

@Created2Write

Read what I edited in:



> Now in an ideal world, sure, if everyone were super resistant to cheating spouses, to the point they had no where to go, wow it would be a great world wouldn't it? However, we both know that is not possible realistically. We are human.
> 
> I personally feel the responsibility still lies with the married party who initiated the seduction. I also feel if this responsibility is passed over to the party who is seduced, it will rob the married party from taking responsibility of his/her own actions, which in my opinion would be more damaging to society as a whole in terms of morality.


----------



## Created2Write

hambone said:


> It is my wife's responsibility to remain above temptation. She is the one that made a vow to me to forsake all others.
> 
> If she is having an affair... I hold her accountable.
> 
> She is the one that needs to tell anybody who hits on her.."Sorry, not interested".


I don't disagree. Obviously the married spouse has responsibilities as well. But the person choosing to make the advance, while knowing your wife is married, is choosing to encourage your wife to cheat on you. That is _his_ responsibility. And, if your wife were to say yes, he would also be to blame because he started the process in the first place. 

Sorry. The OM or OW doesn't get off scott-free just because they're not married. If they know at the time of the affair that the person they're sleeping with is married, they're just as guilty. Or, at least, very close to it because they encouraged and pursued sex with a married person. That _is_ wrong.


----------



## Created2Write

hambone said:


> It is my wife's responsibility to remain above temptation. She is the one that made a vow to me to forsake all others.
> 
> If she is having an affair... I hold her accountable.
> 
> She is the one that needs to tell anybody who hits on her.."Sorry, not interested".
> 
> I certainly am not going to spend 24.7 paranoid that every guy I see is a potential paramour for my wife. '
> 
> BS... She just needs to keep her panties up. And if she doesn't, I will not allow her to shift the blame to anyone else.


I'm not talking about shifting blame. Of course the cheating spouse is responsible. I'm not saying they're not. What I am saying is the OM or OW is _also_ responsible if they knew that they were married.


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> I'm not talking about shifting blame. Of course the cheating spouse is responsible. I'm not saying they're not. What I am saying is the OM or OW is _also_ responsible if they knew that they were married.


Holding the OM or OW responsible either fully or even partly serves what purpose however? Compared to resting the responsibility of fidelity solely on the married spouse, disallowing the blame to be shifted or even shared?


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> In the past I didn't see what I was doing as encouraging them to cheat, hell they were cheating already by hitting on me instead of their husbands.
> 
> Now in an ideal world, sure, if everyone were super resistant to cheating spouses, to the point they had no where to go, wow it would be a great world wouldn't it? However, we both know that is not possible realistically. We are human.
> 
> I personally feel the responsibility still lies with the married party who initiated the seduction. I also feel if this responsibility is passed over to the party who is seduced, it will rob the married party from taking responsibility of his/her own actions, which in my opinion would be more damaging to society as a whole in terms of morality.


I'm not saying that the married spouse isn't responsible. They are definitely responsible for their own actions, whether they pursued/initiated the affair or not. However, the other person is _also_ responsible if they knew that this man or woman was married. 

It sounds to me that, if a married woman pursues a coworker who knows she's married, but he goes ahead and has sex with her, that you don't he's wrong for his actions. I can not accept or agree with that _at all_. It sounds like a justification to have sex with a married person.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Holding the OM or OW responsible either fully or even partly serves what purpose however? Compared to resting the responsibility of fidelity solely on the married spouse, disallowing the blame to be shifted or even shared?


I'm not saying that the married spouse shouldn't suffer the full consequences of their actions. Even though I think the OM/OW is also responsible, I also think the married spouse should suffer the consequences for their actions. But saying that the OM/OW isn't responsible at all justifies a persons choice to pursue sex with married men and women. 

So, if I were single, I could go and seduce married men and not be wrong in doing so.


----------



## Created2Write

To be clear, I'm not saying that half the responsibility should be placed on the married spouse, while the other half should be on the OM/OW. It's not like the other spouse can do much to the OM/OW anyway. But, by saying that the OM/OW has no responsibility _is_ implying that any person who intentionally attempts to seduce married men and women would be justified and right in their actions. That is what I staunchly disagree with. Maybe responsibility isn't the right word to use...my point is that, any man or woman who attempts to have sex and/or responds to sexual advances with/from someone they know to be married, is wrong to do so.


----------



## RandomDude

But can't you see that this also enables the blame to be shifted? And as such how that would also hampen the ability of the married spouse to take full responsibility of their own actions? 

Compare these two statements:
"I was wrong, but he was also responsible"
"I was wrong, it was my responsibility and I'm the one who should be held accountable"

The first is blame shifting.
The second is the very first step towards reconciliation post-infidelity in a marriage - being accountable of one's actions.

My father also once told me that power comes with responsibility, but it goes bothways as accepting responsibility for your own actions gives you the power to change.

Accepting responsibility, full responsibility, not half-assed sorries.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

arbitrator said:


> *Then what would you consider to be the primary difference in "flirting," as opposed to "hitting" on women?*


I already said: intent primarily. I'm not interested in luring a married woman to come home with me any more than I am an old lady I flirt with.

A lot of flirting is innocuous. One particular difference of flirting versus hitting on someone is that there is no close or escalation. In hitting on someone, I'm ultimately angling for some sort of commitment - join me for coffee, drinks, give me a number, something that is going to extend the interaction and develop the relationship.

Most of my flirtation is done in clever quips with passing strangers.


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, I may also fun-flirt with gay/bi men but I sure as hell ain't bending over anytime soon. Sorry fellas, exit only! Bah!

Though some of my gay/bi mates said that because I was non-homophobic, meant I'm 20% gay :rofl: Heh they were always a funny bunch.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> But can't you see that this also enables the blame to be shifted? And as such how that would also hampen the ability of the married spouse to take full responsibility of their own actions?
> 
> Compare these two statements:
> "I was wrong, but he was also responsible"
> "I was wrong, it was my responsibility and I'm the one who should be held accountable"
> 
> The first is blame shifting.
> The second is the very first step towards reconciliation post-infidelity in a marriage - being accountable of one's actions.


I agree. The spouse who committed the infidelity is 100% responsible for the infidelity, whether they sought it out or not. I'm not suggesting that they aren't. 



> My father also once told me that power comes with responsibility, but it goes bothways as accepting responsibility for your own actions gives you the power to change.
> 
> Accepting responsibility, full responsibility, not half-assed sorries.


I totally agree. 

Now answer me this: do you think it's wrong to, knowingly, have sex with a woman who is married?


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> To be clear, I'm not saying that half the responsibility should be placed on the married spouse, while the other half should be on the OM/OW. It's not like the other spouse can do much to the OM/OW anyway. But, by saying that the OM/OW has no responsibility _is_ implying that any person who intentionally attempts to seduce married men and women would be justified and right in their actions. That is what I staunchly disagree with. Maybe responsibility isn't the right word to use...my point is that, any man or woman who attempts to have sex and/or responds to sexual advances with/from someone they know to be married, is wrong to do so.


They are wrong in doing so, unless they are "swingers" or in an "open" marriage and this is what they do. It's no secrety.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> And as for flirting not being hitting on someone, I'm not comfortable with that conclusion. Flirting can start as "harmless", without the intention of taking things further, but it can still open the door for immoral opportunities. Flirting can lead to others things without either person intending for it to, depending on the people involved. Flirting with an old lady...not likely to lead to much, and is probably more akin to playful banter than out and out flirting. But flirting with a younger married woman...still wrong, imo.


At the point flirting becomes pursuit... that's what I consider "hitting on" someone.

Eh... everyone flirts a little bit imo; and the sheer volume of what can be considered a flirt is enormous.

To each his own.


----------



## RandomDude

Nope, because if it wasn't going to be me, it would been someone else. Besides I'm sure I already posted that, in addition to the fact that I feel no guilt/regret for what I did in my youth. I never actively sought them out, but sex was sex.

BURN ME


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> But if the other man or woman knows this person is married, they are still willfully participating in adultery. _They_ may not be cheating on anyone, but they're encouraging someone else to cheat. Who cares if might be someone else, if it wasn't them right now? The point is that it _is_ them right now, and they're choosing to be a part of it.
> 
> They're just as wrong as the person cheating on their spouse, imo.


The only one who took a vow is the married person. Is there a moral imperative to uphold someone else's commitments? Just saying.


----------



## Married but Happy

Created2Write said:


> do you think it's wrong to, knowingly, have sex with a woman who is married?


I would say yes. Will your actions harm or potentially harm her and/or her family? If the answer is yes, then it's unethical to do so. It is better to do nothing. And there is no circumstances I can think of where there would not be potential harm.

The potential gains the OM and woman receive do no outweigh the potential harm. The OM can usually find someone else where having sex is mutually beneficial and unlikely to be harmful.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> What I am saying is the OM or OW is _also_ responsible if they knew that they were married.


How is one responsible for upholding someone else's vows?

This is my problem with it as an issue of morality. I don't hook up with married women out of moral concern I think, but more out of preference. Its a turn off. Maybe even a hint of jealousy.

What you're gonna fvck me and go home and make him dinner? Where's my dinner?  (sorry, thought this thread could use a little lightening up :rofl


----------



## Created2Write

See, I completely disagree Randomedude and Dvls. By having sex with someone you know to be married, you are encouraging their behavior. By participating, you're saying that you agree with what they're doing. It doesn't matter if you're not married, you know they _they are_. 

That's why, by law, those who participate in a crime, even if they aren't the ones who started it, and even if others would have helped if they hadn't, are also punished for their actions.


----------



## Created2Write

You're not responsible for holding up their vows, but your actions absolutely communicate what you see as right and wrong. If you say no to their advances, they can go ruin their marriages with someone else, but at least that didn't involve _you. But, by having sex with them when you know their married, you're encouraging adultery. You're saying you agree with their choices; that you have no respect for marriage vows. And, frankly, I find that abhorrent._


----------



## lisab0105

RandomDude said:


> In the past I didn't see what I was doing as encouraging them to cheat, hell they were cheating already by hitting on me instead of their husbands.
> 
> Now in an ideal world, sure, if everyone were super resistant to cheating spouses, to the point they had no where to go, wow it would be a great world wouldn't it? However, we both know that is not possible realistically. We are human.
> 
> I personally feel the responsibility still lies with the married party who initiated the seduction. I also feel if this responsibility is passed over to the party who is seduced, it will rob the married party from taking responsibility of his/her own actions, which in my opinion would be more damaging to society as a whole in terms of morality.


Sorry, but I am calling total :bsflag: on this right here. 

That is what people who choose to mess around with married/taken people say to relieve themselves of any guilt. 

Once you decide to go forward with screwing someone that is in a relationship, you are culpable. Being "human" isn't an excuse. You have a free will...and that free will lets you either give a sh*t about adultery or it doesn't. And if it doesn't...well than you were choosing to act like a POS. It takes a really low person to mess around with another persons spouse and deflecting blame by saying if it wasn't me it would be someone else...you start sounding like all the POS @ssholes that have been screwing our spouses over in CWI. So what is so wrong with it being someone else and take pride in the fact that YOU didn't take part in helping to ruin someone else's relationship. Because that is what you did. 

We all have a responsibility to be a decent human being...screwing another mans wife or another womans husband is not being decent.


----------



## Created2Write

lisab0105 said:


> Sorry, but I am calling total :bsflag: on this right here.
> 
> That is what people who choose to mess around with married/taken people say to relieve themselves of any guilt.
> 
> Once you decide to go forward with screwing someone that is in a relationship, you are culpable. Being "human" isn't an excuse. You have a free will...and that free will lets you either give a sh*t about adultery or it doesn't. And if it doesn't...well than you were choosing to act like a POS. It takes a really low person to mess around with another persons spouse and deflecting blame by saying if it wasn't me it would be someone else...you start sounding like all the POS @ssholes that have been screwing our spouses over in CWI. So what is so wrong with it being someone else and take pride in the fact that YOU didn't take part in helping to ruin someone else's relationship. Because that is what you did.
> 
> We all have a responsibility to be a decent human being...screwing another mans wife or another womans husband is not being decent.


Precisely. Thank you. :iagree: I couldn't like this post enough times.


----------



## RandomDude

Married but Happy said:


> I would say yes. Will your actions harm or potentially harm her and/or her family? If the answer is yes, then it's unethical to do so. It is better to do nothing. And there is no circumstances I can think of where there would not be potential harm.
> 
> The potential gains the OM and woman receive do no outweigh the potential harm. The OM can usually find someone else where having sex is mutually beneficial and unlikely to be harmful.


Yet the harm is already in progress, the unfaithful spouse fully knowing the consequences of his/her actions yet has decided to become unfaithful. It doesn't even matter if the OM/OW knows as infidelity is already being committed. The deed itself is damaging, but how is the OM/OW even partly to blame for others infidelity?


----------



## lisab0105

RandomDude said:


> *Nope, because if it wasn't going to be me, it would been someone else.* Besides I'm sure I already posted that, in addition to the fact that I feel no guilt/regret for what I did in my youth. I never actively sought them out, but sex was sex.
> 
> BURN ME


That is such a cop out.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Yet the harm is already in progress, the unfaithful spouse fully knowing the consequences of his/her actions yet has decided to become unfaithful. It doesn't even matter if the OM/OW knows as infidelity is already being committed. The deed itself is damaging, but how is the OM/OW even partly to blame for others infidelity?


You keep jumping back to being blamed for infidelity, but that _isn't_ what they're responsible for. They are responsible for _encouraging_ the infidelity, for _being a part of it_. There isn't just one person in an affair, there are two. It doesn't matter if someone else will cause the destruction, none of us should want to be involved in that. We should have the decency to respect marital vows, even if the cheating spouse doesn't. This isn't "just sex"; this is sex with a married individual. Saying that the OM/OW is totally free of any wrongdoing is a copout to behave inappropriately without feeling bad about it later.


----------



## 2ntnuf

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


Although I've never done it, I think the reason is simple. Selfish desire to have what is supposed to be off limits. I think it's a huge ego boost. It is a way to prove to themselves they are better than the guy she married, especially when the woman looks like she is more physically attractive than her husband. It is the forbidden fruit.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> See, I completely disagree Randomedude and Dvls. By having sex with someone you know to be married, you are encouraging their behavior. By participating, you're saying that you agree with what they're doing. It doesn't matter if you're not married, you know they _they are_.
> 
> That's why, by law, those who participate in a crime, even if they aren't the ones who started it, and even if others would have helped if they hadn't, are also punished for their actions.


Law and morality are two entirely different things. We don't legislate on the basis of morality - not all that is immoral is made illegal, and not all that is illegal is immoral.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if you agree with what the married person is doing or not. You may think cheating is a terrible idea, but YOU are not in fact cheating.

The idea that the single party carries moral responsibility for a cheating married person is, IMO, similar to saying that a person who didn't lock his doors is morally responsible for theft when someone burglarizes him.

I don't have a dog in this fight either. I don't get with married women for the same reason I end FWB arrangements if she finds another guy... its a huge turn off and I don't like to share. There's plenty of married women I'm attracted to and would want to hook up with, but in the end... I find her being with another man so unattractive it completely offsets. I can't say I have a moral qualm with it though. This isn't a cover for guilt.


----------



## Created2Write

And even if the harm is in progress, why not try and put an end to it? Or at least to your part of it? If I had sex with a man I knew to be married, I'd never be able to forgive myself. Such an action is just as bad as cheating, imo. And I can't believe that people are attempting to justify it on a freaking marriage forum.


----------



## lisab0105

RandomDude said:


> Yet the harm is already in progress, the unfaithful spouse fully knowing the consequences of his/her actions yet has decided to become unfaithful. It doesn't even matter if the OM/OW knows as infidelity is already being committed. The deed itself is damaging, but how is the OM/OW even partly to blame for others infidelity?


Are you kidding me?? Are you really sitting here excusing the behavior of everyone that has screwed our spouses? because that is what it sounds like. 

When you know that there is a relationship at stake and another person can be hurt by the actions you are about to take...it makes you responsible. You are committed to an act that is going to destroy another person. What don't you f*cking get about that? The spouse is 1000000000000% responsible for their actions, but once you know they are married you also have a responsibility..to be a DECENT HUMAN BEING and say no..you should really get home to your f*cking spouse because they would be so hurt if they knew what you were trying to do!!!! IF more people were like that, well than people like me wouldn't feel like our souls were being ripped out every time we see our skanky WS face because someone out there had the balls and the decency to point out how incredibly wrong they were for what they were trying to do. But hey, whatever it takes to get easy sex. 

People suck sometimes.


----------



## Philat

_How is one responsible for upholding someone else's vows?_

How is the drug dealer responsible for someone else's addiction? The user has already decided to score, so how could the dealer be held even partly responsible for that?

Sorry Random, you are not even close to being right on this one. Lisab is dead on.


----------



## RandomDude

lisab0105 said:


> Sorry, but I am calling total :bsflag: on this right here.
> 
> That is what people who choose to mess around with married/taken people say to relieve themselves of any guilt.


The fire finally arrives :rofl:
And here I thought everyone would be civil! 

The ironic thing is, I have no guilt to relieve. Same goes with many other things I've done in my past. Guess that makes me the devil incarnate.



> Once you decide to go forward with screwing someone that is in a relationship, you are culpable. Being "human" isn't an excuse. You have a free will...and that free will lets you either give a sh*t about adultery or it doesn't.


I do believe infidelity is wrong, but I don't see how I should be blaming myself for the actions of others. Help me feel guilty, because currently I can't feel it.



> And if it doesn't...well than you were choosing to act like a POS. It takes a really low person to mess around with another persons spouse and deflecting blame by saying if it wasn't me it would be someone else...you start sounding like all the POS @ssholes that have been screwing our spouses over in CWI.


I understand your hate and anger, but I still don't see how I'm responsible for other's infidelity.



> So what is so wrong with it being someone else and take pride in the fact that YOU didn't take part in helping to ruin someone else's relationship. Because that is what you did.
> 
> We all have a responsibility to be a decent human being...screwing another mans wife or another womans husband is not being decent.


I mentioned this on a previous page:

"Now in an ideal world, sure, if everyone were super resistant to cheating spouses, to the point they had no where to go, wow it would be a great world wouldn't it? However, we both know that is not possible realistically. We are human."

My responsibility for myself, not for the world or whatever happens to it. I do wish it to be better, but I'm a realist, not a dreamer. And in my opinion, the far more realistic stance in terms of morality, is still to place the responsibility of infidelity solely on the unfaithful spouse.

That stance, unless I'm convinced otherwise, is still the only stance that can possibly save a marriage post-infidelity as it disallows any blame to be shifted from the guilty spouse.

---------------------------



Philat said:


> _How is one responsible for upholding someone else's vows?_
> 
> How is the drug dealer responsible for someone else's addiction? The user has already decided to score, so how could the dealer be held even partly responsible for that?
> 
> Sorry Random, you are not even close to being right on this one. Lisab is dead on.


The funny thing too is that in my youth, I was also dealt with drugs. If the demand wasn't there, I would have found other ways to make money, but drugs was the only one that I had at the time and at my age. I also do not understand targeting drug dealers when we as parents should be focused on educating our youth.

I'm a man who has been there, done that, on the opposite side of the law and morality. You will never, ever defeat drugs while there still exists a demand. Our only defence lies in guiding our children.

The same principle applies here in this topic in terms of marital fidelity.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Law and morality are two entirely different things. We don't legislate on the basis of morality - not all that is immoral is made illegal, and not all that is illegal is immoral.
> 
> The way I see it, it doesn't matter if you agree with what the married person is doing or not. You may think cheating is a terrible idea. But YOU are not in fact cheating.


So? Is cheating the only immoral action here? Hardly. You're still encouraging the behavior; you're still _involved_ in their infidelity. Takes two to tango.



> The idea that the single party carries any moral responsibility for a cheating married person is, IMO, similar to saying that a person who didn't lock his doors is morally responsible for theft when someone burglarizes him.


_You aren't responsible for the cheating itself_. Damn, I feel like a broken record. I'm starting to think this point is being ignored. You are not responsible for the cheating, you're responsible for _encouraging_ it, for knowingly being a part of it. It doesn't matter if you're single, you're knowingly engaging in a sexual relationship with a person who is married. It's scummy behavior.


----------



## Created2Write

lisab0105 said:


> Are you kidding me?? Are you really sitting here excusing the behavior of everyone that has screwed our spouses? because that is what it sounds like.
> 
> When you know that there is a relationship at stake and another person can be hurt by the actions you are about to take...it makes you responsible. You are committed to an act that is going to destroy another person. What don't you f*cking get about that? The spouse is 1000000000000% responsible for their actions, but once you know they are married you also have a responsibility..to be a DECENT HUMAN BEING and say no..you should really get home to your f*cking spouse because they would be so hurt if they knew what you were trying to do!!!! IF more people were like that, well than people like me wouldn't feel like our souls were being ripped out every time we see our skanky WS face because someone out there had the balls and the decency to point out how incredibly wrong they were for what they were trying to do. But hey, whatever it takes to get easy sex.
> 
> People suck sometimes.


This ^ all the way. 

Our actions show what kind of person we are to the people around us. I don't want anything to do with someone who thinks their innocent by knowingly screwing someone elses spouse, and then not seeing anything wrong with it. That shows exactly what their character is, and it isn't to be respected or admired.


----------



## Created2Write

We _choose_ to be or not be resistant to infidelity. It's not some inevitable action. It's not like we're wired to sleep with whoever comes along and is willing.


----------



## Philat

_The idea that the single party carries any moral responsibility for a cheating married person is, IMO, similar to saying that a person who didn't lock his doors is morally responsible for theft when someone burglarizes him. _

WTF? This analogy is a$$ backwards. Just because the homeowner (read: married person) has left the door open doesn't mean the burglar (read: single person looking for easy sex) has to intrude.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> You aren't responsible for the cheating itself. Damn, I feel like a broken record. I'm starting to think this point is being ignored. You are not responsible for the cheating, you're responsible for encouraging it, for knowingly being a part of it. It doesn't matter if you're single, you're knowingly engaging in a sexual relationship with a person who is married. It's scummy behavior.


It would certainly leave a lot to consider if that person would ever consider getting married. If there is little personal integrity..........I don't think I even need to finish that statement.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The idea that the single party carries any moral responsibility for a cheating married person is, IMO, similar to saying that a person who didn't lock his doors is morally responsible for theft when someone burglarizes him.


This analogy doesn't hold. A closer one would be the person with the unlocked doors slipping jewellery into the thief's pockets.

The unmarried person isn't cheating, but they are, as Created2Write said, aiding and abetting the hurt and devastation of another human being.

It's pretty morally bankrupt to care more about one's immediate pleasure than the well being of others.


----------



## always_alone

Philat said:


> _The idea that the single party carries any moral responsibility for a cheating married person is, IMO, similar to saying that a person who didn't lock his doors is morally responsible for theft when someone burglarizes him. _
> 
> WTF? This analogy is a$$ backwards. Just because the homeowner (read: married person) has left the door open doesn't mean the burglar (read: single person looking for easy sex) has to intrude.


Ha. Same thought, same time, slightly different take on it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> _You aren't responsible for the cheating itself_. Damn, I feel like a broken record. I'm starting to think this point is being ignored. You are not responsible for the cheating, you're responsible for _encouraging_ it, for knowingly being a part of it. It doesn't matter if you're single, you're knowingly engaging in a sexual relationship with a person who is married. It's scummy behavior.


You have no moral imperative to make sure others live up to their contracts imo.


----------



## Philat

_The funny thing too is that in my youth, I was also dealt with drugs. If the demand wasn't there, I would have found other ways to make money, but drugs was the only one that I had at the time and at my age. I also do not understand targeting drug dealers when we as parents should be focused on educating our youth._

OK, my apologies. We must cede to the philosophical and moral arguments of the former drug dealer.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Philat said:


> WTF? This analogy is a$$ backwards. Just because the homeowner (read: married person) has left the door open doesn't mean the burglar (read: single person looking for easy sex) has to intrude.


You read it exactly opposite of what I intended. In my analogy, which admittedly isn't a great one, the home owner is the single, the burglar is the married.

The married is the only one engaging in immoral behavior imo.


----------



## RandomDude

> You have no moral imperative to make sure others live up to their contracts imo.


Aye!

While nobility/chivalry may be nice in theory, reality often proves otherwise. This world ain't noble with unicorns and fairies, and it will never be. Morality alone can not solve all the world's problems.

It's all one big irony, as forcing the unfaithful spouse to take full responsibility of their actions remains the best course of action to ensure fidelity in a marriage.

You can not rely on the nobility of others. That is the reality. Besides most of the time it's just fking words, I say how it is. Keep it real as the saying goes.

Heh, I seriously feel like the devil's advocate in this thread!



> _The funny thing too is that in my youth, I was also dealt with drugs. If the demand wasn't there, I would have found other ways to make money, but drugs was the only one that I had at the time and at my age. I also do not understand targeting drug dealers when we as parents should be focused on educating our youth._
> 
> OK, my apologies. We must cede to the philosophical and moral arguments of the former drug dealer.


I don't judge people for their pasts, nor do I judge folk for their opinions. Please give me a good argument, rather than futile personal attacks even though I find them rather amusing. If you can manage of course


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You have no moral imperative to make sure others live up to their contracts imo.


It's not about the married spouse, it's about _you_ and _your choices_. Nothing you can do can keep someone from cheating if they want to cheat that badly. But you should have the decency not to be apart of it. THAT is what you would be responsible for. Not the other person's choices, but your own. There are plenty of other singles you can have sex with. You don't need to(and shouldn't) sleep with someone who is married. There's no excuse for it.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You read it exactly opposite of what I intended. In my analogy, which admittedly isn't a great one, the home owner is the single, the burglar is the married.
> 
> The married is the only one engaging in immoral behavior imo.


Your statement is a strong single viewpoint that's used by many people who mess with people in relationships.

Someone cheating on their significant other is no prize or accomplishment.

Many of us choose not to mess with it, because I don't want to be in the middle of anyones relationship, even just for sex. It's messy, I wouldn't want it done to me. And I can't stop the people with your mindset, but they are some dirty dogs to not be trusted.

So someone who knowingly will screw someones wife or husband, whose to say they wont' want to screw their buddies or family members girlfriend or wife. It's the same mindset, and it is scummy. 

Unless you are all swingers or admittently open relationships.

And yes, if my door is unlocked and someone robs me, I blame them for stealing from me. My unlocking of my door made it easier, but they still committed the crime.

Any of you with that mindset should have it happen to you.


----------



## Created2Write

But the single person is still involved with the adultery. You can't have an affair with just one person. Your actions are encouraging adultery, and you're saying you agree with it by knowingly being the person used to cheat with. If adultery is immoral, then you wouldn't allow yourself to knowingly participate in adultery. By knowingly sleeping with someone who's married, you are stating that adultery is a moral action.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Aye!
> 
> You can not rely on the nobility of others. That is the reality.


You are absolutely right! You cannot rely on the nobility of others. Doesn't mean, though, that you cannot uphold your own moral standards.

And if you don't? Well, then, I guess having moral standards is just not that important to you.


----------



## treyvion

RandomDude said:


> Aye!
> 
> While nobility/chivalry may be nice in theory, reality often proves otherwise. This world ain't noble with unicorns and fairies, and it will never be. Morality alone can not solve all the world's problems.
> 
> It's all one big irony, as forcing the unfaithful spouse to take full responsibility of their actions remains the best course of action to ensure fidelity in a marriage.
> 
> You can not rely on the nobility of others. That is the reality. Besides most of the time it's just fking words, I say how it is. Keep it real as the saying goes.
> 
> Heh, I seriously feel like the devil's advocate in this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't judge people for their pasts, nor do I judge folk for their opinions. Please give me a good argument, rather than futile personal attacks even though I find them rather amusing. If you can manage of course


Many of us choose to make our primary situations, "not only words", to deal with people who look at it the same way.

When someone is being undermined by being cheated on, they are likely being cheated or disrespected in many other ways too.


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> It's not about the married spouse, it's about _you_ and _your choices_. Nothing you can do can keep someone from cheating if they want to cheat that badly. But you should have the decency not to be apart of it. THAT is what you would be responsible for. Not the other person's choices, but your own. There are plenty of other singles you can have sex with. You don't need to(and shouldn't) sleep with someone who is married. There's no excuse for it.


I do understand your view and quite frankly I admire it. In fact, I wish the whole world thinks as you do. But unfortunately, they don't. So in the end it just leads to blameshifts as I've mentioned.

As such, I can't agree with it =/


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> You are absolutely right! You cannot rely on the nobility of others. Doesn't mean, though, that you cannot uphold your own moral standards.
> 
> And if you don't? Well, then, I guess having moral standards is just not that important to you.


That is their level of "moral standard", that dirty dog, "im going to get mines" powerful single person viewpoint.

It's a viewpoint, and it also permeates in their viewpoint of other situations too.


----------



## Created2Write

And with that, I'm out. Today was eye-opening. Apparently, hitting on and sleeping with someone else's spouse is totally moral and ethical, and there's nothing wrong with it. Apparently, since other people don't have morals, we should all just conform and throw our morals out the window too. Apparently, no one has any responsibility to be decent and make right choices since not everyone chooses to make the right choices. Oh, unless you're married. Then you have responsibilities, but the single person who cares more about sex than doing the right thing, they don't. 

I know who to steer clear of now. Thank you Ignore feature.


----------



## Vanguard

So we can CUCKOLD your husbands! 

Bwa ha ha ha! Filth! Pestilence! Broken families! Unfavorable settlements and alimony, and of course the assured distrust of all future relationships! First we ****, and then we pass the buck!


----------



## WyshIknew

RandomDude said:


> Help me feel guilty, because currently I can't feel it.


Well do you know the story of any of the married women you banged after you'd finished with them?

Every action has consequences.

Messy divorces, ruined lives, children's homes devastated, suicide of the betrayed partner, financial ruin, devastation of the extended family, all these things happen.

Who cares eh? Not your problem so long as you had a piece of pvssy.

I wouldn't normally wish this on anyone. But part of me would love to hear of a guy who when he was single went after married women returning home to find his wife getting serviced by the pool boy and the gardener.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh yes Created...many people have no moral code about who they will flirt with, MANY. And it is true we don't get to tell others what they should or shouldn't do or if it is right or wrong...however, it does us married folks good to realize those people are out there, everywhere around us. This is what I wrote my "Sexual Wolves" blog post about.

For me and my H, we kinda make it a game to protect each other from the wolves.

Because they will always be there no matter what we do or how well we protect our marriage. And not everyone who has no problem hitting on a married person is a Sexual Wolf...some of them are just bored and have no standards of conduct for themselves.


----------



## Philat

_I do believe infidelity is wrong, but I don't see how I should be blaming myself for the actions of others. Help me feel guilty, because currently I can't feel it._

OK, just one more on this topic from me: Random, if infidelity is wrong as you assert you believe, how is benefitting from it also not wrong? This is the essence of moral bankruptcy, IMO.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> I wouldn't normally wish this on anyone. But part of me would love to hear of a guy who when he was single went after married women returning home to find his wife getting serviced by the pool boy and the gardener.


And I'm willing to bet that the guys defending sleeping with marrieds will be the first to want to beat the crap out of said pool boy.

Nevermind that it "isn't his fault".


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh yes Created...many people have no moral code about who they will flirt with, MANY. And it is true we don't get to tell others what they should or shouldn't do or if it is right or wrong...however, it does us married folks good to realize those people are out there, everywhere around us. This is what I wrote my "Sexual Wolves" blog post about.
> 
> For me and my H, we kinda make it a game to protect each other from the wolves.
> 
> Because they will always be there no matter what we do or how well we protect our marriage. And not everyone who has no problem hitting on a married person is a Sexual Wolf...some of them are just bored and have no standards of conduct for themselves.


I'm baffled. I really am. I never thought I'd find people advocating sleeping with someone elses spouse. It's sickening. 

True, flirting doesn't mean someone's trying to bed you. But two people in this thread who've said they flirt with everyone have also said they doesn't think there's anything wrong with sleeping with someone who is married. If it's wrong for the person who is married, then it's wrong for the person they're sleeping with because you can't commit adultery without two people being involved. 

Just...ew.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I do know more than one story (personal acquaintances) of a guy doing a married chick and hubby coming home and beating the sh*t out of him.

That's instant karma.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created...people are just "wrong minded" sometimes. Be highly aware that this exists around you all the time, because it does.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> I do know more than one story (personal acquaintances) of a guy doing a married chick and hubby coming home and beating the sh*t out of him.
> 
> That's instant karma.


A good old "goold fellas" style beatdown. Women do it too.


----------



## RandomDude

WyshIknew said:


> Well do you know the story of any of the married women you banged after you'd finished with them?
> 
> Every action has consequences.
> 
> Messy divorces, ruined lives, children's homes devastated, suicide of the betrayed partner, financial ruin, devastation of the extended family, all these things happen.
> 
> Who cares eh? Not your problem so long as you had a piece of pvssy.
> 
> I wouldn't normally wish this on anyone. But part of me would love to hear of a guy who when he was single went after married women returning home to find his wife getting serviced by the pool boy and the gardener.


I'm not arguing the damages of infidelity, everyone knows how it is, I'm arguing the responsibility of it. I still feel the unfaithful spouse bears full responsibility.



> OK, just one more on this topic from me: Random, if infidelity is wrong as you assert you believe, how is benefitting from it also not wrong? This is the essence of moral bankruptcy, IMO.


Let's say a competitor fails and his customers become mine. I may benefit from his misfortune yes. But should I feel guilty for his misfortune despite having no hand in it? I may feel sorry for him, but that's about it. It's business.

Now in the case of unfaithful spouses, the saying still stands; if it's not me, it's someone else. Lets say ok, I refuse to benefit from the situation, and off she goes, fks someone else. The same scenario, the same damages will still apply. That's just how it is.

The responsibility and damage to her marriage/relationship still lies with the spouse.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Are you guys forgetting there are laws against stalking? If you are married and someone will not take a clear NO for an answer, the married person is obligated to themselves, their marriage and their partner to file charges. I don't think there is a more clear legal response.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...people are just "wrong minded" sometimes. Be highly aware that this exists around you all the time, because it does.


Truly true. It can be predominant in their vibe too...


----------



## Created2Write

I'm seeing that. I'm definitely disillusioned. I'm all for being challenged by the people we know, so that we know why we have the morals we do. But this is beyond that. This is, flat out, justifying being the accomplice in infidelity.


----------



## treyvion

RandomDude said:


> I'm not arguing the damages of infidelity, everyone knows how it is, I'm arguing the responsibility of it. I still feel the unfaithful spouse bears full responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say a competitor fails and his customers become mine. I may benefit from his misfortune yes. But should I feel guilty for his misfortune despite having no hand in it? I may feel sorry for him, but that's about it. It's business.
> 
> Now in the case of unfaithful spouses, the saying still stands; if it's not me, it's someone else. Lets say ok, I refuse to benefit from the situation, and off she goes, fks someone else. The same scenario, the same damages will still apply. That's just how it is.
> 
> The responsibility and damage to her marriage/relationship still lies with the spouse.


If you wedged in between a relationship and was the cause of strife, stress and eventually break down in a familial unit. Even if it's no kids involved, then you too are responsible for contributing to it.


----------



## RandomDude

I still don't see it =/

I'm trying to, like ok, rejecting a married spouse, that may be the right thing to do, it's noble, it's charitable, it's... inspiring. But taking responsibility for it? Allowing spouses to blameshift to say "I was wrong, but he's also responsible", making them unable to take full responsibility...

I don't know if that is right attitude.

I find this debate very interesting, don't get me wrong. Morality has always been a good debate for me, helps someone like me learn the difference right and wrong, which made me a better person (heh, at least compared to who I was in the past)

Yet, I still don't see the argument behind accepting responsibility for someone's else breaking their vows when it is their vows to break.


----------



## Created2Write

LOL. How many times have I said it's not about the single spouse accepting responsibility for the infidelity? I've said it over and over and over, as have other people in the thread. So, again: *the infidelity is not their responsibility*

It is exactly what you just said: rejecting sex with a married person. The infidelity is not the single person's responsibility. They're not cheating on anybody. But they shouldn't allow themselves to be used to cheat _with_.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...a lot of guys wouldn't marry a stripper/sex addict. There is a reason they wouldn't. Those reasons are the difference in mindset that others are trying to explain to you but you don't see it because...you _would_ marry a stripper.


----------



## thunderstruck

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...people are just "wrong minded" sometimes. Be highly aware that this exists around you all the time, because it does.


Truth, and it's pointless to try to convince someone to share your morals. I don't agree with RandomD's mindset on this, but I'm glad he shares it at this site. 

I do agree with him that if I ever catch my W cheating, my issue is with her, not the POSOM who nailed her for kicks. I'd still want to bash the guy's skull in, but hopefully I'd remember that it's not worth it.


----------



## Created2Write

You'd still rather he not have slept with her at all.


----------



## RandomDude

STBX was not a sex addict prior to marriage, and nor was she a stripper/escort by the time I've met her. The difference in mindset between me and some other men, is that I do not judge people for their pasts. If that makes me different, so be it, but that will never change who I am.

BRB, I need to get ready to work, but I plan to meditate on this a bit more, and bringing into aspect my own experience as
1) The wayward spouse
2) The betrayed spouse
3) The accomplice in infidelity

One sec... bah, looks like I'll be sleeping in my office again!


----------



## thunderstruck

Created2Write said:


> You'd still rather he not have slept with her at all.


True, and that's why initially the caveman in me would want to put him in the hospital. 

But, with thought, I know that I'd rather that my W had made the choice to not do something like that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...it doesn't matter that she was an EX-stripper or prostitute...most men still wouldn't marry into that, and the difference between you and those men is what others are saying here.

I'm not making any judgement about you. I am simply saying, you have a certain mind set that other men don't have, that is why you can't see the point they are making.


----------



## Deejo

Infidelity doesn't happen in a vacuum.

The betrayed spouse isn't the good guy, and the betrayor isn't the bad guy.

Just don't buy it. Won't buy it.

It's a pitifully narrow perspective. I know WAY too many stories to remotely entertain such a belief.

Infidelity is wrong. It is almost always a bad choice. But it happens. Every single minute, of every single day. It's common.

I am hard pressed to come up with someone I know for whom infidelity hasn't been an occurrence in their life in one form or another.

I flirt with my friends wives and married women all of the time. For reasons I can't explain, whenever we get together they ALL want to talk to me and know how my love life is, often in detail. They flirt back. It's fun. Do I want to sleep with them? No. Am I respectful and know where the 'line' is? Of course.

The phrase 'hitting on' is a little too ambiguous for me. 

If I engage you at the market and ask for your opinion on how to pick a ripe avocado for guacamole, and you happen to be wearing a wedding ring, and we have a fun, harmless exchange ... I'm not trying to get you in the sack.

If you feel like I was hitting on you, then great ... hope you're flattered. 

If you think that kind of exchange means I have low moral character, I've got a smile and a wink for you and I'll keep shopping.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "I flirt with my friends wives and married women all of the time. For reasons I can't explain, whenever we get together they ALL want to talk to me and know how my love life is, often in detail. They flirt back. It's fun. Do I want to sleep with them? No. Am I respectful and know where the 'line' is? Of course."

They all know you are a friend to their marriages, not just the spouses. You present no threat.


----------



## thunderstruck

A few years ago, I saw some messages between my W and her (married) HS bf from 20+ years ago. He was fishing. She wasn't saying anything too inappropriate, but she also wasn't putting up a redlight. I took my anger out on him by sending him a msg. Just a short/sweet one that let him know that I was going to F**K his world up if he didn't disappear. He apologized to me and then went away.

It took some thought over the next few weeks, but then I realized that this specific POS wasn't my issue.


----------



## RandomDude

Ok, now come to think of it, think we've already covered number 3, number 2, well, it didn't really bother me as those girls were meh anyways so heh. Number 1 though... here goes:

The wayward spouse. (Hell I'm just giving you guys reasons to hate me aren't I?  ) I cheated on my STBX before marriage in a ONS, the consequences of that have been severe. She has never truly recovered, and our relationship also has never truly recovered. Even though she claimed she was over it, it still affected us negatively. Look at what has happened to her, you think I don't feel guilt? YES I do. I'm not as completely cold-hearted as some may think I am.

The thing is; my infidelity was MY responsibility. Should I hate the woman I slept with? Should I blame her for causing me to sleep with her? Should I blameshift? Should I even ALLOW the opportunity for myself to blameshift?

That's what hating on the accomplice is, allowing the blameshift. "I was wrong, but she was wrong to be an accomplice"
No, wrong attitude. I wouldn't have changed with that attitude.

My fault, my responsibility, no fking excuses. What would have happened if I did? Would I have changed? NO, I admit that as a fact. I know, because I tried. STBX threw her hands up and told me to F off during those times.

If I never accepted responsibility for my own actions I would NEVER have changed. I've remained faithful to my wife ever since that incident because I accepted responsibility for my own actions. That is why I feel very strongly against blameshifting.

Bah... hell come to think of it, I just repeated myself. But I don't know how to explain this any other bloody way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude...it just is what it is. You can feel the way you do, and it won't make any difference to other people who disagree...same way that their thoughts won't change yours.


----------



## treyvion

RandomDude said:


> STBX was not a sex addict prior to marriage, and nor was she a stripper/escort by the time I've met her. The difference in mindset between me and some other men, is that I do not judge people for their pasts. If that makes me different, so be it, but that will never change who I am.


I used to not judge people by "their pasts", but if the past is the present and rescent present then I want to know. What is this person DOING? What kind of things does this person think is OK within their morality?




RandomDude said:


> BRB, I need to get ready to work, but I plan to meditate on this a bit more, and bringing into aspect my own experience as
> 1) The wayward spouse
> 2) The betrayed spouse
> 3) The accomplice in infidelity
> 
> One sec... bah, looks like I'll be sleeping in my office again!


I was a betrayed after a former wayward. And let me tell you, while I didn't feel good being a stainking wayward when I did it, it feels much worse being cheated on. 

My new policy is I'm going to treat my relationship partner how I want my daughter treated, and I don't want her cheated on. I also don't want my daughters sexually starving their husbands either, unless there is a very good reason.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random...it doesn't matter that she was an EX-stripper or prostitute...most men still wouldn't marry into that, and the difference between you and those men is what others are saying here.
> 
> I'm not making any judgement about you. I am simply saying, you have a certain mind set that other men don't have, that is why you can't see the point they are making.


Well then I guess I live in a different moral mindset. If I'm considered to have a low moral standard because I refused to judge a woman for her past, then I am PROUD to have a low moral standard.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, the lack of judging others can be an asset, I agree. That isn't really what we are talking about though but...if you see it only as a judgment issue, then that is just more of the different mindset I'm talking about.


----------



## RandomDude

What are you talking about then? Be clear


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm talking about how much some people value monogamy in marriage, whether their own marriage or another's. You don't necessarily value another marriage's monogamy and find it fine to hit on married women.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> I'm seeing that. I'm definitely disillusioned. I'm all for being challenged by the people we know, so that we know why we have the morals we do. But this is beyond that. This is, flat out, justifying being the accomplice in infidelity.


C2W, Constant Vigilance! This is exactly how people who convince themselves that they would never cheat end up finding theselves in bad situations. Many people like to think that the ring on their finger is some sort of immunity because after all, who would go after a married person? This is why I cringe when I see people say things like so what if I take that drink from that guy over there on a GNO. I'm married, no way he could want me, so it's fine because my wedding ring gives me super duper mega immunity! The thing is, that false feeling of security can make married people more vulnerable than their single counterparts...


