If you are single, and he is married, are you a cheater?

[donnamaybe]

Watch out ST. You KNOW you'll get a barrage of "people don't own each other" posts now.

[silktricks]

Watch out ST. You KNOW you'll get a barrage of "people don't own each other" posts now.

 

Yeah - I know Which in a lot of ways just seems sad to me. I want my husband to feel like he owns me, and vice versa. He feels the same way .

 

Actually, I figured there'd also be a bunch of people who were worried that I was comparing a MM to a dog - not too sure, though, if they'd be more offended for the dog or the MM

[donnamaybe]

Yeah - I know Which in a lot of ways just seems sad to me. I want my husband to feel like he owns me, and vice versa. He feels the same way .

 

Actually, I figured there'd also be a bunch of people who were worried that I was comparing a MM to a dog - not too sure, though, if they'd be more offended for the dog or the MM

 

Yup. My sweety knows that when we're apart I'll always be waiting for when I can see him next, and vice versa. It's a nice feeling.

 

As for your second paragraph....

[Spark1111]

In my opinion, both people who engage in an illicit affair are cheaters. The married person is breaking their vows. The non-married person is enabling the breaking of those vows. To say they didn't make the vow and therefore they have no guilt is IMO also blameshifting.

 

I'm sure this will offend some, but to me, it's like a child who says to his/her parent "the dog followed me home, can I keep him?" The parent will generally say, "no, he has a home and his owners will miss him if he stays here." The dog was wrong to follow the child home, but the child would also be wrong to keep the dog who was not hers.

 

JMO

 

I agree with this; both are conspiring to deceive the unsuspecting spouse of the married partner.

 

Can't have an affair, otherwise.

 

And personally, it was one of the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around after DDAY.

 

Espcially since the OW was divorced from her xH who apparently cheated on her many times and wound up marrying his last AP. She complained constantly and bitterly about this to my fWS.

 

So knowing this pain personally, it was hard to figure out how she could so easily inflict it on me.....

 

IC said: Poor self-image and low self-esteem, maybe resulting from her horrific divorce, maybe life long from daddy, with a strong sub-concious desire to enact revenge on her xH and empower her psyche by becoming the very thing that caused her so much pain.

 

Hmmmmm....very Freudian, dontchathink?

[Spark1111]

And APs avow they are not competing with the BS?

 

I think not!

 

In it's secrecy, the affair allows the two partners to enact any fantasy scenario imaginable with each other. For some it may be love, other's revenge, other's validation; but for a some, empowerment by being chosen over the BS is definitely a high, IMHO.

[Spark1111]

Yeah - I know Which in a lot of ways just seems sad to me. I want my husband to feel like he owns me, and vice versa. He feels the same way .

 

Actually, I figured there'd also be a bunch of people who were worried that I was comparing a MM to a dog - not too sure, though, if they'd be more offended for the dog or the MM

 

Hey, dogs are known for their loyalty and unconditional love!

 

Don't start maligning the inherent nature of dogs!

[donnamaybe]

In it's secrecy, the affair allows the two partners to enact any fantasy scenario imaginable with each other. For some it may be love, other's revenge, other's validation; but for a some, empowerment by being chosen over the BS is definitely a high, IMHO.

 

Weeelllllll, they may THINK they are being chosen over the BS, but when the you-know-what hits the fan, how many of them are quick to dump their AP and beg and plead with the BS to not dump THEM?

[HappyAtLast]

For some it may be love, other's revenge, other's validation; but for a some, empowerment by being chosen over the BS is definitely a high, IMHO.

 

Is that not simply human nature? Everyone likes to win. Do you really think it is less about getting their man and more about beating the BS?

[silktricks]

Do you really think it is less about getting their man and more about beating the BS?

 

Like everything - it depends. It depends upon the OW and the reasons she is an OW.

[MizFit]

In my opinion, both people who engage in an illicit affair are cheaters. The married person is breaking their vows. The non-married person is enabling the breaking of those vows. To say they didn't make the vow and therefore they have no guilt is IMO also blameshifting.

 

I'm sure this will offend some, but to me, it's like a child who says to his/her parent "the dog followed me home, can I keep him?" The parent will generally say, "no, he has a home and his owners will miss him if he stays here." The dog was wrong to follow the child home, but the child would also be wrong to keep the dog who was not hers.

 

JMO

 

And you're saying that all of these WS are so weak willed they stray and are at the mercy of someone to lead them home? So what you're saying is that the poor defenseless WS are so lacking that it's the responsibility of someone else to make them 'go home'? Sorry...my MM is an adult and perfectly capable of finding his way home all by himself when he wants to...it's not my responsible to deliver him home.

[HappyAtLast]

Interesting perspective. Sad to think that a marriage could be broken up "for sport"

[MizFit]

Yeah - I know Which in a lot of ways just seems sad to me. I want my husband to feel like he owns me, and vice versa. He feels the same way .

