Accepting personal responsibility

[pureinheart]

In my case yes, that is true. I didn't care if his xW got hurt. As I saw it, if she did get hurt, those were the consequences of her own actions, and I wasn't concerned with protecting her from the consequences of her own actions.

 

I was far more concerned about the ongoing hurting of innocent others - the kids, extended family members, and of course my love .

 

I've been called selfish countless times because I didn't prioritise the wants of his xW above my own (or above the needs of others, like the kids, my H, his family, etc) and I've not denied that of course I am selfish. I'm certainly not going to stand back and allow some other woman - a woman whose behaviour eroded any chance of respect from me, and who my H didn't even want anymore - to claim ownership of the man I loved, who loved me, and who wanted to be with me. I chose, he chose, and I wasn't going to rescind that choice just because it didn't sit well with some other woman. I've never denied that, and if that makes me selfish, it's a label I have no problem accepting. I'd far rather be selfish than miserable because I lacked the courage of my convictions.

 

Bold...this wouldn't be LS would it:rolleyes:. Personally, after reading your posts, selfish is the last word that comes to mind...you seem like a really cool person:) and I really thank you and some of the other posters, as you help to keep my mind in order...it's been hard for me lately (as it has for many) ...it's just really nice to see rational sound thinking (typing).

 

I think most BS's are not psychos, so it is difficult for some of them to understand when an OW does communicate a psycho BS, it can be perceived as slighted because it's the OW communicating it.

 

I know my situation was one for the books. I had no feelings for exDM's exW, she was psycho and did pass that on to her kids...I am just glad exDM is free.

Edited November 26, 2010 by pureinheart

[pureinheart]

I encourage my MM to be the best he can be. I am encouraging him to evolve and be true to himself.

 

My MM has stated that being with me he has had to watch his personality burn up. That is how much he is changing. For a middle-aged man this could be the last chance in his life to deal with certain issues, like always being inclined to do the right thing in expense of his own happiness.

 

He has always been the good boy, the good guy. Perhaps it is time to advance beyond that role and become a mature man who takes responsibility for his choices.

 

Well I can tell you that it is never too late, and in fact middle-aged may be the best time for reflection and change.

 

I can't even begin to tell you the drastic changes exDM made, he was the almost "bad boy" who wanted to be the good guy...always trying, but when everyone around you is telling you what a horrible person you are, a person can become that in certain ways...and he did.

 

Sometimes I think about how far he has come and why couldn't he and I work out after everything...he got stuck and is so against relationships and marriage that I just couldn't take it anymore...always keeping me "wondering" never getting any straight answers...hey I know I may not be the most direct person in the world, but that was too much...lol...

 

You know what I own...I own the fact that I did the best I could with what I had at the time. Certain emotions went against my belief system, although that is done and buried. I own that fact that I need to let go because I don't want to be stuck (meaning he is stuck) with him. I did good, he did good and now I need to heal. Even though it's the best thing for us both, it still hurts, but I own that hurt.

[Taramere]

Previously, I felt that the M was between MM and his W and, although I would never get involved with the H of a friend, or even of an acquaintance, if I didn't know the W, I really did not care about her and what my actions might mean to her or to their children. MM's family was far removed from me and I always kept it that way. I would never want to meet his W. I felt no guilt.

 

Now, I just feel more of a connection to humanity as a whole and like to live my life trying to be kind to others, even strangers, and to treat others as I like to be treated. This includes both caring about how my actions affect strangers and also caring more about the effect I have on those I am intimate with. I would like to think I encourage those I love to be the best they can be and being the best does not mean deceiving your spouse.

 

This philosophy is summed up regularly, though in more dry terms, in the civil courts. That we have a duty to take reasonable care not to harm our neighbour (either psychologically or physically). That if we take some action that could foreseeably harm our neighbour, then that's a consequence we own and we can be held to account for it. We can be made to compensate the neighbour we have harmed.

 

I believe this should be applicable where a betrayed spouse wishes to sue the affair partner of their spouse for emotional distress and harm done to the family unit. If the affair partner wants to take the line "my MM is the one who should be sued, if anybody is" then she can always apply to have him brought into the action.

 

With regard to the OP's post....in a scenario like that, the affair partner's personal moral code is irrelevant. The considerations, in assessing her personal responsibility, would be

 

1. Through her acts or omissions, did she cause harm (eg emotional distress), that is quantifiable in monetary terms, to the pursuer?

