"When good people have affairs"

[dobler33]

If the cheaters are fortunate enough to be forgiven by their spouse or by their affair partner, that reflects what's in the heart of the one who is hurt and chooses to forgive, not the goodness of the one who is forgiven.

 

wow, norajane. that is a truly arresting and poignant thought. thanks for that.

[SidLyon]

It doesn't matter if they're good or bad - when they're cheating, they're hurting people. They're hurting both their spouse, and the OW/OM who is in love with them and desperately hoping...hoping...waiting...for years, sometimes.

 

If the cheaters are fortunate enough to be forgiven by their spouse or by their affair partner, that reflects what's in the heart of the one who is hurt and chooses to forgive, not the goodness of the one who is forgiven.

 

I tend to agree; which is why for some, it is not useful to focus on whether the one being forgiven is a good or bad person.

[NoIDidn't]

I trust because I have no reason not to. I think it is in his best interest not to give me a reason.

 

 

This is the gist of that site truthaboutdeception.com (or whatever it was).

 

The people that we love and trust because they've not proven to be untrustworthy, are the main ones betraying our trust. In little ways, and sometimes in big ones.

 

Trusting because one has no reason not to is the definition of blind trust, IMO. Mindful trust considers, not necessarily that person's previous lies, but that the person is very capable of betraying us (and we them).

 

I have to ask, is a person considered bad when they use a partner's blind trust against them?

 

I don't consider people good or bad, in general. I think of people in respect to their actions. If their actions reflect poor choices, I tend to limit my interactions with them.

[Reggie]

I do not think people are immutable. So, I don't look at a person that has cheated as good or bad.

After one has been cheated on, the trust is gone, sometimes forever. It depends on a number of things for me. I would want to see a long track record after the cheating of honest behavior and a willingness to be transparent. I would also consider the person's past. Is this a pattern of behavior? Are they dishonest in other areas?

And, post discovery, I think it makes a huge difference if the cheater takes responsibility and makes restitution and works on him/herself.

I really think a large part of the damage to the ability to trust takes place post discovery. So many times we see a busted cheater blaming, gaslighting, and doing additional damage that is so traumatic to the BS that it is irreversible.

[NoIDidn't]

I do not think people are immutable. So, I don't look at a person that has cheated as good or bad.

After one has been cheated on, the trust is gone, sometimes forever. It depends on a number of things for me. I would want to see a long track record after the cheating of honest behavior and a willingness to be transparent. I would also consider the person's past. Is this a pattern of behavior? Are they dishonest in other areas?

And, post discovery, I think it makes a huge difference if the cheater takes responsibility and makes restitution and works on him/herself.

I really think a large part of the damage to the ability to trust takes place post discovery. So many times we see a busted cheater blaming, gaslighting, and doing additional damage that is so traumatic to the BS that it is irreversible.

 

I agree. Especially on the post discovery part. If my H wouldn't have ended things and then owning up to what he'd done to my trust, we'd be over. I already have a hard time trusting people (thanks, dad) so it wouldn't have been salvagable if I had caught him in another lie after he said that things were over and that they were NC.

[NoIDidn't]

In my world, YES!

 

See, I consider their actions bad moreso than the person as bad. But I know what you are getting at.

[NoIDidn't]

Really, some people are just not good people which equals bad.

 

In the case of a MP knowingly leading their AP on AND lying to their BS for year upon year upon year, when does the fact of their continued bad behavior finally lead one to believe they are just inherently bad? How many instances of a person making a decision based solely on what feeds their own wants at the expense of all others does it take?

 

I just stop at the point of calling the person good or bad. I don't believe that people are good to begin with. But I don't think that we are mostly intentionally bad. We do what we are going to get away with, mostly.

 

In the instance that you mention in the quote, I would move beyond saying that person is making a poor decisions and just cut them loose with their warped mindset. Some people are twisted thinkers. Its the twisted thinking, though, that leads to the final thought on their "badness". IMO.

[jwi71]

I simply find it hard for good people to do bad things. Since we are, in large part, defined by our actions...

[NoIDidn't]

Some people; not all.