 

Actually, I figured there'd also be a bunch of people who were worried that I was comparing a MM to a dog - not too sure, though, if they'd be more offended for the dog or the MM

 

I wouldn't want to feel owned or that I needed to own someone. That implies you've made some sort of payment to them and they aren't there of their own free will. I want someone to be with me because of love and respect, not because they feel they own me and are entitled to have me there. I don't want anyone to feel I own them...if they want to go, then go. I'll fight for them until I know there's no reason left to fight, but I have no interest in being owned or owning someone.

 

I say that with all due respect because I know it takes all kinds.

[HappyAtLast]

To answer the original question, I do not believe that an unmarried affair partner can be labeled a cheater. I do believe, however, that both parties are doing something wrong.

 

The difference is that, the married party is not only responsible to himself for doing wrong, he is also responsible to his spouse. The affair partner is responsible to themself and their own integrity.

[silktricks]

And you're saying that all of these WS are so weak willed they stray and are at the mercy of someone to lead them home? So what you're saying is that the poor defenseless WS are so lacking that it's the responsibility of someone else to make them 'go home'? Sorry...my MM is an adult and perfectly capable of finding his way home all by himself when he wants to...it's not my responsible to deliver him home.

 

ahhh MizFit, I thought you said you quit... . I didn't say they were weak-willed. I said that in my opinion an OW enables the straying, and that IMO someone who claims they as the OW holds no responsibility is blameshifting.

 

Of course the MM holds responsibility. So does the OW.

[silktricks]

I wouldn't want to feel owned or that I needed to own someone. That implies you've made some sort of payment to them and they aren't there of their own free will. I want someone to be with me because of love and respect, not because they feel they own me and are entitled to have me there. I don't want anyone to feel I own them...if they want to go, then go. I'll fight for them until I know there's no reason left to fight, but I have no interest in being owned or owning someone.

 

I say that with all due respect because I know it takes all kinds.

 

That may be your implication It's not mine. To me it's that I have freely given all of me to him, as he has to me. Of course, he has the option to change his mind, ( as, of course, do I). But should he exercise that option he has the full knowledge that I will no longer be in any portion of his life. He will lose all of me.

[MizFit]

I agree with this; both are conspiring to deceive the unsuspecting spouse of the married partner.

 

Can't have an affair, otherwise.

 

And personally, it was one of the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around after DDAY.

 

Espcially since the OW was divorced from her xH who apparently cheated on her many times and wound up marrying his last AP. She complained constantly and bitterly about this to my fWS.

 

So knowing this pain personally, it was hard to figure out how she could so easily inflict it on me.....

 

IC said: Poor self-image and low self-esteem, maybe resulting from her horrific divorce, maybe life long from daddy, with a strong sub-concious desire to enact revenge on her xH and empower her psyche by becoming the very thing that caused her so much pain.

 

Hmmmmm....very Freudian, dontchathink?

 

In response to the bolded portion...you can't have an affair, but add a hooker or a ONS and you still have infidelity.

 

In resonse to the italicized portion...she didn't inflict the pain on you, he did. I do understand from previous posts that she did some odd and spiteful things to hurt you and I think that she (and a friend of mine who did similar) is the exception rather than the norm, but at the end of the day your husband made you vulnerable to that. I know you understand this...I don't want to get into a debate with about it. I have tremendous respect to your attitude and effort to your R and to the OW, but I am making a general point about the WS creating the situation.

 

The IC take is quite interesting. As I mentioned I have a friend who did something that may have been similar...she would have given Glenn Close a run for her money in the bunny boiler stakes. I think much of what IC said probably applied to her and it was heartbreaking to see her self destruct and try so hard to take someone with her.

[MizFit]

That may be your implication It's not mine. To me it's that I have freely given all of me to him, as he has to me. Of course, he has the option to change his mind, ( as, of course, do I). But should he exercise that option he has the full knowledge that I will no longer be in any portion of his life. He will lose all of me.

 

I took it more literally...just different views. The bolded portion-absolutely as it should be.

[MizFit]

ahhh MizFit, I thought you said you quit... . I didn't say they were weak-willed. I said that in my opinion an OW enables the straying, and that IMO someone who claims they as the OW holds no responsibility is blameshifting.

 

Of course the MM holds responsibility. So does the OW.

 

No ST...I said I'd watch and if something different came up for discussion I'd be back.

 

You said that the dog followed someone home and had to be led back to his...that is weak willed if you're equating a man with it.

 

An OW enables the straying, but so does a brothel if someone uses prostitutes...the internet enables someone to have an EA or access porn...women in bars who have ONS without any strings attached or asking if a man is married...women who give lap dances...the list goes on because someone can be unfaithful for a very long time and not have a true A. At the end of the day there are a million things that can enable something to do something they shouldn't...I do not think an enabler holds responsibility for what the other party does. Sorry...you can call it blameshifting all you want, but I don't.

[MizFit]

Like everything - it depends. It depends upon the OW and the reasons she is an OW.