2. Was it reasonably foreseeable that harm would be caused to the pursuer?

3. Were her acts or omissions the main or only cause of the pursuer's emotional distress?

 

We could all devise a self-serving moral code for ourselves and congratulate ourselves for the easy accomplishment of not breaking it. Of not betraying our own selves. The individual's moral code isn't objective and fair - especially not when it comes to gauging personal responsibility in situations where that individual's actions are said to have caused harm to another person or other people. Hence a social moral code inherent in the civil law system, to promote justice for those who are hurt in the process of other people living out their own self-serving codes.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Taramere

[phillyfan]

You're not qualified to comment on my situation because you don't know or understand it. You can condemn my ACTIONS but you cannot tell me who I think about or consider.

 

Are u sleepin with a married man? If yes then sure, I understand ur situation just fine - and so does he

[phillyfan]

Well I can tell you that it is never too late, and in fact middle-aged may be the best time for reflection and change..

 

Dude it is called a MIDLIFE CRISIS.

[jennie-jennie]

You know what I own...I own the fact that I did the best I could with what I had at the time. Certain emotions went against my belief system, although that is done and buried. I own that fact that I need to let go because I don't want to be stuck (meaning he is stuck) with him. I did good, he did good and now I need to heal. Even though it's the best thing for us both, it still hurts, but I own that hurt.

 

You are a beautiful person, Pure. The above speaks of such maturity.

[YellowShark]

I guess for some, simply not caring if their actions hurt others is enough for them to feel absolved of any personal responsibility for it. You see that mindset in all walks of life - not just affairs.

 

You can't make someone accept responsibility for something they don't really care about. No point in trying.

 

 

Finally. Someone in this thread calls a spade a spade. And I agree, why even bother trying to debate this point in the OP about personal responsibility when some people don't really care who they hurt to take what they desire - a MM or MW.

[OWoman]

Finally. Someone in this thread calls a spade a spade. And I agree, why even bother trying to debate this point in the OP about personal responsibility when some people don't really care who they hurt to take what they desire - a MM or MW.

 

 

Sure, there probably are some OWs or OMs who don't care who they hurt.

 

Then, as described earlier, there are others who care - but not sufficiently to change their behaviour.

 

Then, there are others who care about hurting some, but care less (or not at all) about not hurting others - for example those who are comfortable (to a degree) with the BS getting hurt, but not with others (the kids, the extended family, the MP) getting hurt; or those who would never have an A with a friend's spouse (so as not to hurt the friend) but would more readily have an A where the BS is a stranger.

 

And then there are those who care very much about others getting hurt, and land up in tortured agonies about what hurt their actions may have wrought...

 

All of those can, and do, exist; even in the microcosm of LS.

 

But how does caring / not caring who gets hurt relate to the notion of accepting personal responsibility?

[OWoman]

With regard to the OP's post....in a scenario like that, the affair partner's personal moral code is irrelevant. The considerations, in assessing her personal responsibility, would be

 

1. Through her acts or omissions, did she cause harm (eg emotional distress), that is quantifiable in monetary terms, to the pursuer?

2. Was it reasonably foreseeable that harm would be caused to the pursuer?

3. Were her acts or omissions the main or only cause of the pursuer's emotional distress?

 

This is an interesting argument, in the context of As in general, and in the context of a particular A.

 

1 - is the "harm" caused by an A quantifiable in monetary terms?

 

I'd guess in my case, where my H's xW no longer has access to a stipulated amount of my H's income every month, it might be - but then, the household expenses (which that amount was calculated to cover) would also be considerably less, given that she'd only be feeding and clothing herself from it and not the kids or my H. So quite probably, the amount would be negative - does that mean she owes me money??

 

2 - could the "harm" be reasonably foreseen?

 

If by "harm" we're referring to emotional distress caused by the A, then certainly her own background as a WS would suggest that no, harm could not be reasonably foreseen, since no one did anything to her that she was not happy to do to others.

 

3 - were my acts the main, or only, cause of her distress?

 

Clearly not. Had she been at all a reasonable spouse and parent, there would have been no desire, motivation or inclination on her then-H's part to engage in any extramarital activities. The testimony of the MC during their previous separation, and others (friends, family, colleagues) who urged him not to take her back, would all be germane.

 

In general terms, though, referring to any old A, and not the particular circumstances of any one particular A, where 1 and 2 may be argued, surely the case falls down on 3? The OW / OM is not the only, nor main, contributor to the "harm" - that accolade should surely be reserved for the WS?

 

We could all devise a self-serving moral code for ourselves and congratulate ourselves for the easy accomplishment of not breaking it. Of not betraying our own selves. The individual's moral code isn't objective and fair - especially not when it comes to gauging personal responsibility in situations where that individual's actions are said to have caused harm to another person or other people. Hence a social moral code inherent in the civil law system, to promote justice for those who are hurt in the process of other people living out their own self-serving codes.