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, the lack of judging others can be an asset, I agree. That isn't really what we are talking about though but...if you see it only as a judgment issue, then that is just more of the different mindset I'm talking about.


It's not judging them, but understanding what this person is and what they stand for?

What's considered "ok" within their boundaries? Do they tend to be trustworthy? Do they tend to get over on people or put them in harms way.

It's ok to understand someones typical character. It's not to say a really low moral person couldn't have the feelings of charity in 1% of their time and the other time.

But if 99% of the time you will have problems or you are on your way to problems dealing with this level of person, don't you want to know this?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> It's not about the married spouse, it's about _you_ and _your choices_. Nothing you can do can keep someone from cheating if they want to cheat that badly. But you should have the decency not to be apart of it. THAT is what you would be responsible for. Not the other person's choices, but your own. There are plenty of other singles you can have sex with. You don't need to(and shouldn't) sleep with someone who is married. There's no excuse for it.


Regarding responsibility: What exactly is the Single's moral fault with the Married's betrayal? It's not the single's vow. Or from the betrayed perspective, did the single have a responsibility to protect the betrayed from their betrayer? What is the moral imperative for the Single? There isn't one. When you see misleading advertising, do you have a moral imperative to make sure no one is mislead? No. 

Regarding influence: If I say robbing someone is a great idea, and you rob them, I'm to blame for your doing it? Am I to blame for influencing you? Holy smokes, the blame that can be tossed around with that view of morality reaches the stratosphere. That's where we get people blaming video games, music, tv, and bad haircuts (or whatever you like) for violent behavior. I think that's nonsense.

Not sleeping with a married might be a decent thing to do for the anonymous spouse, but there's no moral imperative not to.


----------



## treyvion

thunderstruck said:


> A few years ago, I saw some messages between my W and her (married) HS bf from 20+ years ago. He was fishing. She wasn't saying anything too inappropriate, but she also wasn't putting up a redlight. I took my anger out on him by sending him a msg. Just a short/sweet one that let him know that I was going to F**K his world up if he didn't disappear. He apologized to me and then went away.
> 
> It took some thought over the next few weeks, but then I realized that this specific POS wasn't my issue.


She probably found another POS in the next several weeks to do this with.


----------



## RandomDude

Well, guess I'm playing evil dude too much in this thread. I admit that I do find the idea of rejecting a married spouse noble. I still don't believe that spouses should be allowed to blameshift. Nor do I believe the OM/OW bears responsibility for the vows of others.

But in a moral sense, in terms of what is noble, what would jebus do and all that, yeah sure, a noble man would not sleep with a married woman. His own code prohibits it. Am I a noble man? No way in hell... do I want to be? I don't know, if I'm given a good enough reason to be one... maybe.

Meh


----------



## Faithful Wife

trey...are you talking to me or Random in post # 154?


----------



## thunderstruck

treyvion said:


> She probably found another POS in the next several weeks to do this with.


It wouldn't completely shock me.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

RandomDude said:


> But can't you see that this also enables the blame to be shifted? And as such how that would also hampen the ability of the married spouse to take full responsibility of their own actions?
> 
> Compare these two statements:
> "I was wrong, but he was also responsible"
> "I was wrong, it was my responsibility and I'm the one who should be held accountable"
> 
> The first is blame shifting.
> The second is the very first step towards reconciliation post-infidelity in a marriage - being accountable of one's actions.
> 
> My father also once told me that power comes with responsibility, but it goes bothways as accepting responsibility for your own actions gives you the power to change.
> 
> Accepting responsibility, full responsibility, not half-assed sorries.


I haven't read further than this post, but it regards to "who's responsible" in regards to the BH.

Both.

The WW is responsible for what she did to the marriage, the vows etc.

The POSOM holds a different responsibility. (Excuse the analogy to "stuff" I don't see my wife as a possession, but it's the easiest way to explain it) If a man walks up to your car and keys the side...what would you do? If as a kid, another kid steals your bike, pops your ball etc. etc. You would hold that other person accountable. Well this person walked up to you and stole your marriage. Why don't we say about someone who robs "Well if it wasn't them, it would've been the next robber"....Because it's an immoral and wrong behavior that hurts other people. Period. So yes, the POSOM has accountability here as well. Just different.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> trey...are you talking to me or Random in post # 154?


Debating "RandomDude" policy of "not judging" someone.


----------



## treyvion

thunderstruck said:


> It wouldn't completely shock me.


Well if this was the actual case that went down and you knew about it, you would see it's pointless to chase them all off when the relationshp partner is giving them the green light.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

hambone said:


> I'm sorry, but the primary responsibility to remain faithful lies with the married party.
> 
> The way I see it... if a married woman (or man) wants to fool around.. if it weren't that guy... it would just be someone else.


Just to reiterate.

The WS is 100% responsible for being a wayward and everything that comes with it.

The AP is 100% responsible for screwing a married person. It's plain and simple wrong and immoral. If you believe in the sanctity of marriage anyway.

So both people have 100% responsibility in the actions.


----------



## treyvion

RandomDude said:


> Well, guess I'm playing evil dude too much in this thread. I admit that I do find the idea of rejecting a married spouse noble. I still don't believe that spouses should be allowed to blameshift. Nor do I believe the OM/OW bears responsibility for the vows of others.
> 
> But in a moral sense, in terms of what is noble, what would jebus do and all that, yeah sure, a noble man would not sleep with a married woman. His own code prohibits it. Am I a noble man? No way in hell... do I want to be? I don't know, if I'm given a good enough reason to be one... maybe.
> 
> Meh


It's not about jesus. You will support someone cheating on their committed relationship partner, hell you will be the one to do it with them. 

So you would do the same with your "friends" and family members significant others too?


----------



## RandomDude

Dad&Hubby said:


> The POSOM holds a different responsibility. (Excuse the analogy to "stuff" I don't see my wife as a possession, but it's the easiest way to explain it) If a man walks up to your car and keys the side...what would you do? If as a kid, another kid steals your bike, pops your ball etc. etc. You would hold that other person accountable. Well this person walked up to you and stole your marriage. Why don't we say about someone who robs "Well if it wasn't them, it would've been the next robber"....Because it's an immoral and wrong behavior that hurts other people. Period. So yes, the POSOM has accountability here as well. Just different.


In reference to my own experience, the woman I cheated with on my STBX, no, I don't hold her accountable, I hold myself accountable. She was not the robber, I was.

In terms of responsibility, sure he put in it, he will risk having the WS's husband come charging at him. That's his risk, his responsibility. But for the marriage of WS? Say what?

Sure, the decent thing to do... the noble thing to do... hell I don't expect people to be decent nor I do feel people should. Should I hate them for it? No. Should I respect and uphold their low morality? Of course not.

Yet in a way doing the opposite of nobility, refusing to take responsibility of the wayward spouse, leads to a greater chance of reconciliation for the married party. It's ironic.



> It's not about jesus. You will support someone cheating on their committed relationship partner, hell you will be the one to do it with them.
> 
> So you would do the same with your "friends" and family members significant others too?


Friends, family, fk no. I care about them. Am I obliged to give a sh-t about total strangers? Nope, WTF are they to me? Heh
Maybe I just need to grow a bigger heart

Hell come to think of it... maybe in a way I was better when I was married. My heart wasn't so hardened as it is today, and it was in the past.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Created2Write said:


> I'm seeing that. I'm definitely disillusioned. I'm all for being challenged by the people we know, so that we know why we have the morals we do. But this is beyond that. This is, flat out, justifying being the accomplice in infidelity.


Unless they want to admit it's a deficiency in personal integrity.  That's an excuse? 

Well, maybe it's just truth. Okay, start the flaming. 

Justification is just the response when we haven't looked internally to see how we ourselves are responsible for our own actions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...don't you have a daughter?

If she were about to sleep with a married man, would you have zero feelings about that? Would you say "sure, go for it...what the hell".


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> They all know you are a friend to their marriages, not just the spouses. You present no threat.


That, is the absolute truth.


----------



## Caribbean Man

" _Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual_."
Friedrich Nietzsche

" _Fear is the mother of morality_."
Friedrich Nietzsche

I think that as long as we start drawing lines in the sand and debating morality , whilst expect strangers to abide by our moral values , then we're heading down a slippery slope.

To me there is no difference between saying that I am against same sex relationships ,and expecting people whom I am not even closely connected with to believe the same ,and saying that I am against adultery and expecting the OM/OW to share my same morals.
I hold myself fully accountable for my actions ,and I_ know_ exactly what standards I use.

In the USA, there are some states where prostitution is legal, and some where it is _illegal_.
Many people think prostitution is immoral, yet in some states , it is legal.
There are some states where a gay couple can get legally married, and there are some states where they _can't_, because some people believe that it's immoral.

In the end, the majority rules, but does that make it right?
There's a difference between right & wrong and this thing called morality.

A married person agrees ,swears and signs a LEGALLY BINDING contract stating that they would be faithful to ONE person in every way 
" till death do us part."

A single person, to the best of my knowledge never did sign such a contract, neither did they swear that they would stay away from a married person.

To me, blaming them is absurd.
I can believe and say that they are scum.
I can believe say that they are morally bankrupt , and they may very well be , to me or those of us who share the same morals. _But none of that would have any effect on their behaviour ,if indeed, they are morally bankrupt._

So how exactly can we expect them to " share" the blame if they don't believe in the same moral values as us?

Blaming them is a waste of time IMO.
Blame YOURSELF you are the one who swore to be faithful, not them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Your statement is a strong single viewpoint that's used by many people who mess with people in relationships.


That's fine and I agree... a lot of people will use it as such. I'm not arguing for justification I'm arguing moral responsibility, period.



treyvion said:


> I don't want to be in the middle of anyones relationship, even just for sex.


I agree. And you're also right it's messy. But not a moral issue to the single imo.



treyvion said:


> I can't stop the people with your mindset, but they are some dirty dogs to not be trusted.


Whose trust is breeched by my mindset? Did the single deceive someone?



treyvion said:


> Any of you with that mindset should have it happen to you.


I've been cheated on. I dumped her and that was that. I don't have an issue with the OM... why should I have had? -he didn't betray me. The only element that had any relevance to me was her actions, not his. He even dated her after I left. Lo and behold she cheated on him too and they're now broken up.

I also think there's a big difference between sleeping w a married whose spouse you don't know and sleeping with your friend's spouse. The moral imperative being to uphold the friend's trust. Do you trust people you've never met? Again, I just don't see the moral imperative for the single.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random...don't you have a daughter?
> 
> If she were about to sleep with a married man, would you have zero feelings about that? Would you say "sure, go for it...what the hell".


As I said, my family is a different story, and perhaps I just need to grow a bigger heart, or at least unharden it back to how it was somewhat when I was married.

Right now my daughter is only one who can move me emotionally.



> I also think there's a big difference between sleeping w a married whose spouse you don't know and sleeping with your friend's spouse. The moral imperative being to uphold the friend's trust. Do you trust people you've never met? Again, I just don't see the moral imperative for the single.


Agreed


----------



## Faithful Wife

So if you wouldn't encourage your own child to do something, why would you consider it ok for yourself? There shouldn't be a different barometer (assuming the child is an adult, which I know yours isn't, but one day she will be).


----------



## RandomDude

The thing is, with that scenario, I wouldn't give a flying fk about that married dude. I would be more concerned over my daughter's choice in partners, and getting herself involved in a relationship that has no future.

It's much different from the scenario that we are discussing


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I would be more concerned over my daughter's choice in partners, and getting herself involved in a relationship that has no future."

And why would you not have the same concern about yourself?

So are you saying that only people who have some kind of "hopeful future" should stay away from married people? Everyone else's future doesn't matter?


----------



## RandomDude

My daughter is not me, she's my child. I want the best for her.

Do I want the best for myself? Sure, but can I get it? No, I no longer believe I can. I'm going to be single for the rest of my life as now my experiences have risen my standards to the point of impossibility. STBX may have had flaws, but many of her qualities are hard to beat, yet I can't live without. Not to mention who I am I can no longer really change.

My daughter is not me, she is being raised different to me. She won't have to harden her heart, to be left on the streets, to have the government refuse to help her because she felt out of the loophole in the system, to be forced into crime to survive, to live in a world where everything is grey, not black and white. I won't allow it.

She is different from me. So my concerns for her is different from concerns for myself.



> So are you saying that only people who have some kind of "hopeful future" should stay away from married people? Everyone else's future doesn't matter?


:scratchhead:
I don't see how I'm saying that


----------



## Faithful Wife

"She is different from me. So my concerns for her is different from concerns for myself."

She isn't different than you. You are just choosing to see it that way. As horrified as you might be to one day hear she is seeing a married man, that horror is NO DIFFERENT if applied to YOU. Just because you don't care for yourself in the same way, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Also, what if you told your daughter the above? That it would be ok for you to sleep with a married person, because meh, oh well, I don't care about my own future? Don't you care about how SHE would see YOU?

I am trying to live my life as if my children will one day know everything I've done, and as if they might do the same. Because BOTH myself AND my children are important to me and my family.


----------



## RandomDude

I definitely wouldn't say "It's ok to sleep with married people"
But if she did, I'm not going to hold her responsible for the marital breakdown of the man she was sleeping with. That's my point.

There are consequences to actions, and I doubt she will ever become like me. I do not have the luxury of being able to lead by example through my past and I struggle to see any parent who can claim themselves perfect enough to be a shining flawless example to their children. As such I don't feel that I can share everything with my daughter. I'll share what is good, and I sure as hell would leave out the bad - or what isn't what I want for her at least.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"As such I don't feel that I can share everything with my daughter. I'll share what is good, and I sure as hell would leave out the bad - or what isn't what I want for her at least."

This kind of thinking is naive, and you should just assume your kids will find out everything you've done...because they might, and you need to be prepared to handle it if they do.

Your life is important. What you do is important. You may not think so, and that is fine. One day you'll realize...that everything was important, not just the things you feel affect you alone.


----------



## Clawed

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


Sorry, I have NEVER done this, nor will I ever - but there a whole bunch of scumbag jerks who do, to be sure. 

Sorry, ladies!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> But the single person is still involved with the adultery. You can't have an affair with just one person. Your actions are encouraging adultery, and you're saying you agree with it by knowingly being the person used to cheat with. If adultery is immoral, then you wouldn't allow yourself to knowingly participate in adultery. By knowingly sleeping with someone who's married, you are stating that adultery is a moral action.


The action is immoral for the married, not the single. I view marriage like a contract. Adultery is therefore a breech of contract. The act of having sex itself isn't immoral - and that's all the single did; the immoral act is the breech of contract. A person cannot be held to be in violation of OTHER PEOPLE's contracts - contracts they are not party to. The single has not breeched any contract of theirs. The married did.

Similarly, I don't see that the single can be held morally responsible for luring the married to break their contract. It wasn't the single's contract to worry about. And if we assign moral responsibility to every influence and temptation, then all we've done is blame shift on a massive scale.

The married and the married alone are responsible for upholding their contracts.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The action is immoral for the married, not the single. I view marriage like a contract. Adultery is therefore a breech of contract. The act of having sex itself isn't immoral - and that's all the single did; the immoral act is the breech of contract. A person cannot be held to be in violation of OTHER PEOPLE's contracts - contracts they are not party to. The single has not breeched any contract of theirs. The married did.
> 
> Similarly, I don't see that the single can be held morally responsible for luring the married to break their contract. It wasn't the single's contract to worry about. And if we assign moral responsibility to every influence and temptation, then all we've done is blame shift on a massive scale.
> 
> The married and the married alone are responsible for upholding their contracts.


:smthumbup:

I think you summed it up better than I ever could, and even without going on and on about personal experiences and sh-t like me...

Hell I should learn to shut the fk up :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...you are doing just fine with the way you are explaining it...it is just that most of us don't agree.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And I'm willing to bet that the guys defending sleeping with marrieds will be the first to want to beat the crap out of said pool boy.
> 
> Nevermind that it "isn't his fault".


If you're viewing me as one of those, you'd be wrong on both counts. 1) I'm not defending sleeping w marrieds - only declaring that there is no moral imperative for the single... and 2) I couldn't care less about the "pool boy". He didn't harm me; she did.


----------



## Married but Happy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The action is immoral for the married, not the single.


Don't you consider causing or potentially causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the cheater's family immoral? Your only motivation to participate is selfish gratification without concern for others. It's sort of like driving the getaway car from a fatal convenience store robbery - you're still culpable.


----------



## RandomDude

@FaithfulWife

Really? 
Well that's ok then heh

Regardless I am taking to account your perspective on things, it's also very insightful despite me disagreeing. And hell besides, as I already mentioned, I admire your view and others in terms of moral obligation/nobility and what not. I just still don't think such an attitude is beneficial, or realistic, when it comes to dealing with infidelity.

I do agree at least, that it's decent, noble, for the accomplice to say no. But no good deed goes unpunished in my book, and my book still says, responsibility lies with the married spouse. No blameshifting can or should be allowed. But anyways... think I'm done voicing my opinion in this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> Don't you consider causing or potentially causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the cheater's family immoral? Your only motivation to participate is selfish gratification without concern for others. It's sort of like driving the getaway car from a fatal convenience store robbery - you're still culpable.


Not a good juxtaposition.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
If he drives a getaway car,from a robbery and murder scene, then he's breaking the law of the land, and he is culpable , because it's the law.
Its called " _Aiding & Abetting ._"
What law does the single person who has sex with a married woman/ man break?


----------



## Married but Happy

Caribbean Man said:


> What law does the single person who has sex with a married woman/ man break?


No law, just the moral equivalent in responsibility. I would not help a married woman cheat as it would be contrary to my ethical principles of causing the least harm, and doing the most good to the best of my ability. I have turned down many opportunities for sex for exactly this reason, and have no regrets for doing so. I am quite able to find sexual gratification without compromising my ethics.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Not a good juxtaposition.
> You're comparing apples and oranges.
> If he drives a getaway car,from a robbery and murder scene, then he's breaking the law of the land, and he is culpable , because it's the law.
> Its called " _Aiding & Abetting ._"
> What law does the single person who has sex with a married woman/ man break?


Something doesn't have to be a law to be wrong you know.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Something doesn't have to be a law to be wrong you know.


But what makes it right or wrong?
What makes it immoral?
Back in the 50's Alcohol was seen as the greatest evil in the USA.
It was blamed for adultery , fatherless homes , and everything bad in society.
Alcohol consumption was deemed wrong , hence immoral by the Temperance movement who influenced the government to ban it's consumption.

The rest is history,

Today alcohol is not only legal, but is one of the most produced and exported item in the US economy.
No other country manufactures and exports more alcohol than the USA.
What made it wrong, and illegal back then and makes it right and legal today?


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> What law does the single person who has sex with a married woman/ man break?


In the case of a single man who copulates with a married woman, that man commits adultery. It's still on the books in some places.


----------



## WyshIknew

Ok scenario.

You're bonking a married woman/man.

The betrayed spouse speaks to you and begs you to leave their husband/wife alone. He/she is distraught.

Would you still say "meh not my problem?"

"I haven't broken any law so I'm gonna continue."


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> No law, just the moral equivalent in responsibility. I would not help a married woman cheat as it would be contrary to my ethical principles of causing the least harm, and doing the most good to the best of my ability. I have turned down many opportunities for sex for exactly this reason, and have no regrets for doing so. I am quite able to find sexual gratification without compromising my ethics.


Yes, and :iagree:.

But does the OM or OW share our same beliefs?


----------



## Married but Happy

Caribbean Man said:


> But what makes it right or wrong?
> What makes it immoral?


IMO, the potential or actuality of causing harm. Fads may come and go, and some things once considered bad are now considered good. Some bad things can be used for good purposes, and vice versa, It is the potential for good or bad, good use or misuse in the particular circumstances that make an action ethical or unethical.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Swinging or swapping have the potential to do the third party harm, too.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> In the case of a single man who copulates with a married woman, that man commits adultery.* It's still on the books in some places.*


So too, laws against sodomy [ homosexuality] or " C_rimes against nature_."

[BTW, Nice to have you back!]


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Let's say a competitor fails and his customers become mine. I may benefit from his misfortune yes. But should I feel guilty for his misfortune despite having no hand in it? I may feel sorry for him, but that's about it. It's business.
> 
> Now in the case of unfaithful spouses, the saying still stands; if it's not me, it's someone else. Lets say ok, I refuse to benefit from the situation, and off she goes, fks someone else. The same scenario, the same damages will still apply. That's just how it is.


The problem with this analogy is that in the case of sleeping with a married, you do have a hand in the failure. True, it likely would have failed without you, but the "benefit" that you are taking is still an ill-gotten gain, akin to enjoying the proceeds of a fraud that you didn't commit.

Say, for example, you worked for a large company where a number of the executives used fraudulent accounting practices and insider trading to generate huge amounts of wealth for themselves and put their investors into the poorhouse. They then give you a share of this income to buy your silence. Yes, the fraud took place without you. But by accepting the buyout and "benefitting" from the situation, you become complict.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> IMO, the potential or actuality of causing harm. Fads may come and go, and some things once considered bad are now considered good. Some bad things can be used for good purposes, and vice versa, It is the potential for good or bad, good use or misuse in the particular circumstances that make an action ethical or unethical.


And who determines that?
Who gave them the authority to do so?
In fact, the person / people who are adjudicating and imposing their morals on people who don't agree, whether they be in the minority or majority , may be themselves acting unethically in doing so.


----------



## treyvion

Machiavelli said:


> In the case of a single man who copulates with a married woman, that man commits adultery. It's still on the books in some places.


Machiavelli! Been a while. And I'm sure in some countries the male interloper would be subject to caning or having his hand chopped off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Clawed

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The action is immoral for the married, not the single. I view marriage like a contract. Adultery is therefore a breech of contract. The act of having sex itself isn't immoral - and that's all the single did; the immoral act is the breech of contract. A person cannot be held to be in violation of OTHER PEOPLE's contracts - contracts they are not party to. The single has not breeched any contract of theirs. The married did.
> 
> Similarly, I don't see that the single can be held morally responsible for luring the married to break their contract. It wasn't the single's contract to worry about. And if we assign moral responsibility to every influence and temptation, then all we've done is blame shift on a massive scale.
> 
> The married and the married alone are responsible for upholding their contracts.


This is a perfect example of why I have lost all hope for humanity. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. The single is free and clear to do whatever they please and have no responsibility to act in a civilized manner and respect the fact that their 'target' (because let's face it, that's all they are to these pieces of trash) is married? Wow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aw Clawed...it isn't all of humanity who feels that way. Yes, people can be flawed and act inhumanely...but it doesn't represent everyone.


----------



## hambone

Machiavelli said:


> In the case of a single man who copulates with a married woman, that man commits adultery. It's still on the books in some places.


Can't the single guy be sued for alienation of affection?


----------



## tacoma

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.



The same exact reason women hit on married men.

Actually, If I had known when I was single I would have bought myself a wedding band.
Much easier picking up chicks..


----------



## tacoma

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Regarding responsibility: What exactly is the Single's moral fault with the Married's betrayal?


That would depend upon the singles ethical foundation.
Legalities mean absolutely nothing to my morality.

My ethical foundation runs on one simple rule.

Cause as little violation as possible.

If I were to have sex with a married woman I would be violating her relationship and family in the worst way.
I simply can't go there.

She can find someone else.



> Not sleeping with a married might be a decent thing to do for the anonymous spouse, but there's no moral imperative not to.


Morality isn't an objective axiom among all humanity dvls no matter how hard the "Family Values" crowd likes to think it is.


----------



## Married but Happy

Caribbean Man said:


> And who determines that?
> Who gave them the authority to do so?
> In fact, the person / people who are adjudicating and imposing their morals on people who don't agree, whether they be in the minority or majority , may be themselves acting unethically in doing so.


I determine that. For myself, and in my own interactions with others.

Society may reach a consensus on rules of morality and encode them into law, but sometimes those rules are unjust, immoral, unethical, biased, or discriminatory. Many examples come to mind from the last century. However, they may be the best the society can do at the time, and hopefully society improves its laws over time based on experience and deeper ethical understanding.

After all, I can only control my own actions, not those of others. At best, I can create repercussions when motivated to do so, if they fall within my ethical framework.


----------



## Clawed

Faithful Wife said:


> Aw Clawed...it isn't all of humanity who feels that way. Yes, people can be flawed and act inhumanely...but it doesn't represent everyone.


I know, that was definitely a gross exaggeration on my part, but honestly, just knowing these people exist is kind of frightening.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Clawed...are you married? My husband and I make a game out of it, like this:

I Married a Sex God: 5. Sexual Wolves

It is simply a way to cope with the reality....but we make it fun. There are both men and women who will always want to have sex with you (whoever "you" are) whether you are married or not. Using mate guarding fun games, we aren't in fantasy land pretending it doesn't exist...we are facing it head on and dealing with it in our way.


----------



## Clawed

Faithful Wife said:


> Clawed...are you married? My husband and I make a game out of it, like this:
> 
> I Married a Sex God: 5. Sexual Wolves
> 
> It is simply a way to cope with the reality....but we make it fun.


Actually, I am going through the tail end of a divorce. I was 100% committed to her. She was not to me, and with her having done what she did, I feel I can't trust anyone now. If she can cheat... I figure anyone can. It was a 15 year relationship and call me oblivious, but I thought things were great in our marriage. Or at least healthy. We obviously had our issues, I just did not think they were anything that would cause an end result like this.


----------



## Faithful Wife




----------



## 2ntnuf

A man can't control what his wife does. He can only provide the best possible marital experience within his means. What you have there is great advice, but not so relevant to relieve concerns about spousal infidelity. If a partner wants to get sex outside the marriage, they will. 

Single or married men and women "predators" will be as you say, all over the place. That is not comforting news. It is, however, a fact of life. The other fact of life is that there will always be someone out there that is a better fit in a relationship for each of us. Will that person live within our life's boundaries and actually meet us? I doubt it, but it is possible. 

So, what are we left with? The realization that marriage is not and will not be safe, no matter who we are with. This goes for unmarried couples as well. That fact must be accepted, even if you learn all the "tips and tricks" of NMMNG or MMSLP. 

The courage to live with this knowledge is something difficult to find for some, including me. The courage to rebuild and think that marriage is still a viable option is even tougher. It is doable and acceptable and why I believe those men's groups and books are there. We have to be comfortable with ourselves. We have to know we are worth something to more than just one person. We have to know there are more people out there who would be interested in us.

So, now we have come back full circle. What then, is the reason to believe in the next marriage or relationship's longevity? Not sure. 

Rhetoricall speaking, why is it worth even bothering to try to be faithful? Why don't we all have an open marriage or relationship? 

Add in the fact that so many men and women have a different moral compass and ...............I give..........................


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Morality isn't an objective axiom among all humanity dvls no matter how hard the "Family Values" crowd likes to think it is.


Well said!

A better term would be Moral Relativism.

" _Morality is the herd-instinct in the individua_l."
Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## lovelifeandwanttoenjoyit

Faithful Wife said:


> Clawed...are you married? My husband and I make a game out of it, like this:
> 
> I Married a Sex God: 5. Sexual Wolves
> 
> It is simply a way to cope with the reality....but we make it fun. There are both men and women who will always want to have sex with you (whoever "you" are) whether you are married or not. Using mate guarding fun games, we aren't in fantasy land pretending it doesn't exist...we are facing it head on and dealing with it in our way.


Your blog is so cool... love it and love the relationship you have with your husband, a very strong union!! :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aww...thanks! It has been a really fun project for me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> *After all, I can only control my own actions, not those of others.* At best, I can create repercussions when motivated to do so, if they fall within my ethical framework.


That's 100% correct.

Then we both agree.

I cannot blame the OM for having sex with my wife in his home , a hotel , in a filthy toilet in the club or anywhere outside my home.
If he trespasses my home and I meet him there , that's a different story. He would leave in pieces.

That's why I'm a firm believer in people protecting their marriages with whatever strong boundaries necessary.

To many times people take things for granted an assume that people they don't know actually share the same moral values with them.
Humans are by nature selfish, and many times we use morality as a club to beat those we dislike and give those we like a " _ hall pass_." Therein lies the danger. 
Right there is where we find out that the only person we would take a bullet for ends up being the one who is behind the gun , pulling the trigger.

Can't blame the person who gave them the gun ,they are the one who's pulling the trigger.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Do you realize you are saying fidelity in marriage is not a logical presumption? It is not then, accurate to even consider fidelity as an option. It is accurate to say that we have no reason to marry and expect a higher degree of safety from disease and infection. It is likely that our children are not biologically ours. 

You all are making a case for staying single and enjoying all reasonable sexual partners. Nothing is out of line. There is nothing taken off the table. What does this say about folks who are married and think this way? Is your marriage a sham?


----------



## RandomDude

> The problem with this analogy is that in the case of sleeping with a married, you do have a hand in the failure. True, it likely would have failed without you, but the "benefit" that you are taking is still an ill-gotten gain, akin to enjoying the proceeds of a fraud that you didn't commit.


Well, if I didn't commit it, yet I'm benefiting from it, I still don't see how I would should be guilty over it.



> Say, for example, you worked for a large company where a number of the executives used fraudulent accounting practices and insider trading to generate huge amounts of wealth for themselves and put their investors into the poorhouse. They then give you a share of this income to buy your silence. Yes, the fraud took place without you. But by accepting the buyout and "benefitting" from the situation, you become complict.


Hmmm, good point if you put it that way. And yes, I would become responsible for accepting the buyout, but would I also be responsible for the fraud of these executives as well?

In relation to the scenario of this topic, yes, I would be responsible for sleeping with the married woman, I would also have to bear the risk and potential consequences of my actions; angry spouse with a chainsaw for example. But am I still to be blamed for the infidelity of the spouse?



Married but Happy said:


> I determine that. For myself, and in my own interactions with others.
> 
> Society may reach a consensus on rules of morality and encode them into law, but sometimes those rules are unjust, immoral, unethical, biased, or discriminatory. Many examples come to mind from the last century. However, they may be the best the society can do at the time, and hopefully society improves its laws over time based on experience and deeper ethical understanding.
> 
> After all, I can only control my own actions, not those of others. At best, I can create repercussions when motivated to do so, if they fall within my ethical framework.


Curious now, having your own moral standard is all well and good sure, but how does this help the greater good in the end, as the reality stands - that different individuals, cultures, religions, will always have their differences in opinion. Their own black and white in other words. There can never be an ideal world where infidelity or even being an accomplice in infidelity will cease to exist, people will never think alike.

Relating this back in terms of responsibility and blameshifting. The attitude of placing full, 100% responsibility on the wayward spouse still lies the only way one can possibly even think of change, recovery, and reconciliation from infidelity. The attitude of despising the OM/OW, while that is easy to do, makes no difference to the married couple except that it allows for blame shifting as I mentioned; "I was wrong but he's also responsible"

In the end, how are we to encourage one to take FULL responsibility for a deed when an accomplice can also be held accountable? That's my main, and probably last question before I can put this subject to rest.


----------



## Created2Write

This thread makes me shake my head. I disagree SO strongly. I can't respect the conclusions of those who think it's just fine to sleep with a married individual.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> Do you realize you are saying fidelity in marriage is not a logical presumption? It is not then, accurate to even consider fidelity as an option. It is accurate to say that we have no reason to marry and expect a higher degree of safety from disease and infection. It is likely that our children are not biologically ours.
> 
> You all are making a case for staying single and enjoying all reasonable sexual partners. Nothing is out of line. There is nothing taken off the table. What does this say about folks who are married and think this way? Is your marriage a sham?



I can presume as much as I like that people are generally good an wont steal my car if I leave it unlocked and the keys in the ignition at the mall carpark.
My presumption won't prevent car thieves from stealing it.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> I can presume as much as I like that people are generally good an wont steal my car if I leave it unlocked and the keys in the ignition at the mall carpark.
> My presumption won't prevent car thieves from stealing it.


Sorry, CM, I don't believe that to be a reasonable analogy. The car doesn't have a brain and make decisions for itself.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> This thread makes me shake my head. I disagree SO strongly. I can't respect the conclusions of those who think it's just fine to sleep with a married individual.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not saying it's fine.

I'm saying that those who are married have to fully accept blame for their actions if thy sleep with a single individual without their partner's explicit consent.
See?
Some married partners even encourage and allow their partner to sleep with other single persons.
It's called swinging.
There goes the entire " morality" argument.

If couple x could agree to swing and see nothing morally wrong with it.
If couple y could agree to stay monogamous and exclusive to each other.
What's stopping a single person from believing that nothing is wrong with having sex with a married person with their consent?


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> This thread makes me shake my head. I disagree SO strongly. I can't respect the conclusions of those who think it's just fine to sleep with a married individual.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's an ethical dilemma and I'm prepared to change my perception if I'm convinced on my last question. It's been a good discussion thus far, but morality is logical, not an emotional subject to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> Sorry, CM, I don't believe that to be a reasonable analogy. The car doesn't have a brain and make decisions for itself.


Of course it does not!
That's why I need to take the key out of the ignition and make sure it's locked!
Because people steal cars.
My duty is to do all I can possibly do to secure my car.
My marriage is more precious than my car so I protect even more.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Unless you think swinging is immoral. oops.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> Unless you think swinging is immoral. oops.



Yup!


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> Of course it does not!
> That's why I need to take the key out of the ignition and make sure it's locked!
> Because people steal cars.
> My duty is to do all I can possibly do to secure my car.
> My marriage is more precious than my car so I protect even more.


I got that, CM. 

You cannot control your spouse. She/he have their own moral compass. It is choice and cannot ever be stopped by one person's actions. It is an experience between at least two willing participants. 

So the fault lies squarely on each of the individuals involved in the extramarital sex. I don't see how anyone can believe that they are not in some way to blame for the affair. 

If just one person says NO, that's it. That particular sexual experience does not happen, barring rape. 

Are you concerned that there might eventually be consequences for actions? I can't imagine why anyone would take this stand, other than a decided lack of concern for responsibility.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> I got that, CM.
> 
> You cannot control your spouse. She/he have their own moral compass. It is choice and cannot ever be stopped by one person's actions. It is an experience between at least two willing participants.
> 
> So the fault lies squarely on each of the individuals involved in the extramarital sex. I don't see how anyone can believe that they are not in some way to blame for the affair.
> 
> If just one person says NO, that's it. That particular sexual experience does not happen, barring rape.
> 
> Are you concerned that there might eventually be consequences for actions? I can't imagine why anyone would take this stand, other than a decided lack of concern for responsibility.


No.
I cannot control my spouse, but we both share the same moral values, that's why we got married in the first place.

If she decides to have sex with someone who does NOT share OUR values , how can I hold that person responsible?
I hold HER responsible.
All she had to do was say no.
Instead she said yes and joined with someone _opposed_ to my values. We no longer share the same values. She agreed with that person's values. she is now joined to him. She left her values behind, not him.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I don't have much respect for om/ow as people, but their not really responsible for someone's marriage or breakdown of marriage. That responsibility lies solely on the people in the marriage imo.


----------



## RandomDude

Heh if any topic can divide a forum with difference in opinion... I reckon it has to be this one!

OP is probably going WTF lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't think there is that wide of a division. I think most people think it is bad form to hit on married people. The exception think it is ok.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> I don't have much respect for om/ow as people, but their not really responsible for someone's marriage or breakdown of marriage. That responsibility lies solely on the people in the marriage imo.


:iagree:
Yup.
I have absolutely no respect nor sympathy for them either.
However , my marriage and my actions are my responsibility.
I do anything within reason ,to protect it.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> I cannot control my spouse, but we both share the same moral values, that's why we got married in the first place.
> 
> If she decides to have sex with someone who does NOT share OUR values , how can I hold that person responsible?
> I hold HER responsible.
> All she had to do was say no.
> Instead she said yes and joined with someone _opposed_ to my values. We no longer share the same values. She agreed with that person's values. she is now joined to him. She left her values behind, not him.


If she decides to do that, she does not share your same moral values. There is no guarantee of that in this life. 

It's also possible the married couple never did hold the same values. 

How can you hold a spouse responsible if you believe in open marriage? She/he has a right to do as they please and you don't have the right to hold it against any of them.

I hold all participants responsible, including myself. I'm an equal opportunity finger pointer.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think there is that wide of a division. I think most people think it is bad form to hit on married people. The exception think it is ok.


Even those who think it's ok, don't necessarily do it. I reckon swinging is ok for some, doesn't mean I do it. 

I have my own reasons why I don't, even if it's not due to my moral compass. Even in the past it's never ever been my preference. Just for the record anyways.

Hope I haven't accumulated too much hate for my honesty in this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

IMO, it is good for young wives, like Created, to hear your point of view, Random. People need to understand that other people will NEVER protect the boundaries of YOUR own marriage. It is a tough pill to swallow sometimes, but it needs to be understood.


----------



## 2ntnuf

the husband/wife
the issues before the affair
the affair partner


If you could remove just one of those ingredients that lead to an affair, there is a good chance it would never happen.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> IMO, it is good for young wives, like Created, to hear your point of view, Random. People need to understand that other people will NEVER protect the boundaries of YOUR own marriage. It is a tough pill to swallow sometimes, but it needs to be understood.


Aye, I know what I'm capable of as well as what the world is capable of. People do need to understand this. In the CWI section I also posted in a thread in relation to the sheer audacity of cheaters and how shameless they can be, how people need to become aware of this reality, and ask themselves deep down how they even possibly forgive such a person who is not completely repentant.

And hell, come to think of it, perhaps in time I would help my daughter understand this as well, so she herself won't be burnt in the future. So hey, maybe evil folk like me may have a place in this world after all 

Even if I'm the bad guy, or was anyway. Or am I still the boogeyman? lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nah you're just some Random Dude.


----------



## RandomDude

Awesome 

Peace!


----------



## Created2Write

I maintain that adultery involves two people and both are accountable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

My next door neighbour is a systems analyst working in the security department for one of the largest banks in our country.

He works at the main branch or headquarters in the capital city.
His job is to detect and prevent internal fraud. He is just one in an internal security staff of about 50 people.

This branch is very busy because of its location. It could easily handle about 1500 walk in customers every hour.
But guess what?
There are just about 10 armed guards on the floor.
So I asked my friend/ neighbour how come?
He tells me that the bank looses much more money through internal fraud than external threats like armed robbery etc.
Chances of having the bank robbed by strangers is almost zero.
Chances of having an employee / employees defraud the bank are extremely high.

Although every year the bank makes handsome profits, _it looses money through internal fraud._

There are more cameras, scanners ,pass code restricted areas, inside the bank tracking employees movements than cameras tracking customers movement in and out of the bank.
The bank spends more money on internal security than external security.
_The bank is literally protecting itself from it " trusted " workers_.

It's called " _the human condition._"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Clawed said:


> This is a perfect example of why I have lost all hope for humanity. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. The single is free and clear to do whatever they please and have no responsibility to act in a civilized manner and respect the fact that their 'target' (because let's face it, that's all they are to these pieces of trash) is married? Wow.


lol uhm... Who said *she* was "targeted"? Every opportunity Ive had with a married woman has come unsolicited. So in fact *I* was targeted. Ive slept with two in my life, both swingers. Ultimately I was dissatisfied with being with someone who already has someone else.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I maintain that adultery involves two people and both are accountable.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok.
Here's a hypothetical question.

Lets say that , God forbid, and an unmarried woman gets your husband's attention at work and he cheats with her, you find out and you hold them both responsible.
Then you decide to forgive him, in the process of reconciliation, he agrees to leave the job and get another, which he does.
Another unmarried woman again gets his attention, and the same thing happens.

Who would you hold responsible , him or " _these women who can't leave married men alone?_"


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...she would have probably dumped him the first time.


----------



## gbrad

Now my question with these two threads about hitting on someone who is married, both for men and women. Are the people who are married and being hit on giving off a vibe that makes it seem as if they want to be hit on? If the single person thinks the married person wants to be hit on and is looking/trying for it, then they are doing what the other person wants. So nothing wrong with what the person is doing by hitting on the person who wants to be hit on.


----------



## Caribbean Man

gbrad said:


> Now my question with these two threads about hitting on someone who is married, both for men and women. *Are the people who are married and being hit on giving off a vibe that makes it seem as if they want to be hit on? If the single person thinks the married person wants to be hit on and is looking/trying for it, then they are doing what the other person wants. * So nothing wrong with what the person is doing by hitting on the person who wants to be hit on.


Which 99.9% is true, and which complicates things even more!
That's why I say hold them responsible for their actions. They left the marriage and went out to meet that person.
If they had said no, that single person would simply have moved on.
If the next married person said no, they would have to move on, until they realized that married people don't sleep around.

That's why I said in my initial post that even though they come to me, I DO NOT entertain them.

But the fact is ,some married people , or a great many married people,_ do_ sleep around, hence the scumbags waiting in the sidelines for a married person to have sex with.
It is a very inconvenient truth.


----------



## julianne

RandomDude said:


> Heh if any topic can divide a forum with difference in opinion... I reckon it has to be this one!
> 
> OP is probably going WTF lol



Haha, you got that right!

A little while ago i grabbed my tablet and thought "oh yeah, I started a thread last night"....have a lot to catch up on 

Someone said that I should not have said "ok guys" in my post. Just to clarify, I personally use "guys" all the time, even to my women friends. I will go up to them and say "hi guys, lets go to lunch now". I didn't mean that only guys hit on married people. 

I posed the question here because a few weeks back I encountered a particularly aggressive guy who would not take no for an answer. What an idiot.

I know I don't send out any "hey come flirt with me" vibes, unless smiling and being generally friendly are signals, but the world has not come to that, has it? A wedding ring has got to be some sort of protection.


----------



## Wiltshireman

I have read this thread with interest and would like to thank all those who have expressed their divergent opinions but reframed from personal attacks on those with whom they differ.

I think most who have posted would agree that when it comes to infidelity there is more than enough blame to go around but trying to apportion % of blame for any incident should be left to loss adjusters and insurance companies. 

Each individual must accept full responsibility for their own actions and if in retrospect they think they have made a mistake that acceptance of full responsibility is a necessary first step to adjusting their future actions.

E.G. If I were an alcoholic I might try and shift some of the blame for my condition onto the bar owner who served me or the liquor store where I got my whisky. To stand a chance of recovery I would need to accept that I was solely responsible for my actions and take steps to change my mindset and behavior.


----------



## WyshIknew

julianne said:


> Haha, you got that right!
> 
> A little while ago i grabbed my tablet and thought "oh yeah, I started a thread last night"....have a lot to catch up on
> 
> Someone said that I should not have said "ok guys" in my post. Just to clarify, I personally use "guys" all the time, even to my woman friends. I will go up to them and say "hi guys, lets go to lunch now". I didn't mean that only guys hit on married people.
> 
> I asked the question because a few weeks back I encountered a particularly aggressive guy who would not take no for an answer. What an idiot.


Excellent example Julianne.

I think my small input on this thread has been misunderstood. I took the OP's thread title to mean those sort of guys/gals that actively pursue people who are married.

There is a world of difference for me between a single guy suddenly finding a married woman practically sitting in his lap, something like Dvls mentions, and a man who actively seeks out married women gets them drunk, uses 'game', whatever that is, and ruins a string of marriages.


