To The BS's - Don't Blame The OW

[Lyssa]

The term sloppy seconds is usually applied towards women who are sleeping with more than one man, at the same time. Use your imagination as to why it's applicable...

 

If you were seeing a divorced man, he would not be sleeping concurrently with multiple women unless your relationship is one of non-exclusivity.

 

Oh gee whizz... some people have no sense of humour

[Havn_a_life]

Some of us are not getting "sloppy seconds", we're getting it all.

 

Well, after the D, that is. Right?

But, of course, you have to take away CS, alimony, weekends when you have to deal with HIS kids and they aren't always nice to step mommy...you get my meaning.

[Havn_a_life]

Yes you are wrong but you are entitled to your own opinion. It is NO ONE ELSES responsibility to make someone happy. We are responsible for our own happiness and to say that a wife is obligated to "keep her man happy" is just bunk to me.

There are NO EXCUSES FOR CHEATING. EVER. The MM chose to cheat. He is to blame. The OW who knew he was married and still slept with him (some even married themselves) are equally to blame for the destruction of both families. The OW who were led on are being fed the same **** the BS is.

Most BS's place the majority of the blame where it is due anyway-Their spouse that was cheating.

 

Really, cause when the OW is off finding another MM to be with, the MM is home trying to make his M work, and dealing with the guilt of hurting the ones he's realizing he loves most. The decent MMs anyway.

[Trimmer]

Tony T - in case you don't already know this... Whatever you do, DON'T REVEAL YOUR LOCATION in a public post here on LS. Too many kooks out there.

This is good advice, TonyT... you know, just in case you are a first time poster, or unfamiliar with good posting practices, or anything like that...

 

On the topic of division of responsibility, I've said this before (in another of these "why blame the OW" threads...) I don't think it's useful to try to take some imaginary total amount of "blame" and try to divide it up like a sack of flour, and hand it out to the different people involved. Each person should take 100% of the responsibility for his or her own decisions, behavior, and - if you believe in it - moral choices (some don't.)

 

I don't believe either the MP or the OP should either "get off free" nor can be assigned a certain "percentage of the blame" for an affair. An OM/OW is completely responsible for his or her own choices and behaviors, and if he or she bears any responsibility to the community in terms of what marriage means within our society, then he or she should feel responsibility for knowingly ignoring that. This is where the "I didn't take the vows" argument often comes in. I happen to believe that a marriage is a "hands-off" sign that most people in the community understand the meaning of, but there are those who don't feel that way.

 

Within the marriage, each party bears responsibility for the state of the marriage and his or her part in it. I've always said, I took complete responsibility for my actions, behaviors, contributions and faults within our marriage, as I think my wife should have taken responsibility for hers. And beyond that, I place 100% of the responsibility for my wife's behavior related to her choice to go outside our marriage upon her.

 

Her responsibility for cheating is not shared or mitigated by the participation of an OM, nor by any perceived faults of mine.

 

The OP's responsibility to be an honorable member of society and not screw around with a marriage made before our community is not mitigated by the fact that our vows were "just between us."

 

It's a waste of time thinking that there is some fixed pool of responsibility for an affair that gets divided up and passed around, and spending time agonizing over what percentage goes to whom. Each spouse in a marriage is fully responsible for his/her behavior within the marriage. And participants knowingly involved in an affair are 100% responsible for their choices and behaviors. They often disagree on whether they have any reponsibility to the community outside themselves (e.g. to respect a marriage) but that's a question that won't be resolved here.

[Je Ne Regrette Rien]

They often disagree on whether they have any reponsibility to the community outside themselves (e.g. to respect a marriage) but that's a question that won't be resolved here.

 

I think thats debatable. There is a degree of responsibility to the OP due to the facillitation of an affair. Although, I think the reasoning behind the facillitation can differ in every situation and some deserve less responsibility than others.

 

I guess a question could be asked that if a MP initiates the act of infidelity with an outside party, is the respect for marriage there in the first place?

[silktricks]

I guess a question could be asked that if a MP initiates the act of infidelity with an outside party, is the respect for marriage there in the first place?

IMO, whether the MP initiate the act of infidelity does not remove any of the responsibility the OP has for his/her actions. It's the old 2 wrongs don't make a right type of argument . The OP still has (as Trimmer said) 100% responsibility for their own actions in regard to society and in regard to their own karmic burden.

