Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. ~H.G. Wells

[SidLyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennie-jennie

It is not that easy if you are in love with a man. Maybe she needed closure from Sid's husband to be able to end the affair once and for all, to hear from him that he wasn't interested in rekindling the affair.

 

I understand what you are saying. That is a possibility.

I understand what you are saying. That is a possibility.

 

I missed this post of yours yesterday. Good to see that you are open for looking at a situation from more than one viewpoint.

 

I think I already addressed this.

[jennie-jennie]

My H did end the affair himself just after d-day.

For months I was very scared, sad, lonely and miserable about the A and afraid that it might be ongoing or start again. That had been the previous pattern.

Eventually after a few months I was feeling a little stronger, so went to visit the OW. I visited her for a myriad of reasons but my "obvious" excuse was to return to her some gifts she had given my H over the years. I'm sure you can pick holes in this and say "why didn't he do it himself?", but the fact of the matter is that for my own healing I needed a reason to visit her.

 

I arrived unannounced at her workplace and after the initial shock had worn off she suggested we go for coffee together, which we did. We chatted for about 1.5 hours. She seemed reluctant to let me go. Our conversation was not heated or nasty. During this conversation I told her that I had previously considered telling her son but had not done so because he was so young and had lost his father. I also assured her I had no intention of telling him because she had kept her part of the bargain (she had previously written in an e-mail to me "I promise I will never contact Mr Sid again". This promise was not sought by me - she had made it of her own volition). I said I was glad she had not put me in the position of feeling I needed to expose her further, but that I would if I considered it necessary.

 

Actually Jennie it is you rather than Fields who had chosen to put your own interpretation on my actions.

 

I certainly can understand the bolded above. I have experienced it myself. I still don't agree with your way of handling this though, but to each their own.

[Fieldsofgold]

Aren't righteous and moral indignation kinda the same thing, though?

 

Both have the necessary "halo" implied.

 

Oops! I uses the wrong term, didn't I. I see moral and righteous indignation as one and the same. And IMHO there is definitely a "halo" implied.

 

I suppose some MI (moral indignation) could come from jealousy. But I am thinking that some of it also comes from a place of being defensive, and/or maybe even a place of fear, as in "how dare you do that to her (as in I am doing the same thing and I hope no one ever does something like that to me.)

 

Maybe I'm not finding the right words for it, but some of the MI seems more projected defensiveness and/or fear/dread than jealousy.

 

Or maybe it IS jealousy that the actions of some posters are sanctioned and defended, while the actions of some other posters are not.

 

In that sense it could be jealousy.

 

Or maybe it is a combination of things. I'm just not sure.

[Fieldsofgold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennie-jennie

It is not that easy if you are in love with a man. Maybe she needed closure from Sid's husband to be able to end the affair once and for all, to hear from him that he wasn't interested in rekindling the affair.

 

I understand what you are saying. That is a possibility.

 

 

 

 

I think I already addressed this.

 

Yes, you addressed it very nicely. My apologies to you for discussing your situation in a manner you may very well have never intended it to be discussed.

[Fieldsofgold]

I missed this post of yours yesterday. Good to see that you are open for looking at a situation from more than one viewpoint.

 

I try to be open-minded, fair, and compassionate. While I may be able to understand where someone is coming from, and I may be able to understand why they do what they do, and I may have compassion for their feelings or sitch and may even be able to sympathize, up to a point, that doesn't mean I am necessarily going to agree or condone it.

 

I sometimes find myself feeling a great deal of compassion for the person, while being totally appalled and frustrated by their actions.

 

Like everyone else, I have my values and beliefs. And opinions.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Fieldsofgold

[pureinheart]

I try to be open-minded, fair, and compassionate. While I may be able to understand where someone is coming from, and I may be able to understand why they do what they do, and I may have compassion for their feelings or sitch and may even be able to sympathize, up to a point, that doesn't mean I am necessarily going to agree or condone it.

 

I sometimes find myself feeling a great deal of compassion for the person, while being totally appalled and frustrated by their actions.

 

Like everyone else, I have my values and beliefs. And opinions.

 

What you wrote is very well worded, at times I lack the wording to decribe my feeings and intentions or lack thereof.

 

You don't like what people do and are capable of, although love them regardless. Hey, I'll go as far as to say I have a hard time dealing with myself...when I do something I disagree with, but do it anyway..I have to take me with me, can't leave me or walk away...ya know:eek:

[wheelwright]

Oops! I uses the wrong term, didn't I. I see moral and righteous indignation as one and the same. And IMHO there is definitely a "halo" implied.

 

I suppose some MI (moral indignation) could come from jealousy. But I am thinking that some of it also comes from a place of being defensive, and/or maybe even a place of fear, as in "how dare you do that to her (as in I am doing the same thing and I hope no one ever does something like that to me.)

 

Maybe I'm not finding the right words for it, but some of the MI seems more projected defensiveness and/or fear/dread than jealousy.

 

Or maybe it IS jealousy that the actions of some posters are sanctioned and defended, while the actions of some other posters are not.

 

In that sense it could be jealousy.