----------



## WyshIknew

Wiltshireman said:


> I have read this thread with interest and would like to thank all those who have expressed their divergent opinions but reframed from personal attacks on those with whom they differ.
> 
> I think most who have posted would agree that when it comes to infidelity there is more than enough blame to go around but trying to apportion % of blame for any incident should be left to loss adjusters and insurance companies.
> 
> Each individual must accept full responsibility for their own actions and if in retrospect they think they have made a mistake that acceptance of full responsibility is a necessary first step to adjusting their future actions.
> 
> E.G. If I were an alcoholic I might try and shift some of the blame for my condition onto the bar owner who served me or the liquor store where I got my whisky. To stand a chance of recovery I would need to accept that I was solely responsible for my actions and take steps to change my mindset and behavior.


:iagree:

But to use my example of single guy who gets lucky and single guy who preys on married women what about these two scenarios?

Bar owner/shop keeper knows you are an alcoholic who is trying to recover.

You walk in and order an alcoholic drink or buy a bottle of whisky. He serves you. Is he wrong to do so knowing you are a recovering alcoholic? Yes, but you can't really blame him can you?

You walk in and order a non alcoholic drink, the bar owner slips in a shot of vodka as he knows that once you've had a taste you won't be able to help yourself. He is preying on you.

Probably not an accurate analogy but hopefully you see what I mean.
One person is just responding to an opportunity that lands in his lap.
The other is actively pursuing your downfall.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Quote:
Originally Posted by julianne View Post
Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it. 



2ntnuf said:


> Although I've never done it, I think the reason is simple. Selfish desire to have what is supposed to be off limits. I think it's a huge ego boost. It is a way to prove to themselves they are better than the guy she married, especially when the woman looks like she is more physically attractive than her husband. It is the forbidden fruit.


I stand by my statement above. 


I do think that the rest of it goes like this:

Both spouses are responsible for the happiness of the marriage 

The spouse who cheats, makes a decision to cheat. Within the marriage, that person bears sole responsibility for the unfaithful act(s).

The affair partner takes responsibility for sleeping with a marred person. They made a decision to disrespect the faithful spouse and the marriage. The only way I see the affair partner as not responsible is if they have no idea the wayward is married and they are not married.


----------



## WyshIknew

2ntnuf said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by julianne View Post
> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand by my statement above.
> 
> 
> I do think that the rest of it goes like this:
> 
> Both spouses are responsible for the happiness of the marriage
> 
> The spouse who cheats, makes a decision to cheat. Within the marriage, that person bears sole responsibility for the unfaithful act(s).
> 
> The affair partner takes responsibility for sleeping with a marred person. They made a decision to disrespect the faithful spouse and the marriage. The only way I see the affair partner as not responsible is if they have no idea the wayward is married and they are not married.


But do you not think there are degrees of responsibility?

What if the affair partner is told that the marriage is in name only and the married couple are effectively separated within their own home?
Probably gullible of him to believe that but it happens.


----------



## 2ntnuf

WyshIknew said:


> But do you not think there are degrees of responsibility?


No, I don't. There are degrees of pain and suffering, not of responsibility. Edit: I know this won't be popular. It's my opinion.



WyshIknew said:


> What if the affair partner is told that the marriage is in name only and the married couple are effectively separated within their own home?


I've read those threads too. I don't comment because my opinion is not popular. You are either married or you are not. Get the divorce. Then go do what you want/need to do. If you want the divorce bad enough, you will make it as fair and amicable as possible and get it done. 




WyshIknew said:


> Probably gullible of him to believe that but it happens.


Yeah, where's the proof? I thought of this example, "You don't have an STD? Okay, I'll take the condom off." Sorry, let me see the blood test results first.

Edit: Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's how I look at it. At one time, I thought it might be okay to have ONE ONS. Mistakes are made, I thought. Not now. It's a decision.


----------



## Wiltshireman

WyshIknew said:


> :iagree:
> 
> But to use my example of single guy who gets lucky and single guy who preys on married women what about these two scenarios?
> 
> Bar owner/shop keeper knows you are an alcoholic who is trying to recover.
> 
> You walk in and order an alcoholic drink or buy a bottle of whisky. He serves you. Is he wrong to do so knowing you are a recovering alcoholic? Yes, but you can't really blame him can you?
> 
> You walk in and order a non alcoholic drink, the bar owner slips in a shot of vodka as he knows that once you've had a taste you won't be able to help yourself. He is preying on you.
> 
> Probably not an accurate analogy but hopefully you see what I mean.
> One person is just responding to an opportunity that lands in his lap.
> The other is actively pursuing your downfall.




That is a great analogy and I think we would all agree that the barman in the 2nd scenario's behavior is much worse than in the 1st but the alcoholic still needs to take responsibility, why was he in the bar exposing himself to temptation and giving the unscrupulous barman the chance to prey on him?

As adults we cannot expect everyone we meet to be honest and trustworthy (it would be wonderful if they were) we MUST take care to either keep ourselves out of dangers way or be prepared to handle any difficult situations that might arise.


----------



## Philat

_I stand by my statement above. 


I do think that the rest of it goes like this:

Both spouses are responsible for the happiness of the marriage 

The spouse who cheats, makes a decision to cheat. Within the marriage, that person bears sole responsibility for the unfaithful act(s).

The affair partner takes responsibility for sleeping with a marred person. They made a decision to disrespect the faithful spouse and the marriage. The only way I see the affair partner as not responsible is if they have no idea the wayward is married and they are not married. _

I think this probably comes closest to a common ground among all the discussants here. In the scenario under discussion the *infidelity* (conscious decision to dishonor marriage vow) is solely the responsibility of the cheating spouse. The act of *adultery* (the physical manifestation of infidelity) is equally the responsibility of the cheating spouse and the other person, if the other person is aware of the cheating spouse's marital status (this is the point Created2Write repeatedly tried to make). Both of these are wrong. Whether or not the other person is actively preying or just gets lucky is immaterial.


----------



## Philat

P.S. Random: Sorry for the shot I took yesterday. As you yourself observed, this is a topic that hits raw nerves.


----------



## Caribbean Man

See, here's what usually happens in affairs with singles.

Married person meets Mr. / Mrs X , and there is some chemistry or attraction on some levels.

NOTE: Mr. / Mrs. X does not usually come " out of the blue " and say " _lets go sex it up across at my house or in the company's stockroom.._"

No.

Mr./ Mrs X usually has a constant contact with the married person , usually via text or facebook or any social media , consisting of hundreds of hours of chats , exchanging nude pictures [ sexting ] and generally escalating with inappropriate conversation and heavy sexual flirting / innuendoes.
This also usually involves lots of compliments.

Married person realizes that their husband / wife is a " erk " and starts rewriting their marriage history. 

_Their husband / wife never understood them like Mr./ Mrs X , _

_Their wife doesn't make them feel young and " alive " like Mrs. X. 
_
_Their husband is always serious, not as charming and witty like Mr.X. _

_Their wife is overweight and doesn't take care of herself like Mrs. X _

_Mr. X makes them feel young , sexy and desired. He reminds them of when they were much younger , and guys liteally worshipped their at their feet. Somehow their husband doesn't " bring on that feeling " in them again, not to mention Mr. X is 10 or 15 years younger! blah,blah, blah._

Mr. / Mrs. X " suddenly " become a person they want to confide in and the most understanding person they've ever met.

This can happen within a matter of days or hours depending on the skill of Mr. / Mrs. X and the emotional maturity or lack thereof ,of the married person.

Married person begins to physically feel the need to be " alone " or " spend time" with Mr./ Mrs X. Of course they both know that the husband/ wife / other people cannot see them. Mr. / Mrs. X sees their opportunity and seizes it. They make their plan.

Then it game over. Another sad story / puzzle for the CWI section of TAM.

The sad reality is most of the time is, the MARRIED PERSON does the pursuing. The single person just initiates the contact , and play along.

Fact: Based on their first conversation, body language , type of responses and ease of comfort levels, a single person knows whether or not they have a chance with this person.
Then they begin to escalate via email , text , and so on.

EDIT: Julianne. 
If a single man is constantly hitting on you , and you are a married woman, it simply means that you are not doing enough to tell him NO.
If a simple "_ please leave me alone and stop talking to me_ " does not work, you should contact management or TAKE OUT A RESTRAINING ORDER or INFORM YOUR HUSBAND.
It works , everytime.

What I've found in some cases like this the woman secretly likes the attention she's getting from the man ,he recognizes this. She knows it wrong , and is a bit embarrassed , but inside her, the excitement is building. So a little game of " _cat & mouse_ " ensues, and the tension begins to escalate, until the man makes a bold move.


----------



## Philat

_See, here's what usually happens in affairs with singles.

Married person meets Mr. / Mrs X , and there is some chemistry or attraction on some levels.

NOTE: Mr. / Mrs. X does not usually come " out of the blue " and say " lets go sex it up across at my house or in the company's stockroom.."

No.

Mr./ Mrs X usually has a constant contact with the married person , usually via text or facebook or any social media , consisting of hundreds of hours of chats , exchanging nude pictures [ sexting ] and generally escalating with inappropriate conversation and heavy sexual flirting / innuendoes.
This also usually involves lots of compliments.

Married person realizes that their husband / wife is a " erk " and starts rewriting their marriage history. 

Their husband / wife never understood them like Mr./ Mrs X , 

Their wife doesn't make them feel young and " alive " like Mrs. X. 

Their husband is always serious, not as charming and witty like Mr.X. 

Their wife is overweight and doesn't take care of herself like Mrs. X 

Mr. X makes them feel young , sexy and desired. He reminds them of when they were much younger , and guys liteally worshipped their at their feet. Somehow their husband doesn't " bring on that feeling " in them again, not to mention Mr. X is 10 or 15 years younger! blah,blah, blah.

Mr. / Mrs. X " suddenly " become a person they want to confide in and the most understanding person they've ever met.

This can happen within a matter of days or hours depending on the skill of Mr. / Mrs. X and the emotional maturity or lack thereof ,of the married person.

Married person begins to physically feel the need to be " alone " or " spend time" with Mr./ Mrs X. Of course they both know that the husband/ wife / other people cannot see them. Mr. / Mrs. X sees their opportunity and seizes it. They make their plan.

Then it game over. Another sad story / puzzle for the CWI section of TAM.

The sad reality is most of the time is, the MARRIED PERSON does the pursuing. The single person just initiates the contact , and play along.

Fact: Based on their first conversation, body language , type of responses and ease of comfort levels, a single person knows whether or not they have a chance with this person.
Then they begin to escalate via email , text , and so on. 

_Agreed, Caribbean, but this type of affair is of a different order than the scenario posed here by OP, I think. But I see some internal inconsistency in your script regarding the active role of the single: 

*The single person just initiates the contact , and play along.*

*Mr. / Mrs. X sees their opportunity and seizes it. They make their plan.*

*Then they begin to escalate via email , text , and so on.*

Lots of active pursuing by the single here as well, it seems, especially if the success of the affair depends on the "skill" of the single. Not arguing with your description of how it goes down (certainly this is how EA's get started), but the other person is not simply a passive beneficiary who plays along.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> See, here's what usually happens in affairs with singles.
> 
> Married person meets Mr. / Mrs X , and there is some chemistry or attraction on some levels.
> 
> NOTE: Mr. / Mrs. X does not usually come " out of the blue " and say " _lets go sex it up across at my house or in the company's stockroom.._"
> 
> No.
> 
> Mr./ Mrs X usually has a constant contact with the married person , usually via text or facebook or any social media , consisting of hundreds of hours of chats , exchanging nude pictures [ sexting ] and generally escalating with inappropriate conversation and heavy sexual flirting / innuendoes.
> This also usually involves lots of compliments.
> 
> Married person realizes that their husband / wife is a " erk " and starts rewriting their marriage history.
> 
> _Their husband / wife never understood them like Mr./ Mrs X , _
> 
> _Their wife doesn't make them feel young and " alive " like Mrs. X.
> _
> _Their husband is always serious, not as charming and witty like Mr.X. _
> 
> _Their wife is overweight and doesn't take care of herself like Mrs. X _
> 
> _Mr. X makes them feel young , sexy and desired. He reminds them of when they were much younger , and guys liteally worshipped their at their feet. Somehow their husband doesn't " bring on that feeling " in them again, not to mention Mr. X is 10 or 15 years younger! blah,blah, blah._
> 
> Mr. / Mrs. X " suddenly " become a person they want to confide in and the most understanding person they've ever met.
> 
> This can happen within a matter of days or hours depending on the skill of Mr. / Mrs. X and the emotional maturity or lack thereof ,of the married person.
> 
> Married person begins to physically feel the need to be " alone " or " spend time" with Mr./ Mrs X. Of course they both know that the husband/ wife / other people cannot see them. Mr. / Mrs. X sees their opportunity and seizes it. They make their plan.
> 
> Then it game over. Another sad story / puzzle for the CWI section of TAM.
> 
> The sad reality is most of the time is, the MARRIED PERSON does the pursuing. The single person just initiates the contact , and play along.
> 
> Fact: Based on their first conversation, body language , type of responses and ease of comfort levels, a single person knows whether or not they have a chance with this person.
> Then they begin to escalate via email , text , and so on.
> 
> EDIT: Julianne.
> If a single man is constantly hitting on you , and you are a married woman, it simply means that you are not doing enough to tell him NO.
> If a simple "_ please leave me alone and stop talking to me_ " does not work, TAKE OUT A RESTRAINING ORDER or INFORM YOUR HUSBAND.
> It works , everytime.


:iagree:

And sadly this is how it works all too often.

However as far as your edit goes, these are the kinds of people I have a beef with.

He was told "no" but persisted to what sounds like an annoying level.
It's all very well to say you are not doing enough to tell him no but some people are arseholes and will not listen. And you can hardly take out a restraining order if you are out having a meal and drinks with your girlfriends.

My wife and her friends have to leave some bars/restaurants as they get fed up with idiots trying to score with a married woman.


----------



## azteca1986

Philat said:


> Lots of active pursuing by the single here as well, it seems, especially if the success of the affair depends on the "skill" of the single. Not arguing with your description of how it goes down (certainly this is how EA's get started), but the other person is not simply a passive beneficiary who plays along.


I agree. It always takes two to tango. The married person may be the one who 'leads' but ultimately adultery cannot occur* with only one consenting adult.

*Unless the single person was genuinely unaware that the other person was married.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Philat said:


> _
> 
> _Agreed, Caribbean, but this type of affair is of a different order than the scenario posed here by OP, I think. But I see some internal inconsistency in your script regarding the active role of the single:
> 
> *The single person just initiates the contact , and play along.*
> 
> *Mr. / Mrs. X sees their opportunity and seizes it. They make their plan.*
> 
> *Then they begin to escalate via email , text , and so on.*
> 
> Lots of active pursuing by the single here as well, it seems, especially if the success of the affair depends on the "skill" of the single. Not arguing with your description of how it goes down (certainly this is how EA's get started), but the other person is not simply a passive beneficiary who plays along.


I maintain that if the married person simply said NO , at the beginning and broke off all contact, then there would be absolutely NO blame to share.

Married people should know and observe their boundaries.
But right there^^^is where their poor husband / wife , when he decides to investigate and ask questions, get called all sorts of nasty names like " controlling , jealous , insecure etc." in the lead up to the affair.
If there is NO contact, then there can be NO affair nor blame to share.
We're all adults and know exactly when something is happening.
BTW, and EA is also infidelity.


----------



## Philat

Agreed again, and I especially appreciate that you say there is potentially *blame to share*.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> :
> He was told "no" but persisted to what sounds like an annoying level.
> *It's all very well to say you are not doing enough to tell him no but some people are arseholes and will not listen. *


Well this is where real men, like you and I come in.
Wife simply make the report to management or the police and then my wife tells me, and I beat the living daylights out of him.

Cannot harass my wife and expect me to come ask you " kindly " to desist. I will fcuk you up, 
Badly.

Everything else after that would be settled in the courts.
I am not afraid of the courts.


----------



## RedRose14

I've been with Hubby 20 years and have hardly ever been hit on by another man, even when I was young and cute. I know the reason why .... I don't give off "available" signals, I don't overtly flirt, I don't make eye contact with men at the other end of the bar and so on and when I do chat to a man I make it very clear that I am off limits by chatting about my family.

Sometimes women or men can inadvertently give off the wrong signals, sometimes they know exactly what they are doing. 

On GNOs ladies do get a lot of male attention, but if a woman isn't interested it's very easy to give guys the brush off


----------



## WyshIknew

What if she was gamed?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Well this is where real men, like you and I come in.
> Wife simply make the report to management or the police and then my wife tells me, and I beat the living daylights out of him.
> 
> Cannot harass my wife and expect me to come ask you " kindly " to desist. I will fcuk you up,
> Badly.
> 
> Everything else after that would be settled in the courts.
> I am not afraid of the courts.


:iagree:


----------



## samyeagar

RedRose14 said:


> I've been with Hubby 20 years and have hardly ever been hit on by another man, even when I was young and cute. I know the reason why .... I don't give off "available" signals, I don't overtly flirt, I don't make eye contact with men at the other end of the bar and so on and when I do chat to a man I make it very clear that I am off limits by chatting about my family.
> 
> Sometimes women or men can inadvertently give off the wrong signals, sometimes they know exactly what they are doing.
> 
> *On GNOs ladies do get a lot of male attention, but if a woman isn't interested it's very easy to give guys the brush off*


Aye, and there's the rub lassie  Part of the appeal of GNO's for many married women is the thrill of the attention, and don't want to give the brush off. Wouldn't want to come off as rude to a complete stranger trying to get panties to drop...they save that rudeness for their husbands. They have themselves convinced that they would never cheat, so their guard is down, they are naive in thinking that they are off limits because they are married and guys won't try to pick them up, it's all harmless fun, mix a few drinks in and maybe a friend who agrees that the flirting is harmless fun, and boom, another cheater...


----------



## samyeagar

WyshIknew said:


> What if she was gamed?


Then she is a weak, naive woman who has no business being married.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RedRose14 said:


> I've been with Hubby 20 years and have hardly ever been hit on by another man, even when I was young and cute. I know the reason why .... I don't give off "available" signals, I don't overtly flirt, I don't make eye contact with men at the other end of the bar and so on and when I do chat to a man I make it very clear that I am off limits by chatting about my family.
> 
> Sometimes women or men can inadvertently give off the wrong signals, sometimes they know exactly what they are doing.
> 
> On GNOs ladies do get a lot of male attention, but if a woman isn't interested it's very easy to give guys the brush off


Yes.

But we must remember even though a woman may be giving off 
" available " signals or appear to be " interested", once she says NO. it means NO.
Anything approach after that , by the man constitutes harassment IMO.


----------



## someone90

My guess is that married women are appealing for players since there's no strings. Can't see much of a reason besides that.

But to be honest, it's usually women who go after married men.


----------



## samyeagar

someone90 said:


> My guess is that married women are appealing for players since there's no strings. Can't see much of a reason besides that.
> 
> But to be honest, *it's usually women who go after married men*.


That has been my personal experience as well.


----------



## azteca1986

samyeagar said:


> That has been my personal experience as well.


Same here. I think of them as insecure women who try and garner some self-worth by hitting on a man who's already 'taken'. It can happen with my wife standing right next to me. Never the other way around.

It was quite noticeable once I had a ring on my finger. I thought it would act as some kind of deterrent but actually worked the other way. Sad but true.


----------



## gbrad

Caribbean Man said:


> But the fact is ,some married people , or a great many married people,_ do_ sleep around, hence the scumbags waiting in the sidelines for a married person to have sex with.
> It is a very inconvenient truth.


I don't think they are automatically scumbags just because they sleep with someone who is married. That one act doesn't make who they are.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think that people are just mis-guided. They just don't realize how much pain can be caused by something like this. I don't think people who hit on married people really get it sometimes. Even the ones who have been married already don't get it sometimes. I don't think those people are evil, they just think their own personal desires should be followed and they haven't reached a level of maturity yet to understand the full range of consequences. It takes a lot of maturity to understand it when you sometimes don't even see the consequences, yet you were part of it.


----------



## Sanity

hambone said:


> I'm sorry, but the primary responsibility to remain faithful lies with the married party.
> 
> The way I see it... if a married woman (or man) wants to fool around.. if it weren't that guy... it would just be someone else.


I was speaking from a strictly "guy code" perspective. I have cut off male friends who habitually do this. My brother had this one GF that started "officially" dating a mutual friend right after dumping my brother. The mutual friend came up to my brother and apologized for not speaking to him and my brother said "Good luck but F off and never speak to me again". That was that. 

I don't know what woman code is for things like this but I follow guy code and you DO NOT MESS with another man's wife or GF.


----------



## Thor

AssClown, the professional musician first boyfriend of my wife, is a lifelong philanderer and pursuer of married women. When we were in college (he was a few years older), he was already known to his circle of friends as a womanizer who especially liked married women.

In his case, he got a lot of support from the male friends. These were young single men in their early 20's who thought it was macho to bed more women, ergo AssClown was a bit of a hero. The young women in the group had probably all had sex with him, and they still looked at him with googley eyes.

So in cases like this, I think the man feels some ego boost from his social group. He feels they admire him, and it reinforces his focus. 

There are probably many reasons which started his interest in married women as already mentioned. No-strings-attached sex with married women. The likelihood of the husband being given credit if there is a pregnancy (way back in day before paternity dna tests). Back then it seems every married woman was on the Pill but it was somewhat unusual for single women to be on it, so he didn't have to use condoms if they were married.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> Here's a hypothetical question.
> 
> Lets say that , God forbid, and an unmarried woman gets your husband's attention at work and he cheats with her, you find out and you hold them both responsible.
> Then you decide to forgive him, in the process of reconciliation, he agrees to leave the job and get another, which he does.
> Another unmarried woman again gets his attention, and the same thing happens.
> 
> Who would you hold responsible , him or " _these women who can't leave married men alone?_"


Both. Him for cheating, and her for not saying no. He's married, he's taken, he's _not_ available; she has no right, absolutely none, to sleep with him. That is meant to be, exclusively, for me. She's taking what isn't hers to take. 

Infidelity can't happen if one of the two says "No." Ideally, it would be the married individual who says no. But if the OM/OW were to say no and respect the institution of marriage, then it wouldn't happen either.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Wiltshireman said:


> That is a great analogy and I think we would all agree that the barman in the 2nd scenario's behavior is much worse than in the 1st but the alcoholic still needs to take responsibility, why was he in the bar exposing himself to temptation and giving the unscrupulous barman the chance to prey on him?
> 
> As adults we cannot expect everyone we meet to be honest and trustworthy (it would be wonderful if they were) we MUST take care to either keep ourselves out of dangers way or be prepared to handle any difficult situations that might arise.


Obviously, we cannot trust everyone. That's the obligation of the wayward to handle themselves properly. That's the decision part. 

As for the first paragraph, to the degrees of infidelity, if the bar owner has no knowledge the customer is an alcoholic, that' one thing. If the bar owner knows the customer is an alcoholic, that's another.

Here's the difficulty for me. Few women will make the first move. They, for the most part will let the man make the first move. They advertise their "wares", but that only accounts for admiration. So, generally there will be an approach, some conversation, and a decision. 

A customer of a bar does none of that. He only goes in and says, "gimme a pint". (Most of the time when in a strange bar.) If the customer has been there before, he may talk a little before ordering. Which bartender would be, as some are trying to say, "more culpable"?

In the case where there is conversation, I would have to blame the bartender more, since he knows the "scoop". Therefore, he is at fault, to the same degree, unless he was only approached and asked for sex with little personal conversation and does the deed and parts ways. 

I seriously doubt that's the case in most instances. Seriously doubt.


----------



## Clawed

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol uhm... Who said *she* was "targeted"? Every opportunity Ive had with a married woman has come unsolicited. So in fact *I* was targeted. Ive slept with two in my life, both swingers. Ultimately I was dissatisfied with being with someone who already has someone else.


Clearly - I am assuming that the married person does not want to be targeted, as is usually the case, and the tone I get from the OP.


----------



## RandomDude

It's a very small minority of men who target married women specifically. However there are plenty of married women who pursue extra-marital affairs, and you simply can't trust or rely on the targets of these women to "do the right thing".


----------



## Created2Write

We're not talking about trust, we're talking about _should_ be done. And those men should say no to having sex with another man's wife. She's not his to sleep with. That this is unlikely to happen, I understand. But it is what _should_ happen when a married woman or man looks for sex outside of their marriage, or is approached by someone outside of their marriage who wants to sleep with them.


----------



## RandomDude

But until that one day in the future where humanity has developed a morality cybernetic implant into everybody's brain to make them automatically reject a married woman's advances (hmmm, sounds like a script for a movie!)... we will have to rely on the married woman to keep her legs closed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"we will have to rely on the married woman to keep her legs closed."


Sigh...really? You said that.


----------



## RandomDude

Was I too crude? 

I'm an a$$ on this thread I know but, as you know the alternative is unrealistic.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Both. Him for cheating, and her for not saying no. *He's married, he's taken, he's not available; she has no right, absolutely none, to sleep with him. That is meant to be, exclusively, for me. She's taking what isn't hers to take. *
> Infidelity can't happen if one of the two says "No." Ideally, it would be the married individual who says no. But if the OM/OW were to say no and respect the institution of marriage, then it wouldn't happen either.


I never thought about it in those terms before, but I think you just made the single most compelling explanation as to why it is BOTH parties fault.


----------



## Created2Write

So, if married people can't expect the singles to have the morality to respect marriage, why should the singles expect the married's to? Answer: because humanity isn't born with or without morals, we _choose_ to either do what's right or we choose to do what's wrong. And the singles just want to get away with wrongdoing. 

It really boils down to this: if the singles aren't capable of making moral decisions, then neither are the marrieds. Marriage doesn't automatically give one morals. So, if this is the case, then we're all morally averse by nature and adultery wouldn't be wrong in the first place. 

But since we all have agreed that adultery is immoral then it comes down to this, and this is what I believe to be the case: we choose to be moral or not, and the singles simply don't want to be moral. They want all of the physical benefits of adultery without the responsibility or consequences. Adultery can not take place if one of the individuals says "No", and _both_ are responsible to say "No". If the married individual said "No", the adultery could never happen. If the single individual said "No", the adultery could never happen. The issue is that men who sleep with married women, and vice versa, don't want to say "No".


----------



## Vanguard

I objectively agree with RandomDude. 

My wife made the committment to me. The fatass she ended up cheating with did not. 

I mean think about it. He didn't know me. He had no emotional investment in me. There was no particular reason to care about me and my wife was hot. 

It's a ****ty thing to do, and it doesn't speak well of the person doing it, but the responsibility for what happened falls entirely on my ex.


----------



## RandomDude

@Created

True that if the single party said no the physical affair would not take place... at least for a time until the next target is found. But we've been going in circles in this one.

But how about emotional affairs though? Would a man who's the target of an unfaithful wife be responsible for a woman's feelings towards him?


----------



## Vanguard

RandomDude said:


> But until that one day in the future where humanity has developed a morality cybernetic implant into everybody's brain to make them automatically reject a married woman's advances (hmmm, sounds like a script for a movie!)... we will have to rely on the married woman to keep her legs closed.


The most powerful temptation I ever faced was from a married woman- a friend of mine from days of old who married young and contacted me again years later. Turning her down was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do. Made me think-- what's the point? No one else out there would fight as hard as me to do the right thing. If no one else is doing what they're supposed to do, does it really matter to do the right thing? Does the right thing even exist?


----------



## Philat

_I objectively agree with RandomDude. 

My wife made the committment to me. The fatass she ended up cheating with did not. 

I mean think about it. He didn't know me. He had no emotional investment in me. There was no particular reason to care about me and my wife was hot. 

It's a ****ty thing to do, and it doesn't speak well of the person doing it, but the responsibility for what happened falls entirely on my ex. _

Sorry, Vanguard, can't agree. See my post #252. Your ex is definitely responsible, but fatass (if he knew she was married) is charged with aiding and abetting.


----------



## Philat

_The most powerful temptation I ever faced was from a married woman- a friend of mine from days of old who married young and contacted me again years later. Turning her down was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do. Made me think-- what's the point? No one else out there would fight as hard as me to do the right thing. If no one else is doing what they're supposed to do, does it really matter to do the right thing? *Does the right thing even exist?* _

You should know the answer, since you did it in this case.


----------



## Silvr Surfer

RandomDude said:


> But until that one day in the future where humanity has developed a morality cybernetic implant into everybody's brain to make them automatically reject a married woman's advances (hmmm, sounds like a script for a movie!)... we will have to rely on the married woman to keep her legs closed.


The betrayer has the ultimate responsibility to keep it from happening, but I'm certain there are a lot of things the betrayed spouse wishes they had done differently. Communication, leadership, attention, non-needy behavior, etc.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Since we are talking degrees of responsibility, I'm going to use your example to give my opinion. Some of my remarks may be snide. It's not a personal attack CM. I do respect your opinions. This is a very "hot topic" for me. I do think I have some well thought out ideas, though. I can be mistaken or wrong, but it would take a mountain of really solid evidence to make me change my mind. I'm stumped as to why you are defending any AP or WS's infidelity. 




Caribbean Man said:


> See, here's what usually happens in affairs with singles.
> 
> Married person meets Mr. / Mrs X , and there is some chemistry or attraction on some levels.


That's normal. There will always be attractions.



Caribbean Man said:


> NOTE: Mr. / Mrs. X does not usually come " out of the blue " and say " _lets go sex it up across at my house or in the company's stockroom.._"
> 
> No.





Caribbean Man said:


> Mr./ Mrs X usually has a constant contact with the married person , usually via text or facebook or any social media , consisting of hundreds of hours of chats , exchanging nude pictures [ sexting ] and generally escalating with inappropriate conversation and heavy sexual flirting / innuendoes.
> This also usually involves lots of compliments.


In most cases, I agree. At what point does the wayward tell the AP that they are married?



Caribbean Man said:


> Married person realizes that their husband / wife is a " erk " and starts rewriting their marriage history.


Stop right there. The AP knows the woman/man is married. The AP and the wayward are each responsible for their own actions.



Caribbean Man said:


> _Their husband / wife never understood them like Mr./ Mrs X , _
> 
> _Their wife doesn't make them feel young and " alive " like Mrs. X.
> _
> _Their husband is always serious, not as charming and witty like Mr.X. _
> 
> _Their wife is overweight and doesn't take care of herself like Mrs. X _
> 
> _Mr. X makes them feel young , sexy and desired. He reminds them of when they were much younger , and guys liteally worshipped their at their feet. Somehow their husband doesn't " bring on that feeling " in them again, not to mention Mr. X is 10 or 15 years younger! blah,blah, blah._
> 
> Mr. / Mrs. X " suddenly " become a person they want to confide in and the most understanding person they've ever met.


How about realizing there is a problem at some point here and talking with the BS and going to a few counseling sessions? Obviously, the wayward knows they don't want to be with their spouse. Leave. Get a divorce. The WS and the AP have little personal integrity. They are both at fault here.



Caribbean Man said:


> This can happen within a matter of days or hours depending on the skill of Mr. / Mrs. X and the emotional maturity or lack thereof ,of the married person.


What about the emotional maturity of the AP? Is it mature to continue in this? Isn't it reasonable to suggest the AP knows he/she is walking into a sh;t storm and they are at the center of it?



Caribbean Man said:


> Married person begins to physically feel the need to be " alone " or " spend time" with Mr./ Mrs X. Of course they both know that the husband/ wife / other people cannot see them. Mr. / Mrs. X sees their opportunity and seizes it. They make their plan.
> 
> Then it game over. Another sad story / puzzle for the CWI section of TAM.






Caribbean Man said:


> The sad reality is most of the time is, the MARRIED PERSON does the pursuing. The single person just initiates the contact , and play along.


Yeah, I can see how they are innocent. There's no way, in this scenario that the AP would know they are wrong. There's no way they could reasonable be expected to have some personal integrity or self-control. 

Are you suggesting one of them is mentally deficient somehow? Since I don't see that in what I've read. It is reasonable to believe in this situation, the AP and the WS are equally at fault for the infidelity. 



Caribbean Man said:


> Fact: Based on their first conversation, body language , type of responses and ease of comfort levels, a single person knows whether or not they have a chance with this person.
> Then they begin to escalate via email , text , and so on.


Are you agreeing with me that the AP has as much responsibility for the affair as the WS? It's very easy to come to this conclusion when I read this. 



Caribbean Man said:


> EDIT: Julianne.
> If a single man is constantly hitting on you , and you are a married woman, it simply means that you are not doing enough to tell him NO.
> If a simple "_ please leave me alone and stop talking to me_ " does not work, you should contact management or TAKE OUT A RESTRAINING ORDER or INFORM YOUR HUSBAND.
> It works , everytime.


Sure does. 



Caribbean Man said:


> What I've found in some cases like this the woman secretly likes the attention she's getting from the man ,he recognizes this.


 Decision time. They both make a decision to pursue or not. Each is responsible for their own actions. 



Caribbean Man said:


> She knows it wrong , and is a bit embarrassed , but inside her, the excitement is building. So a little game of " _cat & mouse_ " ensues, and the tension begins to escalate, until the man makes a bold move.


You don't think this happens to folks who do not have affairs? You don't think they are attracted to anyone other than their wife/husband? You don't think they make a decision at some point to quit? It's like your saying they have no control of themselves. If that's the case, then there is no hope for a monogamous, faithful relationship with them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Clawed said:


> Clearly - I am assuming that the married person does not want to be targeted, as is usually the case, and the tone I get from the OP.


Your reply was to me, calling my position on the single's responsibility, "the most ridiculous thing you have ever read". I have emphatically stated that I don't "target" married women at all. So while my position may be ridiculous to you, your dig at me: "that's all they are [targets] to these pieces of trash" is just plain insulting.

The idea that it is a single's responsibility to babysit someone else's marriage is just as ridiculous to me. If a married decides to cheat, that marriage was already toast as far as I'm concerned... and the single had nothing to do with that fact.

This forum never ceases to amaze me. I can be banned for arguing for an unpopular position, but its entirely fair game for the likes of FW to insult my sexual desirability (another thread) or you to imply that I'm a piece of trash, because you think singles should be babysitters for marrieds. All is well as long as we cloak such insults in generalized language.


----------



## Vanguard

Philat said:


> _The most powerful temptation I ever faced was from a married woman- a friend of mine from days of old who married young and contacted me again years later. Turning her down was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do. Made me think-- what's the point? No one else out there would fight as hard as me to do the right thing. If no one else is doing what they're supposed to do, does it really matter to do the right thing? *Does the right thing even exist?* _
> 
> You should know the answer, since you did it in this case.


I know only that if the right thing does exist, it is moot. 

Aiding and abetting is a legal term with legal ideas. It has no place in discussing issues of actual morality. I understand that the man made law is based on some perception of morality, but the term itself is meaningless, and the nuances it represents are subject to scrutiny and debate.


----------



## RandomDude

Vanguard said:


> The most powerful temptation I ever faced was from a married woman- a friend of mine from days of old who married young and contacted me again years later. Turning her down was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do. Made me think-- what's the point? No one else out there would fight as hard as me to do the right thing. If no one else is doing what they're supposed to do, does it really matter to do the right thing? Does the right thing even exist?


Aye, it's an extremely difficult temptation to resist.

Worse still when you watch as she moves on to someone else instead. The regret of not capitalising on the opportunity. You wonder if the moral decision was indeed the right one. I've been there as well, and it really sucks.

No good deed goes unpunished. Same with alot of things, the noble thing, the chivalrous thing... it's never really good at times except for a pat on the back.

I learnt that at a very young age, I miss my innocence and tales of chivalry, honor, and all that heh... now I reserve my chivalry and honor to only those who I feel have earned it. To the rest, they mean nothing to me, and it's a jungle where the strongest survive, and I intend to survive and excel.


----------



## Philat

_If a married decides to cheat, that marriage was already toast as far as I'm concerned_

Dvls: Please take this as a civil reply. I submit that the single has no right to make this judgment, and no right to contribute to the troubles of a marriage that may indeed by floundering but not necessarily lost.


----------



## Philat

_Aiding and abetting is a legal term with legal ideas. It has no place in discussing issues of actual morality. I understand that the man made law is based on some perception of morality, but the term itself is meaningless, and the nuances it represents are subject to scrutiny and debate. _

Figure of speech only. Meaning: taking active part in an act that all here seem to agree is wrong, without which part the act would not have taken place as it did.


----------



## ReformedHubby

One thing I've found is that the work place is a haven for creeps. A lot of these guys don't even have a specific target. They just flirt with everybody married or not just to see who is open to it.

Back when my wife was working I went with her to her office Christmas party. There was one guy there that was introduced to me and I noticed that he was staring at the husbands and boyfriends of the women a lot (yep, I notice everything). After the party I asked my wife what his deal was. She said she would tell me if I promised not to get mad. I of course agreed not to get mad knowing that I would.

Turns out he was the "office flirt" he even gave all the women in his group a red rose on valentines day. I was absolutely livid. I don't think any of the husbands and boyfriends knew this. Otherwise things would have gotten ugly. I think almost every work place has a guy that puts himself out there to everybody just to see who has interest. I still don't get why he was staring down the men. I initially thought he was gay.


----------



## Vanguard

Philat said:


> _Aiding and abetting is a legal term with legal ideas. It has no place in discussing issues of actual morality. I understand that the man made law is based on some perception of morality, but the term itself is meaningless, and the nuances it represents are subject to scrutiny and debate. _
> 
> Figure of speech only. Meaning: taking active part in an act that all here seem to agree is wrong, without which part the act would not have taken place as it did.


Yes but I already addressed the sentiments behind the figure of speech. _The nuances it represents are subject to scrutiny and debate_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

What I think a lot of people are missing, is that the openness to cheating existed before the single was even involved and that from the perspective of the single, his actions are entirely moral: sex with a consenting adult. Its not a single's responsibility to care take of your marriage.


----------



## RandomDude

I think I brought it up on the last page but it seems folk are ignoring it - How about emotional affairs people? It's also infidelity! Hell and some may even argue that it's more damaging than a physical affair.

We've been going around in circles with physical affairs for the last 20 pages lol


----------



## Clawed

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your reply was to me, calling my position on the single's responsibility, "the most ridiculous thing you have ever read". I have emphatically stated that I don't "target" married women at all. So while my position may be ridiculous to you, your dig at me: "that's all they are [targets] to these pieces of trash" is just plain insulting.
> 
> The idea that it is a single's responsibility to babysit someone else's marriage is just as ridiculous to me. If a married decides to cheat, that marriage was already toast as far as I'm concerned... and the single had nothing to do with that fact.
> 
> This forum never ceases to amaze me. I can be banned for arguing for an unpopular position, but its entirely fair game for the likes of FW to insult my sexual desirability (another thread) or you to imply that I'm a piece of trash, because you think singles should be babysitters for marrieds. All is well as long as we cloak such insults in generalized language.


I don't need to see your post history to believe that you are probably just trolling anyway - your name says it all, so I won't engage you any further.

I did not mean to insult you, sir. That was not my intention for posting what I did.


----------



## Philat

_The nuances it represents are subject to scrutiny and debate _

Exactly what we're doing, right?


----------



## Vanguard

Having made my stance clear I should say this--

If you sleep with a married woman, objectively you cannot have any moral qualm with the man killing you.


----------



## Vanguard

Philat said:


> _The nuances it represents are subject to scrutiny and debate _
> 
> Exactly what we're doing, right?


No. You're assuming its validity and presenting it as a means of convincing me.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What I think a lot of people are missing, is that the openness to cheating existed before the single was even involved and that from the perspective of the single, his actions are entirely moral: sex with a consenting adult. *Its not a single's responsibility to care take of your marriage.*


So you keep saying. It is your responsibility to _yourself_ to act with integrity. 

Do you see that?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> I think that people are just mis-guided. They just don't realize how much pain can be caused by something like this. I don't think people who hit on married people really get it sometimes. Even the ones who have been married already don't get it sometimes.


This is minimizing the effects of the affair. This is justifying infidelity, but you do agree they have made a mistake. It's not a decision if it is just a mistake. I think it's a decision.

What would you suggest, if you are against infidelity in relationships and marriage, should be done to ensure that the AP and the WS know from that point forward that they are terribly misguided and learn some personal integrity, empathy and respect for their fellow human? 




Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think those people are evil, they just think their own personal desires should be followed and they haven't reached a level of maturity yet to understand the full range of consequences. It takes a lot of maturity to understand it when you sometimes don't even see the consequences, yet you were part of it.


Evil? Someone is judging whether they will go to heaven or hell? This isn't a religious discussion. There is no way to determine that when we are not "the rule maker" whose rules you are using to determine "good and evil". 

Responsibility goes beyond any notion of "good or evil". It that were not the case, we would have no laws. These laws do not determine what is "good and evil". They determine what is acceptable behavior, where the responsibility lies for the damage done, and what consequences the majority of society agrees with for those actions. That's not a religious debate and neither is this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random Dude said: "Aye, it's an extremely difficult temptation to resist.

Worse still when you watch as she moves on to someone else instead. The regret of not capitalising on the opportunity. You wonder if the moral decision was indeed the right one. I've been there as well, and it really sucks."


Awww...what a cryin' shame....that is just sooooo sad...poor thing. To miss out on banging a hot married woman! So sad.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Philat said:


> _If a married decides to cheat, that marriage was already toast as far as I'm concerned_
> 
> Dvls: Please take this as a civil reply. I submit that the single has no right to make this judgment, and no right to contribute to the troubles of a marriage that may indeed by floundering but not necessarily lost.


My point isn't about whether the marriage can be salvaged. Its purely about moral obligation. An openness or intent to cheat means one has already thrown out their moral obligations, and the single that was a vehicle had nothing to do with that fact. I mean, is "I cheated on you" really more of a moral violation than "I'm looking to cheat on you"? To me they're one and the same.

The single doesn't need to make a judgment about the state of the marriage. They have no moral responsibility for that person's marriage at all. From the single perspective, its just sex with a consenting adult imo. The moral imperative to not cheat, lies with the person who vows not to cheat.


----------



## Faithful Wife

2ntnf...All I was saying is that people don't always understand the full extent of their actions and they base decisions on lack of information and ignorance.

When they do fully understand and are just creeps (male or female) who target marrieds, then they are not in the same category.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random Dude said: "Aye, it's an extremely difficult temptation to resist.
> 
> Worse still when you watch as she moves on to someone else instead. The regret of not capitalising on the opportunity. You wonder if the moral decision was indeed the right one. I've been there as well, and it really sucks."
> 
> 
> Awww...what a cryin' shame....that is just sooooo sad...poor thing.


I know 

Tsk tsk 



azteca1986 said:


> So you keep saying. It is your responsibility to _yourself_ to act with integrity.
> 
> Do you see that?


Integrity under whose standard exactly? :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> So you keep saying. It is your responsibility to _yourself_ to act with integrity.
> 
> Do you see that?


Having sex with a fully competent consenting adult, is not a lack of integrity.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Having sex with a fully competent consenting adult, is not a lack of integrity.


If they are married to someone else, then you lack (personal) integrity. That's your choice.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think people are getting confused with theory and reality.

In theory , the single party can be blamed because he knows the woman / man is married.
So here's my hypothesis.
What percentage of responsibility does the single man / woman have to accept for the affair, out of lets say 100%?


----------



## azteca1986

RandomDude said:


> Integrity under whose standard exactly? :scratchhead:


Look it up in the dictionary; it doesn't leave much wiggle room.


----------



## Caribbean Man

azteca1986 said:


> If they are married to someone else, then you lack (personal) integrity. That's your choice.


And what if the woman's husband agrees to a single man having sex with his wife?

What happens to " personal morals and integrity" then?
See?
In reality,morality is not a "fixed asset", or axiom.
There are many various shades of grey.
What we call morals and ethics and integrity is actually _moral relativism._
Everyone has their own beliefs and the right to believe it, and can only be held responsibe to their standard.
I cannot impose my moral standard on another person.

