When good people have affairs

[SoMovinOn]

Of course not. But THEN how do they deal with the situation? Lie and sneak around, or deal with it with honesty? When you get married there IS the possibility that it won't last forever. Everyone knows divorce happens often these days. If they aren't prepared for that possibility, they shouldn't get married in the first place.

 

 

I'm sure many of them haven't. Some people either don't know or don't care to use positive verbal skills in dealing with their partner. Something pisses them off, and they come out swinging. Then, when they can't bully their partner into their "my way or the highway" methods, they run off and do whatever to "get back at" their spouse so they can feel superior.

 

Of course it's not always the WS who is the problem in the M, but it IS always the WS who is lying and sneaking around. If the WS has issues with their spouse, obviously the spouse isn't hiding whatever it is that is pissing off the WS. They are honestly being a pain in the arse. However, once again, should one take the low road and deal in a PA and sneaky, deceitful manner just because it's easier? I'm sure glad my parents didn't just take the easy route when tough times hit. I have no idea where all my siblings and I would be today if they had.

 

 

You make some good points and they all bring me back to "It depends", motives, knowing more detail.

 

We (humans) kind of train other people how to treat us over time. If you have been repeatedly honest with someone and have gotten bad results from it, chances are you won't continue being honest with them. If you have repeatedly attempted open and sincere communication with them and it constantly falls on deaf ears, you'll probably stop bothering to try to talk to them.

 

I don't even want to try to imagine all the possible scenarios which may exist, but, the bottom line is, I'd want to know those types of things before I'd say someone is a good person or a bad person.

 

Yes... sometimes people only cheat and lie for selfish reasons. Sometimes, they only cheat and lie because they are a slime ball. If you know their motivations and some of the details, that will be evident.

[SoMovinOn]

I have to disagree.

 

Motivations don't always define a "bad" or "good" person. Some of the most heinous acts in history have been committed by people who felt that they were motivated to do the right thing.

 

Some of the greatest advances we've made in science and medicine occurred by some of the blackest-hearted individuals this planet has ever seen, using methods (read:actions) that have been denounced by virtually every person who's ever heard of them.

 

Had any of these people gone to trial...their "positive" or "negative" motivations would have been moot...they would have stood trial for their ACTIONS...and ultimately judged by what they had actually done far more than what their motivations were.

 

That is correct. In some instances, motivations don't matter. Some acts are so heinous in and of themselves, no motivation can justify them. Legal systems recognize that.

 

In other cases, motivation is the key factor in determining not only the level of the offense, but even whether or not it is an offense at all. Legal systems recognize that as well.

 

We are speaking about A's here, and whether or not shades of grey exist in this instance. An A is not a heinous act in which motivations play no role. They clearly can and do. Shades of grey most definitely exist in this instance.

[donnamaybe]

We (humans) kind of train other people how to treat us over time.

Ain't THAT the truth! Took me awhile to figure that one out. Someone forgot to give me the memo YEARS ago!

 

If you have been repeatedly honest with someone and have gotten bad results from it, chances are you won't continue being honest with them. If you have repeatedly attempted open and sincere communication with them and it constantly falls on deaf ears, you'll probably stop bothering to try to talk to them.

And then you throw in the towel. With honesty. Just as you care for your STBXW, you have to care about yourself as well. You get one go 'round. No reason to throw it away on someone out of pity or because you feel "stuck." You have to unstick yourself; take a chance; stand on your own two feet and suck it up. It's worth it in the end.

[frozensprouts]

does it really even matter if the person cheating is a "good" person or not, if the end result is that people get hurt? The fact that he/she may be a "good" person does nothing to negate the pain they inflict.

 

It's like the old experiemnt that was done with subjects who were told that they were to test people ( who were actors) on their memory - i believe it was they were supposed to remember lists of words, etc. if the person got it wrong, the subjects were told they were to give a mild electric shock to them. each time they got one wrong, the level of shock was to increase until it was at a level that was dangerous ( the actors were to give every appearance that they had been shocked). if i remember correctly, the experiment was to test compliance and how far people would be willing to go if the responsibility for inflicting suffering in another was removed from them ( the old " i was only following orders"line)

 

the majority ended up giving what they thought to be dangerous levels of electric shock when ordered to do so, and even more disturbing was that some even chose to do so when given the choice of the level of shock the person would receive.

 

Now the subjects were "causing"( only they didn't know they weren't really shocking anyone) great harm and pain to someone else. The research subjects came from all walks of life, and one can assume they were "normal" people that were willing, under the right circumstances, to hurt someone else. There were some who wouldn't give the shocks anymore once the believed they were painful, even when ordered to do so.