 

The major problem I have had with the OP I've seen on LS (with some exceptions ) is that they choose to take little if any responsibility for their own actions. While the A is on-going, they cannot usually see a downside to their actions and tend to say "I didn't take the vows, it's not my responsibility". Though I can to a degree understand their point of view, I do not agree with it. A marriage is an agreement between two people, that is true, however, as Trimmer said (at least I think it was Trimmer) it is a societal arrangement. Whether marriage is an outmoded venue or not is up for debate, but as long as it still exists IMO it should be honored. If one chooses to not honor it, then one steps outside of the mores approved by the society in which we now exist. Those who step outside of the boundaries are responsible for their own actions for doing so. (There are other similar societal rules in regard to contracts that most people have no trouble understanding, but the marriage contract gets blurred by the love aspect.)

 

If the MP at some point decides to end the affair, it seems that many if not most OP then claim they are a victim of the lying MP. In other words, under no circumstances do they see themselves as culpable. That is an issue for me, as I believe that when the OP chose to align themselves with a married person outside of the "rules" of society they also took upon themselves a karmic burden. The pain they experience is not the fault of anyone but themselves for knowingly entering into the situation.

 

(There are other karmic burdens in the triad, but I've already talked about what I consider to be the BS burden, and the MP's burden is fairly obvious:D.)

[Trimmer]

I guess a question could be asked that if a MP initiates the act of infidelity with an outside party, is the respect for marriage there in the first place?

I think that pretty much describes a situation where neither the WS nor a knowing OM/OW are showing respect for the marriage.

 

My point was that there is a difference of opinion about whether OM/OW - from outside the marriage - owe any consideration or respect to the "do not touch" sign that a marriage is supposed to be in our society.

 

Some feel that once the WS disrespects the marriage by being willing to cheat, that all bets are off and by virtue of the WS's unilateral disrespect to the marriage (a disrespect potentially not shared by, and usually unknown to, the BS) the OM/OW then owes no consideration or respect to the marriage as an entity.

 

I think this may be one understandable source of enmity between BS and OM/OW. The BS: "You disrespected our marriage." My point about the futility of dividing up responsibility in percentages is that the OM/OW reply, "Well, your spouse was already disrespecting it..." is a rather hollow response.

 

So, bringing it back to the original topic, a BS can be wise enough not to "blame" the OM/OW for the affair, but can still understandably end up with a pretty low opinion of the OM/OW. Not too hard to imagine...

 

Another way to look at it: if an OM/OW feels no obligation to show respect toward a marriage, why worry whether the BS shows any respect toward them? Seems like a reasonable two-way street...

[silktricks]

I think this may be one understandable source of enmity between BS and OM/OW. The BS: "You disrespected our marriage." My point about the futility of dividing up responsibility in percentages is that the OM/OW reply, "Well, your spouse was already disrespecting it..." is a rather hollow response.

 

So, bringing it back to the original topic, a BS can be wise enough not to "blame" the OM/OW for the affair, but can still understandably end up with a pretty low opinion of the OM/OW. Not too hard to imagine...

There is also the fact that most WS upon D-Day try in every way to place all of the blame upon the OP. That said, there are OP who are predatory and go out of their way to initiate an EMA with someone who attracts them. Even then, however, the WS has full responsibility for THEIR actions.

 

Another way to look at it: if an OM/OW feels no obligation to show respect toward a marriage, why worry whether the BS shows any respect toward them? Seems like a reasonable two-way street...

Though in all honesty, I don't know that the OW/OM worries about whether the BS in their particular situation shows respect towards them. What (I think) they want (understandably) is that people on LS show respect especially when on the OW/OM forum.

[Trialbyfire]

Oh gee whizz... some people have no sense of humour

It wasn't funny.

[Je Ne Regrette Rien]

Though in all honesty, I don't know that the OW/OM worries about whether the BS in their particular situation shows respect towards them. What (I think) they want (understandably) is that people on LS show respect especially when on the OW/OM forum.

 

I do not know whether its necessarily respect for them as individuals. Perhaps its respect for a forum so that OW/OM feel able to vent and discuss their situations without being questioned as to why they are in the situation in the first place, when that may not necessarily be the issue. I see many posts like that and I dont agree with them.