I can hold personal judgement against their beliefs, that is my right, but I cannot force them to accept my standard.

If two adult persons consent to have sex , even if they are both of the same sex , then how is that immoral to the man / woman who isn't married?

I am trying to see this.


----------



## RandomDude

@Azteca

Actually it does, the standards of integrity or morality are not as universal as one might like to believe.


----------



## Clawed

Caribbean Man said:


> I think people are getting confused with theory and reality.
> 
> In theory , the single party can be blamed because he knows the woman / man is married.
> So here's my hypothesis.
> What percentage of responsibility does the single man / woman have to accept for the affair, out of lets say 100%?


I don't think ascribing a number to their share of the resposibility would mean anything. Either they are jointly responsible or not. I believe they are.

In any case, I don't think this conversation is really going to convince someone who has a differing opinion to abandon their beliefs.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Clawed said:


> I don't need to see your post history to believe that you are probably just trolling anyway - your name says it all, so I won't engage you any further.
> 
> I did not mean to insult you, sir. That was not my intention for posting what I did.


Case in point. Unpopular opinion... and you call me a troll. Then say, "I didn't mean to insult you." lol Are you sure about that?

I know my opinions are unpopular with many. That's how I got this name after all. I've been debating things online since Internet Relay Chat and Bulletin Board Systems were pretty much all there was to the internet in the early 90s. Not like this is the first time my opinion has been unpopular. It is however, just as valid as yours.

I wonder if all the single's out there know that its their job to protect other people's marriages... you know, because its partly their fault that a married is dissatisfied with their marriage and open to cheating. 

To me, this is just as absurd as saying its partly the victim's fault he got robbed, because he left his doors unlocked. I can imagine the thief saying "It was too much temptation!! If he hadn't left his doors unlocked, I wouldn't have stolen anything!!" smdh. Suddenly leaving your doors unlocked is immoral? No. And neither is sex with a consenting adult. The single made no vow.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Clawed;4531714[B said:


> ]I don't think ascribing a number to their share of the resposibility would mean anything[/B]. Either they are jointly responsible or not. I believe they are.


So then logically ,what sense does it even make blaming the third party is one cannot estimate and apportion,at least a percentage of the blame to them?


----------



## RandomDude

Well we are on a forum with folk who may have been betrayed by their spouses, so the response to 'unpopular opinions' may be rather hostile. What I find interesting though is how the same people can not see how splitting of the responsibility between the spouse and his/her lover only allows the unfaithful spouse to blameshift, and as a result, will never truly be repentant.

But come on, how about emotional affairs? We've been beating the topic of physical affairs to death.


----------



## Clawed

Caribbean Man said:


> So then what sense does it even make blaming the third party?


What third party? We are talking about two people, both of which are first party to the action described by the OP.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Clawed said:


> What third party? We are talking about two people, both of which are first party to the action described by the OP.


Errrm no.

The FIRST party is the MARRIED husband & WIFE.
They have a LEGAL contract.
The third party is the OM / OW.
They have no such contract with any powers in society, hence they cannot breach any contract.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> 2ntnf...All I was saying is that people don't always understand the full extent of their actions and they base decisions on lack of information and ignorance.
> 
> When they do fully understand and are just creeps (male or female) who target marrieds, then they are not in the same category.


I know. I am not saying you are "wrong". I just disagree. 

I still respect your opinion. Mine's just different. 

I could accept that if both the AP and WS were in their first ever relationship and didn't have any life experience. I mean, they don't even talk to other people. 

When I was a kid, a "friend" of mine took another friend's girlfriend. The betrayed was in tears and inconsolable. We didn't see him for many weeks. It was an awakening. You don't have to experience it directly to understand. You only have to have some empathy.

Just for added fun, that same "friend" decided to seduce my girlfriend, too. Later, she became my wife and the mother of my children. Do you think I have an idea about this topic?

Again, I respect your opinion. I just disagree.

*Edit:* On top of that, the guy was in at the very least, an emotional affair with x2. Yeah that same "friend" from thirty years ago. Yes. X2 told me she was talking with him. I never introduced them. I didn't know they knew each other existed. I hadn't talked with him in at least 20 years. Do I blame him? Ah, yeah. Do I blame her? You bet. Do I blame myself for not being aware that she was in contact with him until she told me? No. Do I blame myself for a part in the reasons, which I do not know, that she was having and EA with him? Yes. You know the consequences, at least some of them, for me.


----------



## Clawed

RandomDude said:


> Well we are on a forum with folk who may have been betrayed by their spouses, so the response to 'unpopular opinions' may be rather hostile. What I find interesting though is how the same people can not see how splitting of the responsibility between the spouse and his/her lover only allows the unfaithful spouse to blameshift, and as a result, will never truly be repentant.
> 
> But come on, how about emotional affairs? We've been beating the topic of physical affairs to death.


Well, let's put it this way - individually, we are all 100% responsible for our actions.

Emotional affairs should be treated as the same. An affair is an affair, right?


----------



## RandomDude

Has no one else noticed that we've been saying the same things for the last 15 or more pages or so? =/

Or is this just a combined effort to reach a 100 pages no matter what?



Clawed said:


> Well, let's put it this way - individually, we are all 100% responsible for our actions.
> 
> Emotional affairs should be treated as the same. An affair is an affair, right?


Aye, but in the case of an emotional affair, should the single man also be held accountable for the feelings and emotions of the unfaithful spouse?


----------



## azteca1986

Caribbean Man said:


> And what if the woman's husband agrees to a single man having sex with his wife?


That would be fine, I suppose, but not what we're really talking about, is it?



> Everyone has their own beliefs and the right to believe it, and can only be held responsibe to their standard.
> *I cannot impose my moral standard on another person.*
> 
> I can hold personal judgement against their beliefs, that is my right, but I cannot force them to accept my standard.


But by having sex with a married person you would be inflicting your moral standards on a third person; the unwitting BS. You can't have sex with someone else's spouse and claim it's just between the two of you.

This is why I've steered clear of morality, which is subject to differences in culutural and religious values, and used integrity. Integrity is variable (true RandomDude), but a key component of personal integrity is honesty. You can say that the WS is most at fault, or that if you didn't somebody else would - but at the end of the day you can't fvck another man's wife and still claim you're acting with integrity.


----------



## Married but Happy

We don't live in a perfect world, and many people are unethical or immoral. Not everyone believes in avoidance of harm to others as an ethical principle - in fact, I'd say most don't. Some will check every door to find one unlocked, and take advantage. Some will see a woman they want and try to take advantage, or gladly let a cheating wife use them. Even in a largely cooperative society with consensual laws, most will look for personal gain and advantage. It's human nature.


----------



## RandomDude

> but at the end of the day you can't fvck another man's wife and still claim you're acting with integrity.


Actually yeah you can if you're using hollywood standards lol

What was that movie... Kingdom of Heaven thats right, all being the "perfect knight"... commits adultery! :slap:


----------



## Faithful Wife

2ntnf said: "When I was a kid, a "friend" of mine took another friend's girlfriend. The betrayed was in tears and inconsolable. We didn't see him for many weeks. It was an awakening. You don't have to experience it directly to understand. You only have to have some empathy."

I get ya. And part of my point is that you DID see the devastation there, even though it didn't happen to you, you saw your friend fall apart. This then set your moral compass.

I am saying I think a lot of people didn't ever see that type of devastation and no, they really don't get it until they are close to it.

The pain from cheating is something most people can't really fathom until it happens to them closely somehow. Your example was very early in your life so you have always gotten it and understood it. I think many do not. It doesn't excuse them...but it is different than just not caring about the human cost. It is being ignorant of the human cost.

Most of the type of people I am talking about DO eventually come around to understanding. I have known a lot of people who slept with a married person at one time or another and came to regret it deeply, even when no real "consequences" occurred...life experience comes around eventually, for most people, and they learn and change.

NOT EVERYONE. Some just don't care or unable to empathize and just go for whatever they want regardless of the human cost to anyone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Since the popular view seems largely based on the consequences of the single's participation - on the married family etc. I thought I'd address this.

I offer you this: I own a business. The purpose of starting my own business was to earn the best living I can. If I determine that I can run my business more efficiently, to the sole benefit of myself (the purpose of the business) then I'm entirely within my moral right to lay off employees. This can be terrible for them... and while it might make me quite a nice guy to avoid doing so, there is still no moral obligation to keep them employed if it doesn't serve the needs of the business: which, as callous as it sounds, IS in fact to make me money. The purpose of my business is not to employ people.

Consequences alone do not dictate moral imperatives.

I have no moral obligation to keep an at-will employee employed when it is not in the interest of my business even though unemployment can wreak havoc on a family. Similarly, a single has no moral obligation to say no to a married looking to cheat, even though the cheating could wreak havoc on a family.

Such decisions are discretionary based on the interests of the business owner or single in each respective case, and not subject to a moral imperative. Neither is a "nice guy" looking out for other people, but then, they have no moral responsibility to do so in either case. They are acting well within their right. That each has negative consequences for someone else does not dictate that a moral imperative exists, even if they aren't going to win any "person of the year" awards.


----------



## RandomDude

It's not really easy to empathise with folk you just don't know. Hell chances are the single folk don't even know half the story of the married couple. Like hey, on this forum we can empathise and feel the pain of those in the CWI section. 

But in RL, it's not so easy for single folk to empathise and see the damage of infidelity even if they are to be accomplice to it. Also using the example of laughable hollywood standards (which is a debate in itself and how it glorifies infidelity at times), a great number of normal people could still potentially justify adultery and feel they aren't doing anything wrong; as such are they all scum as well?

Morality isn't a universal thing that one can expect from others.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I also like the "if the single didn't accept, the married couldn't have cheated; they're both culpable" argument.

And if you didn't buy that Ferrari, I couldn't have stolen it from you. You gotta accept some of the blame.


----------



## gbrad

RandomDude said:


> Well we are on a forum with folk who may have been betrayed by their spouses, so the response to 'unpopular opinions' may be rather hostile. What I find interesting though is how the same people can not see how splitting of the responsibility between the spouse and his/her lover only allows the unfaithful spouse to blameshift, and as a result, will never truly be repentant.
> 
> But come on, how about emotional affairs? We've been beating the topic of physical affairs to death.


Emotional affairs? LOL

As for the blame game and percentage here. The blame is on two people when a physical affair happens. And those two people are the ones that are married. Not the 3rd party.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> 2ntnf said: "When I was a kid, a "friend" of mine took another friend's girlfriend. The betrayed was in tears and inconsolable. We didn't see him for many weeks. It was an awakening. You don't have to experience it directly to understand. You only have to have some empathy."
> 
> I get ya. And part of my point is that you DID see the devastation there, even though it didn't happen to you, you saw your friend fall apart. This then set your moral compass.
> 
> 
> I am saying I think a lot of people didn't ever see that type of devastation and no, they really don't get it until they are close to it.
> 
> I think you would have to be living "under a rock" not to understand or know that these things can happen. It's just impossible not to know. However, it is quite possible to not have any empathy for another human being, no matter who they are.
> 
> The pain from cheating is something most people can't really fathom until it happens to them closely somehow. Your example was very early in your life so you have always gotten it and understood it. I think many do not. It doesn't excuse them...but it is different than just not caring about the human cost. It is being ignorant of the human cost.
> 
> I think it's a lack of empathy. You don't need the experience if you respect and have empathy for others.
> 
> Most of the type of people I am talking about DO eventually come around to understanding. I have known a lot of people who slept with a married person at one time or another and came to regret it deeply, even when no real "consequences" occurred...life experience comes around eventually, for most people, and they learn and change.
> 
> This is not the case in those who have respect, empathy and personal integrity.
> 
> NOT EVERYONE. Some just don't care or unable to empathize and just go for whatever they want regardless of the human cost to anyone.


Nothing is true in all cases. Personal integrity, empathy and respect for others is universal unless you have a mental disorder. Do you suggest those who do this have a mental disorder? If so, it may be understandable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random said: "It's not really easy to empathise with folk you just don't know."


Yes, it is. You just imagine that one of your children can see what you are doing and says "Daddy, ain't that gal married? Ain't that wrong?" You can go round and round on this and say it isn't that easy...but it is.


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> One thing I've found is that the work place is a haven for creeps. A lot of these guys don't even have a specific target. They just flirt with everybody married or not just to see who is open to it.
> 
> Back when my wife was working I went with her to her office Christmas party. There was one guy there that was introduced to me and I noticed that he was staring at the husbands and boyfriends of the women a lot (yep, I notice everything). After the party I asked my wife what his deal was. She said she would tell me if I promised not to get mad. I of course agreed not to get mad knowing that I would.
> 
> Turns out he was the "office flirt" he even gave all the women in his group a red rose on valentines day. I was absolutely livid. I don't think any of the husbands and boyfriends knew this. Otherwise things would have gotten ugly. I think almost every work place has a guy that puts himself out there to everybody just to see who has interest. I still don't get why he was staring down the men. I initially thought he was gay.


He was probably trying to work out which of the husbands would punch his lights out.


----------



## RandomDude

Stop bringing my little one into this debate Faithful Wife! lol

Speaking of which, she'll learn in time once she comes of age that things aren't always so black and white. I can't base my decisions on a child's perspective of the world.


----------



## Clawed

gbrad said:


> Emotional affairs? LOL
> 
> As for the blame game and percentage here. The blame is on two people when a physical affair happens. And those two people are the ones that are married. Not the 3rd party.


Really, the blame is on the BS? Explain ~


----------



## RandomDude

Clawed said:


> Really, the blame is on the BS? Explain ~


Actually, I agree with gbrad as well. The responsibility of keeping a marriage intact rests with the married couple. Now, STBX may have had her flaws, but it's simply fked up to say that I didn't have my part to play in all that mess.


----------



## 2ntnuf

RD,

I don't think she meant it to be about your daughter. I think she was just saying that even a child knows when something isn't quite right.


----------



## Caribbean Man

azteca1986 said:


> That would be fine, I suppose, but not what we're really talking about, is it?
> 
> But by having sex with a married person you would be inflicting your moral standards on a third person; the unwitting BS. You can't have sex with someone else's spouse and claim it's just between the two of you.
> 
> This is why I've steered clear of morality, which is subject to differences in culutural and religious values, and used integrity. Integrity is variable (true RandomDude), but a key component of personal integrity is honesty. You can say that the WS is most at fault, or that if you didn't somebody else would - but at the end of the day you can't fvck another man's wife and still claim you're acting with integrity.


Yes and yes you can.
And I gave the example of a swinger couples in my post.
They allow their spouses to have sex with others and they actin within strict rules _even within their community._

_They have their own moral standard._

So what's stopping a single persin from having their's ?

That's why I think that we cannot impose our standard on anybody.
But that's the world we live in.

The best that can be done is to marry someone who shares your values and have friends that are friends of your marriage.
Protect and nurture your marriage at all costs.

Forget what the popular media and the amoral ,thongs of so called social scientists and pop psychologist have to say about how your marriage supposed to be. They are the ones who lobbied to have the laws regarding adultery changed, because they are an adulterous lot.
They sleep with anybody and anything.
everyday the come up with new constructs that makes it harder for monogamous marriages to survive.
Today married people have no legal recourse or moral foothold against adultery and we are suffering from it.

When there is no penalty for a wrong act, the aggressor acts with impunity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I meant that if you can't be proud of your actions in front of your own child, you know it is wrong.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> It really boils down to this: if the singles aren't capable of making moral decisions, then neither are the marrieds.


Either can choose to have moral's are not, the difference is someone committed/married promised to practice morals similar to their partner, the single person didn't.



> Adultery can not take place if one of the individuals says "No", and _both_ are responsible to say "No". If the married individual said "No", the adultery could never happen. If the single individual said "No", the adultery could never happen. The issue is that men who sleep with married women, and vice versa, don't want to say "No".


Does the fact a cheater isn't being hit on them automatically make them loyal? (since the actual act of PA/EA hasn't happened). The temptation has been removed their personal character is the same. 
A alcoholic/drug addict is still a alcoholic/drug addict in rehab, they are just removed from their temptation.
Not saying om/ow (when aware someone is in a relationship) aren't scum, but they are in no way obliged to take any ownership to the demise of whatever moral obligation their affair partner made out to have to their spouse.


----------



## RandomDude

She did the last time  Bah!
But don't worry I'm not annoyed 

But as I said; I can't base my decisions on a child's perspective of the world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is not based on the child's perspective, it is based on how we want our actions to affect the world. Your child's understanding of your actions is important to you, right? She isn't going to feel different when she's an adult, she'd still say "but daddy, ain't that gal married?"

One day our kids will know what we have done, whether we want them to or not.


----------



## gbrad

RandomDude said:


> Actually, I agree with gbrad as well. The responsibility of keeping a marriage intact rests with the married couple. Now, STBX may have had her flaws, but it's simply fked up to say that I didn't have my part to play in all that mess.


Exactly. Takes two people to make it work and stay happy.


----------



## RandomDude

Clawed said:


> By your logic then, anyone is free to cheat at any time, and it's totally justifiable. After all, no one is perfect.


:scratchhead:

How was I saying that?
I'm saying that keeping the marriage intact is the responsibility of the married couple, no more, no less.



Faithful Wife said:


> I meant that if you can't be proud of your actions in front of your own child, you know it is wrong.


Well I can beat up an mugger on the street but it doesn't mean that I'm going to let my child see that am I?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Clawed said:


> Really, the blame is on the BS? Explain ~


I imagine he's meaning that rarely do people cheat on random whims. There's usually a lot of unhealthy relationship dynamics between the two that pushed one out.

I'm not sure I'd stretch this responsibility to the cheating so much as to the failure of the relationship, but having not occurred it would probably have meant the cheating never occurs either.

Maybe a stretch. To me the only immoral act in any of this is the breaking of a vow.


----------



## gbrad

Clawed said:


> By your logic then, anyone is free to cheat at any time, and it's totally justifiable. After all, no one is perfect.


? How did you connect these two dots.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Oh, I guess you are looking at RD's personal situation. I am not. I am speaking in general about adults decisions and actions. Sorry, I got confused.


----------



## RandomDude

Say what? Me what? =O lol


----------



## azteca1986

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes and yes you can.
> And I gave the example of a swinger couples in my post.
> They allow their spouses to have sex with others and they actin within strict rules _even within their community._
> 
> _They have their own moral standard._
> 
> So what's stopping a single persin from having their's ?


It's a question of consent. A BS generally isn't in on the discussion.



> The best that can be done is to marry someone who shares your values and have friends that are friends of your marriage.
> Protect and nurture your marriage at all costs.


I agree with this, CM. There's nothing that lawyers, politicians or anyone else can do to change that.


----------



## Married but Happy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Since the popular view seems largely based on the consequences of the single's participation - on the married family etc. I thought I'd address this.
> 
> I offer you this: I own a business. The purpose of starting my own business was to earn the best living I can. If I determine that I can run my business more efficiently, to the sole benefit of myself (the purpose of the business) then I'm entirely within my moral right to lay off employees. This can be terrible for them... and while it might make me quite a nice guy to avoid doing so, there is still no moral obligation to keep them employed if it doesn't serve the needs of the business: which, as callous as it sounds, IS in fact to make me money. The purpose of my business is not to employ people.
> 
> Consequences alone do not dictate moral imperatives.
> 
> I have no moral obligation to keep an at-will employee employed when it is not in the interest of my business even though unemployment can wreak havoc on a family. Similarly, a single has no moral obligation to say no to a married looking to cheat, even though the cheating could wreak havoc on a family.
> 
> Such decisions are discretionary based on the interests of the business owner or single in each respective case, and not subject to a moral imperative. Neither is a "nice guy" looking out for other people, but then, they have no moral responsibility to do so in either case. They are acting well within their right. That each has negative consequences for someone else does not dictate that a moral imperative exists, even if they aren't going to win any "person of the year" awards.


This is a pretty good argument, and you make some good points. I would have no ethical problem laying off employees, even though it does harm. The parameters of the employment laws and expectations in this situation clearly permit it, and society has created mechanisms to ameliorate the harm (unemployment benefits, for example, to which the employer contributes).

I've tried to make the distinction between unnecessary harm (that done to a cheater's family by participating in their action is some way), and necessary harm (such as in the layoff situation).

You don't see that distinction, it seems. You would take something which rightfully should "belong" to someone else, because you didn't promise not to do so. If an employee steals from you, but never pledged not to do so, then they shouldn't be held responsible, by that reasoning. Never mind that there are laws against it (and there were once laws against "alienation of affection" that did apply to single people who had sex with married people). Should we remove the theft laws, or reinstate the alienation of affection laws?


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Either can choose to have moral's are not, the difference is someone committed/married promised to practice morals similar to their partner, the single person didn't.
> 
> *Does the fact a cheater isn't being hit on them automatically make them loyal? (since the actual act of PA/EA hasn't happened).* The temptation has been removed their personal character is the same.


:iagree:

" _Innocence is Life untested, *but virtue is innocence tested and triumphant*_*.*"
(W. H. Griffith Thomas, 1962)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

On "being proud of it"...

Being proud of a behavior, or not, does not speak to its moral value.

I'm not particularly proud of masturbation, but I'm not immoral for masturbating.


----------



## 2ntnuf

RandomDude said:


> Say what? Me what? =O lol


It was a response to Faithful Wife post just prior to mine above. Sorry, I'll quote next time.


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> One thing I've found is that the work place is a haven for creeps. A lot of these guys don't even have a specific target. They just flirt with everybody married or not just to see who is open to it.
> 
> Back when my wife was working I went with her to her office Christmas party. There was one guy there that was introduced to me and I noticed that he was staring at the husbands and boyfriends of the women a lot (yep, I notice everything). After the party I asked my wife what his deal was. She said she would tell me if I promised not to get mad. I of course agreed not to get mad knowing that I would.
> 
> Turns out he was the "office flirt" he even gave all the women in his group a red rose on valentines day. I was absolutely livid. I don't think any of the husbands and boyfriends knew this. Otherwise things would have gotten ugly. I think almost every work place has a guy that puts himself out there to everybody just to see who has interest. I still don't get why he was staring down the men. I initially thought he was gay.


To the singles who like to wedge into married relationships. Since it's not a problem to cheat with a married, why not do it while the BS is standing right there? Why not proposition them while the BS is standing right there? Also invite the same behavior to happen to you. I doubt any of you are going to encourage someone to come scoop or try to scoop someone you have a committment with, whether they want to cheat on you or not.


----------



## RandomDude

I'm PROUD to choke my chicken with my hands...

Sorry, I can't take this thread seriously anymore, and I think I already contributed enough heh


----------



## treyvion

Vanguard said:


> Having made my stance clear I should say this--
> 
> If you sleep with a married woman, objectively you cannot have any moral qualm with the man killing you.


They do it because they figure nothing will happen to them. Ontop of it, some of them do it knowing they are going to be attacking the BS husbands life for their pleasure.


----------



## 2ntnuf

treyvion said:


> To the singles who like to wedge into married relationships. Since it's not a problem to cheat with a married, why not do it while the BS is standing right there? Why not proposition them while the BS is standing right there? Also invite the same behavior to happen to you. I doubt any of you are going to encourage someone to come scoop or try to scoop someone you have a committment with, whether they want to cheat on you or not.


Actually, in my case and many others, they do! That's where you are told to claim your wife and [email protected] block and all the other tricks to thwart an interloper.

*Edit:* What's odd is that we blame the BS for this if the WS decides to accept the advances of the interloper.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> *I've tried to make the distinction between unnecessary harm (that done to a cheater's family by participating in their action is some way), and necessary harm (such as in the layoff situation).*
> 
> ?


..and some couple say that after the cheating, their relationship became stronger.
Though I don't agree with that logic, I often wonder, exactly what do they mean?

See?

Another example of how differently people view things.

PS: 
I too own a business.
I have never laid off anyone without first helping them find alternative employment within the field we operate.
Many times I have even helped good employees who wished to leave and start their own business.
I do so because I feel it's my _moral _obligation to do so.
They have worked and helped make my business successful.

But I know for sure other businesses would _never_ do that.


----------



## Clawed

gbrad said:


> ? How did you connect these two dots.


It was probably a misunderstanding - but if he was saying that if it's the BS that is responsible for keeping the marriage intact (along with the WS), and if things do not always go swimmingly, that they are BOTH responsible for the affair - that I simply cannot agree with.


----------



## gbrad

Clawed said:


> Really, the blame is on the BS? Explain ~
> 
> Actually, I agree with gbrad as well. The responsibility of keeping a marriage intact rests with the married couple. Now, STBX may have had her flaws, but it's simply fked up to say that I didn't have my part to play in all that mess.
> 
> It was probably a misunderstanding - but if he was saying that if it's the BS that is responsible for keeping the marriage intact (along with the WS), and if things do not always go swimmingly, that they are BOTH responsible for the affair - that I simply cannot agree with.


They may not be responsible for the affair itself, but they are responsible for WHY it happened. Two different things.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Married but Happy said:


> I've tried to make the distinction between unnecessary harm (that done to a cheater's family by participating in their action is some way), and necessary harm (such as in the layoff situation).
> 
> You don't see that distinction, it seems.


Actually, I would suggest necessity is irrelevant to the question. It's not immoral of me to layoff employees even when I don't have to... on the simple basis that I'm a greedy fvcker that wants to retain more of my costs. The single similarly has no moral obligation to protect the married's spouse.



Married but Happy said:


> You would take something which rightfully should "belong" to someone else, because you didn't promise not to do so. If an employee steals from you, but never pledged not to do so, then they shouldn't be held responsible, by that reasoning. Never mind that there are laws against it (and there were once laws against "alienation of affection" that did apply to single people who had sex with married people). Should we remove the theft laws, or reinstate the alienation of affection laws?


Quite the contrary. The marriage contract doesn't entitle you to ownership of a person. Rather, the contract is that YOU will not engage in extra marital affairs, in exchange for the same commitment from them. It is a trust agreement, not an ownership agreement.

Stealing is immoral, but no action I can take can break your word for you.


----------



## treyvion

2ntnuf said:


> Actually, in my case and many others, they do! That's where you are told to claim your wife and [email protected] block and all the other tricks to thwart an interloper.
> 
> *Edit:* What's odd is that we blame the BS for this if the WS decides to accept the advances of the interloper.


If it's your "real" wife or girlfriend, she wouldn't encourage the flirt or comeon, and triangulate against the interloper. So it won't be anything for you to do but stand strong.

If she encourages the interloper and leaves it all up to you to handle, what is she going to do when you aren't around?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> I think people are getting confused with theory and reality.
> 
> In theory , the single party can be blamed because he knows the woman / man is married.
> So here's my hypothesis.
> What percentage of responsibility does the single man / woman have to accept for the affair, out of lets say 100%?


Again, I think it is down to each situation.

I'll say married woman and single man (of course the man doesn't have to be single) to save typing too much.

Scenario one.

Young single man at bar. Next thing he knows he's got some woman all over him like a rash, arms round him kissing him and he fancies her.
He may not notice a ring or she's not wearing it.
As a young man I was not very wordly wise and had this happened to me I would not have thought of finding out if she was married. I would have assumed she was single. I was so naïve I wouldn't have thought of single men with married women.
They make out and it's wham bam thank you m'am.

Scenario two.

Married woman at bar, man buys her a drink, ok maybe she shouldn't accept but maybe she knows him through work, but he slips a couple of extra vodkas in there.
They get chatting, she's off guard, he buys her another, perhaps slips a mood relaxer in there perhaps not. Uses game on her. Gives her a lift home. wham bam thank you m'am.
And lets say this guy has done this before.


Ok, extreme examples I know but I'm sure these affairs occupy all points between these extremes.

In my examples I would say scenario one the young man carries 0% to 1% responsibility.

Scenario two the guy carries perhaps 90% of the blame.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Actually, I would suggest necessity is irrelevant to the question. It's not immoral of me to layoff employees even when I don't have to... on the simple basis that I'm a greedy fvcker that wants to retain more of my costs. The single similarly has no moral obligation to protect the married's spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary. The marriage contract doesn't entitle you to ownership of a person. Rather, the contract is that YOU will not engage in extra marital affairs, in exchange for the same commitment from them. It is a trust agreement, not an ownership agreement.
> 
> Stealing is immoral, but no action I can take can break your word for you.


"Hey dude, your wife came on to me. She does it to others. I don't want any part of this $hit! or to be a part of you all's problems!"


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> "Hey dude, your wife came on to me. She does it to others. * I don't want any part of this $hit! or to be a part of you all's problems!"*


:lol::rofl:

That's how it _was_ back in the good ole days.


----------



## Clawed

gbrad said:


> They may not be responsible for the affair itself, but they are responsible for WHY it happened. Two different things.


But isn't that kind of a slippery slope? If we allow a WS to justify away their actions, it's allowing them to shift blame to their spouse. I say, _if you are that unhappy in marriage, get divorced first_ and then do your thing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Clawed said:


> But isn't that kind of a slippery slope? If we allow a WS to justify away their actions, it's allowing them to shift blame to their spouse.
> .


Which is the same thing we are doing when we blame the third party.
Shifting blame, because as much as we are hurt by their actions, we still want to see the WS as the loving person we once knew and trusted.

It is easier to exercise our morals in judgement against a perceived foe. Ironically that " foe" is the one who doesn't share our moral values.
The OM/OW.


----------



## gbrad

Clawed said:


> But isn't that kind of a slippery slope? If we allow a WS to justify away their actions, it's allowing them to shift blame to their spouse. I say, _if you are that unhappy in marriage, get divorced first_ and then do your thing.


Divorce is not an easy and quick process. To start, or to go through with.


----------



## Clawed

gbrad said:


> Divorce is not an easy and quick process. To start, or to go through with.


What does it matter? They still vowed to be faithful, right? The WS does not have a right to violate that because of some 'rocky times.' Isn't that the whole point of marriage, to be with each other forever and work through the hard times together?


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> :lol::rofl:
> 
> That's how it _was_ back in the good ole days.


If no one cares anymore, then why get married?


----------



## gbrad

Clawed said:


> What does it matter? They still vowed to be faithful, right? The WS does not have a right to violate that because of some 'rocky times.' Isn't that the whole point of marriage, to be with each other forever and work through the hard times together?


They have the right to violate that, yes. Just because they have The right, doesn't make it right to do. I've never said that an affair is a good thing in the grand scheme of things, but I can understand someone doing it in certain situations.


----------



## Clawed

gbrad said:


> They have the right to violate that, yes. Just because they have The right, doesn't make it right to do. I've never said that an affair is a good thing in the grand scheme of things, but I can understand someone doing it in certain situations.


In what situations can you understand someone cheating? And in those situations, why would they not get divorced first? I get it, it's a long - painful process, but if the situation is that bad, it's what needs to happen anyway. During that time, you should have to suck it up, and get your life together before involving someone else. Just my opinion, I suppose.


----------



## 2ntnuf

treyvion said:


> If it's your "real" wife or girlfriend, she wouldn't encourage the flirt or comeon, and triangulate against the interloper. So it won't be anything for you to do but stand strong.
> 
> If she encourages the interloper and leaves it all up to you to handle, what is she going to do when you aren't around?


Great points. Are you saying that [email protected] blocking is posturing at best and will do no good with an independent woman?


----------



## WyshIknew

And I'd just like to point out that in time honoured TAM tradition we've wandered off the premise of this thread.

'Why do men hit on married women?'


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> :lol::rofl:
> 
> That's how it _was_ back in the good ole days.


I totally disagree. It's how it is with respectable empathetic folks who have honesty and integrity.

The era does not matter.


----------



## gbrad

Clawed said:


> In what situations can you understand someone cheating? And in those situations, why would they not get divorced first? I get it, it's a long - painful process, but if the situation is that bad, it's what needs to happen anyway. During that time, you should have to suck it up, and get your life together before involving someone else. Just my opinion, I suppose.


I am not saying that the best thing to do isn't get a divorce first. But the best thing doesn't always happen the way we want it to. And saying they should suck it up and get the life together before involving someone else. How far into the divorce process should someone wait before being able to have sex with someone else?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> ..and some couple say that after the cheating, their relationship became stronger.
> Though I don't agree with that logic, I often wonder, exactly what do they mean?
> 
> See?
> 
> Another example of how differently people view things.
> 
> PS:
> I too own a business.
> I have never laid off anyone without first helping them find alternative employment within the field we operate.
> Many times I have even helped good employees who wished to leave and start their own business.
> I do so because I feel it's my _moral _obligation to do so.
> They have worked and helped make my business successful.
> 
> But I know for sure other businesses would _never_ do that.


If its a moral *obligation*, then you're saying the business that doesn't do so is immoral? I can't agree with that.

You are morally obligated to compensate the employee per their employment agreement, ie their salary and benefits. The rest is you being a really nice guy.

TBH, I've never let anyone go for my personal gain. I'm just saying its not immoral to do so.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If its a moral *obligation*, then you're saying the business that doesn't do so is immoral? I can't agree with that.


I'm not disagreeing with you on this.

I'm just saying I view it as MY moral obligation to MY employees.
It's the standard I set for myself.
When I first entered the workforce I was badly taken advantage of and I swore to myself I would never take advantage of anybody under my charge.

But I CANNOT impose MY moral views on any other business, and should never try to do so.

I know the relationship I have with my employees.
I can't say what goes on with other businesses, I have no contract or connections with them.

The same rule I apply it to people and their relationships.
I might view swinger type marriages as immoral, but I cannot and must not try to impose my views on anybody who believes otherwise.

And in this case with the OM, I cannot blame him for an affair.
I have no contract with him.


----------



## Clawed

gbrad said:


> I am not saying that the best thing to do isn't get a divorce first. But the best thing doesn't always happen the way we want it to. And saying they should suck it up and get the life together before involving someone else. How far into the divorce process should someone wait before being able to have sex with someone else?


 That's a good question. Honestly, it's going to be a matter of opinion. Hardcore 'sex within the confines of marriage only' types might suggest waiting the duration. I don't know, I am almost at the end of my divorce, but I did make a commitment to my wife, and even though she royally screwed up her vows, that does not mean I will not uphold mine until everything is fanalized.


----------



## Thor

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The single doesn't need to make a judgment about the state of the marriage. They have no moral responsibility for that person's marriage at all. From the single perspective, its just sex with a consenting adult imo. The moral imperative to not cheat, lies with the person who vows not to cheat.


Do you understand that the act of sex with the married person can, and likely will, cause great harm to the entire family? It isn't so much that you have consensual sex with an adult, it is that you are _knowingly_ engaging in an act which _harms other people_.

It is evil to knowingly do something which harms other people.

It should be socially and legally acceptable for the harmed person to exact a level of retribution he/she feels adequate.


----------



## Thor

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Since the popular view seems largely based on the consequences of the single's participation - on the married family etc. I thought I'd address this.
> 
> I offer you this: I own a business. The purpose of starting my own business was to earn the best living I can. If I determine that I can run my business more efficiently, to the sole benefit of myself (the purpose of the business) then I'm entirely within my moral right to lay off employees. This can be terrible for them... and while it might make me quite a nice guy to avoid doing so, there is still no moral obligation to keep them employed if it doesn't serve the needs of the business: which, as callous as it sounds, IS in fact to make me money. The purpose of my business is not to employ people.
> 
> Consequences alone do not dictate moral imperatives.
> 
> I have no moral obligation to keep an at-will employee employed when it is not in the interest of my business even though unemployment can wreak havoc on a family. Similarly, a single has no moral obligation to say no to a married looking to cheat, even though the cheating could wreak havoc on a family.
> 
> Such decisions are discretionary based on the interests of the business owner or single in each respective case, and not subject to a moral imperative. Neither is a "nice guy" looking out for other people, but then, they have no moral responsibility to do so in either case. They are acting well within their right. That each has negative consequences for someone else does not dictate that a moral imperative exists, even if they aren't going to win any "person of the year" awards.


Is it open season on your business? If I can secretly attach to your electrical service and power my store using your electricity without you noticing, is it morally acceptable?


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You are morally obligated to compensate the employee per their employment agreement, ie their salary and benefits. The rest is you being a really nice guy.


No, you are legally obligated to by the terms of their contract. Just as, you have to work in the best interests of the company (your fiduciary duties) - by law.

Morals don't come into it.


----------



## Thor

I think what I am hearing from DvlsAdvc8 is that you do not think it is wrong to knowingly assist another person do wrong.

e.g. it would be acceptable to hand poison to the person who has just told you their plan to murder someone. The killer would have gotten the poison somewhere, so you were not the lynchpin of the crime. You could not have prevented the crime if you did not act, thus by acting you did not cause the crime to happen. So you are in no way responsible for the outcome.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you on this.
> 
> I'm just saying I view it as MY moral obligation to MY employees.
> It's the standard I set for myself.


Right, I understand that, but logic dictates that you consider other business immoral by your moral standards. Exactly as someone puritanical considers swingers immoral.

I'm really picky on the words I use to convey a concept, so maybe I'm just picking a nit, but if you have an obligation dictated by your view of morality, then, having that view, wouldn't you be forced to admit that by your moral standard other business are immoral?

Its a tricky thing! I think its perfectly okay to believe that someone else is immoral by whatever standard you accept. I think that's different from forcing others to have the same belief.

Honestly, this whole moral relativity thing is the only reason I'm still in this discussion. I haven't been in one of these in quite awhile and these things often go to weird entertaining places.

You can't however, hold a moral view and still view those who violate it as being moral. By your view of morality, they're immoral. 

Philosophy types use crap like this to totally throw out moral relativism, and their arguments aren't half bad. The problem with individual morality, is that no morality exists if there is only an individual. Morality is by definition a shared value, and religious types going down this road will usually point to divine morality. I have some of my own thoughts on the subject in my attempt to reconcile the individual perspective with the social perspective, but everyone already hates my soap boxes, so I spare us all.


----------



## treyvion

2ntnuf said:


> Great points. Are you saying that [email protected] blocking is posturing at best and will do no good with an independent woman?


I mean, she left it all on you, when it should have been up to her say, thanks for the complement, but I'm not interested because I'm here with my man.

A male should be extremely relaxed and comfortable in the situation because he has nothing to worry about and he shouldn't.

I know many of todays "independant" ladies are single to the 100% level and really would leave it all up to the male, even trying to get hers while he is standing there, and literally the boyfriend or spouse would have to fight between a triangulation consisting of the spouse/girlfriend and interested male!


----------



## Faithful Wife

In the end, none of the discussion really matters. People do f*cked up sh*t all the time, we know this about humans. My husband treats me like I am worth my weight in gold, as if there are theives with hungry eyes on me all the time...because really, that is true. There will always be someone out there trying to break down the boundaries of your marriage, and it is best to know this occurs instead of wish people had morals.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> I know many of todays "independant" ladies are single to the 100% level and really would leave it all up to the male, even trying to get hers while he is standing there, and literally the boyfriend or spouse would have to fight between a triangulation consisting of the spouse/girlfriend and interested male!


Time to get a new wife or girlfriend and leave her to the wolves. She'll show the same lack of respect in all her relationships.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> And I'd just like to point out that in time honoured TAM tradition we've wandered off the premise of this thread.
> 
> 'Why do men hit on married women?'


The answer to the question was because they can, and many cases it's easier and simpler to obtain sexual relations with them.


----------



## WyshIknew

treyvion said:


> The answer to the question was because they can, and many cases it's easier and simpler to obtain sexual relations with them.


Yep!

Plus less chance of STD's and no need to use protection as there is an unsuspecting faithful husband at home to look after any offspring.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> In the end, none of the discussion really matters. People do f*cked up sh*t all the time, we know this about humans. My husband treats me like I am worth my weight in gold, as if there are theives with hungry eyes on me all the time...because really, that is true. There will always be someone out there trying to break down the boundaries of your marriage, and it is best to know this occurs instead of wish people had morals.


You all's sexual energy and magnetism is probably cranked up to 100%... So the sexual wolves out there can smell that sweet syrupy nectar in your essense and want to obtain for themself.

It's a strong draw for someone in that realm.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Yep!
> 
> Plus less chance of STD's and no need to use protection as there is an unsuspecting faithful husband at home to look after any offspring.


Well if she's "out there", like seriously, it may be a stronger chance for STD's due to the fact she's in the moment and not being as "responsible" as a true single when it comes to sexual relations.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> In the end, none of the discussion really matters. People do f*cked up sh*t all the time, we know this about humans. My husband treats me like I am worth my weight in gold, as if there are theives with hungry eyes on me all the time...because really, that is true. There will always be someone out there trying to break down the boundaries of your marriage, and it is best to know this occurs instead of wish people had morals.


From the post of your blog that I read, what you did made the difference. If he is constantly looking for "wolves" he is under a great deal of pressure everywhere you two go. He may even be thinking of this every time you go out.

The difference was not in what he did. It was what you did. You, forgive me if I'm mistaken, kissed him and moved under his arm so everyone could see you love him and want him. This is you taking responsibility for your part and not something your husband can control in you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

trey said: "So the sexual wolves out there can smell that sweet syrupy nectar in your essense and want to obtain for themself.

It's a strong draw for someone in that realm."

Yes, I know. I discussed this in the blog post I linked.

When you're oozing sexy out your pours, everyone wants some.


----------



## treyvion

2ntnuf said:


> From the post of your blog that I read, what you did made the difference. If he is constantly looking for "wolves" he is under a great deal of pressure everywhere you two go. He may even be thinking of this every time you go out.
> 
> The difference was not in what he did. It was what you did. You, forgive me if I'm mistaken, kissed him and moved under his arm so everyone could see you love him and want him. This is you taking responsibility for your part and not something your husband can control in you.


He's in that sexual wolf protection phase, because he's out there like a sexual wolf. Only for his wife though, and he's suspecting of the other sexual wolves, knowing they will snap her right up or try to if they get a chance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

2ntnf..."You, forgive me if I'm mistaken, kissed him and moved under his arm so everyone could see you love him and want him. This is you taking responsibility for your part and not something your husband can control in you."

We both do everything we can. He mate guards me, but he also puts boundaries around himself, because many chicks dig him, especially the extremely sexual ones.

We have a lot of other rules of conduct as well that go with our whole boundaries plan.

We just both acknowledge that we are both hot and desirable, that others will always want some, and we are not threatened yet we NEVER lower our boundaries, because even though we aren't threatened, we understand that marriages are vulnerable and need as much protection as you can give them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

2ntnf said: "If he is constantly looking for "wolves" he is under a great deal of pressure everywhere you two go."

It isn't really pressure, it comes easy to him. It is natural mate guarding behavior. He doesn't blame the guys who might be after me...he just says "they can't help it honey, they are men, and YOU look like THAT".


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Yep!
> 
> Plus less chance of STD's and no need to use protection as there is an unsuspecting faithful husband at home to look after any offspring.


Well we gotta leave some sort of responsibility to the stupid dope back at home.


----------



## 2ntnuf

treyvion said:


> He's in that sexual wolf protection phase, because he's out there like a sexual wolf. Only for his wife though, and he's suspecting of the other sexual wolves, knowing they will snap her right up or try to if they get a chance.


I get that. Here's my point. It doesn't matter what he does to protect her. It's her decision. She chooses to show these "wolves" she is not interested. There is nothing he can do if she is interested. She will find wolves everywhere by her own admission. It doesn't matter if he is protecting. He can't be there all the time. He can only love her to the best of his abilities. She chooses to accept or reject the "wolves". I don't care how much he blocks and postures and threatens and beats up interlopers. The final decision is hers. She, being an honorable woman, chooses to actively show these wolves she is not interested.


