When good people have affairs

[PUREHEARTOM]

Now you're just stirring the pot to see if I'll bite. You read my threads and posts. It's all there in black and white... if that's what you came away with, then "so be it." I know what I wrote, and that's where it ends.

 

Sure anyone can just f@#$ and move on. But when the f@#$ing is pretty damn good, its rather hard isn't it.

 

Here I disagree. To me the sex with my AP is more than sex- it's the manifestation of an emotional physical bond that we uniquely share with her other. I have only had this intimate bond with her- not with other women, despite closeness and the trappings of love and trust that go with other relationships.

 

I am not suggested that an intimate bond is enough to sustain a relationship or affair, particularly when other factors are involved (money, ex's, children, careers, health) but to know the difference between basic sex, which certainly can be fun, and a passionate bond, is, well, special.

 

Right or wrong is for you to decide, you only.

[frozensprouts]

Here I disagree. To me the sex with my AP is more than sex- it's the manifestation of an emotional physical bond that we uniquely share with her other. I have only had this intimate bond with her- not with other women, despite closeness and the trappings of love and trust that go with other relationships.

 

I am not suggested that an intimate bond is enough to sustain a relationship or affair, particularly when other factors are involved (money, ex's, children, careers, health) but to know the difference between basic sex, which certainly can be fun, and a passionate bond, is, well, special.

 

Right or wrong is for you to decide, you only.

 

but if you are the spouse, children ,families, friends, or whoever it is that is affected by someone's cheating, you may not feel that it is so "right" ...

 

while cheating may be what feels "right" at a particular point in time for a particular person, no one exists in a vacuum and he decision to have an affair certainly can effect a whole set of people other than that person making the decision to cheat...do their feelings not also warrant at least a passing thought, or are their feelings considered and not deemed relevant enough?

[Afishwithabike]

Oh please. People don't just 'find themselves' in an affair. It's not like passing out drunk and waking up to 'find' your wallet stolen. What absolute garbage written to absolve each and every decision made in the process of cheating.

 

This pop psychology crap is why people don't have morals anymore. It makes me sick.

 

Agreed.

 

People make a whole series of decisions that lead to the infidelity. It's not like one day you accidently trip and fall down naked on top of another person's genitals.

 

Some here want to downplay infidelity while at the same time keeping it secret from their spouses and lying about it to others as if that's some kind of altruistic act. If the cheating is no big deal, why not do it openly?

 

If the best defense that someone has for infidelity is that it's not the worst thing someone can do or that it could be worse, you know that you're doing something pretty bad because that's a very lame defense.

 

People do bad deeds daily. People who admit to those bad deeds, show sincere remorse, live with the natural consequences and try to offer some just compensation to make things right are decent people who've made a mistake. However, those that continue to lie, gaslight, obfuscate their spouse about their fidelity, why they did what they did and with whom, aren't good people.

[SoMovinOn]

My belief in this type of thinking has little to do with morals or ethics. I just find it illogical to deny something (in one's own mind) that is basically true on some level, just to feel better.

 

I think, psychologically, people do this all the time - make a decision, then, consider and/or reconsider the decision after the fact. "Buyers Remorse" is a prime example of this. I think there is a distinction to be made with justifications arrived at during the decision making process vs justifications made after the fact. Those made during the process *are* part of the process - weighing the pros and cons, determining if you are ok with yourself in making one choice or another. I think, in many cases, those made after the fact are more an indication that you are *not* ok with your choice.

 

Not that I view that as a bad thing. No decision is etched in stone. Reevaluating choices we've made is a good thing. I only see justifications as bad when their purpose is to allow us to be ok with something we are really not ok with.

 

Personally, my goal is to be ok with my decisions prior to making them. If I find myself questioning a choice I made after the fact, I start over with the whole decision making process. The important thing is, I make my choices based on my morals and ethics, not those others would place on me. Of course, most people do the same, although, some people are more influenced by the opinions and acceptance of others.

 

One can do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons. There are few absolutes with right and wrong. Often times, they are established by things which have no true or absolute meaning, such as societal norms or religious beliefs.

 

For instance, would you agree that practicing long-term deception is inherently manipulative and controlling? Now, we are all free to think of ourselves as "good people" but we do have to acknowledge that (during the period of deception, at least) we are demonstrating extremely manipulative and controlling behaviour. It just seems...emotionally cowardly to downplay our uglier aspects (IMO).

 

I do agree. However, digging deeper into that, are manipulating and controlling inherently bad or evil? I don't think they are, based on personal experience. My mother could be very much both at times. She could convince me to do things I didn't want to do through subtle manipulation - such as go to school, do my homework, find a job, etc. Was it wrong of her to do that?