 

Thus, the subjects had the choice of whether or not to hurt someone else...they could have walked away, but an awful lot of them didn't. What does this say about them? i would hazard the theory that, at that particular point in time , they were not being " good people", although that does not mean that , in other areas of their life, they were not "good".

 

( i sure hope they aren't still conducting experiments like that anymore...sounds awful, and makes one wonder about the mind of someone who would come up with an idea like that... the sad thing is that there are a ton of examples of where otherwise "good" people will commit horrible acts. Are these people "good" or does the fact that they could intentionally inflict pain and suffering on others negate that?)

[confusedinkansas]

Thats because you are a cheater, and we are not.

 

Yes - So?

Doesn't define me as a person.

Just like You not cheating - Doesn't define you as a person.

[seren]

Excellent discussion going on here. The 'good person', 'bad person' debate had me thinking about when I worked with sex offenders, one man had committed multiple rape's. He had done his time and was monitored in the community as he was assessed as being mentally ill. Frankly he gave me the creeps, yet was a nice enough person, did a lot of work with cruelly treated animals. Without knowing his back story you would say that he was a good man.

 

My job was to work with him while he adjusted to life in the community and assess his mental health. Alongside this I volunteered in a rape crisis centre, this and my personal experience informed me that rape was and is a henious crime. Yet I had to adopt a non judgemental attitude and work with the man as I would anyone else. I had to read his case files and found that he had been sexually abused by his mother all throughout his young life, he had been tethered and abused over and over again. Now, did that predispose him to his crimes and if so does that excuse what he did? Did his experiences provide reasons for what he did and does that mean that the hurt experienced by his victims is lessened because he himself was abused? TBH, this discussion made me think about him and how, at the time, I viewed him as unspeakably evil, yet when I read those notes, I felt for the person he might have been so while a bit of a T/J, the good versus bad applied.

 

Many people would have said he is a good person, I would say he might very well have become a good person, but his actions at that time were planned, were done knowing that someone would be hurt and that, IMO makes him a very bad person indeed. Of course I am not saying that being abused is akin to having an A, but, I will say that when I found out my H had an A I told him that I would go through all the crap I had been through rather than feel how I did after D Day. You might not understand that, but for me, it was how I felt. I also think the deceit, lies, breaking of trust and the forward planning doing something you know will hurt the person who loves you is bad and are not the actions of a good person or maybe they are possibly a good person doing a bad thing.

[Owl]

That is correct. In some instances, motivations don't matter. Some acts are so heinous in and of themselves, no motivation can justify them. Legal systems recognize that.

 

In other cases, motivation is the key factor in determining not only the level of the offense, but even whether or not it is an offense at all. Legal systems recognize that as well.

 

We are speaking about A's here, and whether or not shades of grey exist in this instance. An A is not a heinous act in which motivations play no role. They clearly can and do. Shades of grey most definitely exist in this instance.

 

I think you hit on the crux of the matter with that last paragraph.

 

How "heinous" an A is really depends a lot on which side of it you're on, and how it impacted you.

 

What "shade of grey" that an affair is viewed in is determined by the person's role in it, and their direct impact as the result of one.

 

I think that most BS's (especially those that post on websites) view it a lot more "heinously" than most WS's or OW/OM. They see it as a much, much darker shade of grey than someone who is a willing participant in one.

 

Ergo...it's a lot more of a "bad" to them than it is to someone with a different view on it.

[donnamaybe]

I think you hit on the crux of the matter with that last paragraph.

 

How "heinous" an A is really depends a lot on which side of it you're on, and how it impacted you.

 

What "shade of grey" that an affair is viewed in is determined by the person's role in it, and their direct impact as the result of one.

 

I think that most BS's (especially those that post on websites) view it a lot more "heinously" than most WS's or OW/OM. They see it as a much, much darker shade of grey than someone who is a willing participant in one.

 

Ergo...it's a lot more of a "bad" to them than it is to someone with a different view on it.

Yup. The BS missed out on all that hot sex and exciting stolen moments that might paint the A in much brighter colors.

 

Good point as usual.

[Owl]

And...to tie this all back to my previous point...

 

A "good person" who has an affair does so and realizes that it was a wrong thing to do...it becomes an action that they choose to end and never repeat. A mistake that they regret.

 

They don't continue on with the affair long-term, they don't repeat that action again and again with the same or other affair partners. They take action to PREVENT it from occurring again.