 

Civil law varies from country to country. The US, which is particularly litiginous, allows successful suing for the most bizarre cases, like the woman who burnt herself with hot coffee that she was too dumb to realise was hot or the woman who cooked her poodle trying to dry it in the microwave - cases which, anywhere else, would literally be laughed out of court and the claimant slapped with a huge contempt of court fine for wasting everyone's time.

 

I don't know the legal systems of other countries well enough to comment, but in my home country the civil courts basically deal with compensation arising out of the breach of (legally binding) contracts, the breach of professional ethics (such as medical malpractice), or the breach of the law (e.g. if someone burns down your house - arson - you can sue them for damages through the civil courts). I've certainly never encountered any successful cases where someone sued someone else merely for distress caused through some perfectly legal, professionally ethical behaviour, such as an A, or outcompeting someone for their dream job, or snapping up a bargain that someone else had their eye on. Perhaps things are different in other countries, but the civil code back home would simply shrug and say, **** happens...

[woinlove]

 

But how does caring / not caring who gets hurt relate to the notion of accepting personal responsibility?

 

For me personally there was/is a strong relation between the two.

 

When I didn't care about hurting the W (or family) if she was a stranger, I felt that it was MM's responsibility, not mine. I used to think it was the MM lying, taking time away from his family, etc., and that was his life, his choices, not mine. All I felt responsible for was the direct relationship between him and me, not how my choices affected his family.

 

Now that I do care about how I affect others, including strangers, I also feel responsible for how my choices affect others. I no longer think that it is completely the responsibility of MM. I now accept responsibility for my own role in going along with deception and causing others pain.

[Taramere]

Civil law varies from country to country. The US, which is particularly litiginous, allows successful suing for the most bizarre cases, like the woman who burnt herself with hot coffee that she was too dumb to realise was hot

 

The headline grabbing aspect of that case involved the award. In terms of McDonalds being liable for serving up coffee that was so hot it would cause serious burns if spilled...yeah, they are liable for that. Why wouldn't they be? The customer's carelessness is contributory negligence which should reduce any award in accordance with how negligent the court deem her to be - but the fact that a customer negligently spills something on herself doesn't completely cancel out the company's negligence for serving something that was way too hot.

 

I've certainly never encountered any successful cases where someone sued someone else merely for distress caused through some perfectly legal, professionally ethical behaviour, such as an A, or outcompeting someone for their dream job, or snapping up a bargain that someone else had their eye on. Perhaps things are different in other countries, but the civil code back home would simply shrug and say, **** happens...

 

You're proceeding on the assumption that having an affair with someone is ethical behaviour...which, according to your personal code of ethics, it is. However in the wider society, knowingly sleeping with somebody who is married is not seen as ethical behaviour. Not unless the person you're sleeping in is in an open marriage. Your behaviour is unethical because his is. You can't separate your own conduct from his, when the two are so closely tied together.

 

Put it this way. You use the word "professional" as well as ethical. If I were representing a client who I knew was lying to the other side, I would tell him/her "you must be honest, or I can no longer represent you." That would be the professional and ethical thing to do. I'm well aware that a lot of people out there don't follow that course of action, but nonetheless there is an ethic that you do not knowingly represent somebody who is lying to the other side. If the client complained about me for resigning agency and leaving him in the lurch, my professional body would uphold my behaviour as the correct and ethical course of action to take.

 

Colluding in somebody else's lies and deceit might not be the worst thing a person can do, but that doesn't mean it's an ethical thing to do. Not if you apply an objective code of ethics as opposed to a personal one which is designed to protect your own interests.

[OWoman]

Now that I do care about how I affect others, including strangers, I also feel responsible for how my choices affect others.

 

I get this logic, but I don't understand where, how, or even if, one can draw a line. If one feels responsible for how one's choices affect others, how could one possibly drive a car (which destroys the planet) even if it's the only way one can get to one's work; how could one possibly eat anything but fruit which has already dropped from the trees (since farming and fishing practices all cause harm to the planet, to some or other degree) or how could one participate in anything competitive, like sport or even a pub quiz, since by performing well one must outperform - and thus harm the self-esteem - of others? How could one date anyone (thus spiting someone else who had their eye on them) or buy anything of which there is only one (which someone else might be wanting) or apply for a job (which someone else may have their heart or their livelihood set on)? Sure, those may seem like extreme examples, but if you are going to allow concern about the possible reactions of others to dominate your choices and actions, how can you distinguish between which are reasonable to include and which are not?