 

I think you are spot on with this...if an OW is weak or having a time of extreme low self esteem I think it is entirely possible to want to 'one up' the BS. I remember when I was a teenager wanting to 'one up' a previous GF of someone I was seeing. I think it is definitely human nature.

 

I also think that there are times when the OW is very strong and confident in the relationship and is happy to wait and see how it goes. They are the ones who will leave it if it turns to nothing, but they are the ones who will fight for the man they love. I'm not saying a down and dirty fight or a slagging match with the BS...I'm saying they will not let go until they know it's no good for them to hold on any longer. I would suppose it's much the same as a BS would hold onto a spouse and make sure they had done everything in their power to make the R happen.

[MizFit]

Interesting perspective. Sad to think that a marriage could be broken up "for sport"

 

It's even sadder to think that it's a partner in the M that has actively sought for it to be in the position it could happen.

[silktricks]

No ST...I said I'd watch and if something different came up for discussion I'd be back.

 

You said that the dog followed someone home and had to be led back to his...that is weak willed if you're equating a man with it.

The point of my simile, of course, wasn't the dog .

 

An OW enables the straying, but so does a brothel if someone uses prostitutes...the internet enables someone to have an EA or access porn...women in bars who have ONS without any strings attached or asking if a man is married...women who give lap dances...the list goes on because someone can be unfaithful for a very long time and not have a true A. At the end of the day there are a million things that can enable something to do something they shouldn't...I do not think an enabler holds responsibility for what the other party does. Sorry...you can call it blameshifting all you want, but I don't.

Of course, a brothel or the internet are not enablers in the classical sense. Does their existence provide an avenue? Yes, but that isn't the same as enabling.

 

Since I personally don't consider getting a lapdance or looking at porn cheating - we can throw those out, but yes, a woman in a bar who doesn't ask if a man is married - enabler. A prostitute - enabler. Either of those, though I would excuse more than someone who carries on a long term affair with a married man.

 

But that's me and my opinion. I understand that you have your own opinion, and that it's not the same as mine . I do call it blameshifting to assume no responsibility for action you are taking, and place it all on someone else - my opinion.

[donnamaybe]

To answer the original question, I do not believe that an unmarried affair partner can be labeled a cheater. I do believe, however, that both parties are doing something wrong.

 

The difference is that, the married party is not only responsible to himself for doing wrong, he is also responsible to his spouse. The affair partner is responsible to themself and their own integrity.

 

Ahhhh. There it is. The "I" word.

[HappyAtLast]

It's even sadder to think that it's a partner in the M that has actively sought for it to be in the position it could happen.

 

Yes, my comment applies to either the affair partner or the married person.

[HappyAtLast]

Donna? The "I" word? One can only post from their own perspective, no? *I* was technically a cheater. My unmarried affair partner was not.

[MizFit]

The point of my simile, of course, wasn't the dog .

 

An OW enables the straying, but so does a brothel if someone uses prostitutes...the internet enables someone to have an EA or access porn...women in bars who have ONS without any strings attached or asking if a man is married...women who give lap dances...the list goes on because someone can be unfaithful for a very long time and not have a true A. At the end of the day there are a million things that can enable something to do something they shouldn't...I do not think an enabler holds responsibility for what the other party does. Sorry...you can call it blameshifting all you want, but I don't.

Of course, a brothel or the internet are not enablers in the classical sense. Does their existence provide an avenue? Yes, but that isn't the same as enabling.

 

Since I personally don't consider getting a lapdance or looking at porn cheating - we can throw those out, but yes, a woman in a bar who doesn't ask if a man is married - enabler. A prostitute - enabler. Either of those, though I would excuse more than someone who carries on a long term affair with a married man.

 

But that's me and my opinion. I understand that you have your own opinion, and that it's not the same as mine . I do call it blameshifting to assume no responsibility for action you are taking, and place it all on someone else - my opinion.

 

The point of your simile involved the dog. You insinuated the WS needed to be taken home rather then find their own way. It could have been any number of things you could have used rather than a dog...my point is the WS has free will and makes a choice. They are where they want to be. If that is home, then that's where they want to be. If they are with the AP, then that's where they want to be. They don't need to be led somewhere...that was the point to my response.

 

I do consider porn on the net and lap dances as cheating. They are often things that WS do that they hide from their BS...anything that can't be shared is cheating...that's my opinion so I will keep them on the list.

 

Providing an avenue and enabling...so I spend time with my MM going to dinner and movies and hiking. We talk and laugh and share loads of mundane things. We are intimate emotionally and that is more extensive than the physical intimacy. I'm merely providing him an avenue to develop that intimacy that he isn't able to achieve at home. My point being...what is enabling if it isn't providing an avenue? You have an alcoholic husband and you find it easier to lie to the family that he's ill when he's blind drunk...you've just provided him an avenue.

 

I absolutely will respectfully agree to disagree...I am clear in my thoughts on the blame in an A. I don't expect people to fall into line on them, but they are mine. They were the same when I was a BS...it's not like they changed overnight. Thank you for a good discussion and good points brought up.