 

Or maybe it is a combination of things. I'm just not sure.

 

I love this post FOG (crikey I wonder about how our names are acronymed here - I'm WW for goodness sake. Never even thought of it when I signed up...) I expect you knew.

 

I love your post because it admits to some kind of confusion. Sometimes when I write here I want to say so much how I see things that I forget that i'm confused anyway.

 

HG Wells? Riding on O Wilde's backbone?

 

In Victorian Britain (Wells' homeground), there was a lot of shock value to As. And most Ms happened in an arranged way, so passion might well have operated outside of M. That was tolerated.

 

Victorians were awfully prim people who cared above all about appearances. That's what Well's was talking about I think.

 

To be jealous of someone who doesn't give a fig about appearances... I defy anyone to say they have never seen someone feel that and not felt a sweet jealousy. And if they haven't, then why did the 60s happen?

 

But deeper than that is Well's understanding that moral indignation is in itself an inward looking foolish moral device. It only speaks of your own shortcomings - not of the person who is having some kind of spurious fun or their moral compass.

 

That's it. It's just saying that what is wrong is in yourself and not in others,

 

But cleverly, with laughter.

[pureinheart]

I love this post FOG (crikey I wonder about how our names are acronymed here - I'm WW for goodness sake. Never even thought of it when I signed up...) I expect you knew.

 

I love your post because it admits to some kind of confusion. Sometimes when I write here I want to say so much how I see things that I forget that i'm confused anyway.

 

HG Wells? Riding on O Wilde's backbone?

 

In Victorian Britain (Wells' homeground), there was a lot of shock value to As. And most Ms happened in an arranged way, so passion might well have operated outside of M. That was tolerated.

 

Victorians were awfully prim people who cared above all about appearances. That's what Well's was talking about I think.

 

To be jealous of someone who doesn't give a fig about appearances... I defy anyone to say they have never seen someone feel that and not felt a sweet jealousy. And if they haven't, then why did the 60s happen?

 

But deeper than that is Well's understanding that moral indignation is in itself an inward looking foolish moral device. It only speaks of your own shortcomings - not of the person who is having some kind of spurious fun or their moral compass.

 

That's it. It's just saying that what is wrong is in yourself and not in others,

 

But cleverly, with laughter.

 

Being dyslexic, there are certain words and phrases that I just am unable to grasp the full/correct meaning...ok...like you mentioned shortcomings...I am unable to understand the meaning of that word...have looked it up, everything and still can't....same with the title of this thread.

 

You really helped give understanding...

 

People who don't care about appearances are lighter, free people...less to think about. We can look at others faults and point them out with no problem, although when it comes to ourselves it's a much different matter...is that close?

[donnamaybe]

Seems to have hit quite a few nerves;)

Because the quote is a load of BS invented by a cheater to salve his own guilty conscience.

[donnamaybe]

Yes, she was. It just seems to me that posters are questioning why I am questioning Sid's behavior, as if I had a personal interest in the situation at hand. So what I am saying is that Sid's situation does not apply to a situation like mine where everybody close to me already knows of the affair, and thus there is no personal motivation from my part.

Your motivation is to ruin your MM's marriage IF he doesn't choose you over his W. I think Sid has a much more valid reason for the telling. JMO.

[donnamaybe]

Put it down to moral relativism Jennie - then I'm sure you will understand.

Now THAT was funny Sid! Yet, sadly appropriate.

[donnamaybe]

Yes, as a matter of fact it is.

 

As a parent you are to do NOTHING that will alienate a child from their parent.

 

Sorry, but the courts in the majority of jurisdictions do not care about the sex lives of adults.

 

And if you have a WS who knows their rights, and pursues it, you'll lose if they have the evidence.

 

It is all about how the person portrays the partner. EX: You're father is abandoning us for another woman. Or: He doesn't want to be part of OUR family anymore.

 

Or talking about how he is a liar etc. in front of the children IS parental alienation.

 

Sorry if you don't like it, it's the law in many states of the US.

 

And parental alienation happens on both sides, it just takes one side to pursue it in the courts.

 

GEL

There is no law about parental alienation when the child is a grown man.

[donnamaybe]

So your morals is that it is okay to be vindictive?

Karma can be a bitch.

[donnamaybe]

Your words not mine. I consider the exposure of the affair to be a logical consequence of conducting it in the first place. Furthermore the OW was fully aware that I would consider telling her son if she again approached my husband. Perhaps she was calling my bluff.

I agree. That's not vindictiveness. Vindictiveness would be going over to HER house and f'ing HER man.

[donnamaybe]

Fair enough

 

I'm not in the "telling" lobby - I've always argued (apart from "special circumstances") that a R is the business of the two people in it.

Sorry, but there were more than 2 people in Sid's R.

[donnamaybe]

But IN PRINCIPLE BS who, wanting to get a revenge on OW/OM or WS, hurts innocent people in the process, is no better than OW/OM and WS conducting the A. My opinion.

Now THIS is rich!

[donnamaybe]

Ah, finally got to the end of what I'd missed out on during the past few days and find it appears everyone hashed things out to satisfaction. Good! I like happy endings!