 

In my opinion there is a division. I think there is an obviousness about the gentler tone in OM posts which makes me wonder whether some posters are taking their frustrations out on OW because an entity like OW has been involved in their marriage.

 

Its natural to look upon an OW or a BW and think "Wonder if that happened with the BW/OW in my situation". Yet, I dont think its positive to take that OWs/BWs situation personally, as all situations are different, all people are different. Yes, there are always going to be similiarities in the anatomy of affairs, yet the players are completely different and therefore the essence is different in every situation.

[OpenBook]

This is where the "I didn't take the vows" argument often comes in. I happen to believe that a marriage is a "hands-off" sign that most people in the community understand the meaning of, but there are those who don't feel that way.

 

Trimmer I'm flummoxed. How can you expect the community at large to respect the "hands-off" message of a marriage when the MM in it - the one who actually made the vows - is so flagrantly breaking them? Much less any OW who comes along and (unsuspecting or not) accepts his invitation to "dance"?

 

And this emphasis on "responsibility to the community" baffles me as well, when some 60% of married people are cheating. 60% is the majority of the population.

[pjean]

I've been thinking about the entire BS/OWorOM/MMorMW triangle. Yes, I see a lot of blame placed on certain people for whatever reason. But, I have a question. Doesnt this thread speak of OWorOM getting blamed for the infidelity of a marriage? What if the OWorOM doesnt believe in marriage. I know several people who are of the belief the marriage is merely an institution created by reglion (church) and not anything more. There are OWorOM whom do not wish to marry the MMorMW. So, to judge their morality I think is short-sighted by assuming they even share the same beliefs as the BS/MWorMM. Regardless if the OWorOM knew the person is married or not they did not make any committment to that person's spouse. I think complete responsibilty lies with the MMorMW not the OWorOM. Only time I beleive blame would lay on OWorOM is when, and if, they are requested to NC the MMorMW (by that person). Then it becomes an issue of respect for such a request, not respect for the institution of a marriage they are not contracted to. I never believed anyone should tell BS about relationship except the MMorMW. Even when they are told nothing will ever take back the actions that have already transpired outside their marriage.

[silktricks]

And this emphasis on "responsibility to the community" baffles me as well, when some 60% of married people are cheating. 60% is the majority of the population.

I know it's a little point, but I don't think that 60% of the population is cheating at the same time , I think that 60% (or at least more than half) of married people have cheated - not necessarily on their current partner, but have cheated at some point in their lives. Also, different people will respond as having cheated to different things, not necessarily including a full PA. That is a vastly different way of looking at the figure.

 

Also, it's kinda like reformed smokers are always the ones most adamantly against smoking, and reformed drunks against drinking. A lot of time the people who are most adamantly against infidelity are those who have themselves done it. Therefore the "responsibility to the community" argument really does have merit .

[Ladyjane14]

What if the OWorOM doesnt believe in marriage. I know several people who are of the belief the marriage is merely an institution created by reglion (church) and not anything more.

 

Do those people disrespect the religious beliefs of others all the time then, or just when it suits them?

 

What's separates Marriage from any other religious, cultural, or social belief so that it's okay to deliberately tamper with it?

 

I agree with Trimmer, people are responsible for their own choices at a rate of 100%. A choice to disrespect another person's core belief system is on the person who makes that choice. And to me, the ability to do something like that says something about the character of the person who's doing it.

[pjean]

Do those people disrespect the religious beliefs of others all the time then, or just when it suits them?

 

What's separates Marriage from any other religious, cultural, or social belief so that it's okay to deliberately tamper with it?

 

I agree with Trimmer, people are responsible for their own choices at a rate of 100%. A choice to disrespect another person's core belief system is on the person who makes that choice. And to me, the ability to do something like that says something about the character of the person who's doing it.

 

I dont think OWorOM is disrespecting anything. They are not the one's who are committed to it. If you are of one faith and not another do you think that means they are disrespecting the faith they dont beleive in? The person disrespecting the marriage is the person in the marriage who made a committment and has chosen to break that committment by whatever actions he/she takes.