 

To me, it seems like a spectrum, and we all draw the line at different points along the spectrum. I would never skive on my taxes, say, because I know that doing that affects the amount in the fiscus to finance hospitals, roads and schools. Others have no compunction in doing so. But I have (or had) no compunction in shagging a consenting adult who happened to be M to someone else, while others consider that sociopathic. I guess I'd rather risk "harm" to one not-very-nice person than cause harm to a whole nation, especially those most vulnerable who depend on the state. I accept that my values on this differ from those of others, but I don't see how it translates into not accepting personal responsibility.

[OWoman]

The headline grabbing aspect of that case involved the award. In terms of McDonalds being liable for serving up coffee that was so hot it would cause serious burns if spilled...yeah, they are liable for that. Why wouldn't they be? The customer's carelessness is contributory negligence which should reduce any award in accordance with how negligent the court deem her to be - but the fact that a customer negligently spills something on herself doesn't completely cancel out the company's negligence for serving something that was way too hot.

 

Unless their are legal (or voluntary industry) guidelines on what constitutes "too hot", my point would stand (at least in my home country). If McDonalds broke the law by serving coffee that was hotter than the prescribed standard, then yes, they should be liable. But if it was merely hotter than some particular customer preferred - then IMO her negligence in spilling hot liquid over herself was entirely her fault, and the award was spurious.

 

You're proceeding on the assumption that having an affair with someone is ethical behaviour...which, according to your personal code of ethics, it is. However in the wider society, knowingly sleeping with somebody who is married is not seen as ethical behaviour. Not unless the person you're sleeping in is in an open marriage. Your behaviour is unethical because his is. You can't separate your own conduct from his, when the two are so closely tied together.

 

You're confusing "ethical" with "moral". Ethics are set down in codes to which all members of a profession subscribe, and to which they are all bound, as part of entry to that profession. Morals are something else - though of course they do inform codes of ethics, but they are not the same thing.

 

Sleeping with the spouse of another would be unethical if it broke the ethical code to which either party was bound; eg, if one party was a doctor, and the other was a patient, then it would be unethical. If not, ethics has no bearing on it; it lies merely in the preserve of morality.

 

Put it this way. You use the word "professional" as well as ethical. If I were representing a client who I knew was lying to the other side, I would tell him/her "you must be honest, or I can no longer represent you." That would be the professional and ethical thing to do. I'm well aware that a lot of people out there don't follow that course of action, but nonetheless there is an ethic that you do not knowingly represent somebody who is lying to the other side. If the client complained about me for resigning agency and leaving him in the lurch, my professional body would uphold my behaviour as the correct and ethical course of action to take.

 

Colluding in somebody else's lies and deceit might not be the worst thing a person can do, but that doesn't mean it's an ethical thing to do. Not if you apply an objective code of ethics as opposed to a personal one which is designed to protect your own interests.

 

I used the term "professional" together with the term "ethical" because ethics is the preserve of professions. Morality is the preserve of personal relations.

[Taramere]

Unless their are legal (or voluntary industry) guidelines on what constitutes "too hot", my point would stand (at least in my home country). If McDonalds broke the law by serving coffee that was hotter than the prescribed standard, then yes, they should be liable. But if it was merely hotter than some particular customer preferred - then IMO her negligence in spilling hot liquid over herself was entirely her fault, and the award was spurious.

 

If you have a read through the case you'll maybe see that McDonalds was actually seriously at fault. I believe they'd have been found liable in any court in the Western world....but I think the size of punitive damages is what often brings US decisions international attention.

 

You're confusing "ethical" with "moral". Ethics are set down in codes to which all members of a profession subscribe, and to which they are all bound, as part of entry to that profession. Morals are something else - though of course they do inform codes of ethics, but they are not the same thing.

 

 

Ethics are also applied to us in our non-professional worlds, even if we don't want them to be. Society itself (in the form of friends, relatives, colleagues, neighbours etc) apply them to us whether we like it or not.

 

We can choose to dismiss the code of ethics society seeks to impose upon us, or we can choose to get eaten up with distress over breaching that code and incurring social disapproval. Personally I think somewhere in the middle is the most realistic. To have a certain level of respect for society's norms and codes...but to say that ultimately you are your own person, and at some point you're probably going to break the social code if there's something at stake that matters sufficiently to you to break it and incur all the associated social disapproval.

 

Sleeping with the spouse of another would be unethical if it broke the ethical code to which either party was bound; eg, if one party was a doctor, and the other was a patient, then it would be unethical. If not, ethics has no bearing on it; it lies merely in the preserve of morality.