 

SMO, I actually wonder about your gf's husband. Do you suppose that he is the introspective type? Or simply an emotional coward? I'm leaning towards the latter even though I don't know him.

 

Definitely not introspective. His answer for everything is to make excuses and shift blame. It's not his fault he got angry, it was the alcohol, it was because he watched the news (he seriously has used that one), it's because of genetics...

[SoMovinOn]

All that is true but my argument is about the use of that title. It's an oxymoron to say that a good person is having an affair!!! As include lying, smearing around, gas lighting, living a double life. There is no way (however liberal one is) that that behaviour can be considered good in that moment or any other moment for that matter.

 

Bad behavior does not mean they are a bad person, otherwise, there would be no good people. Outside of Mother Theresa and maybe a few others, most everyone has done things others would consider bad. So, how does one earn the title as being good or bad? By a single act? By some number of acts? ... and once they earn one title or the other, how long does it last? If one did something bad 20 years ago, are they still a bad person now?

 

As I've said before, judging someone as good or bad has to be done by knowing them entirely.

[SoMovinOn]

That's my issue with the books title. How many people say that being in an A is a good thing in of itself? It's ok to be delusional but it's not okay for people side-step reality to sell a book? Why do normally good people engage in bad behaviour? Why would an otherwise good person have an A? Now that's a title that would ring true without white-washing the bad act.

 

I think you asked a key question here: "Why do normally good people engage in bad behaviour?"

 

I think the answer to that has to be considered when deciding to label the person, or the behavior, as good or bad. It happens all day in our legal system - mitigating circumstances and all other factors are considered. Motivation, in many cases, determines whether something is a crime, the level of crime it may be, or, acceptable and not a crime.

[nofool4u]

Bad behavior does not mean they are a bad person, otherwise, there would be no good people.

 

There is bad behavior, then there is downright despicable behavior.

 

For example, someone who makes an ass out of themselves at a sporting event heckling players is a far cry from being an accomplice, or direct offender, to very much hurting someone, and basically emotionally abusing them.

[SoMovinOn]

Oh please. People don't just 'find themselves' in an affair. It's not like passing out drunk and waking up to 'find' your wallet stolen. What absolute garbage written to absolve each and every decision made in the process of cheating.

 

Obviously, they do. How many posts here start with "I never thought I'd be involved in an A"?

 

We are often so sure we know exactly what we'd do in a given situation, but are then surprised at how we actually act when faced with that very situation. Many people involved in A's never had the intention of doing so. Often, there is a period of time during which the A is developing and one, or both, people involved struggle to stay away from it. Love and emotions are extremely strong influences.

 

Sales, marketing and advertising people always play to people's emotions in order to get sales. In spite of what we'd like to think about ourselves, people rarely make decisions based on logic, almost all of them are most influenced by emotion.

[SoMovinOn]

For example, someone who makes an ass out of themselves at a sporting event heckling players is a far cry from being an accomplice, or direct offender, to very much hurting someone, and basically emotionally abusing them.

 

What someone doesn't know, doesn't hurt them. An A doesn't hurt the BS unless there is discovery. Engaging in an A presents the risk of hurting someone, in some (most?) cases, but doesn't as long as it remains secret.

[donnamaybe]

What someone doesn't know, doesn't hurt them. An A doesn't hurt the BS unless there is discovery. Engaging in an A presents the risk of hurting someone, in some (most?) cases, but doesn't as long as it remains secret.

 

And a cheater is willing to gamble with the heart of their partner because the cheater won't be emotionally devastated on DDay, so no biggy. Right?

[SoMovinOn]

And a cheater is willing to gamble with the heart of their partner because the cheater won't be emotionally devastated on DDay, so no biggy. Right?

 

Wrong.

 

There are many reasons why people choose to take risks.

[donnamaybe]

Wrong.

 

There are many reasons why people choose to take risks.

 

You missed, or perhaps dodged, the point.

[SoMovinOn]

You missed, or perhaps dodged, the point.

 

I apologize. I assure it was a miss, not a dodge. I felt I answered the question you asked. Could you clarify it for me?

[2sunny]

Wrong.

 

There are many reasons why people choose to take risks.

 

It's not classified as a risk. It's a conscious decision made knowing it may cause harm to self and others.

 

That's a choice - not a risk.

 

Any choice made that causes harm is creating negative energy.

 

We get what we put out there. That choice creates a situation for hurt, harm and pain - no matter which way you look at it, it can't be a positive. As soon as the decision is made and acted upon - the negative energy begins to show as lies, sneaky behavior, half truths, pretending and living in actions that support. Ad behavior that is selfishly driven... It causes suspicion and doubt = none of which is loving behavior. And from THAT you would expect love? That's not love!