 

I and many people I know point out to the checker when they miss the case of sodas under the cart, for example. Many of us tend to think of how hurt someone else might be by our actions before we take them, and so we choose not to take said action.

 

Then there are others who rub their hands together with glee when the checker forgets that item under the cart. Or if they know what they are getting ready to do might hurt someone, they don't NOT do it, they simply try to hide their actions more carefully.

 

Oh, I agree with you. I once heard a gospel comedian say he didn't know the difference between a "test" and a "blessing". He said he paid his waitress $20 on an $18 tab and she brought him back $75 change. Was that a "test" or a "blessing"? LOL. He said it was his blessing. I say it was a test.

 

It takes a lot more than that for me to say a person is "bad". There is also that time period portion. You mentioned "years" in your previous post. I'm not going to feel good about the person that gets gleeful because they didn't pay for something, but if its a one time thing, I might give them the benefit of the doubt (that its a one time thing and not a character issue).

 

To the point of this thread, though. I think that the OW that gave her MM this book is trying to project that SHE is a good person (doing a bad thing) and that HE should therefore choose her.

[NoIDidn't]

Precisely.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer - good or bad?

 

Hitler - good or bad?

 

I know, I know. Cheaters aren't serial murderers or people committing genocide. BUT - if there is NEVER a "good or bad" in relation to people, then we can't say Dahmer or Hitler are bad people either.

 

You are never going to get reasonable people to talk good or bad when you use such extreme examples.

 

No one here is as "good" as Mother Teresa. So I gather, no one here is as "bad" as the people you listed. Don't you have better, more middle of the road examples of bad people than Hitler and Dahmer?

[NoIDidn't]

Well, usually only the most sensational people make the headlines, don'tcha know. I can't really give an example that EVERYONE would know unless you choose someone rather extreme. I know people in my personal life I could use as examples, but no one knows them.

 

My point was, and I'll say it again, if there is NEVER a "good or bad" person, then we can't say even serial murderers are bad. I wasn't comparing a cheater to a serial murderer. I was simply trying to point out that there MUST be a "good or bad," otherwise we would also have to consider THOSE people good (or at least "not bad") as well.

 

Well, I have an example of a person that did something completely stupid but I don't think he's a bad person (I do think he's an opportunist, though). Burris. The guy Blagoyavich appointed to the Senate in IL.

 

I don't think he's too extreme. There are sensational headlines that just fall flat because they just aren't as interesting as the media thinks they are, you betcha!! (LOL)

 

I think we are agreeing but you are calling the people bad, and I am putting the onus on their actions to the same effect: not people we want to be around or want our loved ones around.

[Dexter Morgan]

Hmm, I think that is what causes most BS's to keep their WS's no?

 

Because they think they're a good person deep down?

 

Maybe in a few cases. But methinks it has more to do with desperation and that thought of divorce is just too scary for most people.

 

It was for me and I contemplated staying just because divorce scared the hell out of me. Then I decided I don't care how scary it was, I'm doing it.

 

I think people just don't want to uproot their convenient lifestyle and try to think they have forgiven their cheaters.

 

I think there are rare occasions when a spouse stays with their cheater and can, for whatever reason, at least try to get back some sort of normalcy. But I think that there are alot of people out there staying for the wrong reasons, and they are in hell.

[NoIDidn't]

Ignorance and willfulness are two different things. And there are many gray areas to that whole mess with Burris. As for Blagojevich, I would have to say "bad," because he took the trust of the people who voted for him and crapped all over it - VERY willfully. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He wanted what he wanted and to hell with everyone else. Intent.

 

It's just my opinion, and we all have one (we've all heard the joke about that, I'm sure ).

 

We agree. I think you just hit the nail on the head with the separating concept for "good" vs. "bad': intent.

 

And on that, the WS is intentionally going to have to lie to BOTH OP and BS to get what they want. They are being very bad in that.

[Gamine]

The act of laying to waste another's life to pursue one's desires is the equivalent of murder. It is the willing and deliberate assassination of the life purpose, hopes, dreams, heart, and precious life of another human being who has been entrusted to your care by virtue of the marriage vow.