 

I used the term "professional" together with the term "ethical" because ethics is the preserve of professions. Morality is the preserve of personal relations.

 

I mentioned the word "ethical" because you had used it. I agree that it's not the best word to use with regard to personal relations because people more commonly associate it with professional rules and guidelines. However, I don't think it's entirely irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned above.

[woinlove]

I get this logic, but I don't understand where, how, or even if, one can draw a line. If one feels responsible for how one's choices affect others, how could one possibly drive a car (which destroys the planet) even if it's the only way one can get to one's work; how could one possibly eat anything but fruit which has already dropped from the trees (since farming and fishing practices all cause harm to the planet, to some or other degree) or how could one participate in anything competitive, like sport or even a pub quiz, since by performing well one must outperform - and thus harm the self-esteem - of others? How could one date anyone (thus spiting someone else who had their eye on them) or buy anything of which there is only one (which someone else might be wanting) or apply for a job (which someone else may have their heart or their livelihood set on)? Sure, those may seem like extreme examples, but if you are going to allow concern about the possible reactions of others to dominate your choices and actions, how can you distinguish between which are reasonable to include and which are not?

 

To me, it seems like a spectrum, and we all draw the line at different points along the spectrum. I would never skive on my taxes, say, because I know that doing that affects the amount in the fiscus to finance hospitals, roads and schools. Others have no compunction in doing so. But I have (or had) no compunction in shagging a consenting adult who happened to be M to someone else, while others consider that sociopathic. I guess I'd rather risk "harm" to one not-very-nice person than cause harm to a whole nation, especially those most vulnerable who depend on the state. I accept that my values on this differ from those of others, but I don't see how it translates into not accepting personal responsibility.

 

I also feel strongly about my footprint and impact on earth, but that seems like a topic for a different forum. I don't get your point about some other examples, such as sports competition, since I like to compete and don't suffer a loss of self-esteem when someone does better than me. Gives me something to strive for and it still feels very good if I try my best.

 

I don't see this as an either/or. One can both care about the planet and the people who occupy it. And cheating on taxes is wrong - no matter who you are shagging.

 

Although I copied your question to start my last post about my own transition, it was because your question raises a good point and something I have personal experience with and my answer was not meant to be directed to you personally. When I didn't care about the BW, no one posting could have convinced me otherwise or made me see the way to take personal responsibility for how my actions affected her.

 

Some posting here are dealing with pain in being or having recently been the OW and who are questioning whether they want to make those same decisions again. Hearing of someone's experience may be useful for some of them, as it would have been for me, when I was in a transitional state between not caring and caring more.

Edited November 26, 2010 by woinlove

[NoIDidn't]

I don't know why the term "personal responsibility" means "blame" for some people. Its puzzling. Maybe its guilt and not wanting to accept those feelings or whatever.

 

But.

 

I'm actually starting to understand Jennie and OWoman on part of this, not most though.

 

I don't think one has to feel sorry or feel remorse for hurting someone. I think they just have to acknowledge that they know they did it without arrogance - as if they "bested" them in some way.

 

Let's say I do sleep with my girlfriend's husband. I do care that my spouse and my friend will be hurt, but it an acceptable risk because they may never find out. But they DO find out. Because I did it for myself, and not for my spouse or my friend, I can't find it in myself to apologize for hurting them. I can tell them that I did know the potential consequences of my actions, that I did realize that they would be hurt, but it was never a personal slight. I don't have to ask for forgiveness because accepting personal responsibility given that I am not really sorry for my actions means that I ACCEPT that I may have lost a friend forever. It means that I ACCEPT that I have damaged my marriage and my kids' friendships because I got what I wanted regardless of the consequences.

 

Typing that out was actually hard to do because it DOES come across as ARROGANT and UNCARING. And it comes across as very narcissistic. But it does accept the fact that people have the right to judge me for my actions.

 

I think this is where the true problem lies for those that don't feel they have any personal responsibility for an affair. What they are really saying is that they don't want to accept the true consequences of their actions. They don't want the betrayed to dislike them. I'm sure that not one OW here that says they were once the betrayed is best friends now with the OW that was once in a R with their SO/Spouse. They don't want the kids to see them as someone who hurt their mom and family - when that is exactly what they are.

 

They want to accept the good - getting their man/woman - but not the ugly - the collateral damage of the BS and any children and extended family.

 

I admit I would NOT want to hear someone tell me that they knew I could get hurt from their actions but they accepted the consequences for THEM and not for ME. But I would have to accept it.

