When good people have affairs

[Severely Unamused]

I don't know if the author honestly addresses that or if she just uses this book to get clients that she ultimately isn't helping.

 

The book is actually fairly balanced despite the relatively loaded title. The main thing that I disagree with is her advice to never tell the BS about the affair. Solving dishonesty with dishonesty. Also, there was a bit too much back patting at times.

 

Only on LS would a thread about relationship compatibility turn into a discussion about moral relativism and its connection to affairs. And SMO's love life.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Severely Unamused

[frozensprouts]

"

Only on LS would a thread about relationship compatibility turn into a discussion about moral relativism and its connection to affairs. And SMO's love life.

 

maybe someone could start a thread about that..." SoMovingOns lovelife...let's talk about it":laugh:

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

People who believe in something religiously - like Chevy is #1 and every other brand of car sucks. Their belief is based on their desire to believe more than on anything else. They will not change their belief ever, for any reason."

 

I think you might be mixing up the concept of "believing religiously" with that of "boundaries" or of following a moral compass.

 

Also, I think it's disingenuous to compare people who are obsessively attached to one brand of car to people who are strongly standing against breaking marital vows, living a love life that is defined by lying, etc. I felt that way when you glibly brought in the example of lying to kids about Santa Clause to a discussion about marital fidelity.

 

You underestimate the life experiences of many of us here, SMO, if you think that we are all coming from a place of rigidity, lack of open mindedness, and refusal to look at different perspectives than our own. Or, from the "bitter" place. I know that I am not the only person in this thread who has willfully gone AGAINST my own "moral compass" because I wanted or felt I needed something, and who has explored WAY outside of healthy boundaries in my life. That all proved to be terribly self destructive, and destructive to other people. I have been there and back.

 

I am capable of understanding all sides of this type of story, even if I don't present that way. I have made a choice, though, to hold myself accountable to keep promises, to be an honest person, to live by the morals that I value (not necessarily those that our culture touts), and to be true to all of that for myself and for others in my life.

 

From your persona here, I gather that you have NOT "been there and back." You have only been "there." So you are as stuck in your way of thinking as the person who thinks Chevy is the only brand of car.

[donnamaybe]

From your persona here, I gather that you have NOT "been there and back." You have only been "there." So you are as stuck in your way of thinking as the person who thinks Chevy is the only brand of car.

This is exactly how I felt as well. All this talk about people being stuck in one way of thinking can be turned right around to the person who is making these claims, i.e. being "stuck" in a way of thinking that allows for anyone to do whatever the hell they want and it's all A OK.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I've shared here on LS that I used to be addicted to drugs. I was unfaithful. I accepted terrible behavior and even abuse from people I loved, too.

 

I want to say that I've changed my life (and kept it on track for over 20 years). I don't think I'm perfect now, or even close, or better than other people. I'm still the same person I was when I lived a messed up life. I make mistakes and do things that I know are wrong. I am not always 100% honest. I think it's part of keeping my life on a good track to hold myself accountable for those things with myself, and with people who are close to me. I have to do it kind of frequently. It's a struggle. I don't mean to sound like I personally represent the "moral high ground." I don't feel that way. But I gladly own that I value the quality of accountability very highly, and have minuscule tolerance for the lack of it..

 

I'm also (recently, second time) married. I value the commitment I made a great deal and I take very seriously what is required of ME to keep what I have. In my marriage, and in life.

 

That's why I can get a little passionate about these subjects.

[SoMovinOn]

I think you might be mixing up the concept of "believing religiously" with that of "boundaries" or of following a moral compass.

 

I understand both concepts. No mix up. I am a person who doesn't always get married to my idea or concepts. I am willing to discuss, explore, re-think things. I am referring to those who hold their views as an unwavering absolute, they are unwilling to accept there are any other possibilities.

 

Contrary to what some people seem to believe here - I understand that. In some instances, they are sure they are right, and they are. In some cases, they are sure they are right, an they are - for them. By that I mean, they are right for reasons important to them - which could be based on an actual religious belief (the bible, or whatever, says this is wrong), or it could be less formal - morals, personal experiences, or on whatever else we each create our own sense of right and wrong.

