Roles and Labels

[jsb58]

Likewise there are those who actively work to hide and deny their 'labels'.

 

It seems most don't use them IRL anyway. Being in denial is something I would be concerned of. If one is in a place, but can't see it, that's not good. But most people I see here are very aware of what labels their actions may attract and don't contest them.

 

Labels do become outdated and superseded by others. That doesn't erase history or mean events didn't happen, just means it's no longer relevant to describe a person in that way. I agree with BD that we must, as a society, leave room for individuals to change and mature and rehabilitate (if appropriate).

Like you denying that you're an OW since you think your 'bf' is leaving his wife? Calling him your BF doesn't make you any less of an OW you know.

[browndog319]

But that is the point of this thread. There are women who claim to.be "happy married," yet they still seem to revel in their OW "label."

 

But I think that most people would agree that at some point there is going to be a need to reconcile those two labels and a choice to be made. No one can continue both indefinitely.

[Silly_Girl]

Like you denying that you're an OW since you think your 'bf' is leaving his wife? Calling him your BF doesn't make you any less of an OW you know.

 

Interesting. I've denied it where? Don't remember posting that, but no matter. And he is indeed my boyfriend, whilst being the separated spouse of another, until their divorce is complete. Not a tricky concept is it?

[Memphis Raines]

Actually, the psychiatric nurse designation WOULD have an expiration date because you have to keep your license current - no one wants you to be treated by a nurse who hasn't kept up with current clinical practice for years.

 

but they still have the knowledge.

 

but if you want to tie it to having a "license", fine by me. cheaters don't need a license, therefore they are still cheaters.

 

 

We have all sinned. I have committed the sin of adultery. Yep. I have coveted my neighbor's husband. David coveted Bathsheba, had her husband killed after he knocked her up and God still allowed Jesus Christ to be born through his family line to honor him as a man... just saying. In the new testament, they don't constantly refer to King David as that philandering murderer, do they?

 

well hell, lets just all f****n go out and cheat then. geez.

 

let me know when you jump off a cliff, I'll be right behind you if its the thing to do.

[browndog319]

but they still have the knowledge.

 

but if you want to tie it to having a "license", fine by me. cheaters don't need a license, therefore they are still cheaters.

 

But they don't have CURRENT KNOWLEDGE which is why they need to maintain a license. Medical knowledge, drugs, etc. is constantly changing and what was considered standard of care 5 years ago may be considered lethal today. I work in this area and let me tell you how quickly things change. Sure, human anatomy is the same, but particularly in psychiatry/psychology, more is known each month, each year about the brain, the receptors, etc. Knowledge and practice are TWO very disparate concepts.

 

 

 

well hell, lets just all f****n go out and cheat then. geez.

 

let me know when you jump off a cliff, I'll be right behind you if its the thing to do.

 

This is an illogical response to my argument. My argument is that people can make a grave error in their lives, redeem themselves, and go on to great things. We should all have this chance. If you would like to jump off the cliff rather than evolve, that is your choice, but it seems like a very narrow one. You may not have committed the sin of adultery, but I guarantee you have made some very grave error of judgment, some awful mistake for which you needed to seek redemption. For some of us, that need for redemption is far greater, but I see my opportunity to redeem as enormous.

[Silly_Girl]

well hell, lets just all f****n go out and cheat then. geez.

 

let me know when you jump off a cliff, I'll be right behind you if its the thing to do.

 

to be fair, a LOT of professions update general practice so that an ex-[professional] can no longer participate.

 

But MR what interests me is your later comment. Because you've made it previously in a different form. "Just because everyone is doing it, why should *I* do it?".

 

'Everyone' isn't doing it. And no, don't do something you don't agree with. You have to live with being you, I have to live with being me. That's what matters, and if you're cool with you does it matter that I'm cool with being me?

[Memphis Raines]

You may not have committed the sin of adultery, but I guarantee you have made some very grave error of judgment, some awful mistake for which you needed to seek redemption.

 

errors in judgement yes, sin, sure everyone has. but one or the other to where I hurt someone else, nope. and certainly nothing I need redemption for.

 

If I had hurt someone else in one of the worst ways, maybe I'd feel the need for redemption. But I certainly wouldn't deserve it.

 

And if it was cheating, I would have cheated because of a desire I have to do so. That desire doesn't just go away. And for those that desired to cheat, they simply choose to not do it in the future as to not F up a future relationship. I believe the desire is still there.

 

therefore, always a cheater.

 

and in any case, whether I thought a cheater could change or not, which I don't believe cheaters truly change, then I am not going to take a chance on being with someone I KNOW cheated.

 

So I guess anyone I'm with better not let me find out the cheated on someone before.