[Ladyjane14]

I dont think OWorOM is disrespecting anything. They are not the one's who are committed to it. If you are of one faith and not another do you think that means they are disrespecting the faith they dont beleive in? The person disrespecting the marriage is the person in the marriage who made a committment and has chosen to break that committment by whatever actions he/she takes.

 

Well, let's look at a couple of small hypothetical situations then...

 

Say, you're having a dinner party and one of your guests is a person who eschews pork on religious conviction. Do you slip it to him anyway in the meatloaf and then lie about what you served?

 

Or maybe you're a nurse at a hospice and your patient is a Roman Catholic who wants a priest to perform Last Rites. Do you just blow off his request because you weren't baptized Catholic and it's time to take your break?

 

Would you slip an egg to a vegan? Or would you respect his personal beliefs?

 

Regardless of any permission a married cheater gives to the OP, you're still disrespecting the beliefs of the betrayed spouse, because if s/he didn't believe in marriage... s/he wouldn't BE MARRIED. What's more, a married cheater is in no position to give that permission anyway, because the marriage does not belong to him/her alone.. it also belongs to the spouse, who did NOT authorize the intrusion.

[NoIDidn't]

You know, LJ, some people are just mean and would do it to prove that the person isn't as pious as they claim in their beliefs. Yeah, its dumb, but some people are just that.

 

On the OP, I find it interesting that the title of the thread is to the BSs not to blame the OW, but then the OW goes on and blames the BW. Truly mind-boggling. Is it the definition of hypocrisy? I mean, the classic, you can't blame me, but I can blame you. Really weird.

 

But, I digress.

[OpenBook]

You know, LJ, some people are just mean and would do it to prove that the person isn't as pious as they claim in their beliefs. Yeah, its dumb, but some people are just that.

 

On the OP, I find it interesting that the title of the thread is to the BSs not to blame the OW, but then the OW goes on and blames the BW. Truly mind-boggling. Is it the definition of hypocrisy? I mean, the classic, you can't blame me, but I can blame you. Really weird.

 

But, I digress.

 

That's EXACTLY what I meant. The BS has no room to blame the OW because it's her own fault for making her H so unhappy that he is looking for fulfillment outside the M. And even if she wasn't making her H unhappy, she STILL doesn't have room to blame the OW because she has chosen to remain married to the louse, despite his deliberate betrayal.

 

Do you have a point?

[Ladyjane14]

You know' date=' LJ, some people are just mean and would do it to prove that the person isn't as pious as they claim in their beliefs. Yeah, its dumb, but some people are just that.[/quote']

 

Agreed, unfortunately. I just don't know how people can mistreat each other the way they do sometimes and still feel good about themselves.

 

Anyway, I was going to cite a couple of disrespectful incidents from the food service industry I noted years ago... but I remembered your "bump" just in time so I'll spare you the nausea.

 

(I don't think I posted you well wishes yet, btw.. Congratulations NID!!! )

[NoIDidn't]

Thanks LJ. My "bump" appears to be giving me more than enough nausea, so thanks for not offering more. And Thanks for the congrats.

 

OB, is it possible that your view is just a little too one-sided. I really don't understand why it is so important for you to have *total* agreement with your lop-sided view. I mean, unless a person is a minor, I fail to see how someone else MADE them do something (something that it would seem they are claiming that they didn't WANT to do).

 

Its possible that you are right in your assertion, but why is it so hard to at least examine the other possibilities presented by other posters that aren't necessarily absolving the W, but not blaming her for someone else's actions too?

[OpenBook]

OB' date=' is it possible that your view is just a little too one-sided. I really don't understand why it is so important for you to have *total* agreement with your lop-sided view.[/quote']

 

Yes of course it's possible I'm lop-sided. That's why I started the thread. I threw out the challenge: "Am I wrong?" And so far, no one has convinced me otherwise. Although I must admit some very compelling and well-thought-out arguments have been presented. For that I am deeply grateful. Still not convinced, though.

 

I mean' date=' unless a person is a minor, I fail to see how someone else MADE them do something (something that it would seem they are claiming that they didn't WANT to do).[/quote']

 

If you are referring to the OW, I don't recall anyone claiming that the MM "made" them do it. I do recall several posters saying they never thought it would happen to them, in a million years.