 

If they don't end the affair relatively quickly, if they don't learn from what they've done, if they continue the same action repeatedly...from my perspective...that calls their "good" status into question, and raises the likelihood that this wasn't a "mistake", but a true indicator of their character, values, and moral compass.

 

Your mileage may vary.

[nofool4u]

Yes - So?

Doesn't define me as a person.

Just like You not cheating - Doesn't define you as a person.

 

Wasn't talking about defining anything.

 

You wondered why someone would think differently than you, and I put forth one of the likely reasons. You are going to think the way you do because you are a cheater, we think the way we do because we won't cheat

[SoMovinOn]

And then you throw in the towel. With honesty. Just as you care for your STBXW, you have to care about yourself as well. You get one go 'round. No reason to throw it away on someone out of pity or because you feel "stuck." You have to unstick yourself; take a chance; stand on your own two feet and suck it up. It's worth it in the end.

 

I'm fine with standing on my own, emotionally, financially... STBXW is in no condition to do so right now though. I'd like for her to be able to leave on her own terms, when she's ready. Other than being difficult to watch at times, frustrating at times, I can give her time to do that. We had a lot of really, really good years together. I can deal with some tough times to get her better on out on her own.

[SoMovinOn]

does it really even matter if the person cheating is a "good" person or not...

 

In the context of this discussion, based on the title of a book, yes, it does. Just a bit of mind exercise, considering if one can be involved in an A and also be considered a good person or not.

 

...if the end result is that people get hurt? The fact that he/she may be a "good" person does nothing to negate the pain they inflict.

 

So then, keeping with the theme of the thread...

 

Bad marriages result in people getting hurt and inflict pain. Can people involved in bad marriages be good people?

 

 

( i sure hope they aren't still conducting experiments like that anymore...sounds awful, and makes one wonder about the mind of someone who would come up with an idea like that... the sad thing is that there are a ton of examples of where otherwise "good" people will commit horrible acts. Are these people "good" or does the fact that they could intentionally inflict pain and suffering on others negate that?)

 

That was an interesting experiment, and I believe it has been done several times. I was able to watch it being done on some TV program. It was interesting to see the obvious struggle on some of the test subjects faces. None of them did it with any apparent lack of concern. They took it to the point where the test subjects believed the next shock would kill the person, and at that point, while many of them stopped and refused to go further, some of them continued.

 

Assurances from the person conducting the test seemed to go a long way in convince the test subjects it was "OK" to do something they obviously felt was wrong.

 

So... tying what that experiment shows us about human psychology, the topic of this thread and A's in general, we can see that even good people will do "bad" things under the proper circumstances. I think we can extrapolate further and say people generally cannot accurately determine how they will act in a given situation until they are actually faced with that situation.

[SoMovinOn]

How "heinous" an A is really depends a lot on which side of it you're on, and how it impacted you.

 

What "shade of grey" that an affair is viewed in is determined by the person's role in it, and their direct impact as the result of one.

 

I think that most BS's (especially those that post on websites) view it a lot more "heinously" than most WS's or OW/OM. They see it as a much, much darker shade of grey than someone who is a willing participant in one.

 

Ergo...it's a lot more of a "bad" to them than it is to someone with a different view on it.

 

As a BS, I clearly saw the shades of grey. My primary desire was to determine her motivations, what lead to her making a willful decision to do something so destructive. Over time, I understood it more than she did. Doing so helped me to help her, and, eventually, get her the professional help she needs.

 

In direct opposition to your final comment, *she* viewed what she did as more bad than I did. *She* views herself more as a bad person that I do.

 

Maybe I'm unusual, but, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[SoMovinOn]

Yup. The BS missed out on all that hot sex and exciting stolen moments that might paint the A in much brighter colors.

 

Not always. My STBXW and I continued to have hot, steamy, wild sex during her A's, as much and as often as always (which was very often and a lot). We continued after we agreed to split, up to the point where I quit because I was involved with my GF (and, oddly enough, sex with my W would feel like I was cheating on my GF - which is probably worthy of another thread, because I think that is a common feeling).

 

And what of the reconciled couples who say one of them being involved in an A made their M better? In some cases, an A is what it took to wake one of them up, bring them back to life, get them out of their rut. In those instances, the M might have ended in D, but the A save them.

 

That's probably another thread too.

[SoMovinOn]

A "good person" who has an affair does so and realizes that it was a wrong thing to do...it becomes an action that they choose to end and never repeat. A mistake that they regret.