----------



## WyshIknew

treyvion said:


> Well we gotta leave some sort of responsibility to the stupid dope back at home.


I shouldn't laugh because this is a serious, awful thing to happen, but I did find that funny.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> 2ntnf said: "If he is constantly looking for "wolves" he is under a great deal of pressure everywhere you two go."
> 
> It isn't really pressure, it comes easy to him. It is natural mate guarding behavior. He doesn't blame the guys who might be after me...he just says "they can't help it honey, they are men, and YOU look like THAT".


They can't help being attracted to a beautiful woman. They can decide how they react to those feelings. Any amount of work to thwart these "wolves" becomes a joke if you are not actively showing that your husband is the one you want. You do that. Good for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

2ntnf said: "She chooses to show these "wolves" she is not interested. There is nothing he can do if she is interested. She will find wolves everywhere by her own admission. It doesn't matter if he is protecting. He can't be there all the time. He can only love her to the best of his abilities. She chooses to accept or reject the "wolves". I don't care how much he blocks and postures and threatens and beats up interlopers. The final decision is hers. She, being an honorable woman, chooses to actively show these wolves she is not interested."

Absolutely. Monogamy is a lifestyle choice, and there is more to it than simply being married.


----------



## Faithful Wife

2ntnf said: "They can't help being attracted to a beautiful woman. They can decide how they react to those feelings. Any amount of work to thwart these "wolves" becomes a joke if you are not actively showing that your husband is the one you want. You do that. Good for you."


Totally correct, and if I wasn't the way I am (madly in love with my husband and diligently protecting our boundaries) he would dump me.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> 2ntnf said: "She chooses to show these "wolves" she is not interested. There is nothing he can do if she is interested. She will find wolves everywhere by her own admission. It doesn't matter if he is protecting. He can't be there all the time. He can only love her to the best of his abilities. She chooses to accept or reject the "wolves". I don't care how much he blocks and postures and threatens and beats up interlopers. The final decision is hers. She, being an honorable woman, chooses to actively show these wolves she is not interested."
> 
> *Absolutely. Monogamy is a lifestyle choice, and there is more to it than simply being married.*


Yes. This is separate from a decision to stray. A marriage can be bad and have no infidelity. It's done all the time.


----------



## RandomDude

How about this little conclusion:

Responsibility of the infidelity itself, and potential breakdown of the marriage: Lies with the married couple themselves including both the unfaithful and faithful partners, not with the accomplice. So the unfaithful party can't say "I was wrong but..." NO BUTS

Responsibility of being an accomplice in crime: Lies with the accomplice themselves and they will risk the consequences of their actions; angry spouse/beat down, and they shouldn't be able to claim the moral high ground or moral immunity for their actions if they are fully aware of the unfaithful party being married.

Acceptable by both sides of the debate?


----------



## Faithful Wife

There's no debate, Random. People can choose to be dirtbags if they want, end of debate.


----------



## RandomDude

So what should I call it? An argument? Forum-fight? lol

Orgy of internet warriors?  heh


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Thor said:


> I think what I am hearing from DvlsAdvc8 is that you do not think it is wrong to knowingly assist another person do wrong.


Your wrong doing is not my wrong doing. Your commitments are not my commitments. I cannot break your word for you.

If I promised to help Bob at noon, and at the last minute you ask me to help you instead even knowing I've already promised to help Bob... you are not responsible for my choosing to break my promise to Bob nor all the problems he'll have now that he has no help. I own that. The responsibility was mine to say "No, I already promised Bob I'd help him."



Thor said:


> e.g. it would be acceptable to hand poison to the person who has just told you their plan to murder someone. The killer would have gotten the poison somewhere, so you were not the lynchpin of the crime. You could not have prevented the crime if you did not act, thus by acting you did not cause the crime to happen. So you are in no way responsible for the outcome.


This is a good argument and more than a few philosophers I've read struggled with similar. Its doing harm vs allowing harm. Handing the poison, or being the single party, isn't doing the harm (the marital harm done is violating a vow... the single can't violate a vow they didn't make)... so its a question of allowing harm. 

I think the acts we're contrasting are of a vastly different moral scale. Allowing someone to murder vs allowing someone to break a vow. In the strictest sense though, I don't think the poison giver is morally responsible... though I believe most of us don't want to be in that position and will refuse to cooperate.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Thor said:


> Is it open season on your business? If I can secretly attach to your electrical service and power my store using your electricity without you noticing, is it morally acceptable?


Bizzare question. Of course that is immoral. You're stealing. The difference between this and a single having sex with a married, is that the married is not the property of his/her spouse.


----------



## RandomDude

> though I believe most of us don't want to be in that position and will refuse to cooperate.


Eh? Heh for me it depends if the mark is someone worth being cleaned out - rapists/pedos. But that's just me with my haywire moral compass 

But chances are I'll probably be like F off I ain't going back to jail lol

Ne ways... went offtrack there, back to topic...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> No, you are legally obligated to by the terms of their contract. Just as, you have to work in the best interests of the company (your fiduciary duties) - by law.
> 
> Morals don't come into it.


You are morally and legally obligated. But take away the law, and you are still morally obligated to uphold the exchange agreement.

Or would you think it okay to not pay someone who agrees to cut your lawn for $30 after they cut your lawn, even if it were legal? In effect, you just stole their labor, and you lied.


----------



## Married but Happy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Bizzare question. Of course that is immoral. You're stealing. The difference between this and a single having sex with a married, is that the married is not the property of his/her spouse.


I must say I'm impressed by your arguments and consistency. I can't really see any logical flaws, yet I still feel that - _for me _- it would be unethical to entice or go along with a cheater.

I do see examples in other areas where society and the law differ from your conclusion here. I would be interested in your thoughts on the following situation:

I believe it is illegal to bribe or attempt to bribe a police officer or public official (in some countries this is common and acceptable, of course, but I'm talking about the USA). The officer/official has a responsibility to decline the bribe based on their oath of office. They will suffer consequences if they take or solicit a bribe and are found out. Yet the person giving the bribe is also guilty of an offense and can be charged. Is this fair, and does it differ from the cheating discussion?


----------



## julianne

WyshIknew said:


> :iagree:
> 
> And sadly this is how it works all too often.
> 
> However as far as your edit goes, these are the kinds of people I have a beef with.
> 
> He was told "no" but persisted to what sounds like an annoying level.
> It's all very well to say you are not doing enough to tell him no but some people are arseholes and will not listen. And you can hardly take out a restraining order if you are out having a meal and drinks with your girlfriends.
> 
> My wife and her friends have to leave some bars/restaurants as they get fed up with idiots trying to score with a married woman.


Thank you! This is exactly what happened. We were in the bar area waiting for our reservation and ended up leaving to go elsewhere.


----------



## julianne

Caribbean Man said:


> Well this is where real men, like you and I come in.
> Wife simply make the report to management or the police and then my wife tells me, and I beat the living daylights out of him.
> 
> Cannot harass my wife and expect me to come ask you " kindly " to desist. I will fcuk you up,
> Badly.
> 
> Everything else after that would be settled in the courts.
> I am not afraid of the courts.


It is the macho, tough guy thing to do, right? Protect your woman at any cost? Sounds good when you say it and think it but when it happens in real life it is another matter.

A couple of years ago I had my purse snatched right off my shoulder. I was momentarily separated from my husband, who is 6'3', works out, and is not a guy you want to mess with. I had been standing alone for about a minute. The criminal grabbed my purse and shoved me to the ground. My husband saw this and immediately started chasing the guy, so before I knew it, bye bye husband. Witnesses called the cops and one squad car showed up. Once the cop found out that the victim's husband had pursued the criminal, they immediately called for backup, four more police cars. 

Maybe 7-8 minutes have passed. I am freaking out because I have no idea where my husband is or what has happened. Cops are looking everywhere and there is no sign of him. Finally after about 15 minutes I spot my husband walking back towards me. I can't even explain how I felt when I saw him. My hero, who gave me the scare of my life, and nearly a heart attack, because he is such a manly man.

Anyway I did get my purse back with everything in it. My husband kept chasing and chasing the guy till he finally threw my purse down, I guess after realizing that my husband was not going to stop pursuing him. Thank goodness they never encountered each other.


----------



## Vega

chillymorn said:


> low morals.
> 
> their parents dropped the ball on raising them or they are just broken people when it comes to morals.
> 
> why do some people steal?why do some people gossip?why do some people abuse other people?why do some people steel tax payer money to start wars or a bull$hit health care system.
> 
> no morles and greed!


YES, which is why I believe that normal 'counseling' doesn't work that well with *those* people. Normal counseling doesn't usually get to the 'root' of the issues, which is pride (arrogance), out of control ego causing selfishness, greed and all forms of deceit.

Just my 2 'sense'.

Vega


----------



## RandomDude

julianne said:


> It is the macho, tough guy thing to do, right? Protect your woman at any cost? Sounds good when you say it and think it but when it happens in real life it is another matter.
> 
> A couple of years ago I had my purse snatched right off my shoulder. I was momentarily separated from my husband, who is 6'3', works out, and is not a guy you want to mess with. I had been standing alone for about a minute. The criminal grabbed my purse and shoved me to the ground. My husband saw this and immediately started chasing the guy, so before I knew it, bye bye husband. Witnesses called the cops and one squad car showed up. Once the cop found out that the victim's husband had pursued the criminal, they immediately called for backup, four more police cars.
> 
> Maybe 7-8 minutes have passed. I am freaking out because I have no idea where my husband is or what has happened. Cops are looking everywhere and there is no sign of him. Finally after about 15 minutes I spot my husband walking back towards me. I can't even explain how I felt when I saw him. My "hero", who gave me the scare of my life, and nearly a heart attack, because he is such a manly man.
> 
> Anyway I did get my purse back with everything in it. My husband kept chasing and chasing the guy till he finally threw my purse down, I guess after realizing that my husband was not going to stop pursuing him. Thank goodness they never encountered each other.


Eh? Myself and many other men would have done the same thing. Would you really have prefered if he just let this guy run off with your purse and your husband just went "Ok, I'm calling the cops!"

:slap:

The crim would have been long gone by then with everything in your purse, credit cards, ID, where you live, etc etc. That would even be a longer, more drawn out, scare.

Quite frankly I feel you should appreciate what your husband did. As for the police they tend to be fking useless either than giving you demerit points. My thoughts anyway... but anyways, isn't this for another topic?


----------



## Horizon

thunderstruck said:


> I have no PUA game. Hell, I'm not even trying, and women are approaching me, making small talk about kids, job, etc, and then switching over to talking about s**.
> 
> It's not hard for me to believe that the player stories are mostly true. A decent looking guy with some "game" could probably score all day with a bit of effort.


That's exactly what that POSOM did with my WS. She told me he was her age, 46, and much later I overheard her tell her close GF's that he was 40 - and looked after himself.

The deadsh!t is married with children and must have his routine well honed. He made it clear that he had other women - that was the thing my WS used as a lever to vacate the scene. The fact that he had a family and a harem.

My WS implied a couple of times that she was somehow tricked or deceived by the ahole, or something - f**king liar! The truth is he is a player and he is using the basic tools discussed here to cut a swathe through easy prey. My WS - easy prey. Sl*t might be another word. 

F**king oath I get pi**ed off about it - think about it fellas, what does it say about us?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Right, I understand that, but logic dictates that you consider other business immoral by your moral standards. Exactly as someone puritanical considers swingers immoral.
> 
> I'm really picky on the words I use to convey a concept, so maybe I'm just picking a nit, but if you have an obligation dictated by your view of morality, then, having that view, wouldn't you be forced to admit that by your moral standard other business are immoral?
> 
> Its a tricky thing! I think its perfectly okay to believe that someone else is immoral by whatever standard you accept. I think that's different from forcing others to have the same belief.
> 
> Honestly, this whole moral relativity thing is the only reason I'm still in this discussion. I haven't been in one of these in quite awhile and these things often go to weird entertaining places.
> 
> You can't however, hold a moral view and still view those who violate it as being moral. By your view of morality, they're immoral.
> 
> Philosophy types use crap like this to totally throw out moral relativism, and their arguments aren't half bad. The problem with individual morality, is that no morality exists if there is only an individual. Morality is by definition a shared value, and religious types going down this road will usually point to divine morality. I have some of my own thoughts on the subject in my attempt to reconcile the individual perspective with the social perspective, but everyone already hates my soap boxes, so I spare us all.


" _Right and wrong at any given time is a function of power and not truth."_- Federich Neitzche


----------



## julianne

RandomDude said:


> Eh? Myself and many other men would have done the same thing. Would you really have prefered if he just let this guy run off with your purse and your husband just went "Ok, I'm calling the cops!"
> 
> :slap:
> 
> The crim would have been long gone by then with everything in your purse, credit cards, ID, where you live, etc etc. That would even be a longer, more drawn out, scare.
> 
> Quite frankly I feel you should appreciate what your husband did. As for the police they tend to be fking useless either than giving you demerit points. My thoughts anyway... but anyways, isn't this for another topic?


I definitely appreciate what he did, no doubt about it. And I told him so. Before anyone else thinks that I did not: YES, I APPRECIATE WHAT MY HUSBAND DID!!  It was just very hard on me not knowing if he was dead or alive or what the heck was happening.

And you are right, recovering my purse made my life a lot easier than having it in the hands of a criminal.

And yes, no need to discuss this in this thread.


----------



## RandomDude

Sorry, guess I read it the wrong way. 

Back to topic, btw I opened another one inspired by your post lol


----------



## Caribbean Man

julianne said:


> It is the macho, tough guy thing to do, right? Protect your woman at any cost? Sounds good when you say it and think it but when it happens in real life it is another matter.
> 
> A couple of years ago I had my purse snatched right off my shoulder. I was momentarily separated from my husband, who is 6'3', works out, and is not a guy you want to mess with. I had been standing alone for about a minute. The criminal grabbed my purse and shoved me to the ground. My husband saw this and immediately started chasing the guy, so before I knew it, bye bye husband. Witnesses called the cops and one squad car showed up. Once the cop found out that the victim's husband had pursued the criminal, they immediately called for backup, four more police cars.
> 
> *Maybe 7-8 minutes have passed. I am freaking out because I have no idea where my husband is or what has happened. Cops are looking everywhere and there is no sign of him. Finally after about 15 minutes I spot my husband walking back towards me. I can't even explain how I felt when I saw him. My "hero", who gave me the scare of my life, and nearly a heart attack, because he is such a manly man.*
> 
> Anyway I did get my purse back with everything in it. My husband kept chasing and chasing the guy till he finally threw my purse down, I guess after realizing that my husband was not going to stop pursuing him. Thank goodness they never encountered each other.


I don't know.
But if somebody risked their life for me in anyway , I am usually very grateful for it.

I have very deep respect for my mother. After her divorce , she was left with four of us to take care of. Many times she risked life and limb to protect us. In my eyes , even though when I was a teeneger we vehemently disagreed over everything, SHE IS A HERO.
I can never think otherwise or disrespect what she has done for all of us.
I will never speak as if her selfless sacrifice was unnecessary.

I think every wife should be grateful if their husbands publicly defends them just as every man should be appreciative of his wife's faithfulness and loyalty to him.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> How about this little conclusion:
> 
> Responsibility of the infidelity itself, and potential breakdown of the marriage: Lies with the married couple themselves including both the unfaithful and faithful partners, not with the accomplice. So the unfaithful party can't say "I was wrong but..." NO BUTS
> 
> Responsibility of being an accomplice in crime: Lies with the accomplice themselves and they will risk the consequences of their actions; angry spouse/beat down, and they shouldn't be able to claim the moral high ground or moral immunity for their actions if they are fully aware of the unfaithful party being married.
> 
> Acceptable by both sides of the debate?


Random you sound like a_ real _businessman.


----------



## julianne

Ok guys, I have removed the quotes. No more "hero". 

He is my hero and continues to be, because of who he is.

Caribbean Man, what a lovely sentiment about your mother. You are lucky and she IS a hero.


Hope everyone has a nice weekend.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I wouldn't ever get into a physical altercation with another woman over it, but I'd have no problem telling a chick to back the F away from my man, if I felt she was horning in too close.

I have only done this with my eyes thus far...worked just fine so no words were needed. But then later I told my hubby "that chick better keep back from THIS HERE MAN which I own and I ain't gonna share!" and I threw my arms around his neck and clutched him like he was my own personal teddy bear.

He swooned.

He doesn't need me to protect him. He holds up his boundaries very well. But he appreciates the feeling of me mate guarding him, the same way I appreciate it when he does it. He knows I am not a zany jealous woman, that rather we are playing a game the helps remind us of how much we value our monogamy, and how there will always be someone trying to get into it somehow.


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> Random you sound like a_ real _businessman.


Heh cheers mate :smthumbup:


----------



## krismimo

chillymorn said:


> low morals.
> 
> their parents dropped the ball on raising them or they are just broken people when it comes to morals.
> 
> why do some people steal?why do some people gossip?why do some people abuse other people?why do some people steel tax payer money to start wars or a bull$hit health care system.
> 
> no morles and greed!


You always raise good points chilly but i have to disagree with you on this one. You can't always blame the parents and to a degree that is not fair there are plenty of great parents out there that teach their children right from wrong and their children decide the choices they make for themselves, I mean to be fair I have read so many stories from the BS or even WS they talk about good upbringing in some cases and the parents are disappointed in their kids for making poor choices. At the end of the day it is free will. 

It can be said for the same of Serial Killers or murders, thieves, etc etc you would be surprised of how many happy homes that these individuals come from. I don't think that is a fair assessment of someone especially if the parents did their part to provide a loving and healthy environment.


----------



## always_alone

Married but Happy said:


> I must say I'm impressed by your arguments and consistency. I can't really see any logical flaws,


The logical flaw is this: those who are arguing that the single has no moral culpability are framing it entirely in terms of the marriage contract. They ate not allowing any ethical issue beyond the infidelity, and simple breach of contract.

But those arguing that the single does have culpability are not trying to deny that the wayward spouse is 100% responsible for that breach of contract. They are not trying to blameshift. They are saying that it is a culpability of a different kind: choosing personal gratification over the well being of others.

The logical fallacy is a form of red herring, as the debate really hinges on the question of whether a person has any moral obligation to not harm another person. 

Personally, I like to keep things simple. There is already plenty of pain and suffering in this world, and I do my best not to contribute to it.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> " _Right and wrong at any given time is a function of power and not truth."_- Federich Neitzche


Yes,many uphold this type of morality, but it is really just the survival of the fittest. 

Which makes it all okay: murder, torture, kidnapping, theft, fraud, rape, you name it. Whatever it takes to be the ubermensch. Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche, for example.


----------



## Vega

This is probably one of the _best_ ways I have seen this idea posed. Simple, yet eloquent: 



always_alone said:


> The logical flaw is this: those who are arguing that the single has no moral culpability are framing it entirely in terms of the marriage contract. They ate not allowing any ethical issue beyond the infidelity, and simple breach of contract.


I whole-heartedly agree! We can't forget that ALL of us have a _'social'_ contract which you named in your last paragraph.



> But those arguing that the single does have culpability are not trying to deny that the wayward spouse is 100% responsible for that breach of contract. They are not trying to blameshift. They are saying that it is a culpability of a different kind: choosing personal gratification over the well being of others.


Exactly. I've said in other posts that although the single's culpability may be viewed as _different_, being different doesn't mean that it's _*lesser than *_the WSs. The AP isn't _*less*_ 'wrong'; they're just wrong *differently*. 



> ...*the debate really hinges on the question of whether a person has any moral obligation to not harm another person.*
> 
> There is already plenty of pain and suffering in this world, and I do my best not to contribute to it.


Beautiful. This is _why_ the Golden Rule is such a terrific rule to live by. If both the WS and the AP lived by it (or other variations of it), NO CHEATING WOULD EVER TAKE PLACE, and no 'harm' would be done. A WS would think before cheating, that (s)he wouldn't want his/her spouse to cheat, so *(s)he *won't cheat. 

And likewise, the AP--_even if unmarried_--would not cheat, because (s)he would know that IF (s)he was married that (s)he wouldn't want his/her spouse to cheat on him/her! 

What I bolded is *THE* social contract that all of us have. 

Good job, always_alone! You said it better than I _ever_ could!

Vega


----------



## 2ntnuf

treyvion said:


> You all's sexual energy and magnetism is probably cranked up to 100%... So the sexual wolves out there can smell that sweet syrupy nectar in your essense and want to obtain for themself.
> 
> It's a strong draw for someone in that realm.


Those who:
Can't get what they want
Think they can't get what they want
Think someone has what they want
Want to be treated the way the person treats their spouse
Want a spouse that's more attractive than.......
Hope that this person would treat them the way they see them treat their current spouse
And other reasons...........

Will take any opportunity to see if they can get those things form someone else's spouse.

If they want it bad enough and the spouse seems to be willing to participate, they try even harder.

If they lose the spouse, no harm, no foul, they have something better than what the AP could get. 

In their mind, sometimes the sex has less to do with it. 

It's actually a cowardly way to find a mate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes,many uphold this type of morality, but it is really just the survival of the fittest.
> 
> Which makes it all okay: murder, torture, kidnapping, theft, fraud, rape, you name it. Whatever it takes to be the ubermensch. Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche, for example.


Your argument is either paralogistic , or a cunning piece of sophistry.

The fallacy in your argument is the context in which it was purposely framed.
A completely negative context.

Democracy itself is the best example of why right and wrong is about power, and not truth. 

Democracy doesn't mean "freedom and justice." It simply means that the will of the majority overrides the will of the weaker minority.Which basically comes down to brute force and mob rule.
All of the slave owners were great defenders of democracy, in fact , only Western civilizations participated in the brutal Trans Atlantic slave trade and all the countries who participated , were unrepentant defenders of democracy, and still are today.

In fact, some of the most shocking abuse of human rights in the 
" New World " were perpetrated by people who "righteously" defended and promoted democracy.

See what I just did^^^there?

Yep.
I just framed the entire concept of democracy in a completely _negative_ context, just like you did to Nietzche's statement on right and wrong.
Therein lies the sophistry.


----------



## 2ntnuf

The U.S. does not have a "true" democracy. It is a Democratic-Republic. Greece in ancient times, had a "true" democracy. That's the only country I know that ever had one.


----------



## Philat

_How about this little conclusion:

*Responsibility of the infidelity itself, and potential breakdown of the marriage: Lies with the married couple themselves including both the unfaithful and faithful partners*, not with the accomplice. So the unfaithful party can't say "I was wrong but..." NO BUTS

Responsibility of being an accomplice in crime: Lies with the accomplice themselves and they will risk the consequences of their actions; angry spouse/beat down, and *they shouldn't be able to claim the moral high ground or moral immunity for their actions if they are fully aware of the unfaithful party being married.*

Acceptable by both sides of the debate? _

Yes! Thanks, Random. I think that's what I said in my post #252.

Took a break from this discussion for a day and thought some about it. The scenario under discussion is one that at least as often as not causes someone pain. Not in every case to be sure. Not every spouse of the picked-up cheater cares or is innocent him/herself. You never know. But in many cases the betrayal comes to light and is very real and painful. People are hurt (children included), marriages damaged or destroyed. Putting aside questions of individual culpability or responsibility (I think Random nailed this above), if you are part of this you either care that people can be hurt or you don't, and you act accordingly. At the end of the day we each are who we are.


----------



## 2ntnuf

No, not really. Equal share in the unfaithful act goes to the AP and the WS. Equal share in the responsibility for the breakdown in the marital relationship goes to the spouses who are married(WS, BS).

Remove the WS or the AP from the equation and there would be no infidelity. 

Remove the poor marital relations and there still might be infidelity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Something we can also consider too, which didn't arise in this discussion is the fact that most people who constantly exhibit that type of behaviour ie: pursuing married people in happy , committed relationships might be suffering from mental disorders with psychopatic tendencies.

Might be something to consider.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I thought they all were. hahaha Either that or a serious lack of their own self-worth. 

It's been established that there are many fish in the sea. Can't find one? What do you need to change about yourself? Generally, what you see displayed in public between married couples is just a small part of the marital life. 

Are they delusional? That opens a whole other can of worms, CM.

*Edit:* Maybe, they figure that wife or husband is already partially trained and they can finish the job. Either way, it's not okay to think that way. It's not okay to think you can train anyone to act the way you want them. You can't control them and that's not love. 

Don't we want to love our spouse for who they are? Isn't it much more rewarding to live with someone who is free to think and have their own opinions and solutions?


----------



## RandomDude

MILF fetish maybe no? Unless of course the woman is still childless.

Could even be the thought of a challenge, which would be ironic considering the vast availability of married women for extra-marital affairs these days. Could even be the 'forbidden fruit' aspect of it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> Could even be the 'forbidden fruit' aspect of it.


That's why I'm saying it may be an exhibition of psychopatic behavioural tendencies.

Something like a kleptomaniac or a Pyromaniac.
They are unable to help themselves , and do not see what they are doing as damaging to families and the very fabric of society.

It is anti social behaviour in every sense.
But the media and pop psychology have helped made it into a socially acceptable norm.


----------



## RandomDude

Yeah, the media has made it socially acceptable to cheat it seems. But I don't know if it's just the media, some mates still say cheating can be justified depending on circumstances.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> @Created
> 
> True that if the single party said no the physical affair would not take place... at least for a time until the next target is found. But we've been going in circles in this one.


If every spouse decided not to have sex with those they weren't married to, there wouldn't be any affairs. It's also true that, if _everyone_ made the choice not to have sex with someone elses spouse(since they have absolutely no right to do have sex with them in the first place), then affairs wouldn't happen.



> But how about emotional affairs though? Would a man who's the target of an unfaithful wife be responsible for a woman's feelings towards him?


This would depend on many different variables.


----------



## Created2Write

Philat said:


> _If a married decides to cheat, that marriage was already toast as far as I'm concerned_
> 
> Dvls: Please take this as a civil reply. I submit that the single has no right to make this judgment, and no right to contribute to the troubles of a marriage that may indeed by floundering but not necessarily lost.


I agree. There are marriages that can come from extramarital affairs and still thrive and succeed, so even a marriage that is in trouble can come back from those issues and succeed. If the affair never took place, one could argue that the chances of the marriage succeeding are substantially increased.


----------



## Created2Write

Clawed said:


> I don't need to see your post history to believe that you are probably just trolling anyway - your name says it all, so I won't engage you any further.
> 
> I did not mean to insult you, sir. That was not my intention for posting what I did.


:iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

azteca1986 said:


> So you keep saying. It is your responsibility to _yourself_ to act with integrity.
> 
> Do you see that?


No, he doesn't. Singles don't have any responsibility at all to behave in a respectable manner. They can get away with participating in adultery with a clear conscience because _they_ never made any vows. 

It's sick. Gross. Creepy.


----------



## Created2Write

azteca1986 said:


> If they are married to someone else, then you lack (personal) integrity. That's your choice.


Exactly. But, that would take away all of his "alphaness"....the chance to steal away another man's wife. 

It's pathetic.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Why do men hit on married women?*



Created2Write said:


> I agree. There are marriages that can come from extramarital affairs and still thrive and succeed, so even a marriage that is in trouble can come back from those issues and succeed. If the affair never took place, one could argue that the chances of the marriage succeeding are substantially increased.


Not necessarily. There have been several instances here where a comfortably disengaged spouse discovered an affair and THAT was their wake up call.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Why do men hit on married women?*



Created2Write said:


> Exactly. But, that would take away all of his "alphaness"....the chance to steal away another man's wife.
> 
> It's pathetic.


Don't you find it pathetic that a man would abandon and disengage from his spouse and then be offended or wounded to discover his wife is banging someone else? I certainly do.

Context is everything.

I have stated previously, I have 3 sets of 10 yr plus happily married friends. All of them started as affairs.

None of them would defend infidelity, my point is simple. There is a point where it becomes a possibility for nearly everyone under the right circumstances.

And no one thinks it could possibly be them ... until those circumstances occur.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> Don't you find it pathetic that a man would abandon and disengage from his spouse and then be offended or wounded to discover his wife is banging someone else? I certainly do.
> 
> Context is everything.
> 
> I have stated previously, I have 3 sets of 10 yr plus happily married friends. All of them started as affairs.
> 
> None of them would defend infidelity, my point is simple. There is a point where it becomes a possibility for nearly everyone under the right circumstances.
> 
> And no one thinks it could possibly be them ... until those circumstances occur.


Then divorce. Don't sneak around.

And it often takes two to disengage. Who said the other spouse disengaged? That is cheater script 101.


----------



## WyshIknew

Adulterer to normal person translation service.

My spouse disengaged from me = I had itchy lady/man parts and banged somebody else then my spouse disengaged from me.

And Deejo, if it is possible that somebody disengaged from their spouse it is also possible the other spouse did something to cause them to disengage.

Fix the marriage or divorce. No excuse for adultery.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> my point is simple. There is a point where it becomes a possibility for nearly everyone under the right circumstances.
> 
> And no one thinks it could possibly be them ... until those circumstances occur.


:iagree:

All we can do is be the best people we can be.

Have I been tempted? Of course I have, who hasn't?


----------



## 2ntnuf

The answer is here. Either no one can see it or no one wants to. It's not anything simple. 

It has nothing to do with blaming the BS for the affair. The BS is not responsible for the affair. They are partly responsible for a bad relationship. The other part is the other spouse. You take away the WS's independence and intelligence when you say that.


----------



## Vega

Deejo said:


> I have stated previously, I have 3 sets of 10 yr plus happily married friends. All of them started as affairs.
> 
> None of them would defend infidelity, my point is simple. There is a point where it becomes a possibility for nearly everyone under the right circumstances.
> 
> And no one thinks it could possibly be them ... until those circumstances occur.


Knowing of 3 affairs among 3 married couples is hardly *proof* that "*everyone*" can cheat under the "right circumstances". 

Cheaters cheat because their own personal beliefs are *WRONG*, and NOT because a set of circumstances is '_RIGHT_'. They don't cheat on their partner because they're WITH the 'wrong' person; they cheat because they *ARE* the wrong person.

Vega


----------



## Created2Write

Vega said:


> Knowing of 3 affairs among 3 married couples is hardly *proof* that "*everyone*" can cheat under the "right circumstances".
> 
> Cheaters cheat because their own personal beliefs are *WRONG*, and NOT because a set of circumstances is '_RIGHT_'. They don't cheat on their partner because they're WITH the 'wrong' person; they cheat because they *ARE* the wrong person.
> 
> Vega


^^This.


----------



## Created2Write

And, ftr, Random: your compromise post I agreed with.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Not necessarily. There have been several instances here where a comfortably disengaged spouse discovered an affair and THAT was their wake up call.


That doesn't mean an affair is justified. And it certainly doesn't mean that person should then go and thank the OM/OW for screwing their spouse.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Don't you find it pathetic that a man would abandon and disengage from his spouse and then be offended or wounded to discover his wife is banging someone else? I certainly do.


I find it unfortnate. Not pathetic. I've been in a marriage that has been emotinally empty at times, and _never once_ did I want to cheat on him, even though the opportunity to arose more than once. Regardless of how my husband behaves toward me, I am not justified to go screw some other guy. Better to divorce first and move on. Not do something as lowly and cowardly as cheat.



> Context is everything.


So, under the right "context", cheating is ok?



> I have stated previously, I have 3 sets of 10 yr plus happily married friends. All of them started as affairs.


So you do think cheating is acceptable?



> None of them would defend infidelity, my point is simple. There is a point where it becomes a possibility for nearly everyone under the right circumstances.


Ooohhh, I disgree so very much. This is just an attempt to water down just how immoral and wrong the act of cheating is.



> And no one thinks it could possibly be them ... until those circumstances occur.


Again, I just disagree. There are people who have a shred of selflessness inside of them and know to divorce rather than cheat.


----------



## Deejo

WyshIknew said:


> Then divorce. Don't sneak around.
> 
> And it often takes two to disengage. Who said the other spouse disengaged? That is cheater script 101.


Doesn't change the fact that it is also often true. Script or no.

I'm not defending infidelity, not by a longshot, but based upon what I have seen and experienced in my own life, just as there are those here who are incredulous at the attitude of some who don't feel it is their responsibility to act in the best interest of someone elses bad marriage, I can't get behind those who paint the betrayed as a devoted, hapless victim and the betrayors and their partners as evil Pieces of Sh!t.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> Doesn't change the fact that it is also often true. Script or no.
> 
> I'm not defending infidelity, not by a longshot, but based upon what I have seen and experienced in my own life, just as there are those here who are incredulous at the attitude of some who don't feel it is their responsibility to act in the best interest of someone elses bad marriage, I can't get behind those who paint the betrayed as a devoted, hapless victim and the betrayors and their partners as evil Pieces of Sh!t.


I'm sorry Deejo but if things are that bad just divorce, or at least have the balls to say that "you are such a crap husband/wife I'm gonna go find someone else" instead of sneaking around.

I don't know that they are evil so much as selfish.


----------



## Ikaika

I guess I live in a different sphere. When I was single, I did not bother with married women, there were enough single women available as I saw it. When I got married, I took myself out of that game. 

I have never been hit on by women (not that I have ever been aware of). I guess that last statement is a sad state for who I am.


----------



## WyshIknew

drerio said:


> I guess I live in a different sphere. When I was single, I did not bother with married women, there were enough single women available as I saw it. When I got married, I took myself out of that game.
> 
> I have never been hit on by women (not that I have ever been aware of). I guess that last statement is a sad state for who I am.


I think some people give off the "I'm married" vibe. Doesn't mean that people that get hit on are looking for it, it might be just a subtle thing.

I, like you, don't get hit on much, but I have had a few occasions where, in front of my wife I might add, tipsy women have come up to me and told me "You're handsome, good looking.

So brazen about it. And I doubt they were all single as they were of a similar age to myself and my wife.


----------



## azteca1986

WyshIknew said:


> I think some people give off the "I'm married" vibe. Doesn't mean that people that get hit on are looking for it, it might be just a subtle thing.
> 
> I, like you, don't get hit on much, but I have had a few occasions where, in front of my wife I might add, tipsy women have come up to me and told me "You're handsome, good looking.
> 
> So brazen about it. And I doubt they were all single as they were of a similar age to myself and my wife.


I met my future wife at work. She left after a few months whilst we were dating. As our relationship went though the usual stages - going out, getting married, ring on the finger - you could see the the level of interest from other women at work escalate. It was truly the concept of 'Pre-selection' in action. 

For me the "I'm married" vibe attracted a certain type of insecure woman. One who thought that if she could 'turn a taken guys head' she would really be beautiful/attractive instead of the reality - a sad loser. Same applies if you switch the genders, of course. I've also had that experience of being hit on with my wife standing right next to me. They're subtle and bloody obvious at the same time

I'm also like drerio; married women or ones in a relationship were strictly off the menu. There's really no need and it's just not the way I was brought up to be.


----------



## RandomDude

STBX as well as a few other women in my past was very mean to anyone who she perceived as a threat though in many occasions I felt she was just being paranoid.

Ironically she also felt that I wasn't protective enough of her when guys hit on her (like come on, I still 'claim' her with my arms around her and such), but unless he was being rude/forceful/disrespectful I placed the responsibility of rejecting him solely on my wife. 

If he was rude/forceful/disrespectful however then of course I would step in, with often violent results as I like to wait until I can justify beating someone to a pulp before I actually do it... more satisfying than just beating up someone who may not even have done anything wrong either than looking at her the wrong way. I don't mind folk checking out my wife.

Regardless, loyalty was an oath she has taken, the responsibility of that oath remained with her IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Doesn't change the fact that it is also often true. Script or no.
> 
> I'm not defending infidelity, not by a longshot, but based upon what I have seen and experienced in my own life, just as there are those here who are incredulous at the attitude of some who don't feel it is their responsibility to act in the best interest of someone elses bad marriage, I can't get behind those who paint the betrayed as a devoted, hapless victim and the betrayors and their partners as evil Pieces of Sh!t.


Here's a living example.
I have an older female cousin [ lets call her S ] who presently resides, in England .
We literally grew up together. Beautiful woman , all the boys in the neighbourhood were always after her.
But we all knew that something was wrong with her. Terrible mood swings , one time she's happy another time she livid. Really nice person to hang around and the life of the party, so to speak.

Anyway she became a nurse very young , completed her studies and moved up the ladder quickly.
She met , and married this guy,a male nurse , [ lets call him B.] a genuine " nice guy " 12 years younger than her. But when she met him, she had already had two kid for different men.
None of her relationships ever lasted more than a few months, and she was literally a party girl outside of work and school.

After the first year B complained to me that something was wrong with her. He was constantly walking on eggshells around her, but he was a decent guy, she was the first woman he ever with , and he was in love.
They had a daughter around year three, and things got so bad , that they slept in separate rooms , he couldn't speak to her kids, and they isolated him in the house. The only person who interacted with him was his baby girl.

I remember feeling sorry for him because I knew what she could give.

Long story short, B had an affair with another nurse ,after MC failed and S didn't want a divorce. [ remember she's 12 years his senior.] She would act nice for a while and then all hell broke loose again.

B and his affair partner purchased a house [ the house he & his wife lived in belonged to his wife.] and he moved out with his daughter, and sent S divorce papers.
S was devastated, she was livid and said the worst things about B. I knew they were false because for years he had complained to me. 

I remember chatting with S after everything, and telling her of some of the occurrences in the house which B had confessed to me during the years they were together. She admitted that they were true, but the sad part is that she justified her treatment of him by saying she was responsible for helping him step up in life , and in his nursing career.
I told her that she's my cousin, I love her , but the truth was that she treated him horribly.
Anyway, it was too much for her so she migrated to England where she' retired.
B married his affair partner, after the divorce came through and they are still married as we speak.
That was more than 10 years ago.

Can I or anyone on this board honestly blame B's affair partner , now his wife , for breaking up a marriage?
The marriage was OVER. They had been sleeping in separate rooms for years.
Was the affair justified?
No.
Who is responsible for breaking up the marriage ?
Both S and B. Both must take the blame, but his affair partner doesn't automatically become a horrible monster. B reached out to her. Yes he was wrong to do so, but the point is,does the fact that she accepted him, stain her character for the rest of her life?

1] Not all cases of infidelity are what they are made out to be. Divorce can be long , messy and complicated , especially if a spouse has control issues , bad intent and custody issues are involved.

2] The onus is on both married partners to nurture and protect their marriage by any means necessary.

3] Most affairs are like opportunistic viruses, they mostly happen when the bond within the marriage is weak and severely compromised.


----------



## Thor

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Bizzare question. Of course that is immoral. You're stealing. The difference between this and a single having sex with a married, is that the married is not the property of his/her spouse.


The affections and sex of the spouse is owned by the BS. There is a verbal contract "To Have and To Hold, Forsaking All Others".

Taking the affections or sex of a married person is taking something that person is not authorized to give away. You are in fact stealing something, in addition to knowingly do great harm to others.


----------



## 2ntnuf

How can someone who has been unfaithful be honest when they say the are against infidelity? They had to have had a huge change in them. There are a few here that I truly believe that is the case. Other than that, I don't see it. It's hypocrisy at it's finest unless they have done the hard work these folks I am referring to on this site have done.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Vega said:


> Knowing of 3 affairs among 3 married couples is hardly *proof* that "*everyone*" can cheat under the "right circumstances".
> 
> Cheaters cheat because their own personal beliefs are *WRONG*, and NOT because a set of circumstances is '_RIGHT_'. They don't cheat on their partner because they're WITH the 'wrong' person; they cheat because they *ARE* the wrong person.
> 
> Vega


If only it was that simple..


----------



## RandomDude

2ntnuf said:


> How can someone who has been unfaithful be honest when they say the are against infidelity? They had to have had a huge change in them. There are a few here that I truly believe that is the case. Other than that, I don't see it. It's hypocrisy at it's finest unless they have done the hard work these folks I am referring to on this site have done.


Well you know I've been unfaithful to my STBX, even though we were bf/gf at the time the damage was the same. I've been loyal ever since, but what sparked the huge change was accepting responsibility for my own mistake, not blameshifting or even down-weighing what I've done.

Unfortunately the damage can never be truly repaired. I had to learn it the hard way. Sometimes people have to touch the hot plate before they realise why they shouldn't - if you know what I mean.


----------



## Caribbean Man

randomdude said:


> well you know i've been unfaithful to my stbx, even though we were bf/gf at the time the damage was the same. I've been loyal ever since, *but what sparked the huge change was accepting responsibility for my own mistake, not blameshifting or even down-weighing what i've done.*


bingo!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Everyone hates the affair partner just like nobody likes the flu.
But saying that the AP caused the affair is like saying the flu causes the flu.

A weak or compromised immune system makes it easier for the flu to attack your body and thrive within.

A weak or severely compromised relationship makes it easier for affairs to take place. There are many reasons a relationship might be weak , both personally and collectively.. But the fact is , before the affair, the relationship or the WS _was_ weak or compromised.

The AP saw the opportunity and like the virus that he / she is , exploited the opportunity.

A scorpion stings because it is in its nature to sting , that is why we don't play with scorpions, you WILL get stung.

People who don't share our same moral values are like scorpions, stop fraternising with them or your marriage would suffer from affairs.
Simple as that.
Saying that if these people respected marriages then there would be no affairs is just like saying that if scorpions didn't exist then people wouldn't get stung. Wishful thinking. 
We live in a world with all sorts of people who believe in all sorts of things.
We even have the " _sixth anomaly_ " or married couple who encourage their partners to have sex outside of their marriage.
Does that make them immoral?

OK.

Right here on TAM we have a few people whose spouses got involved in swinger activities without their partner's knowledge or agreement. 
Who should be blamed for this ,the party that got involved in the swinging or the swinger couples that they swing with?

I think adults should be held fully responsible for their own decisions and actions.


----------



## azteca1986

Caribbean Man said:


> Saying that if these people respected marriages then there would be no affairs is just like saying that if scorpions didn't exist then people wouldn't get stung. Wishful thinking.


It may be wishful thinking. That doesn't stop it being true. If there were no scorpions, no one would be stung by scorpions. Simple as that.

Human beings have an amazing ability to rationlise unacceptable behaviour. Be they Nazi prison guards or the kind of 'people' who committed the atrocities in the Westgate Mall in Nairobi. Or the kind of people who take part in behaviour that allows adulterers to be adulterers. There seems to be a process of dehumanisation whereby people give themselves the permission to do the wrong thing.

Philosphical debates about whether we should 'push' our values on others are all well and good. Back in the real world we all have a responsibility to help people be the kind of people they can be. That is why I talk of integrity. I want the posters here who think that they have nothing to do with a married person committing adultery; that it's someone else's responsibility - is that they are wrong. Philosphy can take a back seat. People are far more important to me. I do this out of compassion for people I will likely never meet. 
_
"If you want to fly with the eagles, don’t hang out with the turkeys."_


----------



## 2ntnuf

RandomDude said:


> Well you know I've been unfaithful to my STBX, even though we were bf/gf at the time the damage was the same. I've been loyal ever since, but what sparked the huge change was accepting responsibility for my own mistake, not blameshifting or even down-weighing what I've done.
> 
> Unfortunately the damage can never be truly repaired. I had to learn it the hard way. Sometimes people have to touch the hot plate before they realise why they shouldn't - if you know what I mean.


I'm reading and I'm thinking. I know this with some things in my life. Those affected me more than anyone else. I think I previously said I would understand it if the AP did not know their partner was married. I doubt that is the case in most instances, but I know I can be mistaken or wrong. Not sure which fits here.