 

How can anyone expect love when the AP is engaging in such an operating method? It's not possible!

 

Call it what you want - I don't label it good or bad - I just think this has ingredients for a recipe of disaster when the truth is revealed - it always affects others with pain and heartache - and that's a sad reality.

 

Maybe if it's not good or bad - its just sad and selfish and deceitful all around.

[SoMovinOn]

It's not classified as a risk. It's a conscious decision made knowing it may cause harm to self and others.

 

I don't see those two statements as working with each other. "...knowing it may cause harm... would classify it as a risk. One is choosing to risk the possibility their spouse will discover the lie and be hurt.

 

 

As soon as the decision is made and acted upon - the negative energy begins to show as lies, sneaky behavior, half truths, pretending and living in actions that support. Ad behavior that is selfishly driven... It causes suspicion and doubt = none of which is loving behavior. And from THAT you would expect love? That's not love!

 

No. I wouldn't expect love. Most marriages have nothing to do with love.

[nofool4u]

What someone doesn't know, doesn't hurt them.

 

Oh, well that makes it Aok to betray someone then.

 

Why am I not surprised at this mindset.

[Severely Unamused]

I think, psychologically, people do this all the time - make a decision, then, consider and/or reconsider the decision after the fact. "Buyers Remorse" is a prime example of this. I think there is a distinction to be made with justifications arrived at during the decision making process vs justifications made after the fact. Those made during the process *are* part of the process - weighing the pros and cons, determining if you are ok with yourself in making one choice or another. I think, in many cases, those made after the fact are more an indication that you are *not* ok with your choice. I agree. I could very well say that everybody on the planet is a psychological coward on some level. However, this shoudn't be taken in a derogatory manner (I don't think many people would enjoy being called a coward).

Not that I view that as a bad thing. No decision is etched in stone. Reevaluating choices we've made is a good thing. I only see justifications as bad when their purpose is to allow us to be ok with something we are really not ok with. I don't know. I would actually say that being a psychological coward would impair one's ability to reevaluate. It's hard to say "I'm wrong" if you don't believe that you are wrong. Our ego can quite easily overpower rationality.

 

The important thing is, I make my choices based on my morals and ethics, not those others would place on me. Of course, most people do the same, although, some people are more influenced by the opinions and acceptance of others. It's not necessarily about agreeing with others. But one aspect of morals and ethics is about taking others into consideration. In your own situation, if you were a more egoistic person, why would you treat your gf and wife as well as you have? Heck, you could be treating the BH far worse.

 

I do agree. However, digging deeper into that, are manipulating and controlling inherently bad or evil? I don't think they are, based on personal experience. My mother could be very much both at times. She could convince me to do things I didn't want to do through subtle manipulation - such as go to school, do my homework, find a job, etc. Was it wrong of her to do that? It's a case by case thing. I was actually trying to keep moral judgements out of things, so thanks for that.

 

My point is that if you are manipulative and controlling, than you don't really respect the autonomy (that word...) of the individual that you are manipulating. In order to actually determine the moral/ethical worth of an individual's manipulative actions, you would have to gather the opinions of all the people involved and balance them out against each other, through complex discussion. How often does that happen?

 

The issue is that if you manipulate somebody in the long-term, it is very easy to downplay the manipulated person's perspective and override it with your own.

 

This is why (IMO) ethics and the ability to empathise with the manipulated individual is important. In some ways, the manipulative person is "playing God" with other person's life (For instance, your mother could've chosen to f*ck up your childhood, if she wasn't as ethical as she was). Obviously, if you aren't an ethical or empathetic person, than you wouldn't really give a damn. That's another story.

 

Definitely not introspective. His answer for everything is to make excuses and shift blame. It's not his fault he got angry, it was the alcohol, it was because he watched the news (he seriously has used that one), it's because of genetics... Sounds like my Dad. Well, he never blamed the news.

 

I suppose what I find absurd on this board in particular, is the downplaying of our manipulative and controlling nature.

[findingnemo]

Bad behavior does not mean they are a bad person, otherwise, there would be no good people. Outside of Mother Theresa and maybe a few others, most everyone has done things others would consider bad. So, how does one earn the title as being good or bad? By a single act? By some number of acts? ... and once they earn one title or the other, how long does it last? If one did something bad 20 years ago, are they still a bad person now?

 

As I've said before, judging someone as good or bad has to be done by knowing them entirely.