[browndog319]

MR, it's interesting that you seem to think that this gives you some superior moral standing in the world. I studied philosophy as an undergrad, and my Ethics might be rusty, but Kant had a few interesting points on Ethics which were these:

 

1) If you are not struggling against a desire, the not doing something that is considered immoral does not make you a more ethical person

 

and

 

2) If you would agree with someone making the same decision in your shoes at that exact period of time in the exact circumstances, it should become a Universal Law. If not, you can not make a blanket statement about it (this is known as the Categorical Imperative).

 

On the first, if you are not someone who has any interest in sex or who has ever been tempted outside of your relationship, you are not actually to be considered a moral person. The truly ethical, moral person is the person who is lustful and makes a conscious decision every day to stay true to their marital or committed relationship because it goes against their inate desires, but they are choosing to honor their commitment. The latter is actually the more moral of the two. So one who has sought and achieved redemption is in fact more moral than the one who has lived an isolated life without interest in or a need for redemption.

 

2) You do not know the exact circumstances for each and every persons' infidelity. It is not possible. Sure, vows were broken. WHAT if one of those people was in a physically abusive relationship and the infidelity gave the other a chance to see what life could be like outside of the abusive marriage? Ah, the chink in the proverbial china... Think the movie "Waitress" in which Keri Russell was beaten by her awful husband. Therefore, I don't feel comfortable condemning EVERYONE and making a universal law that "once a cheater always a cheater".

 

You see, the world is not black and white.

[Memphis Raines]

If that's your beliefs........that all well and good but I don't see the point of arguing it with others who see it differently.

 

then I'll expect the same response from you to them as well can I?

[Memphis Raines]

MR, it's interesting that you seem to think that this gives you some superior moral standing in the world.

 

never indicated any such thing. i just won't take a chance of adding drama to my life by hooking up with a known cheater. simple as that.

 

so the rest of your post can be snipped since it doesn't apply.

[Memphis Raines]

Sorry but that doesn't make a lot of sense, as I didn't debate with you about your beliefs. So I'll just see it as you are trying to bait me into some place that I'm not going.

 

sigh, you said "If that's your beliefs........that all well and good but I don't see the point of arguing it with others who see it differently."

 

well obviously others believe differently, but see the need to argue back with me, but this comment was reserved just for me. I'm just wondering as to the reason why, when this could have been applied to those to which I'm replying.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Memphis Raines

[Dionysus]

You're very clear as to what your opinions and you are rigid in regards to "cheaters" all over LS so there isn't anything to discuss.

 

Oh you.

 

Moral Relativism: The Motion Picture.

 

Based on a thread found on LoveShack.

[wheelwright]

Kant had a few interesting points on Ethics which were these:

 

1) If you are not struggling against a desire, the not doing something that is considered immoral does not make you a more ethical person

 

outside of the abusive marriage? Ah, the chink in the proverbial china... Think the movie "Waitress" in which Keri Russell was beaten by her awful husband. Therefore, I don't feel comfortable condemning EVERYONE and making a universal law that "once a cheater always a cheater".

 

You see, the world is not black and white.

 

 

Gut reaction ethics are important, but I like to see a philosophical stab at it too.

 

I seem to remember from my Philosophy Degree that Kant's ethical guidelines are not generalisable. There are too many variables for his simplistic formulation.

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

 

An example where it possibly fails to hold up is on the maxim of telling truth or keeping promises, in the instance of when upholding the maxim will perpetuate harm to others more than good.

 

Kant's answer was to uphold the maxim nonetheless, but it is easy to see where telling the truth may be wrong - e.g. to tell a would be murderer where to find the victim.

 

The issue of harm to others remains a subjective but necessary call.

 

A buddhist take on it might be better, where truth is seen as a good thing, provided that it is also perceived as beneficial. Someone on the right 'moral' path would intinctively know when this is the case. Which is a catch 22 - either you are good or you are suffering.

 

And if you are suffering, how are you supposed to know?

[fooled once]

Most people have 'cheated' at one time or another. Board game, eating something and pretending they haven't when on a diet, lying about how much something cost, not giving back change when the shop assistant gives back too much. Maybe we're all cheaters.

 

Which post was that in?

 

See above

 

 

This is an illogical response to my argument. My argument is that people can make a grave error in their lives, redeem themselves, and go on to great things. We should all have this chance. If you would like to jump off the cliff rather than evolve, that is your choice, but it seems like a very narrow one. You may not have committed the sin of adultery, but I guarantee you have made some very grave error of judgment, some awful mistake for which you needed to seek redemption. For some of us, that need for redemption is far greater, but I see my opportunity to redeem as enormous.