I personally will always place blame on the AP's in both of my marriages. I accept responsibility for what I did to mess up the marriage relationship. I do not accept what I did not do. That is for the other person(s) to accept. 

I doubt I will ever believe differently and the AP will have to live with what they did. They will not have my empathy. I cannot feel what I never had to do or did. I cannot believe we have no control of ourselves in circumstances like these. When you factor in what many here are saying that leads me to believe they know how to pick up a woman and therefore are more dangerous than the average individual, it leads me to believe they are more culpable. They are able to get many of the woman they want. That tells me it's a selfish decision and they have no respect for the marriage, the WS or the BS. It's proven with comments in this thread. 

I still care about you RD. Don't take this personally. 

I'm not condemning, I proving there is fault to be accepted by the AP. The AP is responsible for their part. They can look elsewhere for gratification. They choose that potential WS based upon the factors that make it easier for them, and sometimes even based upon who they think will be their best match. They see that there is discord in the marriage and move that direction if they so desire. No respect is shown there. 

Like I said, it would take a mountain of evidence to the contrary to change my mind. You have all bolstered my opinions.


----------



## Deejo

WyshIknew said:


> :iagree:
> 
> All we can do is be the best people we can be.
> 
> Have I been tempted? Of course I have, who hasn't?


And that's my point Wysh. All it takes is that temptation under the right circumstances.

This site is FULL of people who thought 'they would never cheat, or their partner would never cheat.'

It's easy to say, 'just divorce'.
It's easy to say, 'show some moral character.'

My point is that anyone who really, truly, believes it's just that easy, functions in a very narrow world. And that's fine. No doubt we would all be better off, if everyone could turn off or deny their emotions and their libido, or behave with nothing but integrity and good intentions all of the time.

But they don't, do they?
Sometimes we indeed are the best we can be. Other times we make extraordinarily flawed decisions.

I don't believe all of them are bad people. Especially when those people I see being called 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'broken' or 'selfish' ... are my family, or close friends.


----------



## Deejo

Vega said:


> Knowing of 3 affairs among 3 married couples is hardly *proof* that "*everyone*" can cheat under the "right circumstances".
> 
> Cheaters cheat because their own personal beliefs are *WRONG*, and NOT because a set of circumstances is '_RIGHT_'. They don't cheat on their partner because they're WITH the 'wrong' person; they cheat because they *ARE* the wrong person.
> 
> Vega


Spoken like someone who has been burned very badly. You're ignoring the point altogether.


----------



## azteca1986

Deejo said:


> This site is FULL of people who thought 'they would never cheat,


This is the most important thing I've learned on TAM - It could so easily be ME. Unless I'm watchful and mindful.



> And that's my point Wysh. All it takes is that temptation under the right circumstances.


Well, yes. temptation and giving yourself permission - i deserve it/it's not my fault/I was pushed to this/I no other choice, etc.

It seems so easy in the place where 'it just happened'. Most are not bad people. They make a whole series of bad choices.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> And that's my point Wysh. All it takes is that temptation under the right circumstances.
> 
> This site is FULL of people who thought 'they would never cheat, or their partner would never cheat.'
> 
> It's easy to say, 'just divorce'.
> It's easy to say, 'show some moral character.'
> 
> My point is that anyone who really, truly, believes it's just that easy, functions in a very narrow world. And that's fine. No doubt we would all be better off, if everyone could turn off or deny their emotions and their libido, or behave with nothing but integrity and good intentions all of the time.
> 
> But they don't, do they?
> Sometimes we indeed are the best we can be. Other times we make extraordinarily flawed decisions.
> 
> I don't believe all of them are bad people. Especially when those people I see being called 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'broken' or 'selfish' ... are my family, or close friends.


I see many stories in CWI where people say their spouse rails against adultery (I hate the word 'cheat' for it, it makes it sound like moving an extra square when playing monopoly) and says that they would rather call the marriage off than they or the other spouse strays.

They can't all have been lying through their teeth. They must have meant it at the time.


----------



## Deejo

azteca1986 said:


> Well, yes. temptation and giving yourself permission - i deserve it/it's not my fault/I was pushed to this/I no other choice, etc.


And under circumstances where the two participants haven't been mindful, and are filled with resentment, hopelessness, and anger, what once may have looked like a yawning chasm to span in making the decision to cheat, becomes no more than a crack on a sidewalk. They step over it ... with tragic and self-assured ease.

I have posted, on numerous occasions ... 'nothing good comes out of an affair.' And I've been proved wrong. My experiences, my interactions, my life.

Your circumstances may vary.


----------



## azteca1986

Deejo said:


> And under circumstances where the two participants haven't been mindful, and are filled with resentment, hopelessness, and anger, what once may have looked like a yawning chasm to span in making the decision to cheat, becomes no more than a crack on a sidewalk. They step over it ... with tragic and self-assured ease.


Yes, I (think/hope) I understand. The 'gap' is a representation of the scale of wrong, be it a chasm or a crack. But it's still wrong.



> I have posted, on numerous occasions ... 'nothing good comes out of an affair.' And I've been proved wrong. My experiences, my interactions, my life.
> 
> Your circumstances may vary.


Personal experience makes the subject emotive. I hope I've been respectful.


----------



## RandomDude

WyshIknew said:


> They can't all have been lying through their teeth. They must have meant it at the time.


Aye.

The way I see it; anyone can claim to be moral and even believe it themselves. I call this "innocence". It can be broken if the circumstances permit. People will always be a product of their environment and their circumstances. Morality can help keep folk on the 'right' path but more often or not morality gets blurred along the way between black and white as life progresses.

There's always a story within a story. People don't just abandon their morals they used to believe for no reason whatsoever. Morality under pressure isn't something that can be expected amongst the majority, but are we to despise the majority for their human flaws, flaws that we ourselves may even share if we are pushed and broken under similar circumstances?

Lets take for example a very hollywoody scenario of adulterous justification; Kingdom of Heaven which I referenced a few times in this thread. Orlando Bloom, your "perfect knight", meets Eva Green, a princess married to a very idiotic lord. She seduces him, he follows suit and commits adultery. Many among the audience don't even see the moral fallacy because the husband was a prick. The movie justifies it, and this scenario plays out in RL all too often.

Even recently one of friends (lets call her Friend A) just found out one of her friends (Friend B) cheated on her boyfriend - who was an apparent jerk. Her response: "Good on her!" Now I can go on and preach about morality, respect/disrespect. Heh, as if that would change her mind. You just can't expect others to respect your relationship and many times they may often find reasons to disrespect it; such as in my friends' case of Friend B's bf being a jerk. Now friend A is simply looking out for friend B who cheated on her bf, should I hate/judge her because of her disrespect of friend B's bf?


----------



## Caribbean Man

azteca1986 said:


> It may be wishful thinking. That doesn't stop it being true. If there were no scorpions, no one would be stung by scorpions. Simple as that.
> 
> Human beings have an amazing ability to rationlise unacceptable behaviour. Be they Nazi prison guards or the kind of 'people' who committed the atrocities in the Westgate Mall in Nairobi. Or the kind of people who take part in behaviour that allows adulterers to be adulterers. There seems to be a process of dehumanisation whereby people give themselves the permission to do the wrong thing.
> 
> Philosphical debates about whether we should 'push' our values on others are all well and good. Back in the real world we all have a responsibility to help people be the kind of people they can be. That is why I talk of integrity. I want the posters here who think that they have nothing to do with a married person committing adultery; that it's someone else's responsibility - is that they are wrong. Philosphy can take a back seat. People are far more important to me. I do this out of compassion for people I will likely never meet.
> _
> "If you want to fly with the eagles, don’t hang out with the turkeys."_


You seem to be straddling both sides of the divide in your response.
In the first paragraph you say that wishful think is acceptable.

Then in your final paragraph you switch back to the real world.

Therein lies the problem with that line of reasoning in this thread.
It is simply a _convenient_ way of thinking.

See, it's ok for you to assume that scorpions shouldn't exist , because you think they are bad for us. You also don't think it's ok for people to _choose_ to do wrong, in this case affairs, because it is bad for you.

To compound matters, you assume that it's your responsibility to * help * others who choose to do wrong , not to do wrong . The logical question then would be , 
_What if they decide that they want to continue doing what you consider to be wrong?_
What then ?
Force them to do * _do the right thing ?_*

As long as people have freedom of choice , they will be those who are not doing what we consider to be
* _the right thing._*

lol, the pages of history are filled with the innocent blood of hundreds of millions of people who were slaughtered by others who thought that they were * _doing the right thing_.*

In 1532 Fransisco Pizzaro and his men under the blessings of the Church massacared and slaughtered countless of Inca Indians in Peru because the refused to recant their religion. He took their lives and their gold. His cousin f Hernán Cortés did the same the Mayans, all in " _El nombre de Dios_ ", or the name of God.

Hitler did the same all in the name of German nationalistic pride.

In 1970 Pol Pot seized power in Cambodia and thought he could end endemic corruption in government that had impoverished millions of Cambodians, and turned his country into a playground for rich foreigners . He attempted to replicate China's Mao Zedung's success in Cambodia , and bring that country back to the glory days of the Khemer empire.
1.5 million people died because he genuinely thought that he was * _doing the right thing._*

Stalin , Lenin , Mussolini ,they all have one thing in common with other mass murderers, dictators and people who think they are morally superior.
They all genuinely believe that they were _doing the right thing_ and that it was their job to get others to do so.

I don't believe that it is my moral duty to get anybody to do what I consider to be _the right thing_. Especially in this present world where everybody thinks that they're right and have a constitutional right to think so.

If a person asks for help, I will gladly help. Other than that people are all free agents and can do whatever they like inside the bounds of the laws of the land.

That's why I say that married people ought to be very careful of the company they keep and whom they consider friends. You are no longer single. You can no longer go picking up friends " willy nilly ", or at random.
The responsibility is on both partners to protect their marriage.
Not on the potential affair partner , or society or ANYBODY ELSE.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I love the Marriage Builders material because it explains how affairs happen, how they can happen to anyone (even you, you could be the BS or WS), and it explains why affair sex and love is so compelling. 

Armed with this knowledge, you then find out how to boundary your marriage against this happening. This has to do with staying romantically in love with your spouse and then protecting that love from outside and inside problems.

So basically you can use their program to build a romantic and sexual love life with your spouse that feels "like an affair", in the respect that it is fun and energetic and bubbling with potential.

We have used the MB program and modified it to our own best use. It is all about focusing on deliberately having the type of love for your spouse that makes you want to flirt with them and have sex with them all the time, while also shutting out every other suitor (and recognizing, ANYONE can be a suitor to you or your spouse).


----------



## Philat

_(I hate the word 'cheat' for it, it makes it sound like moving an extra square when playing monopoly)_

Amen, Wysh. Just as a conscious, planned and deliberate act of infidelity on the part of a WS is often considered "a mistake."


----------



## Caribbean Man

Philat said:


> _(I hate the word 'cheat' for it, it makes it sound like moving an extra square when playing monopoly)_
> 
> Amen, Wysh. Just as a conscious, planned and deliberate act of infidelity on the part of a WS is often considered "a mistake."


And that's the crux of the matter IMO.
If the WS had simply said no, the affair could never happen. The affair partners are like the influenza parasite, they are always around , waiting for an opportunity.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I say, don't get married if you have to constantly be on guard to the point of exhaustion. They don't want you. If you have trouble in your marriage, work on it. If you decide that it is over, get a divorce. After that, pursue all the single sex you desire. The AP is at fault for their part. 



> Now friend A is simply looking out for friend B who cheated on her bf, should I hate/judge her because of her disrespect of friend B's bf?


I don't think anyone is saying that we should hate or judge anyone for their infidelity. I never know what is meant by judging. I keep thinking it means we give them less opportunities if they work for us. I don't quite understand how others use the word. 

Anyway, you admitted to sleeping with a married woman? Should I hate you? I don't know if I should, but I don't. 

What is the definition of hate? Wanting to see harm come to someone? Wanting them to have to have consequences for their actions? Wanting them to walk out in front of a moving bus? I don't know. 

I know my x's AP's don't get any sympathy from me. If they were run over and lying there, I don't know what I would do. I hope I would not notice them because I don't want to have to make that decision. More than likely it won't happen and I wouldn't be the only one there. Is that hate? Maybe so. If so, I'm guilty of hating my x's AP's. There needs to be consequences for their actions.

I can't believe that someone would say that good can come out of an affair. Yes, maybe the AP is happier with the WS. Maybe so, doesn't the harm caused to get what they want negate any "good"?

If someone here knows of an AP that has harmed another by infidelity, they have a personal obligation to come forth with that information. They may very well be holding back evidence of a crime. The boundaries and values I'm reading here aren't so good, in my opinion. There are a lot of gray areas and justifications. Any reason like, it turned out better, is justification.


----------



## solvency7

With regards to the ops question,

Purely because they are wan&+rs

_Posted via *Topify* using Android_


----------



## RandomDude

2ntnuf said:


> I know my x's AP's don't get any sympathy from me.


I'm not saying APs deserve sympathy either, like hey, I don't excuse my actions in the past, but nor do I feel bad about it.



> If they were run over and lying there, I don't know what I would do. I hope I would not notice them because I don't want to have to make that decision. More than likely it won't happen and I wouldn't be the only one there. Is that hate? Maybe so. If so, I'm guilty of hating my x's AP's. There needs to be consequences for their actions.


The sad reality is (from my experience), sometimes consequences don't happen unless we take it into our hands. I got away with what I did, the betrayed spouses weren't any threat to me. I never had anything more than casual sex with them however, perhaps if I stuck around a little longer then perhaps they would probably have come after me. Guess it's not justice. 

In some other countries I guess they have laws to punish adulterers, even those with no knowledge that the man or woman was even married. But is that real justice either? Right now hell I don't even feel guilt even if I should. Guess then one may rely on karma to help one sleep at night; Yet one thing I always said was that "Karma dictates that I should be dead and buried, but I'm not, therefore karma doesn't exist". I've encountered zero consequences for many of my actions in the past. Excluding crime that is, but even then I got away with a hell of alot.



> I can't believe that someone would say that good can come out of an affair. Yes, maybe the AP is happier with the WS. Maybe so, doesn't the harm caused to get what they want negate any "good"?


STBX and I had a relationship that began as an emotional affair. She stuck to her boundaries however at least until I broke up with my last gf before her - for a full year. We were 'just friends'. Now sure we encountered problems, yet none of our problems were ever related to our foundations being an emotional affair. Hell we even had a year free from problems until (ironically) she entered bible college.

My last gf before STBX I should have left long ago instead of having an emotional affair. Yet I pitied her, but didn't love her. And I was worried of what she might have done to herself if I ever left; she was nuts (even more so then STBX), threatened to kill herself if I left, was extremely possessive, didn't let me talk to any other women etc etc. If I was in such a situation again, knowing what I know now, I would have got the police involved sooner (which I did in the end) and broke it off with her. But such were the circumstances during those times and I dealt with the situation as a young fool only knew how.



> If someone here knows of an AP that has harmed another by infidelity, they have a personal obligation to come forth with that information. They may very well be holding back evidence of a crime. The boundaries and values I'm reading here aren't so good, in my opinion. There are a lot of gray areas and justifications. Any reason like, it turned out better, is justification.


It's different you see, even in the case of real crime, would you willingly snitch knowing the consequences of your actions if you did? The noble thing to do isn't always easy. And even then, it's even debatable about the nobility behind snitching on a wayward spouse; as when you restrain yourself from the truth coming out, you could potentially save the family alot of trouble; divorce, family split etc. Yet the noble/honorable thing to do, would potentially lead to the family unit being destroyed and knowing full-well that you are also responsible for it via the snitch.

Gray world!


----------



## 2ntnuf

> It's different you see, even in the case of real crime, would you willingly snitch knowing the consequences of your actions if you did?


If I knew that the AP would have to pay for a crime, yes. I think less of a man who would not, in the event of a crime. Do you mean the consequences for the AP or the consequences for me? I should have no consequences if I did not commit a crime. The only consequences would be those who would try to harm me because I turned in a buddy of theirs. They need to pay for the crime. How do you justify allowing them to further harm others? Wouldn't that cause you to lose sleep? See, I think it's selfish nature that causes us not to say something. We worry about what will happen to us. If enough people stood up for what was right and just, this kind of thing would happen much less often. It may take a few martyrs.



> The noble thing to do isn't always easy. And even then, it's even debatable about the nobility behind snitching on a wayward spouse; as when you restrain yourself from the truth coming out, you could potentially save the family alot of trouble; divorce, family split etc. Yet the noble/honorable thing to do, would potentially lead to the family unit being destroyed and knowing full-well that you are also responsible for it via the snitch.


First off, you are not responsible for snitching. If there was no infidelity, there would be nothing to talk about. How do you blame that on the snitch? Isn't that the WS and AP actions that made that even possible? What good is living a lie? Who does that harm? What happens when it comes out years down the road? 

The spouse without the knowledge of the affair has no opportunity to leave and build a new life because they've had their life stolen from them by lies and deception. Not telling sentences that person to a penalty they don't deserve. 

The WS doesn't have the balls to leave and find their happiness and so they destroy the respect of the BS slowly over time as more and more people find out and they are left in the dark. That means there is more to rebuilding their life if they ever do find out and want to leave, than would have been if they found out sooner. 

It is a type of death sentence. Many who go through that would rather be dead. It is nearly impossible to live another twenty or thirty years and make up for the lost respect. When folks don't respect you, you can't make any money. They take advantage of you at every turn. They will not give you opportunities because they figure you are an imbecile to never have know what everyone else knew. Like I said, it's a death sentence converted to life imprisonment. 

Turn your life around? At a certain point, if it's gone on too long and everyone knows, but the BS, there is little chance of turning it around.


----------



## RandomDude

@2ntnuf

Aye but that is a consequence in itself. I hope you don't hate me for this but as you know, I've been on the other side of the law in my youth. As such I've also had my mates snitched on, and those snitches well, they got it coming to them. That's just how it works, action, and consequence.



> They need to pay for the crime. How do you justify allowing them to further harm others? Wouldn't that cause you to lose sleep? See, I think it's selfish nature that causes us not to say something. We worry about what will happen to us. If enough people stood up for what was right and just, this kind of thing would happen much less often. It may take a few martyrs.


Well, the world is indeed selfish, everyone is only in it for themselves with a few exceptions of course. I had to be selfish in my youth to keep my head above water and two steps ahead. Yet it was because I was selfish that I've managed to remain clean even after I left that life behind. Irony that being selfish meant I suffered fewer consequences for my actions. Right and wrong meant nothing to me, it was only action and consequence, which decision was best for my ultimate benefit.

In the case of snitching, lets take for example your local pot dealer. Pot is illegal, but does the law make morally wrong to smoke it? Its even decriminalised/legalised in parts of the world nowadays. Heck, we even had alcohol being made illegal in history. Now the snitches maybe doing right by the law but will also be considered doing wrong by making the lives of people who enjoy the consumption of alcohol much harder.

Snitching on adultery is similar; they may be doing right by a certain moral standard as in the end adultery is ultimately fked up. However by snitching on the adulterer, a family would be broken up in the process, children will have to suffer the implications of divorce/broken home etc.

Already you have cases that you can witness in the CWI section of this forum where sometimes it's better for the WS not to say anything due to their individual circumstances and the potential nuclear explosion that may occur if the truth ever went out. Now what would happen if the accomplice decides to stroll along and, for the good of the cause... splits the atom? No good deed goes unpunished. Action, and consequence.

Anyways I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I'm just saying the world is messed up and isn't always so black and white tis all. Being the devil's advocate here


----------



## 2ntnuf

Sure.


----------



## Created2Write

When it comes to adultery the world is black and white. If singles didn't sleep with married people, it would lessen the chances for adultery. If married individuals didn't cheat, there wouldn't be any. But both parties involved in the affair are wrong and are responsible for their part. Just like both people in the marriage are responsible for its success.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moco82

When on the road and passing the time (and getting much-needed human conversation outside the professional realm) chatting to fellow travelers at airport and hotel bars, I notice there is a spark in married women that is usually absent in single girls. Perhaps more people live in unsatisfying marriages than is admitted. Granted, I haven't tried sleeping with any of them to see if it's more than self-esteem-boosting flirtation, but the pattern is there. So maybe some married men hit on married women expecting better reception (especially if the men themselves are in a bad spot and are looking for a kindred spirit)? Not sure about single men (but all the theories have been laid out in this thread).


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> And that's fine. No doubt we would all be better off, if everyone could turn off or deny their emotions and their libido, or behave with nothing but integrity and good intentions all of the time.
> 
> But they don't, do they?
> Sometimes we indeed are the best we can be. Other times we make extraordinarily flawed decisions.
> 
> I don't believe all of them are bad people. Especially when those people I see being called 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'broken' or 'selfish' ... are my family, or close friends.


I've said it before, and will say it again: I think that, with some few egregious exceptions, we all are the best we can be given context, history, etc. Most people have the respect and consideration to not muck with someone else's marriage, and to feel badly when they do. Many, e.g., will express regrets over the way they handled things, or wish they could have done so without stomping all over someone else.

This is a far cry from arguing outright that we have zero obligation to worry about the feelings of others when pursuing our self-interest.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> lol, the pages of history are filled with the innocent blood of hundreds of millions of people who were slaughtered by others who thought that they were * _doing the right thing_.*
> 
> In 1532 Fransisco Pizzaro and his men under the blessings of the Church massacared and slaughtered countless of Inca Indians in Peru because the refused to recant their religion. He took their lives and their gold. His cousin f Hernán Cortés did the same the Mayans, all in " _El nombre de Dios_ ", or the name of God.
> 
> Hitler did the same all in the name of German nationalistic pride.
> 
> In 1970 Pol Pot seized power in Cambodia and thought he could end endemic corruption in government that had impoverished millions of Cambodians, and turned his country into a playground for rich foreigners . He attempted to replicate China's Mao Zedung's success in Cambodia , and bring that country back to the glory days of the Khemer empire.
> 1.5 million people died because he genuinely thought that he was * _doing the right thing._*
> 
> Stalin , Lenin , Mussolini ,they all have one thing in common with other mass murderers, dictators and people who think they are morally superior.
> They all genuinely believe that they were _doing the right thing_ and that it was their job to get others to do so.


I can't believe that you think these examples have anything to do with acting morally. Maybe if "the right thing" is defined as advancing one's power and glory at the expense of everyone else.

And you think me pointing out the downside of moral relativism is sophistry?

Yikes.


----------



## moco82

There are couples who without explicitly agreeing are staying together for the kids and are getting their fun on the side. Phones locked without the spouse knowing the password, no objections. Taking turns going out with friends, no questions asked. Perhaps when the kids are a certain age they'll sit down and discuss, or go to counseling, but keeping a lid on things now (especially since no one wants the hassle of starting a new relationship). I've seen this more often in less Puritan parts of the world, but this isn't unknown in the US.


----------



## Philat

_There are couples who without explicitly agreeing are staying together for the kids and are getting their fun on the side. Phones locked without the spouse knowing the password, no objections. Taking turns going out with friends, no questions asked. Perhaps when the kids are a certain age they'll sit down and discuss, or go to counseling, but keeping a lid on things now (especially since no one wants the hassle of starting a new relationship). I've seen this more often in less Puritan parts of the world, but this isn't unknown in the US. _

If there is a shared understanding, then no problem--nothing wrong. Just as in an "open marriage"--no one is being deceived or betrayed. Or hurt, which is the crux of the matter.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I know personally, if one of my loved ones was unfaithful to their spouse, I would give them holy hell and try to let them know what a dirt bag they are. I have had this conversation with some of my own family members. They know where I stand. Forgiveness is relative in this world. You don't have to take them back to forgive. You don't have to forget to forgive. You don't trust them, ever..........ever. It is easier the second time. They must have their feet held to the fire, so to speak. We see above that there is no justice. There's no fidelity either. Very few can make the claim they have never been unfaithful. So, if you want to belong to the "herd" join them. There are few consequences if you are careful. Proven here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I can't believe that you think these examples have anything to do with acting morally. Maybe if "the right thing" is defined as advancing one's power and glory at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> And you think me pointing out the downside of moral relativism is sophistry?
> 
> Yikes.



Truly you sophistry fascinates me, is there any limit to it?
If the Church was not the bastion of morality then who was?
If the Church was not the arbitrator of right and wrong , then who was?
Most , or all of the examples I gave were sanctioned by the Church.

Google the Papal Bull of Jan 08 , 1455 ie: " Romanus Pontifex " ,issued by Nicholas V . This Bull Sanctified the seizure of non-Christian lands discovered during the Age of Discovery[ the New World ] and encourages the enslavement of natives.

Google the Papal Bull of 1478 November 01, ie: " Exigit sinceræ devotionis" issued by Sixtus IV. This Bull authorized King Ferdinand and Isabella to appoint inquisitors which created the Spanish Inquisition.[ _which if you have a knowledge of history, annihilated the entire Mayan , Incas and Aztec civilizations , stole their gold and brought it back to Spain._]

The point is that these Bulls or edicts from the church were considered " the word of God " hence accepted as moral absolutes by the majority . Nobody questioned the word of God.

So my question again is , 
What's the difference between your moral absolutism which espouses a fundamental, natural law of constant values and rules, and which pretends to judge all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences, and that of the church [which expoused the same ], and justified the genocide of millions and the seizure of their lands , all in " _El Nombre De Dios_ " or In the name of the God?

Sorry , but I prefer to believe in the philosophized notion that right and wrong are in no way, absolute values.
They are personalized according to the individual and their circumstances , and is sensitive to cultural nuances.
" _To thine own self , be true.._"
I believe that all men are created equal, and no one has any moral authority to impose their own fundamental beliefs system on another.

There is absolutely no difference in a person who believes in moral absolutism and the Al Queda , Taliban , Al Shabab or the Jihadist.
They are all fundamentalist.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Truly you sophistry fascinates me, is there any limit to it?
> If the Church was not the bastion of morality then who was?
> If the Church was not the arbitrator of right and wrong , then who was?
> Most , or all of the examples I gave were sanctioned by the Church.


Sigh. You have no idea what my moral philosophy is, and I can assure you that it is neither religious nor moral absolution. I just refuse to defend the likes of Police Pot or Stalin, or suggest that they have any claim to a moral standing.

And *I'm* the sophist with the dogmatic view. LOL.

While many of the morals espoused by the Church are lovely, the history of Christianity, and other religions, is chock full of hypocrisy, greed, power mongering and more. Religion talks the talk, but they do not always walk the walk.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Sigh. You have no idea what my moral philosophy is, and I can assure you that it is neither religious nor moral absolution. I just refuse to defend the likes of Police Pot or Stalin, or suggest that they have any claim to a moral standing.
> 
> And *I'm* the sophist with the dogmatic view. LOL.
> 
> *While many of the morals espoused by the Church are lovely, the history of Christianity, and other religions, is chock full of hypocrisy, greed, power mongering and more. Religion talks the talk, but they do not always walk the walk*.


And what's the difference between your moral philosophy explained in your posts and the hypocrisy , greed and power mongering of the then church?
I have clearly stated mine in relation to this topic, you have clearly stated yours which was a complete rejection of relativism., ie absolutism.
Now you seem to be attempting to rewrite, and gaslight me , with the manipulative tactic of projecting your dogma , now that you are cornered. 

You are the person saying that a single person has a responsibility to a married couple to help them uphold their marriage vows.

I am saying that no such moral responsibility exists between the married couple and the single , or even society , because many married people actually allow and encourage some singles into their marriages to participate in their sexual activities. Simply put , it depends on the moral convictions of the people involved .
It is hypocritical to attempt to invoke some imagined moral responsibility to society in this case especially , because society itself is a collective of many different cultures and sub cultures , each having varied positions as to what is considered as " acceptable " sexual behavior. Hence , logically ,the responsibility rests with married people who believe in strict monogamy to guard their marriage and beliefs.

A single person who does not hold your views on strict monogamy has no responsibility to * help you * uphold your vows , especially if you are willing to compromise your moral views and have sex with them.

And even if such a single person does exist, and in reality , many of them do exist, a married person who want's to have sex outside of their marriage for whatever reason will simply find someone who is also willing to have sex with them, whether single or married to another person.
Simple as that.
Like I said before, to think otherwise is wishful thinking , even in spite of a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.

I never said that Pol Pot , Stalin or any of them were moral or good. What I did say was that they were doing what they thought was right, and those who opposed their view were , ostracized , harassed, tortured and killed because they were considered as disruptive to the social order.

How is that different to your position on the issue being discussed on this thread?
Maybe you should clearly restate what you moral philosophy is on this topic ?
So at least I can be corrected.


----------



## arbitrator

always_alone said:


> *While many of the morals espoused by the Church are lovely, the history of Christianity, and other religions, is chock full of hypocrisy, greed, power mongering and more. Religion talks the talk, but they do not always walk the walk.*


*And while you make a somewhat logical point, it too, is erroneous in that it is not just the institutional segments of religion, government, and culture that should be held to blame; it is mankind, as a whole, that should be taken to task for self-servingly, lowering those standards and mores to largely accommodate its own existence.

That is why there is not much difficulty in either getting married or in divorcing a spouse. Both are truly revenue generating, entreprenural vehicles for a segment of society known, in this case as either the wedding industry and divorce/family attorneys. Both need this as a viable livlihood, or else, they're forced into a vocation like something as mundane as selling newspapers on street corners.

Mankind was initially responsible for that downfall ~ it just simply filters down to all of the other human institutions.

And I greatly applaud those social institutions that try to inject a degree of civil morality, not through force or coersion, but by teaching the world that there is far more to life than man degenerating himself to living and socializing like animals, and in some cases worse!.*


----------



## Vernon64

Living in a sexless marriage to a woman I love...I have sought comfort outside the marriage. I live in a relatively small city so cannot exactly go to clubs and bars to find "partners". I use an internet dating site and spicifically say that I am only interested in married women. I usually correspond with them for a few days, meet up....and end up having illicit sex with them for a few months. So, to answer your question, in my case I seek married women because I need to find someone who, like me, is looking for an illicit liaison.


----------



## Married but Happy

Bottom line, because she's female and sufficiently attractive. That's all it takes for some - anything more is too complicated to them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

arbitrator said:


> *
> And I greatly applaud those social institutions that try to inject a degree of civil morality, not through force or coersion, but by teaching the world that there is far more to life than man degenerating himself to living and socializing like animals, and in some cases worse!.*


:iagree:
My point exactly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Vernon64 said:


> Living in a sexless marriage to a woman I love...I have sought comfort outside the marriage. I live in a relatively small city so cannot exactly go to clubs and bars to find "partners".* I use an internet dating site and spicifically say that I am only interested in married women.* I usually correspond with them for a few days, meet up....and end up having illicit sex with them for a few months. So, to answer your question, in my case I seek married women because I need to find someone who, like me, is looking for an illicit liaison.


Are you saying that MARRIED women sign up with this website SPECIFICALLY for having illicit sexual laisons with other MARRIED men or maybe even singles?

Just a rhetorical question.

The concept of the third party's responsibility now begins to fade into oblivion.

My point being that despite of how we feel about it, extra marital sex is a reality. It is a reality that married folks should take cognisance of, make the crucial adjustments and take full responsibility for themselves and their marriage. In other words,

*GUARD YOUR MARRIAGE.*

Blaming the third party is NOT taking responsibility.
Wishing that they accept our moral standards and hoping that they respect your vows is NOT taking responsibility either.
But marking a clear line of distinction between them and yourself and erecting STRONG MARITAL BOUNDARIES most definitely, is.


----------



## Deejo

Let me state it more simply ... not that I don't enjoy the philosophical debate.

If two people are in circumstances where sex is on the menu, in play, and acknowledged by both parties ... then they are usually going to have it. Regardless of their marital status ...

The how's, and why's of how one finds themselves in those circumstances are myriad. 

SOME single guys don't care about the relationship status of who they want. They see what they want and go after it ... some women consequently are horrified. Others, oddly enough and under the circumstances I outlined above find themselves intrigued, flattered, listened to, understood, valued, desired ... or just plain old horny.

I'll never advocate infidelity. But in my world, there is absolutely nothing absolute about it.

EVERYONE is subject to temptation. I applaud you if you think you are not. Guarantee that I could paint circumstances that you would be.


----------



## MaritimeGuy

When I read through this thread I can't help but think of Chris Rock's bit on Bill Clinton's affair: 

See, people...
everybody expects this holy behavior
'cause he's the President.

Expect him to behave this holy way.

He's just the President.

He ain't Rev. Clinton.

lt ain't Pastor Clinton.

lt ain't Maharajah Clinton.

lt is just Bill Clinton.

He's just a man. A man's gonna be a man.

A man is basically as faithful as his options.

That's how faithful a man is,
no more, no less.

You see all these
fat Republican guys going:

''l would never do such a thing.
This is a travesty.''

l'm like, ''Nobody's trying to blow you.''

Ain't no 21 -year-old girls
trying to blow Orrin Hatch.

Ain't nobody trying
to give Newt Gingrich some.

l don't give a ****, you ain't never
gonna hear Newt Gingrich go:

''Man, l wish these hoes
would back up off me.

''l wish they would just
back the **** up off me.''


----------



## Philat

_A man is basically as faithful as his options.

That's how faithful a man is,
no more, no less._

Complete bull$h!t.


----------



## MaritimeGuy

Philat said:


> _A man is basically as faithful as his options.
> 
> That's how faithful a man is,
> no more, no less._
> 
> Complete bull$h!t.


...but funny when you read it in your head with Chris Rock's voice. :rofl:


----------



## Philat

OK, give you that.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> In the end, none of the discussion really matters. People do f*cked up sh*t all the time, we know this about humans. My husband treats me like I am worth my weight in gold, as if there are theives with hungry eyes on me all the time...because really, that is true. There will always be someone out there trying to break down the boundaries of your marriage, and it is best to know this occurs instead of wish people had morals.


I love your description as if "there are theives all around with hungry eyes". He probably takes at as serious as sailing an expensive cargo through seas filled with murderous pirates.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep...he does.

And I take my position of mate guarding him, staying interesting and attractive for him, and fulfilling his needs, very seriously, too.


----------



## azteca1986

Deejo said:


> EVERYONE is subject to temptation. I applaud you if you think you are not. Guarantee that I could paint circumstances that you would be.


Of course everyone is subject to temptation, options and opportunity. You don't have to paint any for me; I've been there.

Temptation is no biggie and deserves no applause. It's the resisting of temptation that does, surely?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Philat said:


> _A man is basically as faithful as his options.
> 
> That's how faithful a man is,
> no more, no less._
> 
> Complete bull$h!t.


But isn't that why some couples choose to reconcile after affairs because they come to the understanding that we're all human beings we can and often do make mistakes?

Or is it that people only choose reconciliation because divorce is too expensive and custody battles can be messy?

I find it completely fascinating and utterly amusing that people are now posturing as if they are immune to temptation in their marriage!

How many times have we seen right here on TAM, a BS who swore that their wayward spouse's character and moral values wouldn't have permitted them to cheat?
Only to find out later that not only did they cheat, but they were serial cheaters , over a prolonged period oblivious to the BS.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I find it completely fascinating and utterly amusing that people are now posturing as if they are immune to temptation in their marriage!"


Well, some people DO know that devastation follows infidelity...so that is a pretty sharp knife to be playing with and suddenly the temptation doesn't seem so tempting.

But also for me, just saying "I'll be faithful" wouldn't be enough. I also have to be totally HOT for my husband and be getting good sex regularly AND I still have to follow all of our boundary rules, and so does he.

By consciously following these rules AND consciously keeping our sex life healthy, we keep our marriage safe from outsiders....and because we both have it so good at home, the temptation from outside isn't that strong anyway.

If we didn't have a great sex life, and if we didn't protect our boundaries, I am positive we would both be more tempted by the fruit of others.


----------



## azteca1986

Caribbean Man said:


> I find it completely fascinating and utterly amusing that people are now *posturing* as if they are immune to temptation in their marriage!


Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Some people CHOOSE to commit adultery. Some people CHOOSE not to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> If we didn't have a great sex life, *and if we didn't protect our boundaries,* I am positive we would both be more tempted by the fruit of others.


This ^^^ right there in bold font is the crux of the matter.
If two people don't conscientiously and consistently work on their marriage and protect it, it becomes porous. 
After that, any partner can fall to temptation, because what's on the outside is more appealing than what's on the inside.

Doesn't matter what they _think_ they believe. The human mind is quite capable of tricking itself.

Marriage is hard work. Doesn't matter how attracted you are to your partner, at this point & time. Attraction can and does change over time. Either grows or dwindles, and can be affected by even peripheral issues.
We live in a society that does NOT promote nor support monogamy.Hence the prevalence of extra marital affairs and other non monogamous constructs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think where you are getting hung up, CM, is when people don't really *know* that their spouse is protecting the boundaries of their marriage, they only know that they are. So in those cases, where people haven't made sure the boundaries are in place AND that they are voluntarily followed, then they really don't know for sure if their spouse will be open to tempation or not.

I think you are saying that one spouse being faithful and having boundaries, doesn't necessarily mean the other spouse does, unless this has been discussed and negotiated.


----------



## Caribbean Man

azteca1986 said:


> Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Some people CHOOSE to commit adultery. Some people CHOOSE not to.



I agree that whatever happens , staying faithful is a personal choice.
What I'm saying is it is not always a default , automatic or easy choice.

That's why I'm saying that adultery in a marriage is the responsibility of both parties, and no one else.


----------



## Married but Happy

Caribbean Man said:


> We live in a society that does NOT promote nor support monogamy.Hence the prevalence of extra marital affairs and other non monogamous constructs.


I think we live in a society that DOES strongly promote and support monogamy, though perhaps less obsessively than in decades past. 

IMO, monogamy is flawed, and needs revision and updating. Those who truly want it and believe in it should practice it, of course.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I thought that too, before I met my current husband.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I think you are saying that one spouse being faithful and having boundaries, doesn't necessarily mean the other spouse does, unless this has been discussed and negotiated.


Yes,
And people take it for granted and are shocked when the infidelity occurs.
A marriage is between two people.
If both are not working on it, then the marriage is in a state of pre collapse.
Eventually it collapses and ends up in divorce or adultery.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> I think we live in a society that DOES strongly promote and support monogamy, though perhaps less obsessively than in decades past.
> 
> IMO, monogamy is flawed, and needs revision and updating. Those who truly want it and believe in it should practice it, of course.


And why should a social construct that has worked for thousands of generations to bring mankind from barbarian to our present civilization be changed ?


----------



## moco82

If you think about the context of human history, with the warfare and marauding hordes that were the norm for millennia (just look at how geographically far spread apart some mtDNA markers are, as the ballooning DNA testing data throughout the world shows), a little short-lived cheating is small fry. Quite different from slaughtering the men and boys in a tribe, and taking all the women and girls as the chieftain's harem. Perhaps same.. um... competitive spark in some men?


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "I find it completely fascinating and utterly amusing that people are now posturing as if they are immune to temptation in their marriage!"
> 
> 
> Well, some people DO know that devastation follows infidelity...so that is a pretty sharp knife to be playing with and suddenly the temptation doesn't seem so tempting.
> 
> But also for me, just saying "I'll be faithful" wouldn't be enough. I also have to be totally HOT for my husband and be getting good sex regularly AND I still have to follow all of our boundary rules, and so does he.
> 
> By consciously following these rules AND consciously keeping our sex life healthy, we keep our marriage safe from outsiders....and because we both have it so good at home, the temptation from outside isn't that strong anyway.
> 
> If we didn't have a great sex life, and if we didn't protect our boundaries, I am positive we would both be more tempted by the fruit of others.


Right. I don't think anyone here has said they are immune to temptation. What _has_ been said is that, regardless of the temptation, there are those who recognize the pain that totally selfish actions can cause and would choose to forgo the temptation for a time until their marriage is absolved, rather than just do whatever feels good right now in spite of the hurt it might cause others. 

I was raised to do what I could to keep from hurting others; not picking on other kids at school, not using my friends for popularity, being honest and straightforward about what I want and need in my relationships so that the other person knows what they're getting into, helping the people I love when they're in need(even without being asked), apologizing when I may not even be wrong for the sake of mending a friendship, choosing to end a relationship/divorce before moving on to another man, not shouting my head off at the person I claim to love, not just taking in my relationships but also giving back...I was raised not to be selfish and self-centered; that other people, whether I know them or not, can be effected by the choices I make. I don't always make the best choices, as I am not perfect. But I despise the wrong choices I make, I despise my faults and my selfishness and I don't seek to justify or excuse them; I seek to be better. To always be better.


----------



## Married but Happy

Caribbean Man said:


> And why should has something that has worked for thousands of generations to build our present civilization be changed ?


It may have "worked", but the costs have been high, too. Marriage has changed greatly over the centuries - it is barely recognizable in its current form versus centuries ago. Monogamy may have been the label, but in practice fidelity only applied to and was enforced for women.

You may have noticed that fewer people are marrying, 40% of children are born outside of marriage, and laws and custom are slowly changing to reflect a new, very different reality. And it's still true that monogamy is held up as the shining ideal, despite the scratches, dents, and tarnish.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I also think there are a lot of marriages that don't have a great sex life. That piece is so important.


----------



## Created2Write

You're right, CM: the marriage is only the responsibility of the people in them. No one outside of the marriage is responsible for it's health and success. 

Just like the adultery is only the responsibility of the people in it. A poor marriage, or even a horrible marriage, doesn't justify or excuse adultery.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Married said "And it's still true that monogamy is held up as the shining ideal, despite the scratches, dents, and tarnish."


That's because when you are monogamous with the love of your life and have a rockin' sex life, it really IS the shining ideal. If you haven't experienced that, I can see how it wouldn't seem to be. Again, that's what I thought too before I met my current husband.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> It may have "worked", but the costs have been high, too. Marriage has changed greatly over the centuries - it is barely recognizable in its current form versus centuries ago. Monogamy may have been the label, but in practice fidelity only applied to and was enforced for women.
> 
> You may have noticed that fewer people are marrying, 40% of children are born outside of marriage, and laws and custom are slowly changing to reflect a new, very different reality. And it's still true that monogamy is held up as the shining ideal, despite the scratches, dents, and tarnish.


I may be wrong , but I think that the only thing that has changed in marriage over the centuries, is that the ceremonial aspect of it has modernized and the romantic aspect has been commercialized.

Added to that, the rights of women are being recognized more than before so that women now have equal access to the same rights and privileges as men in marriage.
This is a good development along the continuum. 
But to assume that fewer people are marrying because monogamy itself is outdated is not a logical step IMO, and there is no evidence to support this.


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> That's because when you are monogamous with the love of your life and have a rockin' sex life, it really IS the shining ideal. If you haven't experienced that, I can see how it wouldn't seem to be. Again, that's what I thought too before I met my current husband.


What percentage of couples past 35 years of age would you estimate fall into your enlightened category?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> You're right, CM: the marriage is only the responsibility of the people in them. No one outside of the marriage is responsible for it's health and success.
> 
> Just like the adultery is only the responsibility of the people in it. A poor marriage, or even a horrible marriage, doesn't justify or excuse adultery.


 I can agree with this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

moco82...Not sure and I don't really care, it isn't my problem. I had to fight for mine, search for it, pray about it, and then when I found it, it didn't just fall as a total packagae into my lap. "Marriage is hard work" and all of that, you know? I've already been divorced once and it SUCKS so I will do everything I can to not go through that again.


----------



## Married but Happy

Faithful Wife said:


> That's because when you are monogamous with the love of your life and have a rockin' sex life, it really IS the shining ideal. If you haven't experienced that, I can see how it wouldn't seem to be. Again, that's what I thought too before I met my current husband.