 

I, obviously, think and see things differently than a lot of people. I don't throw my ideas out as absolutes, by rather as an opportunity for people to see things differently. In the end, they still choose their own belief in what is right or wrong. They still choose whether or not they agree with me or not. They can even choose to refuse to even consider looking at it from the different perspective I offer. Even if they disagree, it may allow them to at least understand how someone else involved may be thinking. Right?

 

Also, I think it's disingenuous to compare people who are obsessively attached to one brand of car to people who are strongly standing against breaking marital vows, living a love life that is defined by lying, etc.

 

You obviously don't know many car people. If you think infidelity causes anger and hurt, you need to check out some car shows and races, where tempers flair and fistfights break out.

 

Seriously though, it was just an analogy to explain my use of the term "religious" in how some people hold on to an idea or belief. It was not a comparison to A's, marriage vows, or anything else.

 

 

You underestimate the life experiences of many of us here, SMO, if you think that we are all coming from a place of rigidity, lack of open mindedness, and refusal to look at different perspectives than our own. Or, from the "bitter" place.

 

Actually, I don't. I see very few people here who I believe are that way, and I think most everyone here is genuine in sharing their opinions and experiences.

 

 

I know that I am not the only person in this thread who has willfully gone AGAINST my own "moral compass" because I wanted or felt I needed something, and who has explored WAY outside of healthy boundaries in my life. That all proved to be terribly self destructive, and destructive to other people. I have been there and back.

 

Well, that is one area in which I am very different from you, and maybe from most people. I cannot fathom doing anything I am opposed to, anything against my "moral compass". I won't do anything for which I will feel guilty. That isn't to say I won't do anything "wrong", just that I decide beforehand if I am ok with the reasons why I would do it. If I am not ok with it, I'll find some other answer.

 

I am capable of understanding all sides of this type of story, even if I don't present that way.

 

I think most everyone here is willing to look at any sides presented. Even those who vehemently disagree with me in their responses have obviously read my post, gave it some thought and decided they disagree.

 

I also accept that I am very "out there" with some of my ideas.

 

 

I have made a choice, though, to hold myself accountable to keep promises, to be an honest person, to live by the morals that I value (not necessarily those that our culture touts), and to be true to all of that for myself and for others in my life.

 

Maybe it's the circles I hang out in, but I have a strong sense of people "deserving" how I treat them. When I do something wrong against another person, it is because I believe they have earned it. As an example, I wouldn't walk up to someone and punch them in the face - that would be wrong. I wouldn't punch someone in the face because they disagree with me - that would be wrong. I would, however, punch someone in the face, probably repeatedly, if they deserved it or earned it in some way - if I saw them beating a woman or a child, if they tried to harm me or someone I cared about.

 

Relating that to A's - marriage is a contract to which both parties, H & W are obligated. If one of them breaks the terms of that contract, they have, in essence, voided that contract. In this case, if the (future) BS doesn't live up to their end of the deal, they have no reason to expect their spouse to do so either. That is the only instance where I am "OK" with A's. In all other cases, I believe them to be wrong and harmful, and I know there are better answers.

 

 

From your persona here, I gather that you have NOT "been there and back." You have only been "there." So you are as stuck in your way of thinking as the person who thinks Chevy is the only brand of car.

 

Where and back? I've been the BS, I've been the WS, and I've been the OM in a variety of A or EMR relationships. What have I missed?

[SoMovinOn]

This is exactly how I felt as well. All this talk about people being stuck in one way of thinking can be turned right around to the person who is making these claims, i.e. being "stuck" in a way of thinking that allows for anyone to do whatever the hell they want and it's all A OK.

 

The problem with that being *you* are stuck on believing *I* believe that way, and I don't. I've never said I do. I have clearly indicated otherwise, yet, you persist in attempting to paint me that way.

[Owl]

The problem with that being *you* are stuck on believing *I* believe that way, and I don't. I've never said I do. I have clearly indicated otherwise, yet, you persist in attempting to paint me that way.

 

That's because when you follow the premise that we all recommend...