 

Point - I don't think showing remorse is required for accepting responsibilty for one's actions. Showing remorse is necessary for showing you understand the feelings and care about those feelings of the injured party. Accepting responsibility, IMO, is about accepting the new reality with all of its shades based on your actions. No prettying it up. No rationalizations and blame-shifting. Just saying I helped create this reality and now must navigate within it.

[OWoman]

Ethics are also applied to us in our non-professional worlds, even if we don't want them to be. Society itself (in the form of friends, relatives, colleagues, neighbours etc) apply them to us whether we like it or not.

 

This must be another cultural difference, then.

 

We were taught that the term "ethics" referred to a code guiding acceptable or unacceptable behaviour for professions, and that the term "morality" referred to what you're referring to as "ethics" (and we had our essays ruled through with red pen if we confused the two or used the terms sloppily). It appears as though in some countries, notably the US (thanks, Google ) the terms are used interchangeably without impunity.

 

My post used the term in its purist sense - as a code guiding the behaviour of a profession - which is the meaning I ascribe to the term.

[OWoman]

I don't think one has to feel sorry or feel remorse for hurting someone. I think they just have to acknowledge that they know they did it without arrogance - as if they "bested" them in some way.

 

Let's say I do sleep with my girlfriend's husband. I do care that my spouse and my friend will be hurt, but it an acceptable risk because they may never find out. But they DO find out. Because I did it for myself, and not for my spouse or my friend, I can't find it in myself to apologize for hurting them. I can tell them that I did know the potential consequences of my actions, that I did realize that they would be hurt, but it was never a personal slight. I don't have to ask for forgiveness because accepting personal responsibility given that I am not really sorry for my actions means that I ACCEPT that I may have lost a friend forever. It means that I ACCEPT that I have damaged my marriage and my kids' friendships because I got what I wanted regardless of the consequences.

 

Typing that out was actually hard to do because it DOES come across as ARROGANT and UNCARING. And it comes across as very narcissistic. But it does accept the fact that people have the right to judge me for my actions.

 

Yes. I agree with this and have no problem with this argument.

 

I have no problem with accepting that not everyone agrees with my behaviour (and that, on LS albeit not IRL, very few do... ) I'm perfectly willing to accept the consequences of my actions - isn't that what being an adult involves?

 

I think this is where the true problem lies for those that don't feel they have any personal responsibility for an affair. What they are really saying is that they don't want to accept the true consequences of their actions. They don't want the betrayed to dislike them. I'm sure that not one OW here that says they were once the betrayed is best friends now with the OW that was once in a R with their SO/Spouse. They don't want the kids to see them as someone who hurt their mom and family - when that is exactly what they are.

 

They want to accept the good - getting their man/woman - but not the ugly - the collateral damage of the BS and any children and extended family.

 

I admit I would NOT want to hear someone tell me that they knew I could get hurt from their actions but they accepted the consequences for THEM and not for ME. But I would have to accept it.

 

Point - I don't think showing remorse is required for accepting responsibilty for one's actions. Showing remorse is necessary for showing you understand the feelings and care about those feelings of the injured party. Accepting responsibility, IMO, is about accepting the new reality with all of its shades based on your actions. No prettying it up. No rationalizations and blame-shifting. Just saying I helped create this reality and now must navigate within it.

 

This (bolded bit) puzzles me though. I can't speak for any other OW, but for myself - I've certainly never wanted my H's xW to like me, or exonerate me, or expected anything from her at all (with regard to myself. I do, and will continue to, expect her to behave decently towards her kids!) If I didn't care about the possibility (or even likelihood) of her getting hurt as a result of my behaviour, why should I expect her to like me? Wouldn't that be at best naive, at worst downright duplicitous?

 

As for this:

 

They want to accept the good - getting their man/woman - but not the ugly - the collateral damage of the BS and any children and extended family.

 

... the two are not always linked. In my case, I considered the BW to be acceptable collateral damage; but the kids and extended family were never part of that, and were in fact among the beneficiaries who stood to gain (and - the way things turned out - have) through the A. His kids supported the A; his extended family welcomed me as his partner long before the separation and D. They were not unknowing victims but active supporters who chose the outcome they got.

 

But this claimed "unwillingness to accept the collateral damage" is an interesting point. I imagine it springs from a sense of denial somewhere - that because one didn't expect, or imagine, such an outcome, one cannot be responsible for it. It was that "not expecting" that I sought to counter in each of my As by making sure that the MM both imagined, and confronted the real possibility of, all the worst case scenarios that could arise out of the A, and then on the basis of that knowledge decided whether or not they wanted to engage in the A. They knew full well what might happen, and by embarking on the A, they were choosing to take that risk (and hence any consequences which might have arisen from it). I suppose from my side I was wanting to make sure that they knew what they were doing, and were making an informed choice. But I guess it was also ensuring that they owned their choices and took personal responsibility ?