 

Actually, I too was a little when you used the "we have all sinned" line. Many people who sin, and know they are sinning, stop and repent and do not continue to sin. To know you are committing adultery, a sin, and continue to do it but rationalize it with "oh well, everyone sins" to me is not taking it seriously. It's like apologizing for doing something wrong, but continuing to do it and then say "Hey, I apologized so I should be forgiven".

 

In my belief, we ask forgiveness for sinning and we STOP doing the action that was the sin. In your situation, you know you are sinning, but you won't stop it and you rationalize it with "we all sin". Not the same. You can't throw out religious views to fit your situation and then continue doing the action as if there should be no issue with continuing because you know its wrong and already said you knew it was wrong.

[browndog319]

Gut reaction ethics are important, but I like to see a philosophical stab at it too.

 

I seem to remember from my Philosophy Degree that Kant's ethical guidelines are not generalisable. There are too many variables for his simplistic formulation.

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

 

An example where it possibly fails to hold up is on the maxim of telling truth or keeping promises, in the instance of when upholding the maxim will perpetuate harm to others more than good.

Wheelwright, I LOVE it. So the guy that taught me Ethics would argue that the way that you explained the Categorical Imperative is exactly why you would NOT make always tell the truth a universal law because you could not in every circumstance be comfortable with someone making the same decision. I think Kant's point was that ethics was not able to be generalized, could not be boiled down simply to ten easy to follow commandments.

 

Kant's answer was to uphold the maxim nonetheless, but it is easy to see where telling the truth may be wrong - e.g. to tell a would be murderer where to find the victim.

 

The issue of harm to others remains a subjective but necessary call.

 

A buddhist take on it might be better, where truth is seen as a good thing, provided that it is also perceived as beneficial. Someone on the right 'moral' path would intinctively know when this is the case. Which is a catch 22 - either you are good or you are suffering.

And if you are suffering, how are you supposed to know?

The problem is that when you are in the throes of an A and all is amazing, you aren't suffering and you feel like yours is different, so Buddhism could actually make you feel like it's all okay.

Fooled once, I'm not a Catholic, but I divorced a Catholic and my DD goes to an all girls Catholic school (which I love) and what I love about Catholicism is that it assumes you're going to sin and sin badly and often (hence the goal of weekly confession and penance). I think it's funny how it seems there are degrees of wrong here and that the only sin that is conceivable is adultery - but unforgiveness and lack of charity to your fellow man is also a sin. Maybe not grave, but definitely worthy of contrition.

[Tayla]

Nah, they just have standards higher than yours.

 

Ohh my! You found me out, drats! Whatever will this non purist do now?? Woe is me LOL!

[wheelwright]

 

I think you are right in that Kant tried to get beyond commandments - but only loosely. He wanted an a priori commandment. One which went beyond variables.

 

I think the point about the CI is that Kant wanted something generalisable - and that's why it fails. If I should tell the truth to a friend, then I should tell the truth. But what if the friend is a murderer? OK, so I should tell the truth to a friend unless they will do something bad with the truth I tell.

 

And how am I to know? It is not enough to guide me here. Because of the variables. Which are infinite.

 

If your imperative has to allow for an infinite number of exceptions, it loses its force.

 

Kant's views are an interesting starting point in ethics though.

Edited July 28, 2011 by wheelwright

[browndog319]

wheelwright, that's a very good point. Love it! I think it's funny when people think ethics gives you all of these standards by which to live and really it opens up all of these questions - and so many philosophers had different ways to look at it.

 

What it all boils down to is that humans are inherently flawed and we are always going to struggle with what our hearts want and our minds know is "right" based on what our society deems the appropriate way to act. It depends on your society. We are all going to step outside of that line (some of us more than others, and some of us will surprise ourselves) but I think it's what we do down the road that defines our whole life, not independent incidents.

[Silly_Girl]

See above

 

Okay FO, let's try again. You said I likened infidelity to cheating at a board game. Where, please?

 

In fact I was talking about whether a label lasts a lifetime and if so then there are lots of people who would share the same label, being a particular word, such as 'cheater'. The idea that a behaviour (whether it's a one-off or lasts many years) means a term is to be permanently applied to a person interested me.

[silktricks]

The whole point of Christianity is that all people are sinners and that people can change. If a man stole something when he was 20, never stole another thing in his life, when he was 70 should he still be considered a thief? According to some people the answer would be yes, but that's not what Jesus taught. Many/most of the people who post here seem to refer to themselves as Christian, but they don't seem to want to apply those Christian values to themselves, only to others.

 

All of us make mistakes - all of us sin - every day - no matter how "good" we think we are, none of us is perfect. How proud some people seem to be that they never did "this sin" or "that sin". What they don't bother to notice is the fact that they do commit other sins - pride being one of them. Jesus said "blessed are the merciful, as they will receive mercy". The goal of Christian is supposed to be more Christlike, yet it seems that those who consider themselves to be Christians are often (note, NOT always) the people who are least willing to forgive and least willing to grant mercy.