 

How about a good person who does so because he/she realizes, in some manner, the A is a good thing to do?

[SoMovinOn]

You wondered why someone would think differently than you, and I put forth one of the likely reasons. You are going to think the way you do because you are a cheater, we think the way we do because we won't cheat

 

I had to log back in because a thought came to me, so I wanted to ask...

 

In saying that, would you think is possible someone who has not been involved in an A (as either AP, not as a BS), would have a negative bias concerning A's, and could not understand them fully?

[MissBee]

does it really even matter if the person cheating is a "good" person or not, if the end result is that people get hurt? The fact that he/she may be a "good" person does nothing to negate the pain they inflict.

 

It's like the old experiemnt that was done with subjects who were told that they were to test people ( who were actors) on their memory - i believe it was they were supposed to remember lists of words, etc. if the person got it wrong, the subjects were told they were to give a mild electric shock to them. each time they got one wrong, the level of shock was to increase until it was at a level that was dangerous ( the actors were to give every appearance that they had been shocked). if i remember correctly, the experiment was to test compliance and how far people would be willing to go if the responsibility for inflicting suffering in another was removed from them ( the old " i was only following orders"line)

 

the majority ended up giving what they thought to be dangerous levels of electric shock when ordered to do so, and even more disturbing was that some even chose to do so when given the choice of the level of shock the person would receive.

 

Now the subjects were "causing"( only they didn't know they weren't really shocking anyone) great harm and pain to someone else. The research subjects came from all walks of life, and one can assume they were "normal" people that were willing, under the right circumstances, to hurt someone else. There were some who wouldn't give the shocks anymore once the believed they were painful, even when ordered to do so.

 

Thus, the subjects had the choice of whether or not to hurt someone else...they could have walked away, but an awful lot of them didn't. What does this say about them? i would hazard the theory that, at that particular point in time , they were not being " good people", although that does not mean that , in other areas of their life, they were not "good".

 

( i sure hope they aren't still conducting experiments like that anymore...sounds awful, and makes one wonder about the mind of someone who would come up with an idea like that... the sad thing is that there are a ton of examples of where otherwise "good" people will commit horrible acts. Are these people "good" or does the fact that they could intentionally inflict pain and suffering on others negate that?)

 

 

I agree.

 

I really think whether or not someone is a "good person" makes no difference. In a philosophical and spiritual way....I believe everyone is a worthy human being and we all go through life cycles to learn and in each cycle one is striving toward good. That's the point....that striving. The realization you will be less than stellar sometimes but working to correct that and be better.

 

How many actions make one bad or good or whatever the case is are irrelevant IMO....if you're hurting other people or you're making a one time or 50 times over unwise choice, the point is the striving to rectify that and live in a way that is harmonious. That's all. I don't see the point in going over whether or not you are "good" since everyone, even the worst tyrants and dictators have people who probably loved them and thought they were good and whom they treated nicely. So what? Doesn't negate their bad actions and that those actions have consequences.

[MissBee]

I had to log back in because a thought came to me, so I wanted to ask...

 

In saying that, would you think is possible someone who has not been involved in an A (as either AP, not as a BS), would have a negative bias concerning A's, and could not understand them fully?

 

I think many actions or situations are self-evident and as humans we intuitively understand what they entail and therefore do not need to be participants to have an accurate opinion about them.

 

I think an A....like most other actions deemed negative...are negative because of that intuitive understanding of what is wrong, right, uncomfortable, comfortable, fair and unfair. It's not something like for example, hating people of another race because you don't understand them and having negative biases about them....human beings, races are value-neutral. Affairs have never been value neutral....so they already have a built in negative connotation....individuals aren't the ones who view As in a biased way....it's built into the definition. Murder for example, one knows the connotation and one automatically has an intuitive idea of what that means and thus most feel negatively about it....it's not a bias....it's in the definition.

 

Likewise, I have never murdered or had a close friend or relative murdered....but I don't need to in order to intuitively know that it's negative. I wouldn't say I have a negative bias against murderers....it's not value neutral....it has a built in value. I believe one can only have a negative bias towards something that is value neutral to begin with. As aren't value neutral to begin with, neither is murder, neither is cheating, lying, betrayal etc...the value is built into the definition/connotation.