[NoIDidn't]

This must be another cultural difference, then.

 

We were taught that the term "ethics" referred to a code guiding acceptable or unacceptable behaviour for professions, and that the term "morality" referred to what you're referring to as "ethics" (and we had our essays ruled through with red pen if we confused the two or used the terms sloppily). It appears as though in some countries, notably the US (thanks, Google ) the terms are used interchangeably without impunity.

 

My post used the term in its purist sense - as a code guiding the behaviour of a profession - which is the meaning I ascribe to the term.

 

I once dated a guy, actually my engaged guy, that believed in "situational ethics" and it had nothing to do with a profession. It had everything to do with his personal conduct. He had no morals to think of, mind you. He did whatever benefitted him in a particular "situation", hence the conversation.

 

I'm including these definitions not as a slight, but for reference for myself and anyone else late to this conversation.

 

ethics

1 - a system of moral principles

2 - moral principles

3 - the branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness or wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

 

morals

1 - of, or pertaining to the distinction between right and wrong

2 - founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment or custom

 

Seeing these definitions, I can understand your objection to the usage swap that goes on as one implies "wrong" whereas the other seems to simply consider it. But the words are listed as synonyms in all the dictionaries I consulted, so their must be some support to interchanging them beyond convenience or confusion.

[NoIDidn't]

This (bolded bit) puzzles me though. I can't speak for any other OW, but for myself - I've certainly never wanted my H's xW to like me, or exonerate me, or expected anything from her at all (with regard to myself. I do, and will continue to, expect her to behave decently towards her kids!) If I didn't care about the possibility (or even likelihood) of her getting hurt as a result of my behaviour, why should I expect her to like me? Wouldn't that be at best naive, at worst downright duplicitous?

 

I can't speak to the personalization of my post because that would be pointless as no two situations are exactly the same.

 

As for this:

 

- the extended family bit in my post -

 

... the two are not always linked. In my case, I considered the BW to be acceptable collateral damage; but the kids and extended family were never part of that, and were in fact among the beneficiaries who stood to gain (and - the way things turned out - have) through the A. His kids supported the A; his extended family welcomed me as his partner long before the separation and D. They were not unknowing victims but active supporters who chose the outcome they got.

 

Again a personalization that my post was not meant to address.

 

 

But this claimed "unwillingness to accept the collateral damage" is an interesting point. I imagine it springs from a sense of denial somewhere - that because one didn't expect, or imagine, such an outcome, one cannot be responsible for it. It was that "not expecting" that I sought to counter in each of my As by making sure that the MM both imagined, and confronted the real possibility of, all the worst case scenarios that could arise out of the A, and then on the basis of that knowledge decided whether or not they wanted to engage in the A. They knew full well what might happen, and by embarking on the A, they were choosing to take that risk (and hence any consequences which might have arisen from it). I suppose from my side I was wanting to make sure that they knew what they were doing, and were making an informed choice. But I guess it was also ensuring that they owned their choices and took personal responsibility ?

 

While I agree with the beginning of this paragraph as it relates to "denial" and the not expecting an outcome meaning that some think they aren't responsible for it, I think the bolded is actually a disclaimer that seeks to avoid responsibility for an outcome.

 

Hear me out.

 

Telling the MM about the possible outcomes was you telling them where you felt their responsibility lie and that you weren't responsible for it. The fine print on engaging in the affair. Admirable that one would point this out to them, but it wouldn't absolve that one of actually participating in the debacle.

[OWoman]

While I agree with the beginning of this paragraph as it relates to "denial" and the not expecting an outcome meaning that some think they aren't responsible for it, I think the bolded is actually a disclaimer that seeks to avoid responsibility for an outcome.

 

Hear me out.

 

Telling the MM about the possible outcomes was you telling them where you felt their responsibility lie and that you weren't responsible for it. The fine print on engaging in the affair. Admirable that one would point this out to them, but it wouldn't absolve that one of actually participating in the debacle.

 

OTC - it was in no way an attempt to shift the responsibility solely to them. But I did want them to know what they were getting into, and to make their decision on the basis of that information. For me, the power dynamics would have been skewed if I didn't do that. I needed them to be choosing as freely - under no duress - as I was. It had to be their decision as much as it was mine. Not more, but not less.

[greengoddess]

Tell that to my boyfriend's wife...

 

:laugh::laugh:My boyfriends wife.:laugh:

 

omg that just strikes me as so funny.