[jthorne]

The whole point of Christianity is that all people are sinners and that people can change. If a man stole something when he was 20, never stole another thing in his life, when he was 70 should he still be considered a thief? According to some people the answer would be yes, but that's not what Jesus taught. Many/most of the people who post here seem to refer to themselves as Christian, but they don't seem to want to apply those Christian values to themselves, only to others.

 

All of us make mistakes - all of us sin - every day - no matter how "good" we think we are, none of us is perfect. How proud some people seem to be that they never did "this sin" or "that sin". What they don't bother to notice is the fact that they do commit other sins - pride being one of them. Jesus said "blessed are the merciful, as they will receive mercy". The goal of Christian is supposed to be more Christlike, yet it seems that those who consider themselves to be Christians are often (note, NOT always) the people who are least willing to forgive and least willing to grant mercy.

Okay, as a fellow sinner, I'll buy that. But as flawed human beings, don't you think it's much easier to grant mercy to those that are contrite?

 

From a psychological standpoint, when is granting mercy positively rewarding bad behavior? Sorry, but I just don't feel too merciful to someone who consistently puts their wants and needs in front of others, knowing that they are causing hurt to another. Nor do I feel terribly merciful toward the person who says their life has been so rotten that they feel entitled to happiness at someone else's expense. At that point, I just have to shake my head and know that mercy and/or justice will be left to a Higher Power.

[Memphis Raines]

You're very clear as to what your opinions and you are rigid in regards to "cheaters" all over LS so there isn't anything to discuss.

 

well of course.

 

I just knew you addressed me with that comment and not the person to which I replied who was doing the same thing because of the whole birds of a feather thing:o

[jthorne]

It's the cheater who lacks mercy, for the betrayed spouse, the betrayed spouse of their affair partner, any kids, and anyone else who is hurt as a result of the affair.

 

If a cheater really wants to act in a "Christian" way then obviously they wouldn't have cheated in the first place.

 

Such hypocrisy. Cheaters are hypocritical even when attempting to accuse others of being hypocritical.

I'll not argue with you, but I was responding to silktricks post. I interpreted her post to be referring to the way Christian non-cheaters do or do not show mercy to cheaters. Not the other way around.

 

I think most can agree that cheating on one's spouse is merciless.

[silktricks]

Okay, as a fellow sinner, I'll buy that. But as flawed human beings, don't you think it's much easier to grant mercy to those that are contrite?

Of course it is. And, also, of course, Christ didn't say "be merciful when it's easy..."

 

From a psychological standpoint, when is granting mercy positively rewarding bad behavior? Sorry, but I just don't feel too merciful to someone who consistently puts their wants and needs in front of others, knowing that they are causing hurt to another. Nor do I feel terribly merciful toward the person who says their life has been so rotten that they feel entitled to happiness at someone else's expense. At that point, I just have to shake my head and know that mercy and/or justice will be left to a Higher Power.

And I don't (particularly) disagree with you. I do, however, think that it is not up to us to change the minds and hearts of people everywhere, either. We all are at least somewhat masters of our own fate. And those people who claim Christianity should IMO work especially hard to show Christlike attitudes and values.

 

Where I was coming from in my post, however, was primarily due to the fact that some posters have taken the tack that "once a cheater, always a cheater". That a person cannot change. Since I have read some of your history, I do not believe you would agree with that idea.

[jthorne]

Of course it is. And, also, of course, Christ didn't say "be merciful when it's easy..."

 

 

And I don't (particularly) disagree with you. I do, however, think that it is not up to us to change the minds and hearts of people everywhere, either. We all are at least somewhat masters of our own fate. And those people who claim Christianity should IMO work especially hard to show Christlike attitudes and values.

But doesn't Jesus also teach us to turn away from sin and encourge others to do the same? Threads that turn to religion on the OW board tend to get shut down really fast, so I'll move on.

 

Where I was coming from in my post, however, was primarily due to the fact that some posters have taken the tack that "once a cheater, always a cheater". That a person cannot change. Since I have read some of your history, I do not believe you would agree with that idea.

Actually, I don't agree with you completely, and here's why: I don't look at the ability of a cheater to change from a religious standpoint. I personally don't think most do. I look at anyone's ability to change from a psychologoical standpoint. In my experience, most cheaters will not do the hard work to find out why they do what they do, and to also do the hard work to change themselves. Most cheaters are conflict avoiders, and changing oneself inherently involves confronting that conflict. Most simply won't follow through. Again, I'm saying most, certainly not all.