 

"Watch their actions, don't accept what they tell you, but watch instead what they do"

 

Your actions, your posts, don't support your own statement about your beliefs. As indicated by the vast majority of posters who have responded to this thread on that subject.

[donnamaybe]

That's because when you follow the premise that we all recommend...

 

"Watch their actions, don't accept what they tell you, but watch instead what they do"

 

Your actions, your posts, don't support your own statement about your beliefs. As indicated by the vast majority of posters who have responded to this thread on that subject.

I know, huh? And the post makes it sound like I'm the only one who reads things as I do.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

Well, that is one area in which I am very different from you, and maybe from most people. I cannot fathom doing anything I am opposed to, anything against my "moral compass". I won't do anything for which I will feel guilty. That isn't to say I won't do anything "wrong", just that I decide beforehand if I am ok with the reasons why I would do it. If I am not ok with it, I'll find some other answer.

 

That's what most people are having trouble with. If you have good enough "reasons," anything is okay.

 

I don't get the impression that you have a concept of a "moral compass." It seems that you eschew and even kind of scoff at the notion.

 

I'm asking you sincerely - do you consider yourself to be an amoral person? You come off that way, or else like someone who enjoys being deliberately contrary here on this forum.

 

 

Maybe it's the circles I hang out in, but I have a strong sense of people "deserving" how I treat them.

 

It's another example of the exact same thing. I believe it is the "high ground" to keep ones standards the same regardless of the behavior of other people. I believe I need to treat people well, and if I can't because they're disgusting, I need to remove myself from proximity to them.

 

By the same token, I now consciously choose to keep negative, hateful and destructive people out of my life.

 

Relating that to A's - marriage is a contract to which both parties, H & W are obligated. If one of them breaks the terms of that contract, they have, in essence, voided that contract. In this case, if the (future) BS doesn't live up to their end of the deal, they have no reason to expect their spouse to do so either.

 

Yes indeed, it's related to the above.

 

Don't you think it's better to maintain one's own standards and morals rather than sinking to the level of a spouse who didn't? I sure do.

 

Who cares what the misbehaving spouse has a reason or a right to expect? I need to uphold MY values and standards.

 

Also, as the former owner of a very successful business, I NEVER applied your logic to contracts in that environment, either. I believe in upholding my end of agreements, contracts, promises unless I no longer wish to or am unable - in which case, I need to take the steps required to void the contract, or have a honest discussion about why I am going to break a promise. Like getting a divorce.

 

Where and back? I've been the BS, I've been the WS, and I've been the OM in a variety of A or EMR relationships. What have I missed?

 

Been in a place where I was not holding myself accountable for my actions within myself or in relation to other people, where I could use the bad behavior of others to justify it in myself, where I could rationalize my messes easily, where what I "felt like" superseded all else and could justify anything, where my hurts and misfortunes were valid justifications for whatever I wanted to use them for -

 

To where I am today, which is quite the opposite of all that.

 

I think you have only experienced the former, and you have pretty narrow tunnel vision in place to keep on being okay with that.

 

I don't know how old you are, but you seem perfectly content with every aspect of how you're living, including actively enabling your alcoholic and self-destructive wife to continue on that path, and your mistress to remain in an abusive marriage. No, you are not responsible for their choices. But you are certainly enabling them.

 

Have you ever thought about changing?

[SoMovinOn]

That's because when you follow the premise that we all recommend...

 

"Watch their actions, don't accept what they tell you, but watch instead what they do"

 

Your actions, your posts, don't support your own statement about your beliefs. As indicated by the vast majority of posters who have responded to this thread on that subject.

 

My posts are what I tell you. Just words, not actions. So, it would seem you are saying you believe what I say more than you believe what I say.

[Owl]

My posts are what I tell you. Just words, not actions. So, it would seem you are saying you believe what I say more than you believe what I say.

 

I think you're convinced that you're right, and you're completely close-minded to listening to what the rest of us are trying to tell you.

 

Exactly what you're accusing everyone else of.

 

I'm done. Can't reason with that kind of approach. Have fun.