[Silly_Girl]

:laugh::laugh:My boyfriends wife.:laugh:

 

omg that just strikes me as so funny.

 

Kinda funny. Kinda sad too.

[Taramere]

This must be another cultural difference, then.We were taught that the term "ethics" referred to a code guiding acceptable or unacceptable behaviour for professions

 

I don't think it's a cultural difference. I'm sure I could find plenty of people in my society (which isn't the US) who disagree with my take.

 

I don't know the context in which you were taught about ethics...ie whether this was on a course about philosophy, or whether it was a course on ethics as part of professional training you underwent. If it were the latter, then of course the emphasis would be on a professional code of conduct.

 

I believe most people, if they thought about it, would discover that there's a particular theory of ethics that they gravitate towards in their personal life. For you, it might be that provided an action is consistent with your own internal values, then it's ethical. I think, actually, that would be true of many people...though other ethical theories might also be useful in certain situations (eg ethical realism where we're faced with a dilemma where we're not really happy with either option - and what we do is dictated by what we regard as being the lesser of two evils).

 

We're not born with a set of ethical values. It's something we develop according initially to what people we trust and respect believe and teach us - then later, according to what we ourselves experience of life. Often, depending on what suits us personally. If A is taught that adultery is wrong, then at the age of 25 she falls in love with a married man, her set of internal values might change in order to allow for this new development. "I know people say it's wrong, but how can something that feels so right be wrong?" Creating a compelling sounding value to support the behaviour could be an intellectual exercise. A challenge. If a value supporting the "okayness" (for want of a better word) of having an affair with a married man existed before she herself met and fell in love with a married man, then though she might still be judged by the outside world she is at least being true to her own internal set of values. Being ethical in terms of adhering to her own internal set of values.

 

If, though, this is a new value that she's formulating in response to her own desire to have the married man and feeling okay about it, then that seems less ethical. It's a value she's developed for convenience. It might become a genuine value or conviction that she believes in deeply, but the test is whether she holds on to the value when it's no longer convenient/she no longer has a personal emotional investment in holding onto it.

 

For instance, say she ends up with the married man and he then cheats on her with another woman. If she suddenly starts judging that other woman adversely for her actions in the affair, applying logic and values that she wasn't prepared to challenge herself with when she was the affair partner, then her internal code of ethics probably isn't one that others will have much faith in or admiration for. It becomes something that is dictated by her own emotions and desires, rather than being an strong code of honour to guide her conduct. As NoIdidn't puts it - a situational thing where values fluctuate according to the person's moods and desires.

[YellowShark]

But how does caring / not caring who gets hurt relate to the notion of accepting personal responsibility?

You're proceeding on the assumption that having an affair with someone is ethical behaviour...which, according to your personal code of ethics, it is. However in the wider society, knowingly sleeping with somebody who is married is not seen as ethical behaviour.

For me personally there was/is a strong relation between the two.

 

Now that I do care about how I affect others, including strangers, I also feel responsible for how my choices affect others. I no longer think that it is completely the responsibility of MM. I now accept responsibility for my own role in going along with deception and causing others pain.

 

What woinlove and Taramere said.

 

I look at it this way, I sympathize with APs in a way. I agree they need support, but the support they require isn't to help them remain in a socially unacceptable and toxic relationship, the support they need is to get out of a socially unacceptable and toxic relationship.

 

I am pretty sure most would agree that 9 times out of 10 after d-day the AP is left as crushed and abandoned as the BS. Where 1 times out of 10 they run off into the sunset with their MM/MW and the fairy tale is complete. IMHO I feel supporting APs on LS to remain in a socially unacceptable and toxic relationships is very unhealthy and destructive.

 

Sure sometimes APs just get sucked into a "vortex," and I know s**t happens. But one MUST take personal responsibility for entering a scenario where other people are going to be hurt - (see: the BS + the kids.)

 

For instance for years Bernie Madoff operated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, his actions destroyed so many people. He took no personal responsibility for how he affected others, including strangers. He did what he did for years because he didn't care about other people, it was all about him. He was an unapologetic thief. Much like how an unapologetic AP takes no personal responsibility for how they affect other people, it's all about them and what they can get out of the affair with a MM/MW. And that's how they absolve themselves from the personal responsibility for hurting other people.

 

I just find that way of thinking - being an unapologetic AP - narcissistic and lacking empathy for others. If your AP is married tell them to go away and return when they are unmarried, then no one - the AP included - gets wounded by the shrapnel that flies in every direction on d-day.

Edited November 26, 2010 by YellowShark
spelling