 

So, DonnaMaybe, perhaps your examples are not so extreme when you tear away all of the mitigation and rationalization.

 

If a person embezzles from a company for years and years... turns around and gets caught by the trusting employer they go to jail. Or a person files a false claim to an insurance company because they need or want the cash. They go to jail.

 

Our society is very clear when it concerns betrayal, lying and cheating when it comes to money isn't it? But, we have the need to blur the lines when it concerns someone's life. All of a sudden it isn't theft. All of a sudden there are subjective lines drawn in the sand on what is right and wrong. All of a sudden it is a gray area where no one dare tread with clarity.

 

Yes, the intent and/or the state of one's heart is very relevant when deciding on whether another person is salvageable as a decent human being. Our society uses this as mitigating circumstances to explain and if the 'reasons' are make sense on a subjective and objective level we extend understanding and compassion.

 

I'm not making judgments concerning the OW/OM's decisions. I look at the MP and the way they use other people's lives at their pleasure. It is almost a statement that people exist only insofar as their relevance and usefulness to the purposes they determine for them... and that the life has no value outside of that.... which would require that they are able to see people beyond their usefulness. This is utter and complete absorption in the self.

 

Yet, this poor soul is a good person. I extend to them my compassion, but they do not have my understanding. Their 'reasons' may involve feelings of 'love' as they see it, but does that constitute love? I say not.

 

They break down, use, hurt, and lie all in the name of love? What, in the truest sense, do these actions have to do with love? The answer is nothing. It has everything to do with getting what you desire at any expense. Even if what you are getting is feeling based the ends do not justify the means if the treatment of the OP and the spouse is dehumanizing and using.

[Gamine]

Love is patient, love is kind.

It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking.

It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

I Corinthians 13:4-8

[herenow]

I haven't been here in a bit and I haven't had the chance to read this whole thread. So, forgive me if I'm off base or this has been said.

 

As far as a person being good or bad, I think it's all very subjective. It's really up to the person making the determination and how they view the situation. Even in the extreme cases that were mentioned on this thread, there are those who felt they were "good" people. There are people who will even marry convicted serial killers.

 

I may feel that a person who burns down a clinic where abortions are preformed is evil. While someone else may find that very same person a righteous hero.

 

My life experiences determine my view of good and bad. No matter how I feel about a person, it's still just an opinion.

[Reggie]

You are never going to get reasonable people to talk good or bad when you use such extreme examples.

 

No one here is as "good" as Mother Teresa. So I gather, no one here is as "bad" as the people you listed. Don't you have better, more middle of the road examples of bad people than Hitler and Dahmer?

 

This came up on another thread, the extreme example issue. However, even with my limited intellectual abilities, I have always been able to see that the anaolgy is not comparing the degree of the evil , but merely pointing out a general principle.

I have seen some folks attaching to the subject of the analogy rather than the principle. For example, I once mentioned serial killers in a similar analogy. It was interpreted as my stating a belief that cheating and serial killing were morally equivalent. Yet, the person that claims to have seen it this way, appears bright.

Objection to these analogies, when it is evident that the person making the analogy means no such thing, seems a form of deflection. We see this technique used a lot when things( the general principles) start hitting too close to home.

[Trialbyfire]

Love is patient, love is kind.

It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking.

It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

I Corinthians 13:4-8

Love is...inhuman...

[herenow]

This came up on another thread, the extreme example issue. However, even with my limited intellectual abilities, I have always been able to see that the anaolgy is not comparing the degree of the evil , but merely pointing out a general principle.

I have seen some folks attaching to the subject of the analogy rather than the principle. For example, I once mentioned serial killers in a similar analogy. It was interpreted as my stating a belief that cheating and serial killing were morally equivalent. Yet, the person that claims to have seen it this way, appears bright.

Objection to these analogies, when it is evident that the person making the analogy means no such thing, seems a form of deflection. We see this technique used a lot when things( the general principles) start hitting too close to home.

 

I understand the analogy thing, but I still think the determination of good and bad are based on an individual's opinions and not on what we (you or I) feel should be considered good or bad. Hope that makes sense.