 

I also differentiate between understanding how and why people do things....and then how they can strive for better. I have been involved in an A...and I think the difference between you and I is that being involved in one didn't give me a positive bias towards it. I can empathize with how people get there and so forth but I don't think the goal is to become complacent or encourage As because I have been there. In being there and doing that....I have experiential knowledge of it....but it's still a negative thing. Just like a friend of mine, in her late teens and 20s she did various forms of drugs, now she doesn't. She will tell us frankly that she's not gonna lie, she did it, it was fun...but so many others around her with that lifestyle ended up dead or a mess; she however, is in a PhD program and is fine. She understands it, has empathy for those in such situations, can relate, isn't judgmental....but she also realizes the negatives of it and that it is often more negative than positive, although she came out fine. She doesn't have this rosy view of drugs (positive bias) or a negative bias...she has a truthful understanding.

 

I think there are negative biases, positive biases (which are still biases, but skewed towards rosier outcomes) and then the balanced truth/reality. I try to aim for the latter.

Edited December 1, 2011 by MissBee

[despicableME]

...been gone for a bit, but WOW! This thread took off.

[SoMovinOn]

...and I think the difference between you and I is that being involved in one didn't give me a positive bias towards it.

 

You think I have a positive bias towards A's?

[Owl]

How about a good person who does so because he/she realizes, in some manner, the A is a good thing to do?

 

From my perspective...which I know you don't share...that statement in and of itself proves my point.

 

For the vast majority of people...they don't view an affair as a good thing to do...ever.

 

The fact that you do says volumes about your values/moral compass as compared to "the norm". Your subsequent actions have also demonstrated that as well.

 

For you...an affair is acceptable. For others...it's not. You don't view an affair as somethign "heinous"...but potentially as something good. Others...cannot possibly agree with that stance.

 

There ya go.

[Owl]

You think I have a positive bias towards A's?

 

I think my previous quote as well as your own actions have demonstrated that you do.

[SoMovinOn]

From my perspective...which I know you don't share...that statement in and of itself proves my point.

 

For the vast majority of people...they don't view an affair as a good thing to do...ever.

 

The fact that you do says volumes about your values/moral compass as compared to "the norm". Your subsequent actions have also demonstrated that as well.

 

For you...an affair is acceptable. For others...it's not. You don't view an affair as somethign "heinous"...but potentially as something good. Others...cannot possibly agree with that stance.

 

There ya go.

 

Is it a difference in moral compass, or, just that I can see or imagine scenarios that you haven't?

 

The fact that you believe I think an affair is "acceptable", tells me you haven't read all my responses, or maybe that you choose what to see in them.

[Owl]

Is it a difference in moral compass, or, just that I can see or imagine scenarios that you haven't?

 

The fact that you believe I think an affair is "acceptable", tells me you haven't read all my responses, or maybe that you choose what to see in them.

 

I can only tell you what I see of the responses you've made...not just in this thread, but in many of them.

 

What I've read of your responses leads me to this conclusion. You can argue that I'm wrong, or that it's my view of your responses that's skewed...but that's not likely to change my view.

[frozensprouts]

somovingon...

 

no offense, but you seem to be one of the "everything is shades of grey, especially when it's to my benefit that they been seen that way" type of thinker...

 

some people aren't like that... to some of us, some things are just hurtful and wrong, and no circumstances will mitigate the pain they inflict.

 

It's like if someone murdered of of my kids... do you think I'm going to give much thought to "extenuating circumstances"? I don't think I would. i don't thin I'd care if they had a bad childhood, were a drug user, were abused as a kid...all I would care about was that my child was killed, and their "extenuating circumstances" would do nothing to negate that pain. That person would, to me, at that point in time, be a bad person. Now maybe they might go to jail and "find jesus" ( or what have you) and turn their life around. Maybe they would feel real guilt over what they had done, maybe hey would try and make amends and be a "good" person, who knows.

 

to put it another way... you say your girlfriend's husband is abusive to her, which I'm sure is really horrible for her. Does the fact that he may have had a bad childhood, may be an alcoholic, may have been abused himself when he was small mitigate any of the pain he causes her? Do you feel he is a bad person because he is abusive to her? If so, does the fact that he does some good things negate the bad that he does? If he learned to stop being abusive to her, is he still a bad person because he used to be abusive, or can he been seen as someone who used to be "bad" but is now "good"? ( my own opinion would be that he would be a good person - assuming that was the thing he was doing that made him bad- who used to dobad things but has learned better ways to cope with his issues and internal pain.

 

does the theory of "grey areas" apply to this situation too? ( I don't think it does...abuse is never a "grey area", but if cheating on your spouse could be considered ( and believe that it is) a form of abuse, then the "grey areas" theory can not apply here either.

 

 

( sorry if i got too personal...i apologize)