I completely agree with you. However, this is far from true for most marriages (as far as I can tell), and marriage isn't even necessary to achieve it. Monogamy can be a great choice with or without marriage, but I don't think most people really have the opportunity or resources to make it an _informed _choice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"However, this is far from true for most marriages (as far as I can tell), and marriage isn't even necessary to achieve it. Monogamy can be a great choice with or without marriage, but I don't think most people really have the opportunity or resources to make it an informed choice."


Well, I found the ways to inform myself, and I'm sure others can, too.


----------



## Caribbean Man

moco82 said:


> If you think about the context of human history, with the warfare and marauding hordes that were the norm for millennia (just look at how geographically far spread apart some mtDNA markers are, as the ballooning DNA testing data throughout the world shows), a little short-lived cheating is small fry. Quite different from slaughtering the men and boys in a tribe, and taking all the women and girls as the chieftain's harem. Perhaps same.. um... competitive spark in some men?


You forgot to mention Polygamy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catch up post...



Caribbean Man said:


> Something we can also consider too, which didn't arise in this discussion is the fact that most people who constantly exhibit that type of behaviour ie: pursuing married people in happy , committed relationships might be suffering from mental disorders with psychopatic tendencies.
> 
> Might be something to consider.


Nit pick: I think its sociopathic not psychopathic. Asocial but still firmly grounded in reality.



Vega said:


> Knowing of 3 affairs among 3 married couples is hardly *proof* that "*everyone*" can cheat under the "right circumstances".
> 
> Cheaters cheat because their own personal beliefs are *WRONG*, and NOT because a set of circumstances is '_RIGHT_'. They don't cheat on their partner because they're WITH the 'wrong' person; they cheat because they *ARE* the wrong person.
> 
> Vega


One cheats not because one's moral beliefs are wrong. I think people who have cheated would almost universally agree cheating is wrong. Some do it as payback for some perceived slight. Others have lapses in judgment at a vulnerable moment. Still others want to divorce but are paralyzed by gravity of divorce, and consider it a lesser wronging (ie staying married for the kids). Emotional distress, loneliness, and being "trapped" (metaphorically, emotionally, or by social pressure) can easily take a person down shady roads to meet their needs.

Ultimately, cheating says that the cheater is dissatisfied with the marriage and is for whatever reason, unwilling to end it. A common reason given is "for the kids". Some people only stay in their marriages for the kids... and divorce once the kids go off to college.

There's a myriad reasons, personal weaknesses and emotional vulnerability that come into play. While cheating is wrong, its reasons are not so black and white as saying someone's moral view is wrong. They know cheating is wrong.

I don't think I've ever met a person who has never done anything they know is wrong.



Thor said:


> The affections and sex of the spouse is owned by the BS. There is a verbal contract "To Have and To Hold, Forsaking All Others".
> 
> Taking the affections or sex of a married person is taking something that person is not authorized to give away. You are in fact stealing something, in addition to knowingly do great harm to others.


I'm sorry, but you can't own someone's emotional state or actions (the latter is called slavery). And if you could, do you seriously think the cheater was giving their spouse such affection before deciding to cheat? If they were in such a state to begin with, they wouldn't be out cheating. Hard to steal something the BS already lost.



2ntnuf said:


> How can someone who has been unfaithful be honest when they say the are against infidelity?


Have you ever done anything you know is wrong? Exactly like that. I believe most of us have done something we know to be wrong at some point or another. Somewhat of a stones-and-glass-houses situation I would think. Excepting sociopathic disorders, I believe one must live someone else's life to really know why they did something. Its so easy for someone NOT living the life of the WS to say "just divorce"; even though that is exactly what they should do, its really a bit more complicated to the person in those shoes.



Created2Write said:


> When it comes to adultery the world is black and white. If singles didn't sleep with married people, it would lessen the chances for adultery. If married individuals didn't cheat, there wouldn't be any. But both parties involved in the affair are wrong and are responsible for their part. Just like both people in the marriage are responsible for its success.


All you'd get from singles universally not sleeping with married people is married people looking to cheat who lie about being single. This ought to really point out that the single really plays no part in the married's breaking of their vow. The married who wants to break their vow, will break their vow... and its not a single's responsibility to make sure they don't. Singles not sleeping with marrieds is no protection for the marrieds' spouse, which ultimately, I think is your desire. The only way to lessen the chances of adultery, is to stay in sync with YOUR spouse.



Caribbean Man said:


> And why should a social construct that has worked for thousands of generations to bring mankind from barbarian to our present civilization be changed ?


Monogamy worked to bring civilization? I think there's a lot of history that would disagree with that. Monogamy is just our particular cultural norm... and one could argue its hardly a norm at all if you took everything that goes on behind closed doors into account.



Created2Write said:


> What _has_ been said is that, regardless of the temptation, there are those who recognize the pain that totally selfish actions can cause and would choose to forgo the temptation for a time until their marriage is absolved, rather than just do whatever feels good right now in spite of the hurt it might cause others.


Without being in the shoes of someone who decides to cheat and feeling what they felt in the context that they felt it, I don't think you can reasonably say that. Do you really think you're that different from the swaths of cheaters who could never have imagined themselves cheating until they did? The high horse is mighty comfortable, but one thing I've repeatedly learned is that at our core, we're all more alike that we care to admit. "There but for the grace of God go I", is true wisdom, applying equally to that which affects us and our reactions to conditions. 

Ask women who've never been cheated on whether they'd dump the fool that cheated on them, and there's a chorus of "absolutely". Yet, and this came as a huge shock to me, most women who get cheated on don't just dump him. Like most things in life, it isn't as black and white as you'd like to think. You don't know until you're there. Rather, one hopes to not be in that position; one tries to do the little things that prevent being in that position - in accordance to just how much risk they perceive it to be. I'm of the opinion that given the right circumstances, there are a myriad temptations that will knock anyone off their high horse. Then, they join the chorus of "I never thought I would..."


----------



## Married but Happy

Faithful Wife said:


> "However, this is far from true for most marriages (as far as I can tell), and marriage isn't even necessary to achieve it. Monogamy can be a great choice with or without marriage, but I don't think most people really have the opportunity or resources to make it an informed choice."
> 
> 
> Well, I found the ways to inform myself, and I'm sure others can, too.


Clearly, not everyone is as intelligent and resourceful. Some can inform themselves, but many have no clue. I wouldn't have realized that had my wife not been working in the medical field and told me so many stories about people who have no basic knowledge even about simple matters and basic life skills. It's scary out there!


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> moco82...Not sure and I don't really care, it isn't my problem.


If you hold up an ideal, to be fair to the audience you should estimate how much is nature and how much is nurture. You seem to believe it's mostly hard work, correct? Just so that people don't bang their heads on a wall they can't move.


----------



## Faithful Wife

To Married....That is partly why I am writing my blog. To give an example of how married sex can be hot and kinky and extremely monogamous...that having boundaries can be made into a hot sexy game all the time. I think that just hearing examples like mine can make a huge difference. If all we ever hear is "everyone cheats, monogamy is impossible" etc, then that is what people will always expect.

When I went to look for other stories like mine, most of them were in the porny type genre that includes trying to write erotica. That's fine but I wanted to write about our example without making it titillating or something that will turn on the reader. Instead I want the reader to think about their own life.

I have several females telling me they are sending my blog to their men and saying "can we try to spice it up like this?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

To moco: "If you hold up an ideal, to be fair to the audience you should estimate how much is nature and how much is nurture. You seem to believe it's mostly hard work, correct? Just so that people don't bang their heads on a wall they can't move."

Then as a direct answer, I do not think our bodies will ever naturally be monogamous...no matter what your mind decides, your body will never comply and it will always "want to have sex" with others. So the entire thing is work.

How fun the work is will be up to the individuals. How successful you are will depend on:

*How well you protect boundaries.

*How deeply you stay in love.

*How good your sex life is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Monogamy worked to bring civilization? I think there's a lot of history that would disagree with that. Monogamy is just our particular cultural norm... and one could argue its hardly a norm at all if you took everything that goes on behind closed doors into account.



The Case Of Monogamy: Kyle Harper at TEDxOU.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> To moco: "If you hold up an ideal, to be fair to the audience you should estimate how much is nature and how much is nurture. You seem to believe it's mostly hard work, correct? Just so that people don't bang their heads on a wall they can't move."
> 
> Then as a direct answer, I do not think our bodies will ever naturally be monogamous...no matter what your mind decides, your body will never comply and it will always "want to have sex" with others. So the entire thing is work.
> 
> How fun the work is will be up to the individuals. How successful you are will depend on:
> 
> *How well you protect boundaries.
> 
> *How deeply you stay in love.
> 
> *How good your sex life is.


This is spot on. I actually agree with every word.


----------



## moco82

Caribbean Man said:


> You forgot to mention Polygamy.


I did mention harems. Polygamy was not/is not for the poor commoners, though. History if full of kings with harems, but how many peasant dirt huts with evidence of polygamous lives do archaeologists unearth? Today, how many Iranians exercise the right (since it does come with the financial responsibility to maintain each household)? Monogamy lets you off easy: I may not be able to provide for you or treat you well, but, hey, at least you're the only one!


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> Then as a direct answer, I do not think our bodies will ever naturally be monogamous...no matter what your mind decides, your body will never comply and it will always "want to have sex" with others. So the entire thing is work.
> 
> How fun the work is will be up to the individuals. How successful you are will depend on:
> 
> *How well you protect boundaries.
> 
> *How deeply you stay in love.
> 
> *How good your sex life is.


Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like common sense, actually. It is also, honestly, too much work. Perhaps that is why it doesn't come intuitively. For example, I've always been somewhat of a loner, so having company in life to me isn't worth the extraordinary work.


----------



## Created2Write

Edited because I'm not going to further engage in a conversation with someone attempting to justify participating and encouraging adultery.


----------



## Caribbean Man

moco82 said:


> I did mention harems. Polygamy was not/is not for the poor commoners, though. History if full of kings with harems, but how many peasant dirt huts with evidence of polygamous lives do archaeologists unearth? Today, how many Iranians exercise the right (since it does come with the financial responsibility to maintain each household)? Monogamy lets you off easy: I may not be able to provide for you or treat you well, but, hey, at least you're the only one!


lol,

My bad!

But you are correct, Polygamy ensured that more than half of society's men stayed single and monogamy reconstructed it so that anyone can get married , even the broke fellow .
In fact he can now get himself a woman to provide house , shelter and food !
Apparently these younger folks don't really know how easy they have it.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hard to steal something the BS already lost.


Glen James doesn't agree with. Neither do all the people who have contributed to his fund

_A fund established to help a homeless man who returned a lost backpack containing more than $42,000 (£26,000) has raised almost $110,000 (£68,500).
_

There's that integrity thing again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

moco said: "For example, I've always been somewhat of a loner, so having company in life to me isn't worth the extraordinary work."

It is good you know this about yourself. I think a lot of people feel this way.

My brother has never been married, same reason basically. He just didn't want to bother to try to figure out how to be faithful, he would rather be single. Girlfriends come and go, but no wives. He isn't necessarily a happy person, but I can't see how being married would make him any happier. I'm just glad he is self-aware enough to do what suits him best, not what others might want for him.

Some people feel this way but end up getting pressured into marriage by family or society or whatever.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> Glen James doesn't agree with. Neither do all the people who have contributed to his fund
> 
> _A fund established to help a homeless man who returned a lost backpack containing more than $42,000 (£26,000) has raised almost $110,000 (£68,500).
> _
> 
> There's that integrity thing again.


That's a swell thing, but the money, property, was returned to its actual owner. The WS is the owner of their own affections and sex however. They are not property and neither are there affections. Should we be advising all those who come here because of sexlessness to file stolen property reports? I'm sorry, but the BS doesn't own these things. There is only an agreement.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's a swell thing, but the money, property, was returned to its actual owner. The WS is the owner of their own affections and sex however. They are not property and neither are there affections. Should we be advising all those who come here because of sexlessness to file stolen property reports? I'm sorry, but the BS doesn't own these things. There is only an agreement.


I'm not talking about the WS or BS. My point is; if YOU don't want to act with integrity it's okay, it's up to you. It's your choice. Rationalise away.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> I'm not talking about the WS or BS. My point is; if YOU don't want to act with integrity it's okay, it's up to you. It's your choice. Rationalise away.


Ad hominem? Since when was this about me? I'm not even interested in married women. But I still say that in having sex with a married, its the married who threw out their integrity, not the single. AGAIN... no one can break your promises for you.


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm just glad he is self-aware enough to do what suits him best, not what others might want for him.


Good for him; for most of our type it probably takes actual tangible life experience to figure this out.



> Some people feel this way but end up getting pressured into marriage by family or society or whatever.


It's a strong impetus in traditional values. Armies need soldiers, economies need workers.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ad hominem? Since when was this about me?


Well yes, I'm talking about you and your idea that you can swan about taking no responsibility for sleeping with someone else's spouse. Sure, if it wasn't you it'd be someone else, but when it _is_ you... it's umm... YOU.



> I'm not even interested in married women. But I still say that in having sex with a married, its the married who threw out their integrity, not the single. AGAIN... no one can break your promises for you.


Forget about the WS & the BS or their marriage. Your personal integrity is your responsibility.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> Well yes, I'm talking about you and your idea that you can swan about taking no responsibility for sleeping with someone else's spouse. Sure, if it wasn't you it'd be someone else, but when it _is_ you... it's umm... YOU.


The single has no responsibility to the marrieds' marriage, sorry. A car salesman doesn't have a responsibility to make sure you don't buy a car that is going to push your budget and cause money stress for your marriage either. I don't pursue married women regardless, so yes - you can keep _my name_ out of your mouth. I mostly date women in their low-20s. Very few that age are married and they're a hell of a lot more fun than dealing with a woman with limited availability sneaking around. So you see, I have no reason to be rationalizing. No, I have no responsibility for yours or anyone else's marriage. Your commitments are YOURS alone, and it wouldn't be my having sex with a willing woman that is a moral violation - it would be HER breaking her vow.



azteca1986 said:


> Forget about the WS & the BS or their marriage. Your personal integrity is your responsibility.


Having sex with someone who wants to have sex, costs a single no integrity. If a married person wants to put some extra nails in the coffin of their marriage... that's totally on them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

moco82 said:


> It's a strong impetus in traditional values. Armies need soldiers, economies need workers.


I like^^^this.
Conversely, quite a lot of people who are married weren't even supposed to get married in the first place.

They get married and start to question whether or not monogamy is " natural " , " normal " or even possible.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The economy will experience a big surge when gay marriage is legal in all states...because there will suddenly be 1,000's of weddings, which is awesome for stimulus.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Having sex with someone who wants to have sex, costs a single no integrity. If a married person wants to put some extra nails in the coffin of their marriage... that's totally on them.


You refuse to see that sleeping with another person's spouse is, by it's very nature, incompatible with integrity. I don't think you understand integrity. At this point I feel like I'm talking to a recalcitrant child, so I think I'll leave it there. After all, you can only lead a horse to water...


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And what's the difference between your moral philosophy explained in your posts and the hypocrisy , greed and power mongering of the then church?
> I have clearly stated mine in relation to this topic, you have clearly stated yours which was a complete rejection of relativism., ie absolutism.
> Now you seem to be attempting to rewrite, and gaslight me , with the manipulative tactic of projecting your dogma , now that you are cornered.
> 
> You are the person saying that a single person has a responsibility to a married couple to help them uphold their marriage vows.
> 
> I am saying that no such moral responsibility exists between the married couple and the single , or even society , because many married people actually allow and encourage some singles into their marriages to participate in their sexual activities. Simply put , it depends on the moral convictions of the people involved .
> It is hypocritical to attempt to invoke some imagined moral responsibility to society in this case especially , because society itself is a collective of many different cultures and sub cultures , each having varied positions as to what is considered as " acceptable " sexual behavior. Hence , logically ,the responsibility rests with married people who believe in strict monogamy to guard their marriage and beliefs.
> 
> A single person who does not hold your views on strict monogamy has no responsibility to * help you * uphold your vows , especially if you are willing to compromise your moral views and have sex with them.
> 
> And even if such a single person does exist, and in reality , many of them do exist, a married person who want's to have sex outside of their marriage for whatever reason will simply find someone who is also willing to have sex with them, whether single or married to another person.
> Simple as that.
> Like I said before, to think otherwise is wishful thinking , even in spite of a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> I never said that Pol Pot , Stalin or any of them were moral or good. What I did say was that they were doing what they thought was right, and those who opposed their view were , ostracized , harassed, tortured and killed because they were considered as disruptive to the social order.
> 
> How is that different to your position on the issue being discussed on this thread?
> Maybe you should clearly restate what you moral philosophy is on this topic ?
> So at least I can be corrected.


You haven't been reading my posts. I never said the single had a responsibility to uphold the marriage vows. I said the single has a moral obligation to consider the feelings of others when pursuing selfish desire.

I also did not put forward any sort of moral absolutiism, nor am I cornered in any way. I merely challenged your version of relativism which allows you to absolve everyone of moral misconduct, including tyrants guilty of genocide. My thinking is that if everyone gets to be absolved, then there's little point to morality at all. Why bother? 

And I stated my moral view quite clearly: I do my best to not contribute to the already substantial pain and suffering in this world. All of your examples of swingers and open marriages are *not* actual infidelities, and so would not be problematic in the same way.


----------



## moco82

Caribbean Man said:


> Conversely, quite a lot of people who are married weren't even supposed to get married in the first place.
> 
> They get married and start to question whether or not monogamy is " natural " , " normal " or even possible.


Don't forget the _droit du Seigneur_.

Perhaps a conclusion here is that it is not appropriate to measure modern marriage (an arrangement for personal fulfillment) by standards and values of centuries-old marriage (an institution to regenerate and structure society).

P.S. I've read somewhere that natural selection is going in reverse in humans recently, lowering overall intelligence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

moco said: "P.S. I've read somewhere that natural selection is going in reverse in humans recently, lowering overall intelligence."


I loved the Mike Judge movie Idiocracy...it was about this. Totally hysterical!

Idiocracy - Trailer - YouTube


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> I loved the Mike Judge movie Idiocracy...it was about this. Totally hysterical!
> Idiocracy - Trailer - YouTube


Mike Judge is usually on to something, so I'll watch this (if I ever get free time).

And judging by that 75% of toys I see in the aisle when shopping for my kid are labeled "learning" and "developmental", in 500 years the world in that trailer is quite possible.


----------



## Faithful Wife

If you like Mike Judge, you will probably like this movie. One of his best, IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You haven't been reading my posts. I never said the single had a responsibility to uphold the marriage vows. I said the single has a moral obligation to consider the feelings of others when pursuing selfish desire.
> 
> I also did not put forward any sort of moral absolutiism, nor am I cornered in any way. I merely challenged your version of relativism which allows you to absolve everyone of moral misconduct, including tyrants guilty of genocide. My thinking is that if everyone gets to be absolved, then there's little point to morality at all. Why bother?
> 
> And I stated my moral view quite clearly: I do my best to not contribute to the already substantial pain and suffering in this world. All of your examples of swingers and open marriages are *not* actual infidelities, and so would not be problematic in the same way.


This is the fifth time on this thread that you have purposely misquoted me, even though each time I have corrected you.

Whatever floats your boat Always_Alone.
Like I said on that other thread, if that method works for you,and makes you feel better, helps with your marriage and other interactions,then fine.

I am no longer interested in debating anything else with you on this forum ,unless you are prepared to put forward an honest argument.

End of conversation.


----------



## Caribbean Man

moco82 said:


> Don't forget the _droit du Seigneur_.
> 
> Perhaps a conclusion here is that it is not appropriate to measure modern marriage (an arrangement for personal fulfillment) by standards and values of centuries-old marriage (an institution to regenerate and structure society).


Those were the dark ages sir!
Plus there is no real, hard evidence that such a custom was even practiced.
Old wives tales?


----------



## moco82

Caribbean Man said:


> Those were the dark ages sir!
> Plus there is no real, hard evidence that such a custom was even practiced.
> Old wives tales?


There is no smoke without fire. It was certainly not systematic; I'm sure most seigneurs practiced their... _droit_ without much of a calendar.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> You refuse to see that sleeping with another person's spouse is, by it's very nature, incompatible with integrity. I don't think you understand integrity. At this point I feel like I'm talking to a recalcitrant child, so I think I'll leave it there. After all, you can only lead a horse to water...


Ah yes, disagree with my position, can't convince me, so insult me. I'm the child? psssh. That's a sure sign of a strong argument right there. 

Sleeping with another's spouse is not incompatible with integrity because the having sex with a willing partner is NOT immoral. It is not the single doing harm. For the 50,000th time... no one can break your word FOR you, and breaking one's vow is the ONLY immoral action occurring here. Whether its an open marriage, whether the spouse is miserable, whether they're swingers or whether the spouse just wants some @ss on the side is completely morally irrelevant to the single.

How many examples must I provide? Maybe reducing the scale of the offense will help point it out:

Jack has made a commitment to meet his wife for some shopping. Just before going, Rob comes along and invites Jack to go have a beer. In front of Rob, Jack calls his wife and lies about being stuck at work (the immoral action) so he can have a beer with Rob instead of shopping. Jack has a beer with Rob.

Rob didn't lie and he didn't make Jack lie. Jack's lie isn't Rob's responsibility. At best, Rob has less respect for Jack. But Rob has done no wrong. Exact same scenario for the Single. The lie that was told is the vow. You can try to obfuscate this simple and obvious truth with words like integrity and adultery, or emotional appeals to the spouses family and what not, but it is really THAT simple. The cheating spouse lied. The Single didn't lie. The Single didn't make them lie. End of story.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sleeping with another's spouse is not incompatible with integrity


You're wrong. You're now just metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you!". We clearly have different ideas on how a man of integrity behaves.

If anyone is obfuscating it's you with your endless analogies; Adultery is like running a business, theft, selling a car, etc. It's unnecessary adultery is exactly like sleeping with another man's wife. No need for analogies.

And finally, in your example:
Jack can either grow a pair and tell his wife he's meeting Rob for a beer or he can grow a pair and tell Rob he's already made a commitment. Either way he can choose to act like an adult and get through this with his integrity intact. Simple.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

azteca1986 said:


> And finally, in your example:
> Jack can either grow a pair and tell his wife he's meeting Rob for a beer or he can grow a pair and tell Rob he's already made a commitment. Either way he can choose to act like an adult and get through this with his integrity intact. Simple.


Notice how you slam Jack, but say nothing of Rob's behavior? Case in point.

Hiding behind the term adultery doesn't change the moral principle involved. The only wrong is the lie. Otherwise, you would have held Rob culpable for Jack's betrayal too. Its only when we change having a beer to sex that your emotional bias is revealed, even though the betrayal is the same... lies.



azteca1986 said:


> adultery is exactly like sleeping with another man's wife. No need for analogies.


Oh really? Note how everyone seems to agree that its not immoral if the married couple are swingers. By definition this is adultery too... so the fact that its adultery isn't what makes it immoral. Think of it, no change in the single's behavior at all from one case to the other changes him from being immoral to moral? No. The only immoral action is the lie. This is something you naturally pick up on in the beer analogy, but refuse to acknowledge when we switch the shared activity to sex, even though the principle behind each is exactly the same.

Just saying "you're wrong", isn't a very compelling case.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is something you naturally pick up on in the beer analogy, but refuse to acknowledge when we switch the shared activity to sex, even though the principle behind each is exactly the same.


They're not the fvcking same. That's why you're resorting to analogies in the first place to make your point. Read thread title --> stick to the subject of adultery.



> Just saying "you're wrong", isn't a very compelling case.


Doesn't matter, you're still wrong.


********* fin *********


----------



## easy_e

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Notice how you slam Jack, but say nothing of Rob's behavior? Case in point.
> 
> Hiding behind the term adultery doesn't change the moral principle involved. The only wrong is the lie. Otherwise, you would have held Rob culpable for Jack's betrayal too. Its only when we change having a beer to sex that your emotional bias is revealed, even though the betrayal is the same... lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? Note how everyone seems to agree that its not immoral if the married couple are swingers. By definition this is adultery too... so the fact that its adultery isn't what makes it immoral. Think of it, no change in the single's behavior at all from one case to the other changes him from being immoral to moral? No. The only immoral action is the lie. This is something you naturally pick up on in the beer analogy, but refuse to acknowledge when we switch the shared activity to sex, even though the principle behind each is exactly the same.
> 
> Just saying "you're wrong", isn't a very compelling case.


I don't think your analogy of grabbing a beer is correct. It would be Rob saying,"hey Jack, lets go grab a Budweiser that is on the curb next to the Budweiser delivery truck....it's just sitting there for us to take."

You (Jack) can decide if you want to be a thief like Rob.....or stick with your integrity.


----------



## treyvion

"why would I want to bang a married chick or one with a boyfriend? There are plenty of single babes to go around"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

easy_e said:


> I don't think your analogy of grabbing a beer is correct. It would be Rob saying,"hey Jack, lets go grab a Budweiser that is on the curb next to the Budweiser delivery truck....it's just sitting there for us to take."
> 
> You (Jack) can decide if you want to be a thief like Rob.....or stick with your integrity.


That would really break the analogy entirely. Rob would be a participant in stealing - an immoral act - rather than having a beer with Jack - a moral act. A single is not stealing anything by having sex with a married. The sex is totally moral for the Single. The only immoral action is the married's lie. That's why the distinction against swingers is so necessary to point out. The sex itself is not immoral and the single is not a participant in the married's lie - "forsaking all others" any more than Rob is a participant in Jack's lie to his wife.

Jack and the married are the only one's doing wrong in each case.


----------



## easy_e

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That would really break the analogy entirely. Rob would be a participant in stealing - an immoral act - rather than having a beer with Jack - a moral act. A single is not stealing anything by having sex with a married. The sex is totally moral for the Single. The only immoral action is the married's lie. That's why the distinction against swingers is so necessary to point out. The sex itself is not immoral and the single is not a participant in the married's lie - "forsaking all others" any more than Rob is a participant in Jack's lie to his wife.
> 
> Jack and the married are the only one's doing wrong in each case.


Do you just type because you like the sound of the keyboard?


----------



## Created2Write

If you are having sex with a married person you are participating in the married's adultery...hence "the affair partner". And that _is_ immoral.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> If you are having sex with a married person you are participating in the married's adultery...hence "the affair partner". And that _is_ immoral.


There's that useless word again: adultery. Newsflash: having sex with other people while married is not by itself immoral (See aforementioned swingers). The immoral act is the lie. If you can't bring yourself to say that Rob is immoral for having a drink with Jack while Jack lies about it to his wife, then you can't logically say that a single is immoral for having sex with a married while they lie to their spouse.

Affair partner, adultery, sex, or having beer... are all totally irrelevant to the moral question. It is the LYING that is immoral! Only one person in each case is doing it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

easy_e said:


> Do you just type because you like the sound of the keyboard?


Do you? My posts have all been on point in reply to criticism of my argument. Or was I not supposed to reply to yours?


----------



## arbitrator

*Cheating during the course of marriage is largely immoral in two distinct ways:
The act itself violates the very tenants of one's marital vows to their spouse, their families, their community, and to God, and
The accompanying lying and trickle-truthing to their spouse, or for that matter, to anyone else that they are feverishly trying to keep from learning the sad truth of their infidelity.

That's why, with rare exception, that cheaters are equally known for their rampant lying exploits!*

*CHEATER = LIAR*


----------



## WyshIknew

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, It is a post from an ex member called findingmyway, often posted by Chaparral.

The fellows name that posted this is findingmyway.

My perspective- as a serial cheat. Before I start, I'm no GQ model look alike and I'm not wealthy.

For me, it was always about extra sex. The thrill of the chase and ego boost was a plus, but I just wanted more sex than my wife did. I always loved my wife and certainly never ever wanted to leave her or lose her. Especially not over someone else's wayward wife.

I had a simple method. I used it because it worked. I targeted married women. I figured they were safer for several important reasons.
1- Less likely to be sleeping around with random guys (STDs).
2- Less likely to pull the crazy girlfriend BS and call my wife.
3- In case of an unwanted pregnancy, I had a built in schmuck to pay the tab and would have claimed to have had a vasectomy.

The most important part of being a player is to hide it. I started with shy looks making certain I'd get caught and then doing my best to look embarrassed. If she started to come around more or dress sexier then I'd try a safe compliment. If she called me on my BS (yes, it happened) I simply acted highly offended. After all, I'm a married family man. That usually got me an apology. A few really smart ones just avoided me altogether.

If she accepted the compliment, I knew I had a chance. I never ever wasted time with someone that I didn't want to bed. If the compliment was successful, I simply followed with more as time permitted and just let things develop. Who knew where it would go? When she would speak with me about her frustrations with her husband (they always complained about their husband) I used that to my advantage. If they complained that he didn't do enough with the kids, I was dad of the year. If he didn't help out around the house, I did everything at home so my wife didn't have to. Yes, it was complete BS, but so what. My job was to make them feel special, pretty and needed and to paint the fantasy. After all, my goal was not conversation or friendship. I wanted to score.

Once things progressed and I had to keep it intense unless it was simply a once and done kind of thing. I would do that by pushing her boundaries for sex. Anal, public hook-up whatever. Keep in mind, I'm in it for the sex so I tried for everything I liked and heard more than once statements like... I never even let my husband do that. That was usually with anal, but sometimes public hook-ups also.

I certainly didn't want to be paying for hotel rooms out my pocket. If she wanted to pay, that was fine. Otherwise, we could hook-up anywhere, it didn't matter to me.

I always advised them to keep the secret between us, because it was so special. Actually, I didn't want to get busted. If they got busted, and some did. That was their tough crap to deal with. I certainly never vowed to love/honor/cherish them.

As I look back, I'm stunned at how easy it was and how many fell for my crap. I had some that would try to pull away and I'd feed them the star crossed lovers BS, you know... kept apart by the cruel hand of fate. That worked like magic to seal the deal. I also used things like I think my wife may have cheated on me. Then I'd work in how I got tested for STDs and it was clear and somehow manage to mention my vasectomy (never had one). Understand? I'm safe, you won't catch anything if you sleep with me and I won't get you pregnant. That was the message.

The one thing that sent me running was the fear of getting caught and sometimes I just wanted a quick bang and wasn't in it for a couple of months of an affair. I'm still also amazed by how many didn't see through my crap either. They didn't have to deal with the day to day stresses that adults face with me (finances, mortgages, car payments, child care, time commitments, etc.). With me, it was just fun and sex. The poor bastard at home didn't have a chance once the play was in motion. It also helped me to see him as a douche-bag when his wife whined about him for whatever reason.

I work with a woman that has lost everything over an affair with me. The house, husband, family, etc. It's difficult to see. She hates me now, but I never vowed anything to her or forced her to do anything. That's her tough crap. Her kids are in therapy, their grades tanked and she's struggling financially and the kids blame her, etc. Honestly, I wish she'd quit so I didn't have to see her every freaking day.


I do know a few like me that I consider even worse. They brag and laugh about getting wayward wives to do things and try to get email or text proof to show off. It's pretty easy, just tell her how much he liked doing X with her last night and let her respond. Then they had proof to brag about and trade notes. I didn't do that. I just wanted the sex and avoided the women they talked about. I liked to find the ones who would seem to be the last to ever do anything like this. Goes back to my 3 reasons.

I never flirted with a married woman unless I wanted in her pants. Plain and simple, you do have to hide it so they don't see it coming, but it's really that basic. Other players use different methods, but we all use what works and modify sometimes if we're not progressing to try a different angle. Not all women are the same, and sometimes deviations are required if she'll let you in her pants.

It was never about love, just sex. I sold the fantasy, yes. But that is all it ever was. A fair trade. They were adults and quite frankly should have known better. Am I a predator, I certainly never thought so and I certainly never thought about what would happen to them when we were done. Yes, all my affairs ended. Most stayed married to their H they *****ed about and screwed around on. Therefore, he must not have been that bad. People just get caught up with unrealistic expectations on life I think. For goodness sake, Prince charming is only charming because he wants a blow job.

Before I close, I'll say this as well. An engaged woman would have worked for me also, but I never found one that would go for me. Also, newly married women are much harder to get. I had the best luck with women who had been married for at least several years, throw a kid or two in the mix and they were usually more susceptible to being chased.

It was a fair trade. Attention and compliments for sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

^ that's immoral. Selling a fantasy is lying. I've done it once (albeit not with a married woman), but it was still wrong and in the end it bit me. It was a bad time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you for sharing that, Wysh. I think it is important to read for any married person.

Women target married men like that, too.

I have known both men and women who were "that type".


----------



## Created2Write

You can justify adultery and cheating if you want to, Dvls. You're entitled to your opinion. But I have to say that I emphatically disagree with it, and will always disagree with it. The more you type, the more convinced I am that the affair partners are also wrong to be sleeping with someone elses spouse. There's so little conviction, compassion, morality, selflessness in your posts. It's all about self and absolutely nothing else, and I can't respect or admire that at all. 

At this point I think it's best we not engage each other in conversation any longer. Like FW said, most of us are only getting rooted deeper into our opinions as the conversation goes on. I know I'm tired of repeating myself. So, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I can't read anymore justifications of cheating.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You can justify adultery and cheating if you want to, Dvls.


Nowhere have I justified cheating. Your rational thought is clouded by emotion.



Created2Write said:


> At this point I think it's best we not engage each other in conversation any longer. Like FW said, most of us are only getting rooted deeper into our opinions as the conversation goes on. I know I'm tired of repeating myself. So, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I can't read anymore justifications of cheating.


That's fine, because if you can't see that I've never justified cheating, then there is no point in presenting any logical argument to you. You are all emotion, and there's no arguing with emotion.


----------



## Created2Write

Sure. My disagreeing is all emotion. lol.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Sure. My disagreeing is all emotion. lol.


You certainly haven't presented a logical argument. You just throw out words like "adultery" as if that's supposed to have some weight. Yes, we all know the married is having sex with someone else and that its called adultery. Yet, by definition, swingers are also engaging in adultery and this isn't immoral. How much immoral weight does the word adultery have if it can be morally engaged in? None. Can you even see how illogical it is to hang your argument on the word adultery, which is just extra-marital sex, when not all extra-marital sex is immoral?? It says that committing adultery alone does not determine whether its moral or not. So what does? The LIE.

I can't paint any clearer picture for you. The only immoral act here is the lie, and it is only the married that is lying.

You're religious, buck up and say "God says adultery is wrong, so it's immoral and swingers are immoral too". That's at least a logically consistent argument, even if its a trap I'm setting.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That would really break the analogy entirely. Rob would be a participant in stealing - an immoral act - rather than having a beer with Jack - a moral act. A single is not stealing anything by having sex with a married. The sex is totally moral for the Single. The only immoral action is the married's lie. That's why the distinction against swingers is so necessary to point out. The sex itself is not immoral and the single is not a participant in the married's lie - "forsaking all others" any more than Rob is a participant in Jack's lie to his wife.
> 
> Jack and the married are the only one's doing wrong in each case.


You are an accomplice in the betrayal of the betrayed spouse. That's all it is. It takes two, "there are plenty of single folks out there".


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you for sharing that, Wysh. I think it is important to read for any married person.
> 
> Women target married men like that, too.
> 
> I have known both men and women who were "that type".


Their ego gets off in kicking dirt in the face of the "inferior" betrayed spouse. It becomes a real nasty beast over time.


----------



## azteca1986

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You just throw out words like "adultery" as if that's supposed to have some weight.


The very fact that you don't comprehend the gravity of adultery is why we have come to this impasse. It is you and people like you that are the subject of this thread.

You also have blind-spot on the meaning of integrity. This comes as no surprise.


----------



## Kobo

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


They want to have sex with said married woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trey said: "Their ego gets off in kicking dirt in the face of the "inferior" betrayed spouse."


Yes, some of them are like this. But for some it is just a sex thing. 

Some are just sex addicts and go for anyone, everyone.

Some are just truly messed up people who don't understand anything about life or consequences.


----------



## Created2Write

Swinging isn't adultery if both partners have agreed to it because they're not in a monogamous relationship. Hence, no cheating. 

So yes, the word adultery _does_ carry weight. You just don't like what that weight is.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> You are an accomplice in the betrayal of the betrayed spouse. That's all it is. It takes two, "there are plenty of single folks out there".


*sigh*

An accomplice is a legal term. A person who helps another in the commission of a crime. Adultery is not a crime, thus by definition the single is not an accomplice and neither have any bearing on morality.

The single didn't help the married lie. They had sex, the married lied all on their own.


----------



## Kobo

Vanguard said:


> So we can CUCKOLD your husbands!
> 
> Bwa ha ha ha! Filth! Pestilence! Broken families! Unfavorable settlements and alimony, and of course the assured distrust of all future relationships! First we ****, and then we pass the buck!


Well since a good percentage of husbands aren't the real father I'd say the cucking has been ongoing from the start


----------



## Kobo

WyshIknew said:


> I wouldn't normally wish this on anyone. But part of me would love to hear of a guy who when he was single went after married women returning home to find his wife getting serviced by the pool boy and the gardener.


If 50% of women are cheating on their husbands I'm sure it's happened.


----------



## Created2Write

And _I'm_ the emotional one? :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...others-mate-ask-an-expert-or-brangelina/?_r=0

That's a link to some articles about mate poaching.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Would you prefer the word cheating rather than adultery?


----------



## Kobo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "I flirt with my friends wives and married women all of the time. For reasons I can't explain, whenever we get together they ALL want to talk to me and know how my love life is, often in detail. They flirt back. It's fun. Do I want to sleep with them? No. Am I respectful and know where the 'line' is? Of course."
> 
> They all know you are a friend to their marriages, not just the spouses. You present no threat.


No threat until the fairy tale ain't so rosy anymore.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Would you prefer the word cheating rather than adultery?


Much better! Getting closer, but not quite perfect! Why is it cheating? Because the cheater's vow is a *lie*. Tada, the immoral act: A lie.

The single isn't cheating. The single isn't lying. And just like Rob isn't immoral for having that drink (moral) with Jack who lied (immoral) to his wife, the single can't be immoral for having sex (moral) with the married who lied (immoral) to their spouse.

But seriously, there's no where left to go with this, I literally can't make it any simpler. If one can't see it, I can only imagine its because one doesn't want to see it... because no one has presented a logical argument against this point yet.

So until someone does, I'm out. For real this time. lol


----------



## Created2Write

Interesting read, FW!


----------



## Created2Write

Cheating requires two people. Period.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Much better! Getting closer! Why is it cheating? Because the cheater's vow is a *lie*. Tada, the immoral act.
> 
> The single isn't cheating. And just like Rob isn't immoral for having that drink (moral) with Jack who lied (immoral) to his wife, the single can't be immoral for having sex (moral) with the married who lied (immoral) to their spouse.


Rob may very well be responsible for the lie. How many people goad each other onto things by suggesting "she doesn't have to know? How many friends conspire to have their BNO, and mutually lie to their wives about it? 

The Robs of this world are often very much demonstrating their lack of integrity, in much the way that those who sleep with marrieds do.

You seem to be assuming that the single or beer partner are simply hapless bystanders to the deceit, but that is often not the case. If they are that, though, that is are also lied to by the married,/cheater then I'd be more inclined to agree with your stance


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Cheating requires two people. Period.


No one can break your word for you. Period.


----------



## Created2Write

Go back and read my posts. I've never said that the single is responsible for the marriage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Rob may very well be responsible for the lie. How many people goad each other onto things by suggesting "she doesn't have to know? How many friends conspire to have their BNO, and mutually lie to their wives about it?


He may. Assume then that he has done no goading. Jack wanted out of his obligation to his wife, and Rob presented an opportunity... which I suspect is the most common case in affairs too.



always_alone said:


> The Robs of this world are often very much demonstrating their lack of integrity, in much the way that those who sleep with marrieds do.
> 
> You seem to be assuming that the single or beer partner are simply hapless bystanders to the deceit, but that is often not the case. If they are that, though, that is are also lied to by the married,/cheater then I'd be more inclined to agree with your stance


Best argument thus far, but limited to Rob encouraging Jack to lie... not encouraging him to have a beer. Rob seeking/having a beer with Jack, or the Single seeking/having sex with the Married, are by themselves not immoral.

"Hey, they don't have to know!" -sure, I'd call that encouraging the lie. But if the married is open to cheating, the Single has no moral obligation as to whether the married lies to their spouse about it or not. That's between the spouses themselves if the single doesn't goad the married into hiding it.


----------



## Created2Write

Immoral:

1.violating moral principles; *not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics*.
2.licentious or lascivious. 

Licentious:
1.sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2.unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
3.*going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits*; disregarding rules.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> are by themselves not immoral.
> .


Depends who you talk to if they define a om/ow actions as immoral or not, everyone has a different view of moral principles.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh*
> 
> An accomplice is a legal term. A person who helps another in the commission of a crime. Adultery is not a crime, thus by definition the single is not an accomplice and neither have any bearing on morality.
> 
> The single didn't help the married lie. They had sex, the married lied all on their own.


In a committed long term gf/bf arrangement or husband wife, where committment is implied and cheating devistating, throwing off the course of someons life... The single who decides to cheat with someone who is not in a swinging or open relationship, is an accomplice in the betrayal of the betrayed partner.

Whether it's right or wrong is up to you to decide.


----------



## treyvion

What if you where just a friend that helped her find an affair partner?

What if you sold her some crack?

What if you where just the friend who put together a bunch of non conclusive evidence to get the betrayed husband in serious trouble?

Should the betrayed be angry with you and possibly "retaliate"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Depends who you talk to if they define a om/ow actions as immoral or not, everyone has a different view of moral principles.


Moral relativism doesn't hold up very well. I was a fan until taking philosophy courses in college. This isn't a philosophy forum, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I remember reading a news story about a woman in NY who sued her ex-husband's affair partner for pain and suffering.

She won the case.

So with that ruling it seems the affair partner is an accomplice and can be held legally liable for damages caused.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> What if... [...]
> 
> Should the betrayed be angry with you and possibly "retaliate"?


What if a million things? The bottom line here is that no one can break your word but you.

The betrayed should be angry, with the person who actually betrayed them. I've been cheated on. The om is irrelevant. He didn't betray me.

I won't weigh in on the morality of retaliation, except to say that if one is going to retaliate, then it ought to be against the one that actually betrayed them.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Moral relativism doesn't hold up very well. I was a fan until taking philosophy courses in college. This isn't a philosophy forum, so I'll leave it at that.


I disagree I think moral relativism is key to this discussion, especially when talking about what is/isn't immoral.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> I remember reading a news story about a woman in NY who sued her ex-husband's affair partner for pain and suffering.
> 
> She won the case.
> 
> So with that ruling it seems the affair partner is an accomplice and can be held legally liable for damages caused.


You're probably thinking Alienation of affections Alienation of affections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its mostly abolished, and sits in the same netherworld as criminal adultery or sodomy.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ScarletBegonias said:


> I remember reading a news story about a woman in NY who sued her ex-husband's affair partner for pain and suffering.
> 
> She won the case.
> 
> So with that ruling it seems the affair partner is an accomplice and can be held legally liable for damages caused.


Was she stalking/harassing her in any way, or was it just the fact the woman slept with her partner ?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> I disagree I think moral relativism is key to this discussion, especially when talking about what is/isn't immoral.


Just saying, this is a huge can of worms, and my experience in philosophy is that moral relativism has a huge number of weaknesses that eventually lead you to variations of "there is no morality" then or at least, a weak, shell of morality in contrast to the way most people experience/relate to it.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

TiggyBlue said:


> Was she stalking/harassing her in any way, or was it just the fact the woman slept with her partner ?