 

As much as I think it's inappropriate to mention it here, I have to say that even Hitler has fans in todays society. So, if there are those who consider his values and morals to be ones to live by, we can't assume that everyone thinks he was a bad guy. I shutter as I write this, but unfortunately it's true.

 

My point is, just because we may feel affairs are "bad", doesn't mean others will see things the same way. Now, I get that your analogies are used to make a different point, but when we don't all see eye to eye on the basic issue, the analogy will be seen in a different light (by some) than you meant it to be.

[herenow]

You must mean the part where all the rationalizing gets bandied about.

 

I have to admit that I'm guilty of over reacting myself to analogies. Not too long ago someone brought up Hitler in a post, and the way it was used upset me very much. It hit a nerve and I thought it was despicable. I'm sure they didn't mean it to be, but at the time, I pushed back in a big way. I don't remember who posted it or when, but I do know that I probably over reacted at the time.

[Owl]

I think that a "good person" can make the mistake of getting invovled in an EA by having poor boundaries and not recognizing early on that they've crossed a line and begun forming an inappropriate emotional attachment to someone other than their spouse.

 

Said "good person" should also take action to end the affair as soon as the affair is recognized...as soon as they do ANYTHING that they knowingly and intentionally hide from their spouse to continue and protect the affair.

 

A "bad person" continues on once they realize the damage that they're going to do as a result of their actions. That would be someone who intentionally maintains an active affair while also taking no action to divorce. It would also include ANYONE who engages in more than one affair...because they're FULLY AWARE of their actions the second time. It would also absolutely include anyone involved in a PA of any kind...because a PA can only occur after numerous OTHER boundaries were clearly and knowingly violated. This would also include a MM who knowingly and intentionally LIES to the potential OW/OM in order to build a relationship with them when they know/suspect that the OW/OM would not have done so if they'd have known the truth.

 

A "good person" makes a mistake, recognizes it, owns it, and takes active steps to end the bad behavior and fix the damage caused by it. An affair by itself is never a "mistake"...but the poor boundaries issue may have been.

 

A "bad person" continues said behavior with the full and conscious CHOICE to do so in the face of the damage that it will do. They may or may not take responsibility for the behavior (typically not)...but willfully takes no action to END said behavior.

 

Forgot to add....in my not-so-humble opinion.

[Owl]

This is why I think a "good person" might POSSIBLY have an affair...such as my wife's EA as a case in point.

 

Her actions were wrong...but she DID finally take ownership and responsibilty, and ultimately took the right actions to fix the situation.

 

If she were to do it again...she WOULD be a "bad person" in my eyes.

 

I've not read the book in question...I wonder what is says along these lines?

[herenow]

This is why I think a "good person" might POSSIBLY have an affair...such as my wife's EA as a case in point.

 

Her actions were wrong...but she DID finally take ownership and responsibilty, and ultimately took the right actions to fix the situation.

 

If she were to do it again...she WOULD be a "bad person" in my eyes.

 

I've not read the book in question...I wonder what is says along these lines?

 

Yes, in my eyes as well. But then again my eyes usually agree with your eyes.

[Shadowcat]

Well, as for the book and this thread, since the OP gave the book to her supposed "good" MM who then promptly gave her every indication that he wanted to leave things status quo, wouldn't that be a clear signal to most people which category he fits?

 

MM is not done reading it yet. So it is too early to see if he will take any action or remain in status quo.

[Mimolicious]

It's the lack of empathy and the selfishness displayed that gets to me , SC. Some of the cheaters are so focused on the discomfort they created, a discomfort that is nowhere near the level of pain they cause BSs, that they have no consideration for BSs.

In your case, for example. Not once have you mentioned feeling badly for hurting the wife and, possibly kids. If you would wake up and stop abusing this guy's wife, it would be nice.

I've pointed out some of what I see as the inconsistency in the stroy you are telling: Great guy(but he lies and cheats); Swedes, universally, have no problem with cheating; longterm LDR's are not longterm affairs(still cannot figure that one out).

It's not abusive to question these inconsistencies.

 

 

Remember IT'S all GOOD because his wife doesn't know... so what she dont know wont hurt her!