 

If you are referring to my premise that the BS drove her H to cheat, no that's not quite the same thing as MAKING him cheat. I agree, she didn't make him do anything. He could have reacted to his unhappiness by divorcing her, or developing a nervous tic in his neck, or any number of things. But the point is, he was unhappy enough to betray and deceive his W, the woman he vowed to devote the rest of his life to. That kind of unhappiness doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 

Its possible that you are right in your assertion' date=' but why is it so hard to at least examine the other possibilities presented by other posters that aren't necessarily absolving the W, but not blaming her for someone else's actions too?[/quote']

 

I think that I, and other enthusiastic participants in this thread, have examined just about all the possibilities there ARE out there. You're not saying I should back down from my position in order to entertain other ideas, are you?

[lindya]

Well, let's look at a couple of small hypothetical situations then...

 

Say, you're having a dinner party and one of your guests is a person who eschews pork on religious conviction. Do you slip it to him anyway in the meatloaf and then lie about what you served?

 

Or maybe you're a nurse at a hospice and your patient is a Roman Catholic who wants a priest to perform Last Rites. Do you just blow off his request because you weren't baptized Catholic and it's time to take your break?

 

Would you slip an egg to a vegan? Or would you respect his personal beliefs?

 

Regardless of any permission a married cheater gives to the OP, you're still disrespecting the beliefs of the betrayed spouse

 

And religion/beliefs don't even need to come into it. I think it's been established many, many times on this board that infidelity causes great hurt, and often psychological distress (as a result of the loss of trust) to people who've been cheated on. Is that just their problem? One that neither the cheating partner nor the Other Person should take any responsiblity for? I don't think it is. Not going by an authoritative test regarding duty of care and personal liability. Quote from an extremely famous old case on this matter:

 

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question

 

Evidence that infidelity causes great distress to the betrayed individual is so widespread, that we can surely accept it as a fact. So when the OW contemplates sleeping with a married man, assuming she knows he's married she knows that the likely detrimental effect this will have on his wife. She doesn't need to be in any kind of relationship with the guy's wife to owe her that basic duty not to cause her harm and distress.

 

What if a wife were to sue her husband and his mistress for emotional distress? If she could provide psychologists' reports demonstrating the detrimental effect on her, she might be successful. That would certainly clarify matters a bit regarding the role and responsibilities of the OW in these situations.

 

I see many BS's here on LoveShack adopt a Victim mentality toward their H's infidelity ("I was a good wife, it was his choice to cheat") and cop a morally superior attitude toward the OW (I don't even want to quote what they say, it's so repulsive).

 

Open Book: If a man raised an action for divorce on the grounds that "I've cheated on my wife, so obviously she didn't make me happy enough. It's her fault the marriage has broken down. Can I have my decree please?" he'd be laughed out of court. If you want to argue a fault based ground, you have to show that the other person behaved unreasonably. X not making Y feel happy or fulfilled doesn't automatically equate with X behaving unreasonably.

 

You'd have to show that X had done something specific which could be deemed unreasonable - and failing to make Y "happy" is too vague. Some people are malcontents or get bored within relationships because that's simply their temperament. Long term happiness with one person might always elude them for that reason. On the other hand, if Y cheats on X then straight away that's a ground for X to raise a divorce based on Y's marital misdemeanour.

 

It's accepted in law that infidelity destroys marriages, and that fault lies with the person who cheated. Unless the person can show that their partner actively encouraged them to cheat, they're not going to have a defence to the argument that they are at fault for the marriage breaking down. Active encouragement doesn't mean "not making me happy enough". It means "directly telling me it's okay to go ahead and sleep with someone else."

 

It's also accepted that incompatibility/terminal unhappiness for unclarified reasons, can wreck marriages. In those situations, it's open to the unhappy person to separate from their spouse then raise a no-fault divorce. That's a recognition of the fact that sometimes two people just don't make eachother happy, and it's nobody's fault.

 

Your proposition that it's the wife's fault when her husband cheats conflicts with the the view Western legal systems have of these matters. Those laws have authority and applicability. Your views don't. If your view was correct, then that would be demonstrated by someone taking it to court, arguing the propositions you make and winning. That hasn't happened.

 

So in answer to your question "am I wrong?"...according to systems that adjudicate on matters of right and wrong, and that have developed as a result of how convincingly certain propositions can be argued, you're clearly wrong.