[SoMovinOn]

That's what most people are having trouble with. If you have good enough "reasons," anything is okay.

 

It's those last few words that are wrong. I am not ok with *anything*. I have stated and indicated there are things which are clearly black or white, right or wrong, in several of my responses.

 

Additionally, anything anyone does would be based on their belief in their reasons for doing so. The other option would seem to be, doing something for no reason, or doing something for reasons with which you disagree.

 

 

I don't get the impression that you have a concept of a "moral compass." It seems that you eschew and even kind of scoff at the notion.

 

I do, although maybe mine defaults to pointing south or west or something.

 

 

I'm asking you sincerely - do you consider yourself to be an amoral person?

 

Not at all. I know anyone who knows me (IRL) would never think so.

 

 

It's another example of the exact same thing. I believe it is the "high ground" to keep ones standards the same regardless of the behavior of other people. I believe I need to treat people well, and if I can't because they're disgusting, I need to remove myself from proximity to them.

 

Taking the high ground works in some instances, and in those cases, that is most often my choice. When someone is punching you in the face (or, ripping your heart from you chest), wouldn't seem to be an instance in which doing so would generally be the best choice. It might, but, usually not.

 

 

By the same token, I now consciously choose to keep negative, hateful and destructive people out of my life.

 

In that respect, we are the same. To that list, I also avoid people who would add drama and problems to my life. Obviously, not always the case, otherwise, I'd not be involved in an A.

 

 

Don't you think it's better to maintain one's own standards and morals rather than sinking to the level of a spouse who didn't? I sure do.

 

My standards and morals are - if someone would knock me down then kick me, I'm going to fight back.

 

 

Who cares what the misbehaving spouse has a reason or a right to expect? I need to uphold MY values and standards.

 

At what cost? All cost?

 

 

Been in a place where I was not holding myself accountable for my actions within myself or in relation to other people, where I could use the bad behavior of others to justify it in myself, where I could rationalize my messes easily, where what I "felt like" superseded all else and could justify anything, where my hurts and misfortunes were valid justifications for whatever I wanted to use them for -

 

To where I am today, which is quite the opposite of all that.

 

I think you have only experienced the former, and you have pretty narrow tunnel vision in place to keep on being okay with that.

 

I always hold myself accountable for my actions. I have no problem with accepting and living with any and all possible consequences of my choices. It is one of my primary "rules" (You can do anything you want, as long as you are willing to accept all possible consequences, good or bad, including those which you may not have considered.)

 

I don't know how old you are, but you seem perfectly content with every aspect of how you're living, including actively enabling your alcoholic and self-destructive wife to continue on that path, and your mistress to remain in an abusive marriage. No, you are not responsible for their choices. But you are certainly enabling them.

 

Slightly over 50. I am normally content with my life, as I would change anything which would cause me to be otherwise. Right now, I am about as unhappy with my life as I have ever been, because I want things to change which I feel are beyond my control. I want my W gone, but I won't put her out in the street, and in doing so, yes, I enable a lot of bad behavior on her part. As for enabling my GF... there is nothing I can do there. Leaving can only be her choice.

 

 

Have you ever thought about changing?

 

I think about changing any time there is something about me or my life I dislike. I have changed significantly over the years, in many ways.

 

I think about changing all the time right now, but I don't know how - one of the many reasons I come to these discussion boards.

[SoMovinOn]

I think you're convinced that you're right, and you're completely close-minded to listening to what the rest of us are trying to tell you.

 

Not listening = not agreeing with you?

[frozensprouts]

 

I always hold myself accountable for my actions. I have no problem with accepting and living with any and all possible consequences of my choices. It is one of my primary "rules" (You can do anything you want, as long as you are willing to accept all possible consequences, good or bad, including those which you may not have considered.)

 

.

 

that's the problem...you foist the "consequences" of your actions on everybody else, whether they deserve them or not. You do not give THEM the choices you give yourself.

what right do you have to do this? does no one else matter but yourself ( and those you deem worthy of your "caring"?)

 

is the only measure of your actions whether or not they will affect you? what if your actions hurt others...does this matter as long as you are happy, because you are willing to accept their hurt as a "consequence" of your actions?