According to the article the OW and husband caused the pain and suffering to the wife. The affair resulted in the husband leaving to be with this other women and she knowingly engaged in a sexual relationship with a married man. It didn't mention stalking/harassing behaviors.

But of course,it's just a news article and I imagine we'll never really be told the full story.


----------



## Goldmember357

Ego, desperate, bored, 

they want sex and hope they run into a cheating wife


----------



## TiggyBlue

ScarletBegonias said:


> According to the article the OW and husband caused the pain and suffering to the wife. The affair resulted in the husband leaving to be with this other women and she knowingly engaged in a sexual relationship with a married man. It didn't mention stalking/harassing behaviors.
> 
> But of course,it's just a news article and I imagine we'll never really be told the full story.


Might have been just that 
How to sue your husband's mistress - basic things you need to know - National infidelity | Examiner.com


Personally I think this law is ridiculous, maybe sue a ws but to so the affair partner because your partners a sk*nk seems mental imo.


----------



## Vega

Created2Write said:


> Go back and read my posts. I've never said that the single is responsible for the marriage.


Singles may not be responsible *FOR* the marriage, but they are definitely responsible *TO* the marriage, just like other marrieds are responsible TO other people's marriages.


----------



## Vega

ScarletBegonias said:


> I remember reading a news story about a woman in NY who sued her ex-husband's affair partner for pain and suffering.
> 
> She won the case.
> 
> So with that ruling it seems the affair partner is an accomplice and can be held legally liable for damages caused.


Yes! And in Illinois, the BS CAN sue the AP for alienation of affections. 

In various states, the BS can also sue the AP for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as well as Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

Unfortunately, there are very FEW states that still use laws such as this. Nowadays, every state is a "no-fault" state.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

TiggyBlue said:


> Might have been just that
> How to sue your husband's mistress - basic things you need to know - National infidelity | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> Personally I think this law is ridiculous, maybe sue a ws but to so the affair partner because your partners a sk*nk seems mental imo.


I imagine when she realized her husband is a liar and a cheat she went a little mental. That sort of situation makes someone want to adhere to the scorched Earth way of doing things.


----------



## Kobo

Caribbean Man said:


> And who determines that?
> Who gave them the authority to do so?
> In fact, the person / people who are adjudicating and imposing their morals on people who don't agree, whether they be in the minority or majority , may be themselves acting unethically in doing so.



Man I knew I liked you. Not just because I'm Jamerican either.


----------



## Kobo

Created2Write said:


> I maintain that adultery involves two people and both are accountable.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Who is the single person accountable to?


----------



## Kobo

Faithful Wife said:


> CM...she would have probably dumped him the first time.


cop out


----------



## Created2Write

I've said my piece, Kobo. I'm not engaging with those justifying sleeping with someone elses spouse. Read the thread and you'll find the answer to that question.


----------



## Kobo

WyshIknew said:


> What if she was gamed?


gamed? No such thing. As long as she/he is functioning mentally they can cut it off before any sort of gaming begins.


----------



## Kobo

Created2Write said:


> I've said my piece, Kobo. I'm not engaging with those justifying sleeping with someone elses spouse. Read the thread and you'll find the answer to that question.


no justification was made I asked who is the other person accountable to? That is not a justification of any action. A simple question based on a statement you made. If you feel that is giving justification for any action then it is just as well that you bow out.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> This is the fifth time on this thread that you have purposely misquoted me, even though each time I have corrected you.
> 
> Whatever floats your boat Always_Alone.
> Like I said on that other thread, if that method works for you,and makes you feel better, helps with your marriage and other interactions,then fine.
> 
> I am no longer interested in debating anything else with you on this forum ,unless you are prepared to put forward an honest argument.
> 
> End of conversation.


I scratched my head over this for a while, as I really didn't get why you were so hostile, and why you think I misinterpreted what you're saying. Then it dawned on me:

The whole reason you brought up Pol Pot and Stalin in the first place was to accuse *me* of being like them because of my awful willingness to judge the morality of others. And here I was thinking you were just advocating for moral relativism.

D'oh.

So let me respond once again with this new frame in mind.

Morality is complex, and what people count as moral or not varies according to context, culture, and history. On his point, at least, I think we can agree. 

But you seem to be accusing me of taking on some sort of absolutist, universal dictum that allows me to judge all instances of a single sleeping with a married in one sweeping sentence, and that is simply not the case. The starting point of this discussion is the case presented by the OP, which was of a single actively hitting on a married without any regard to that marriage, or the spouse. 

This is the type of activity that is being called out as immoral because it clearly involves a complete disregard for anything but one's own immediate pleasure. Similarly, just going along with what the married wants because, "hell, it's not my vows", the attitude taken by some in this thread, ignores completely how that role is contributing to the massive pain and suffering of others.

And you may still want to say that I'm no better than Pol Pot for judging another so shamelessly, but I would still argue that if there's any point to morality at all, it is to encourage us humans to treat each other well. We may disagree about what exactly "well" means at times, but if we can't sometimes feel justified in stating moral principals, then morality really just is another excuse to put people down and an utter waste of ti.


----------



## Vega

Dvls Advc8,

I'm forming a response to your analogy, but before I post, I want to ask you a quick question: 

Why do you believe _lying_ is an "immoral" act?

Vega


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Best argument thus far, but limited to Rob encouraging Jack to lie... not encouraging him to have a beer. Rob seeking/having a beer with Jack, or the Single seeking/having sex with the Married, are by themselves not immoral.


Don't forget that the whole starting point of this thread was a single actively hitting on a married. Which is exactly like Rob insisting that Jack lie to his wife in your analogy.

I don't have any real numbers as to how common it is for either side to encourage cheating, but if the fine folk here at TAM are telling the truth, it's very very common for singles to want to break up marriages --or maybe just have a little on the side --because "what he/she doesn't know won't hurt him." Look at all the men here, for example, that say their wedding ring is a "chick magnet".

ETA Also remember that many affairs are with co-workers, friends, neighbours. They aren't necessarily random strangers. They may even share friendly greetings (or more) with the betrayed spouse.


----------



## Thor

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh*
> 
> An accomplice is a legal term. A person who helps another in the commission of a crime. Adultery is not a crime, thus by definition the single is not an accomplice and neither have any bearing on morality.
> 
> The single didn't help the married lie. They had sex, the married lied all on their own.


Legality has nothing to do with morality.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What if a million things? The bottom line here is that no one can break your word but you.


You are stuck on the assumption that the only moral issue here is the breach of contract. But this is only one of a myriad moral issues being discussed in this thread.

Yes, the cheater was the one who broke the vows. What about all of the other issues that people here are putting forth?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Vega said:


> Dvls Advc8,
> 
> I'm forming a response to your analogy, but before I post, I want to ask you a quick question:
> 
> Why do you believe _lying_ is an "immoral" act?
> 
> Vega


From the Kantian perspective every person is born with intrinsic worth we call human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that humans are uniquely rational agents, freely making their own decisions, setting goals, and able to guide their conduct by reason. We all have the rational power of free choice.

A lie betrays this fundamental element of one's humanity, creating a fantasy for oneself and robbing others of their freedom to choose. A lie harms human dignity and autonomy.


----------



## always_alone

Kobo said:


> Who is the single person accountable to?


Him/herself.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You are stuck on the assumption that the only moral issue here is the breach of contract. But this is only one of a myriad moral issues being discussed in this thread.
> 
> Yes, the cheater was the one who broke the vows. What about all of the other issues that people here are putting forth?


The only other serious objection was on harm to others. We already went through this utilitarian perspective a couple hundred pages back.  I imagine with Vega's questioning, we're probably about to hit it again... so I'll hold off.

There was a nice run of impaling me on integrity grounds, but integrity is about consistency rather than objective moral value. It doesn't damage integrity for a single to have sex with a married. 

Where I suspect that person was trying to go - where I think they wanted to go if they were aware, is the virtue ethics perspective. However, the nature of virtue ethics makes it difficult to assess the morality of individual acts and they're somewhat arbitrary standards... getting there is more round about and subjective. ie lying always being wrong because it opposes the virtue of honesty, but what of it when lying advances the pursuit of another virtue? These conflicts abound in virtue ethics. Its kind of crappy imo. The single probably isn't behaving virtuous in having sex with the married... that is, I think most of us recognize he's not an ideal person by cultural norm, but I think its a stretch to call him outright immoral for not living up to an arbitrary standard of an ideal person, or even that the standard is legitimate. I briefly expressed this point some ways back in passing comments that "he's not winning any awards." He's not good, but he's not evil either.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Him/herself.


Accountable to themselves, the interest they have in not having sex is what?


----------



## Vega

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The only other serious objection was on harm to others. We already went through this utilitarian perspective a couple hundred pages back.  *I imagine with Vega's questioning, we're probably about to hit it again*... so I'll hold off.


LOL! Am I _that_ obvious, DvlsAdvc8? 

Sorry I have to do this to you, but I need to hold off on my response for a few hours, so, please don't 'wait up' for me in the meantime! 

Vega


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Accountable to themselves, the interest they have in not having sex is what?


Consideration of others feelings and consequences of actions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Thor said:


> Legality has nothing to do with morality.


Uh... exactly? That's *my* case bub. Whoever I was replying to was the one using a legal term in a moral discussion.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Vega said:


> LOL! Am I _that_ obvious, DvlsAdvc8?
> 
> Sorry I have to do this to you, but I need to hold off on my response for a few hours, so, please don't 'wait up' for me in the meantime!
> 
> Vega


I'm a prediction ENGINE. Actually, I get more joy out of being wrong on my predictions. I'm rather hopeful you're going to employ a "your argument is invalid" meme instead.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The only other serious objection was on harm to others. We already went through this utilitarian perspective a couple hundred pages back.  I imagine with Vega's questioning, we're probably about to hit it again... so I'll hold off.
> 
> There was a nice run of impaling me on integrity grounds, but integrity is about consistency rather than objective moral value. It doesn't damage integrity for a single to have sex with a married.
> 
> Where I suspect that person was trying to go - where I think they wanted to go if they were aware, is the virtue ethics perspective.


Well, you've said you are a fan of Kant, and a number of people have put forward the "do unto others" principle, which is pretty similar to his (but with a lot fewer words). What about that?

And what about "not harming others"? Sorry if I missed it, but do you think that's such a terrible way to approach morality? Granted it may not work all the time in all situations, but it certainly does help us to be a little nicer to each other overall, don't you think?


----------



## RandomDude

43 pages now, hell I can't keep up


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Immoral:
> 
> 1.violating moral principles; *not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics*.
> 2.licentious or lascivious.


BTW, this^^^right there is moral relativism.

*Created2Write*;4630153Licentious:


1.sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2.unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
3.*going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits*; disregarding rules.

This ^^^right there is where swinging and open marriages come in. To a couple involved in swinging, sex with another parter is NOT immoral.
To a couple involved in strict monogamy , swinging is immoral, and swinger lifestyle would be considered as _licentious._

The obvious question is how can these two groups coexist in a society at the same time.
The answer is moral relativism, or tolerance of other people's lifestyle choices, for the greater good of that society.

Hence an act can only be considered as immoral if it does not conform to social mores of a society.
In a Christian / Religious society , sex with multiple or same sex partners may be considered as immoral. In a non Christian , contemporary society, sex with multiple or even same sex partners is not considered immoral .

Some people consider flirting with a married person immoral, some do not.

If an immoral act is one that goes against the grain of socially accepted norms , then based on that logic, cheating or adultery may very soon not be _as_ immoral as it is now, because statistically ,a tremendous amount of married people are cheating.

I am 43 years old.
When I was growing up, if a woman got pregnant outside of wedlock, she was looked upon as_ immoral_. Today it is the norm and it is considered as an option to marriage.
Quite a lot of things that were considered as immoral back then as a society are now considered as morally sound options.

Where does this leave us?

If the state decided to make Polyamorus marriages legal , and Poly relationships became widespread and socially / morally acceptable .
What do you think would happen to the moral case against adultery?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just saying, this is a huge can of worms, and my experience in philosophy is that moral relativism has a huge number of weaknesses that eventually lead you to variations of "there is no morality" then or at least, a weak, shell of morality in contrast to the way most people experience/relate to it.


Morality is like a spectrum which is inextricably linked to intentions ,decisions and actions between right and wrong.
Right and wrong is usually affected by expediency and personal biases.
Where does that leave morality?


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Depends who you talk to if they define a om/ow actions as immoral or not, *everyone has a different view of moral principles.*


:iagree:

Well said.
But we are all humans.
There must be a source , datum or foci from which all ethics / morals come from.
A basic principle that can apply to everyone no matter what they believe in.
And that principle is:
_
" Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you."_

*Married husband* - Treat your wife with the love & respect you would like her to give to you.
*Married Wife* - Treat your husband with the love & respect you would like him to give to you.
*Single Person* - Treat your fellow man / woman with the love & respect you would like to be treated with.


----------



## Deejo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> From the Kantian perspective every person is born with intrinsic worth we call human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that humans are uniquely rational agents, freely making their own decisions, setting goals, and able to guide their conduct by reason. We all have the rational power of free choice.
> 
> A lie betrays this fundamental element of one's humanity, creating a fantasy for oneself and robbing others of their freedom to choose. A lie harms human dignity and autonomy.


I have no dog in this fight of proving anyone wrong, but what you just posted is what resonates with me about why adultery is just an unsavory affair, as enticing or as 'right' as the participants may believe it is.

Everybody in the equation, usually, is lying. The betrayor is lying to their spouse. Odds are the betrayor is lying to their AP. Odds are the AP is lying to their married partner. And overall, everyone is lying to themselves.

It is a relationship built upon lies. That is why I think they have such poor statistics of surviving and morphing into valid relationships once the affair comes out of the shadows of clandestine meetings focused on sex, to the day to day banality of a 'real' relationship.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> But we are all humans.
> There must be a source , datum or foci from which all ethics / morals come from.


No no there mustn't.

The fact that everyone has differing ethical viewpoints is absolute objective evidence of this.


----------



## Jasel

I know some guys who just think married women are easier. A few years ago I would have thought that was nonsense, but I have to say these days, to some extent anyway, I tend to agree.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> No no there mustn't.
> 
> The fact that everyone has differing ethical viewpoints is absolute objective evidence of this.


:iagree:
I fully agree, but do you think anyone on this thread will agree with that, without invoking Hitler , Pol Pot or their STBXW / STBXH ?


----------



## arbitrator

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> I fully agree, but do you think anyone on this thread will agree with that, without invoking Hitler , Pol Pot or their STBXW / STBXH ?


*Well, unlike my XW, I don't really think that Hitler or Pol Pot would ever jump into bed with fat, bearded, lardass boyfriends!*


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> I fully agree, but do you think anyone on this thread will agree with that, without invoking Hitler , Pol Pot or their STBXW / STBXH ?


Does become a sticky wicket, doesn't it?

I have seen people, rally around and support a wayward spouse based upon their decision to cheat.
They know the person is miserable. They know that the betrayed spouse is a complete sonuvab!tch and doesn't value their mate. They know that divorce means WORSE things to come for their friend, not better. 

The story about your cousin is a good one. 

Mate guarding is necessary. Being aware of the state of your marriage is necessary. Keeping the fire's burning is necessary. Knowing one's spouse is necessary. Laying back and taking for granted that your partner has a 'marital contract' with you as a basis for fidelity is a fool's gambit in my estimation.

Are single guys purposely hitting on married women scumbags? Maybe. But if you are an attractive woman, married or not, it's a given you're going to get hit on. At which point, how that person feels about the relationship to their spouse is far more telling about whether or not that single guy is going to get any traction with the interaction.


----------



## Caribbean Man

arbitrator said:


> *Well, unlike my XW, I don't really think that Hitler or Pol Pot would ever jump into bed with fat, bearded, lardass boyfriends!*


^^^:rofl:

BTW, You looked good in that youtube vid.
Still in great shape!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Are single guys purposely hitting on married women scumbags? Maybe. *But if you are an attractive woman, married or not, it's a given you're going to get hit on. At which point, how that person feels about the relationship to their spouse is far more telling about whether or not that single guy is going to get any traction with the interaction.*


It's as simple as that.

And that's what I've been trying to say throughout this thread.
Philosophical musings aside, whether or not the affair partner should take blame for wrecking the marriage is academic , because the real issue is the dynamics in the marriage that resulted in one partner cheating.

Neither husband or wife can exercise any control over the AP's
" moral " sensibilities or future indiscretions , except obliquely.
I do believe however, that exposing the AP should most definitely be done , I think it's done mostly for personal aggrandizement and a yearning for natural justice, which is justifiable IMO.

But,at the point the infidelity occurs, blaming the AP is irrelevant and hence,their culpability, a moot point.


----------



## always_alone

As an attractive married woman who is bound to get hit on by single (or not) men, I find it quite relevant and useful to know that said men probably don't have my best interests at heart, and are probably much more interested in whether I'm easy than any consideration for what is right and/or good. This can help me keep my perspective should temptation arise, and long before any infidelity occurs.

I would have thought that the gorgeous men of TAM who are constantly being hit on whilst married would have some small sliver of appreciation for this perspective, but clearly I'm whistling in the wind.


----------



## RandomDude

When I was married I was happy with STBX's loyalty and respect for our vows, I didn't ask nor encourage her to hate on guys who hit on her. She maintained her boundaries in terms of that and that was enough for me.

Besides it's better that then to have her drag me into fights all the time, like my first gf did in my youth. Kept me sharp on the street though that one, always had someone to beat down at least once a week. But not the lifestyle I enjoy now since I'm older.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> As an attractive married woman who is bound to get hit on by single (or not) men, I find it quite relevant and useful to know that said men probably don't have my best interests at heart, and are probably much more interested in whether I'm easy than any consideration for what is right and/or good. This can help me keep my perspective should temptation arise, and long before any infidelity occurs.
> 
> I would have thought that the gorgeous men of TAM who are constantly being hit on whilst married would have some small sliver of appreciation for this perspective, but clearly I'm whistling in the wind.


No ... we don't care if you're easy or not. And quite frequently, just because we strike up a conversation doesn't mean we are hoping to defile you or your marriage ... Wait, how hot exactly are you?

Unpleasant truth be told, I am struggling with this very issue. I am attracted to a married woman in a very unhappy marriage. She knows I'm single and she's has made her interest clear.

Am I nefarious POS looking get my rocks off and destroy a marriage? Not remotely.


----------



## Horizon

Bloke comes into my cave when I'm out and f**ks my partner then he is going to get f**ked with. The fact that she willingly participated (fell under his spell) is another matter in respect of how I deal with her.

It's a bloke thing and women like my WS don't seem to get that bloke dynamic - or deliberately don't because they are deep down protecting their AP's.

If you want to f**k around then have the decency to split from you partner first or there will be hell to pay. (dumb pr**k thinks he's away scott free - wrong!)


----------



## WyshIknew

Kobo said:


> gamed? No such thing. As long as she/he is functioning mentally they can cut it off before any sort of gaming begins.


And yet I see threads on here where guys state that 'gaming' is like some magic spell that makes women knickers disappear.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Horizon said:


> Bloke comes into my cave when I'm out and f**ks my partner then he is going to get f**ked with. The fact that she willingly participated (fell under his spell) is another matter in respect of how I deal with her.
> 
> It's a bloke thing and women like my WS don't seem to get that bloke dynamic - *or deliberately don't because they are deep down protecting their AP's.*
> 
> If you want to f**k around then have the decency to split from you partner first or there will be hell to pay. (dumb pr**k thinks he's away scott free - wrong!)


:iagree:

More often than not , this is the case, and quite frankly , very few BS ever understand it or are willing to grasp it . Love for their WS blinds them to the reality.
Like the poster Arbitrator posted earlier , the lying and the trickle truth is the hardest part to grasp. Why are they protecting the AP when they are supposed to be loyal to you ?

I believe its the state of mind of the WS , one which caused the affair in the first place , is responsible for that dysfunction.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> And yet I see threads on here where guys state that 'gaming' is like some magic spell that makes women knickers disappear.


When a WS's brain is wrapped up in a fog of dopamine , endorphins and delusions of grandeur,
Anything , would make their knickers drop.


----------



## WyshIknew

I was being a bit tongue in cheek as you know CM.

I just find it a bit ironic that some of the "burn the witch for cheating." people also argue vociferously for gaming and how you can trick married women into sex.


----------



## Horizon

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> More often than not , this is the case, and quite frankly , very few BS ever understand it or are willing to grasp it . Love for their WS blinds them to the reality.
> Like the poster Arbitrator posted earlier , the lying and the trickle truth is the hardest part to grasp. Why are they protecting the AP when they are supposed to be loyal to you ?
> 
> I believe its the state of mind of the WS , one which caused the affair in the first place , is responsible for that dysfunction.


This is the same woman who only recently accused me (for the 3rd time since DDay) of stalking her POS AP. Try that on for size. I politely told her where to go for holding onto such an idea.

Early in the piece I didn't see it; I was pretty f**ked up. I thought she was just playing dirty. Later I came to understand what was really driving her position on my first attempts to smoke him out and notify his wife.

But worse than this is the fact that she rigidly sticks to the - it meant nothing, it was only sex, i wanted it to be you, I chose you over him, it was all fantasy, we had sex because I felt I owed it to him for being so nice to me etc. etc. etc....

:scratchhead:


----------



## Vega

Deejo said:


> Unpleasant truth be told, I am struggling with this very issue. I am attracted to a married woman in a very unhappy marriage. She knows I'm single and she's has made her interest clear.


"Unhappiness" is *NOT* a valid reason to cheat. If she's THAT unhappy, she should leave the marriage...without any outside 'interference'.

Also, there are plenty of people in "unhappy marriages" who can learn to turn their marriages around for the better. Neither one of them needs to have an affair to do this.

There are also plenty of people who CLAIM that their marriage is "unhappy". Meanwhile, the BS has NO CLUE about the WSs "unhappiness". 



> Am I nefarious POS looking get my rocks off and destroy a marriage? Not remotely


Then what ARE you looking for with a _married_ woman?

Vega


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Deejo said:


> No ... we don't care if you're easy or not. And quite frequently, just because we strike up a conversation doesn't mean we are hoping to defile you or your marriage ... Wait, how hot exactly are you?
> 
> Unpleasant truth be told, I am struggling with this very issue. I am attracted to a married woman in a very unhappy marriage. She knows I'm single and she's has made her interest clear.
> 
> Am I nefarious POS looking get my rocks off and destroy a marriage? Not remotely.


I thought you had a girlfriend or someone you were seeing. or was that someone else?

Anyway,as you likely already know,let her wrap up her unhappy marriage if that's where it's headed.THEN maybe check back with her about going on a date 

Then there's no possibility of anyone thinking you're a nefarious POS looking to destroy a marriage...and she won't look like a cheating POS with the grass is greener complex.


----------



## Deejo

Vega said:


> "Unhappiness" is *NOT* a valid reason to cheat. If she's THAT unhappy, she should leave the marriage...without any outside 'interference'.
> 
> Also, there are plenty of people in "unhappy marriages" who can learn to turn their marriages around for the better. Neither one of them needs to have an affair to do this.
> 
> There are also plenty of people who CLAIM that their marriage is "unhappy". Meanwhile, the BS has NO CLUE about the WSs "unhappiness".
> 
> 
> 
> Then what ARE you looking for with a _married_ woman?
> 
> Vega



Not going to argue with you. Don't feel compelled to defend my position. I was asked to speak with her as her marriage has been in the tank, literally for years, and many of her circumstances are identical to mine in the dying days of my marriage.

There is nothing you can tell me, that I haven't told her ... trust me. I counseled her to have him served. She has asked him to move out more than once. Counseled her NOT to make a bad decision about her behavior.

My point in sharing this information is that sometimes people DON'T go looking for this stuff.

Been monogamous my entire life. Advocate infidelity? Me? No. 

And here I find myself wondering what a relationship with this person might look like. 

It is not a source of pride, or a conniving swindle. I know it can't and won't work. 

I don't want to be 'that guy'.

Already sense that posting this was a tremendous mistake. Didn't do so out of guilt. Hoped to share that despite many people's belief that this is utterly black and white stuff, I can tell you first hand ... it isn't always that easy.


----------



## Deejo

ScarletBegonias said:


> I thought you had a girlfriend or someone you were seeing. or was that someone else?
> 
> Anyway,as you likely already know,let her wrap up her unhappy marriage if that's where it's headed.THEN maybe check back with her about going on a date
> 
> Then there's no possibility of anyone thinking you're a nefarious POS looking to destroy a marriage...and she won't look like a cheating POS with the grass is greener complex.


Nope ... likely was me. Relationship ended in August. Started dating again. Had several dates with other women. Was asked to speak to this woman by a family member of hers.

And yes, I know. I know what's right. What's right isn't always easy. I've doled out that little gem to plenty of other folks in my time around the board.

Just bringing some real my peeps.


----------



## azteca1986

Deejo said:


> And yes, I know. I know what's right. What's right isn't always easy.


Nobody ever said being right is easy. That's usually the biggest clue, I've found. When faced with two choices, the harder one is the right one.


----------



## Horizon

Our intentions are always so honorable and then the next thing you know we are deep in the fog. It's attraction. Right or wrong is cast adrift when the dopamine and endorphins are firing.


----------



## Deejo

Attraction isn't a choice. I've said that numerous times before as well.

I am very well aware that conduct, is indeed a choice.

Not looking for absolution or guidance. Just wanted to demonstrate that how affairs can start, isn't always about starting an affair.

I don't want to have one, or be part of one. Wish I could shake the sh!t out of this person's husband and tell him to get his act together.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Deejo said:


> Attraction isn't a choice. I've said that numerous times before as well.
> 
> I am very well aware that conduct, is indeed a choice.


:iagree:


----------



## RandomDude

> Already sense that posting this was a tremendous mistake. Didn't do so out of guilt. Hoped to share that despite many people's belief that this is utterly black and white stuff, I can tell you first hand ... it isn't always that easy.


As I mentioned a few times in this thread, no good deed goes unpunished. Being honest is a good deed, but now you are being punished heh

But as you know, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Few things are black and white in this world.


----------



## Entropy3000

julianne said:


> Ok guys, confess....why do some of you do this? You see a ring but still blaze ahead. I don't get it.


Many married women are easy targets. They crave attention. It is much tougher to meet your SOs needs 90% then it is to meet 1% of a need. 

The motives may vary. Most of the time it is just flirting. Not justifying it. However, froma predator stand point there are advantages however low life motivated to prey ona married woman.

1) They could be very vulnerable. Add to that that people get bored. Marriage can be tough. Fantasies are easy.

2) More likely that she is willing to have unprotected sex and is safer. At least this is the perception.

3) If she does get pregnant there is a husband to support the wife and child. Now this sucks ... I agree. But it is what it is.

4) It is more likley she will stay with her husband and one can have no strings attached sex. This may not be so practical.

5) For some reason many women have tunnel vision with male friends. They think them just being married means the guys do not want to bed them. So there is a dangerous blind spot. Many women 80 - 20 insist this is not true and then guys come back 80 - 20 and say it is. Guys would know BTW. So it is relativekly easy to get close to a married woman. There is a false sense of security. Plus many women are really about proving their independence.

6) Some guys like taking another man's wife. I mean think about it. Some other guy devotes his life to her. Sge tosses it away just to have sex with this other guy. What an ego rush for the guy that she would risk all just to have sex with him. messed up? Oh yeah. Not saying other guys even think about this but some see married women as a major conquest. Some do not even like women that much personally and like proving that they can manipulate them.

But basically it is a strategy for some guys that gets them sex. It only has to work on occasion.

Again most of the time it is just flirting.

Sorry for posting so late on this. I did not read the 45 pages.


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> Attraction isn't a choice. I've said that numerous times before as well.
> 
> I am very well aware that conduct, is indeed a choice.
> 
> Not looking for absolution or guidance. Just wanted to demonstrate that how affairs can start, isn't always about starting an affair.
> 
> I don't want to have one, or be part of one. Wish I could shake the sh!t out of this person's husband and tell him to get his act together.


THIS ^^^ Most of the time the person is not looking for an affair. But closeness bonds. Attraction grows. It is the way we are designed. To repopulate the planet.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> *Attraction isn't a choice. I've said that numerous times before as well.*
> 
> I am very well aware that conduct, is indeed a choice.
> 
> Not looking for absolution or guidance. Just wanted to demonstrate that how affairs can start, isn't always about starting an affair.
> 
> I don't want to have one, or be part of one. Wish I could shake the sh!t out of this person's husband and tell him to get his act together.


:iagree: with everything.
Lol,

Funny that I posted the same thing on another thread ( the highlighted part.) recently and a female poster mocked me to scorn!
But I guess it's all part of " forum politics " as played out right here on TAM. Lol, the jokes on them , not me.

Attraction may not be a choice , but we can choose how we respond to it.

Some years ago,I was in a similar a bit similar situation to yours. A lady friend I've known for years , who've helped me tremendously in my business over the years , once ,confessed to me that she was attracted to me, just like that , out of the blue.
I knew that she was in a horrible marriage , I knew her kids etc. and I have much respect for her. I knew her as a decent woman , very devout in her religion.

She knew my wife well and always told us how much she admires us , and our marriage.

Obviously I was not attracted to her ,in that way ,and I had and still have tremendous respect for her. Maybe that helped , because the first thing came to my mind was her vulnerability because of her marriage. Even if I was single , I could not take advantage of her. I respected her way too much. 
So I diffused it as tactfully and skillfully as I could, and she understood.
That was my choice.

However , I didn't think that made her a bad person ,we are only human. She did take a risk , telling me, and I remember how odd it was , lol! But today we are still friends , although we don't cross paths often.
And even though that was years ago , she has divorced and moved on and is in a much better place now. 
So what kept me from cheating with this beautiful woman , who have probably dropped her knickers for me?
I respected myself , my wife and her.
But most of all , I believe in being honest with myself.

Attraction and temptation comes and goes, but what matters most is not why it happens,but how we choose to respond.


----------



## alexm

Entropy3000 said:


> 5) For some reason many women have tunnel vision with male friends. They think them just being married means the guys do not want to bed them. So there is a dangerous blind spot. Many women 80 - 20 insist this is not true and then guys come back 80 - 20 and say it is. Guys would know BTW.


This ^^^

Funny story I just heard from my wife's friend. They were out at a pub not too long ago, and this guy kept coming up to my wife, winking at her, rubbing her shoulders, asking her how her night's going, all that. She told him to please not touch her, and flashed him the ring several times, but he kept coming back.

According to her friend, my wife had had enough, and finally told him if he didn't **** off, she'd knock his teeth out!

The entire table of ladies apparently burst out laughing, and the guy finally slinked away and never came back.

It was funnier how she told it, but a good laugh nonetheless.

On a related note, guys, I hope all you single ones remember that if you're not successful on pick-up attempt #1, to walk away and leave it. Repeatedly coming back is creepy, and can make a woman be scared. People (men) who do not take "no" for an answer can sometimes go a little too far, and no woman wants to feel unsafe when leaving the bar that night. Some don't take rejection well at all, and can make it so they did, in the end, have the power, if you see what I'm saying. Even if those aren't your intentions, you run the risk of making her feel very unsafe, and that's way out of bounds.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think it is true that attraction isn't a choice. BUT...many people think attraction "means something", when it just doesn't. It doesn't mean ANYTHING in and of itself.

People feel attraction and then they feel compelled to act on it, and in their minds this is because there is some cosmic meaning behind that attraction. Like they must be feeling this attraction "because me and this person were meant to connect".

I actually do believe in woo-woo stuff like that we were meant to connect with certain people. But attraction isn't the indicator of this. Otherwise we'd be "meant" to connect with potentially 1,000's of people in our life times!

Women especially tend to believe that if they feel a strong attraction, it "means something" about a potential relationship there with the person they are attracted to.

Strong mutual attraction is a necessary component to having a happy fulfilling sex life, IMO...but attraction alone is NO indication that there will be love, compatibility or any other feature of a good relationship. We can be attracted (visually) to someone who makes our skin crawl.

And yet...that attraction is still there for a reason. It is there because your body wants what it wants and doesn't care what YOU want. Attraction can cause that delicious feeling of desire and arousal, and then your mind starts trying to find ways to help the body get what it wants. The mind ends up coming up with other areas where there is compatibility or perceived compatibility, and then it's on. If you can catch your mind doing this and just realize that body attraction is all that is really happening and this isn't some cosmic force, you can stop yourself in your tracks and see this happening in your MIND.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> I was being a bit tongue in cheek as you know CM.
> 
> I just find it a bit ironic that some of the "burn the witch for cheating." people also argue vociferously for gaming and how you can trick married women into sex.


:iagree:

If it's a GNO or girl's wanna have fun thread, then we are naive little things who are easily manipulated and don't understand the fact that men just want an easy lay. If it's a why do men want married women thread, then the guys are all just misunderstood sweethearts, with only the best of intentions.

Very difficult to keep up around here.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I don't want to have one, or be part of one. Wish I could shake the sh!t out of this person's husband and tell him to get his act together.


But you're a good guy who knows getting involved in affairs is wrong. What about those who have very different morals than you, and believe they have zero responsibility in these issues?

Not all APs have very good intentions.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> But you're a good guy who knows getting involved in affairs is wrong. What about those who have very different morals than you, and believe they have zero responsibility in these issues?
> 
> Not all APs have very good intentions.


Thing about it... Is We had a couple of TAM users arguing for the single "power view" point of if they screw a married person they didn't break any contract. However they know they are getting in the middle of someones relationship, possibly messing them up. They don't know the guy...

These people that thinks their ethics line is that clean are fooling themself. These people likely also have some huge ethical and moral looseness, that would allow them to rugsweep some other actions. I don't know if I could trust someone like that.

I could trust them to probably party with and go out and find pootang, no matter if it's attached or not. Can I count on them not to put me in harms way and for them to know that's exactly what they are doing? I don't think so, because they would think it's not their responsibility.

People with the mindset can be very dangerous to others.


----------



## Vega

treyvion said:


> Thing about it... Is We had a couple of TAM users arguing for the single "power view" point of if they screw a married person they didn't break any contract. However they know they are getting in the middle of someones relationship, possibly messing them up. They don't know the guy...
> .


What's also ironic is that the WS and the AP may have a spoken 'vow' toward _each other_ (as if it's _more important _than the WSs marital vow to his/her spouse). 

So, what happens when the AP discovers that the WS has a _second_ AP on the side? AP#1 would probably be P*SSED. But WHY? It's not as if the WS had an 'vow' with AP#1, so AP#1 shouldn't be angry at AP#2...right? And even if the WS and AP#1 did have a spoken 'commitment' to one another, it's not as if they were MARRIED...right?

Also, a number of APs expect the WS to be 'faithful' to THEM instead of the BS...WITHOUT the marital vows. 

Talk about a sense of entitlement....

Vega


----------



## treyvion

Vega said:


> What's also ironic is that the WS and the AP may have a spoken 'vow' toward _each other_ (as if it's _more important _than the WSs marital vow to his/her spouse).
> 
> So, what happens when the AP discovers that the WS has a _second_ AP on the side? AP#1 would probably be P*SSED. But WHY? It's not as if the WS had an 'vow' with AP#1, so AP#1 shouldn't be angry at AP#2...right? And even if the WS and AP#1 did have a spoken 'commitment' to one another, it's not as if they were MARRIED...right?
> 
> Also, a number of APs expect the WS to be 'faithful' to THEM instead of the BS...WITHOUT the marital vows.
> 
> Talk about a sense of entitlement....
> 
> Vega


Alot of the AP's know that there is the possibility that there could be other AP's and if they cheated with them that they would cheat with others.

However I have heard the viewpoint from an AP... "Well you know if you sleep with me, you cannot sleep with your wife"...

And mean it. It is a powerful viewpoint, but it is very wrong.


----------



## Thor

Is there anyone, including APs, who don't think "he/she deserved it" when they hear about an AP who gets hurt/killed by the BH?

Normally isn't there at least an acknowledgement the AP was playing with fire?

Someone who in their true heart believes the AP in no way deserved to be harmed by the BS is the only person who does not know there is something inherently wrong with sleeping with a married person.


----------



## Caribbean Man

in·her·ent 
/inˈhi(ə)rənt/
*Adjective*
Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".
*Synonyms*
innate - inborn - native - intrinsic


Is there something wrong with smoking?
Yes.
Is there something_ inherently_ wrong with smoking?
No.
Less than ten years ago smoking was allowed in public places, and was considered a social norm. There is nothing right or wrong with smoking in and of itself, but the negative potential of it's use to third and other parties makes it an undesirable act, a great part of society shun with justifiable reasons. This does not mean that people who smoke, or tobacco growers and manufacturers are bad , immoral or wicked in spite of how we hate the stench of cigarettes, and fear for our health.
Smoking in some public areas may be an offence , but it is a victim less crime. Smoking in the privacy of your car or home is not an offence.

So lets broaden our perspectives.

Is slavery wrong?
Yes.
Is slavery_ inherently _wrong?
Yes.
Even though slavery was socially acceptable in the past , it was always inherently wrong because it involved denying another human being their basic , human right ,and forcing them into acts against their wills for the financial gain of the slave owner ,or what is known as objectification.

Is there something wrong with rape?
Yes.
Is there something _inherently_ wrong with rape?
Yes.
Rape is sexual activity forced upon someone without their explicit consent. Rape has never been socially acceptable because it disregards the basic human rights of the person who becomes a victim. Because there are victims at every level it is considered as morally, thus inherently wrong.

Is there something wrong with having sex with a married person?
Yes.
Is there something _inherently_ wrong with having sex with a married person?
No.
Consensual sex between two adult human beings is well within their human rights,and there is nothing inherently wrong with the act itself, whether they be of the same sex or opposite sex. Lets get that clear.
So how can it be * inherently * wrong between an AP and a married person?
If the married partner knows and has no problem with it, is it still inherently wrong?
See the problem with that type of logic?
It cannot be applied to all cases of extra marital sex. No matter how we feel about it, the fact are that many people feel and practise otherwise. If its inherently wrong , then people who share their spouses sexually are automatically branded as immoral.
And YES, we have to factor them in the equation, because they too, fall under the subset of people having extra marital sex.

There is something wrong with having extra marital sex because , marriage is supposed to _exclude all others_ .However, to many people there are varying degrees of wrongness or acceptableness of it. This depends on the moral values of the all the persons involved.

Although many people rightly consider extra marital sex wrong, there is nothing * inherently *wrong about having sex with a married person.

I think we should be very careful with the witch hunt , and the burning of those we do not like, at the stake.


----------



## chillymorn

Caribbean Man said:


> in·her·ent
> /inˈhi(ə)rənt/
> *Adjective*
> Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".
> *Synonyms*
> innate - inborn - native - intrinsic
> 
> 
> Is there something wrong with smoking?
> Yes.
> Is there something_ inherently_ wrong with smoking?
> No.
> Less than ten years ago smoking was allowed in public places, and was considered a social norm. There is nothing right or wrong with smoking in and of itself, but the negative potential of it's use to third and other parties makes it an undesirable act, a great part of society shun with justifiable reasons. This does not mean that people who smoke, or tobacco growers and manufacturers are bad , immoral or wicked in spite of how we hate the stench of cigarettes, and fear for our health.
> Smoking in some public areas may be an offence , but it is a victim less crime. Smoking in the privacy of your car or home is not an offence.
> 
> So lets broaden our perspectives.
> 
> Is slavery wrong?
> Yes.
> Is slavery_ inherently _wrong?
> Yes.
> Even though slavery was socially acceptable in the past , it was always inherently wrong because it involved denying another human being their basic , human right ,and forcing them into acts against their wills for the financial gain of the slave owner ,or what is known as objectification.
> 
> Is there something wrong with rape?
> Yes.
> Is there something _inherently_ wrong with rape?
> Yes.
> Rape is sexual activity forced upon someone without their explicit consent. Rape has never been socially acceptable because it disregards the basic human rights of the person who becomes a victim. Because there are victims at every level it is considered as morally, thus inherently wrong.
> 
> Is there something wrong with having sex with a married person?
> Yes.
> Is there something _inherently_ wrong with having sex with a married person?
> No.
> Consensual sex between two adult human beings is well within their human rights,and there is nothing inherently wrong with the act itself, whether they be of the same sex or opposite sex. Lets get that clear.
> So how can it be * inherently * wrong between an AP and a married person?
> If the married partner knows and has no problem with it, is it still inherently wrong?
> See the problem with that type of logic?
> It cannot be applied to all cases of extra marital sex. No matter how we feel about it, the fact are that many people feel and practise otherwise. If its inherently wrong , then people who share their spouses sexually are automatically branded as immoral.
> And YES, we have to factor them in the equation, because they too, fall under the subset of people having extra marital sex.
> 
> There is something wrong with having extra marital sex because , marriage is supposed to _exclude all others_ .However, to many people there are varying degrees of wrongness or acceptableness of it. This depends on the moral values of the all the persons involved.
> 
> Although many people rightly consider extra marital sex wrong, there is nothing * inherently *wrong about having sex with a married person.
> 
> I think we should be very careful with the witch hunt , and the burning of those we do not like, at the stake.


I guess I read that definition differently.

smoking has a danger of causing cancer and other health effects.

if there were slaves who liked slaves.....the one who had good masters or owner if you will some of them even refused to leave after slavery ended.

some women have rape fantasy. all though its roll playing its still rape roll playing.


having sex with a married person could very well be dangerous to one health. some BS beat the #hit out of the AP or worse sometime they go berserk and kill them. I would call that a danger...an inherent danger.


----------



## Caribbean Man

chillymorn said:


> having sex with a married person could very well be dangerous to one health. some BS beat the #hit out of the AP or worse sometime they go berserk and kill them. I would call that a danger...an inherent danger.


So much like smoking, it is not only wrong , but in some or many cases, there are INHERENT dangers..


----------



## Thor

Carib, I disagree with you on this one. When a cheating WS has sex with the AP, he/she is damaging the BS. The AP is facilitating and participating in that harm. Assuming the AP knows the WS is married, the AP knows the BS is being harmed.

It is inherently wrong to knowingly harm another person.

The WS does have the basic human right to control their body, including deciding to have sex or not. However, the wedding vows include promising exclusivity to the spouse. The WS does not have a right to break that promise. That is, the WS does not have the right to give away sex to an AP. The WS also does not have the right to emotionally harm the BS or put the BS at risk of disease.

It is inherently wrong for the WS to have sex with an AP.

Thus I believe it is inherently wrong to be an AP.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thor said:


> Carib, I disagree with you on this one. When a cheating WS has sex with the AP, he/she is damaging the BS. The AP is facilitating and participating in that harm. Assuming the AP knows the WS is married, the AP knows the BS is being harmed.
> 
> It is inherently wrong to knowingly harm another person.
> 
> The WS does have the basic human right to control their body, including deciding to have sex or not. However, the wedding vows include promising exclusivity to the spouse. The WS does not have a right to break that promise. That is, the WS does not have the right to give away sex to an AP. The WS also does not have the right to emotionally harm the BS or put the BS at risk of disease.
> 
> It is inherently wrong for the WS to have sex with an AP.
> 
> Thus I believe it is inherently wrong to be an AP.


Ok.

Fair enough , I guess it's just a matter of perspectives.
I agree with you that a married person took vows and has no moral right giving emotional or sexual affection to an affair partner.
But on the inherent part I have another view.

However , we both agree 100% that sex between a married person and an AP is wrong.


----------