[luvmy2ns]

And religion/beliefs don't even need to come into it. I think it's been established many, many times on this board that infidelity causes great hurt, and often psychological distress (as a result of the loss of trust) to people who've been cheated on. Is that just their problem? One that neither the cheating partner nor the Other Person should take any responsiblity for? I don't think it is. Not going by an authoritative test regarding duty of care and personal liability. Quote from an extremely famous old case on this matter:

 

 

 

Evidence that infidelity causes great distress to the betrayed individual is so widespread, that we can surely accept it as a fact. So when the OW contemplates sleeping with a married man, assuming she knows he's married she knows that the likely detrimental effect this will have on his wife. She doesn't need to be in any kind of relationship with the guy's wife to owe her that basic duty not to cause her harm and distress.

 

What if a wife were to sue her husband and his mistress for emotional distress? If she could provide psychologists' reports demonstrating the detrimental effect on her, she might be successful. That would certainly clarify matters a bit regarding the role and responsibilities of the OW in these situations.

 

 

 

Open Book: If a man raised an action for divorce on the grounds that "I've cheated on my wife, so obviously she didn't make me happy enough. It's her fault the marriage has broken down. Can I have my decree please?" he'd be laughed out of court. If you want to argue a fault based ground, you have to show that the other person behaved unreasonably. X not making Y feel happy or fulfilled doesn't automatically equate with X behaving unreasonably.

 

You'd have to show that X had done something specific which could be deemed unreasonable - and failing to make Y "happy" is too vague. Some people are malcontents or get bored within relationships because that's simply their temperament. Long term happiness with one person might always elude them for that reason. On the other hand, if Y cheats on X then straight away that's a ground for X to raise a divorce based on Y's marital misdemeanour.

 

It's accepted in law that infidelity destroys marriages, and that fault lies with the person who cheated. Unless the person can show that their partner actively encouraged them to cheat, they're not going to have a defence to the argument that they are at fault for the marriage breaking down. Active encouragement doesn't mean "not making me happy enough". It means "directly telling me it's okay to go ahead and sleep with someone else."

 

It's also accepted that incompatibility/terminal unhappiness for unclarified reasons, can wreck marriages. In those situations, it's open to the unhappy person to separate from their spouse then raise a no-fault divorce. That's a recognition of the fact that sometimes two people just don't make eachother happy, and it's nobody's fault.

 

Your proposition that it's the wife's fault when her husband cheats conflicts with the the view Western legal systems have of these matters. Those laws have authority and applicability. Your views don't. If your view was correct, then that would be demonstrated by someone taking it to court, arguing the propositions you make and winning. That hasn't happened.

 

So in answer to your question "am I wrong?"...according to systems that adjudicate on matters of right and wrong, and that have developed as a result of how convincingly certain propositions can be argued, you're clearly wrong.

 

Lindya, you are so awesome!

[Je Ne Regrette Rien]

It is shortsighted to believe that some people who are married get married because of religious beliefs.

 

Some get married because of religion. Some get married because that's what you do when your relationship has got to that point and you either make a commitment or you dont. Some people get married to make that promise and make that commitment wholly. Some get married because they have children and they want to become a family. Some get married because they want to sashay in a big white dress in front of their friends.

 

Not ALL get married because of religion. And therefore, asking OPs to respect religious beliefs, when in some cases there are obviously none is null and void.

 

In my opinion.

[NoIDidn't]

It is shortsighted to believe that some people who are married get married because of religious beliefs.

 

Some get married because of religion. Some get married because that's what you do when your relationship has got to that point and you either make a commitment or you dont. Some people get married to make that promise and make that commitment wholly. Some get married because they have children and they want to become a family. Some get married because they want to sashay in a big white dress in front of their friends.

 

Not ALL get married because of religion. And therefore, asking OPs to respect religious beliefs, when in some cases there are obviously none is null and void.

 

In my opinion.

 

You are missing the point. The point wasn't religion, it was different beliefs - be they religious beliefs or otherwise. Most people that get married do so expecting and promising each other fidelity. Whether they are religious people or not.

 

Marriage is not primarily a religious institution. Religion was only used as an example, if I can clarify for Lady Jane.