 

Oh I totally agree with you on the labeling thing. To label someone as bad requires a number of actions over a relatively long period of time that are...well bad. But to me, the same thing applies to labeling someone as good. No single act should be used to label anyone anything...except maybe a murderer, a thief, a molester...

[findingnemo]

I think you asked a key question here: "Why do normally good people engage in bad behaviour?"

 

I think the answer to that has to be considered when deciding to label the person, or the behavior, as good or bad. It happens all day in our legal system - mitigating circumstances and all other factors are considered. Motivation, in many cases, determines whether something is a crime, the level of crime it may be, or, acceptable and not a crime.

 

I asked that question to show that there is a way in which the title of the book could have been worded to reflect reality.

 

Interesting about motivation. To know the motivation of a person is to understand why they did what they did. To me, this is important to help me come to a conclusion as to whether a person is a serial cheater just for fun, or cheated in order to have a need met. The first is easy for me to label with some choice words. The second, I find more complex. There are cases on LS where I actually feel empathy for the cheater. I feel that this "good" person was pushed to the limit. A very very long and current thread comes to mind.

[Severely Unamused]

Oh I totally agree with you on the labeling thing. To label someone as bad requires a number of actions over a relatively long period of time that are...well bad. But to me, the same thing applies to labeling someone as good. No single act should be used to label anyone anything...except maybe a murderer, a thief, a molester...

 

I don't really agree with labeling people as "bad" or "good". It just seems...vague.

 

Call a murderer a murderer. Call a child abuser a child abuser.

 

To simply label them as "bad people" is disingenuous. It distances them from the severity of their crimes.

 

Likewise, if a person is kind, compassionate, and humble, labeling them as a "good person" doesn't do their positive traits justice.

 

IMO.

 

I asked that question to show that there is a way in which the title of the book could have been worded to reflect reality.

Hah, probably wouldn't have sold as well.

 

I actually bought the book today. So, I'll find out if its contents rival its title.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Cheating is perhaps the highest form of Psychological abuse... and in many instances it causes more mental damage than physical abuse.

 

To me this whole debate is the same as debating whether Good men can come home and beat their wives. Abusive people just simply are not good by definition. Hitler could build a million preschools for free and that wouldn't make him good.

 

Being a good person requires that you don't do bad things.

[SoMovinOn]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Cheating is perhaps the highest form of Psychological abuse... and in many instances it causes more mental damage than physical abuse.

 

Please explain in further detail. How is it that lying to your spouse and deceiving them about having sex with another person worse than lying to your spouse and deceiving them about something else you are secretly doing? (such as gambling, drinking, drugs, compulsive shopping...)

 

Think of an instance where someone first learns about their spouses actions when they are being evicted from their home, they have no money, everything is gone. That's pretty life changing. Contrast that to "I've been banging the neighbor." ... and the latter is worse?

 

Think of an instance where someone first learns of their spouses actions when he/she is arrested. After tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer bills and legal fees, he/she ends up in prison. That's pretty life changing. Contrast that to "I've been banging the neighbor." ... and the latter is worse?

 

I just really don't get the idea that the most terrible thing that could happen in a marriage, above and beyond everything else, is for your spouse to secretly have sex with someone. Even as a BS, I didn't get that "end of the world" feeling.

 

Yes, the lies, deception and destruction of trust hurt. Yes it's bad. ... but it's far from the worse thing that could happen.

 

 

Being a good person requires that you don't do bad things.

 

Then there are no good people.

[SoMovinOn]

so you wouldn't think someone is a 'bad person' if they only molested one child? or if they only raped one person? or if they only murdered one person? or if they only robbed one bank? or if they only ...... i must be unique in that i would call someone who has done those things i listed as a bad person.

 

I would say you are unique in your inability to discern how others are judged. Any reasonable person knows there are heinous actions which can instantly earn a person a bad label. The debate over less evil deed has gone on for centuries. Stealing is bad - if a man steals to feed his starving children, is that bad? Killing is bad - if you kill someone who is raping a child are you bad?

 

The problem in making such assessments comes up for people who can only see absolutes, black or white in all instances. Yes, there are some absolutes. There are some bad things which are evil in every instance.

 

Affairs are not in that category.

[frozensprouts]

somovingon....

 

my problem with someone who is in an affair judging whether or not the affair is "bad" is that how can they give an unbiased opinion? while it may seem perfectfly fine to them , what do those who have to deal with the negative consequences of it? do yiou think they see it as "not bad"?

[whichwayisup]

Most marriages have nothing to do with love.

 

Most? Out of how many millions and millions of people on this earth, you truly believe that most marriages having nothing to do with love? I have to disagree with this.