 

myself, i can't live like that...the things i do affect others, and their feelings are as worthy of consideration as mine are...this is the respect i try to give to others and the respect that i would hope ( but, in reality, i probably don't)" get in return

[donnamaybe]

that's the problem...you foist the "consequences" of your actions on everybody else, whether they deserve them or not. You do not give THEM the choices you give yourself.

what right do you have to do this? does no one else matter but yourself ( and those you deem worthy of your "caring"?)

 

is the only measure of your actions whether or not they will affect you? what if your actions hurt others...does this matter as long as you are happy, because you are willing to accept their hurt as a "consequence" of your actions?

 

myself, i can't live like that...the things i do affect others, and their feelings are as worthy of consideration as mine are...this is the respect i try to give to others and the respect that i would hope ( but, in reality, i probably don't)" get in return

Great post FS!

[Mme. Chaucer]

SMO, I am surprised you're over 50. I had you pegged for about 30, if that.

 

Oh well. You have your life organized just how you like it, and most of the rest of us find it … negative. It's your life, though, and (I thank GOD!) not mine. Peace out.

[Fabian Montenegro]

SMO, I am surprised you're over 50. I had you pegged for about 30, if that.

 

I have this image of an old biker dude with oversized sunglasses.

 

I wonder why.

[NoIDidn't]

My ex is also like this...he tried to brand it as being open-minded and he had a pathological need to declare that he wasn't conservative (even when no one was asking). However, I grew to realize that no you are not open-minded, you are a free for all. Which is entirely different! I am open-minded...open-minded does not negate you having standards or being able to see in black and white or have a stance.

 

He was very annoying and fickle, as all was permissible and subjective to him and it just depended on what day of the week. It's also very hard to be like this, so it made him also very contradictory.

 

Anyway, as I have learned people can employ and mobilize whatever strategy they want to serve a particular end. So the stance of having no stance comes in handy for a particular purpose. Those who never have a stance and only see things in shades of grey have just as much adjustment to do as those who are rigid and can only see in black and white.

 

Hey, you dated MY ex!! LOL. He's from the Yard too. Lol.

 

My kids' school has poster up that says that people that don't stand for something will fall for everything. I think it should also figure out a catchy way of saying that they also will "stand" for anything, by not taking a definitive stance on anything.

 

My ex was like this. Contradictory and contrary about everything. If he was doing it, it was okay. But if it was done to him, there was going to be hell to pay. He cheated on his W, left and right. But she got tired of it and left and started dating. He went ballistic! How DARE she allow another man what was HIS! Yet, he had all these other women thinking that she was the one that owned him.

 

I like what you said in another post about the TRUE meaning of being open-minded. In this forum it seems to mean easily persuaded to another's point of view, vs. able to consider other points of view while still having your own. Anyone that's not easily persuaded to disagree with their own opinion here is quickly labeled "closed-minded" or "a moralist". Someone should start a new thread on this alone.

[NoIDidn't]

The book is actually fairly balanced despite the relatively loaded title. The main thing that I disagree with is her advice to never tell the BS about the affair. Solving dishonesty with dishonesty. Also, there was a bit too much back patting at times.

 

Only on LS would a thread about relationship compatibility turn into a discussion about moral relativism and its connection to affairs. And SMO's love life.

 

That's what I mean though. The back patting couldn't possibly help the people the book is calling "good". That and the lie of omission that it supports.

 

It might have some decent points, but it still goes on to minimize poor behavior and suggest sweeping it under the rug instead of truly dealing with the consequences. I'm sure many an actual, in the trenches, therapist is getting tired of having people come into their office with the backwards logic supported in books like these.

 

I think the book supports moral relativism based on the title and the dishonesty she advises.

[MissBee]

Hey, you dated MY ex!! LOL. He's from the Yard too. Lol.

 

My kids' school has poster up that says that people that don't stand for something will fall for everything. I think it should also figure out a catchy way of saying that they also will "stand" for anything, by not taking a definitive stance on anything.

 

My ex was like this. Contradictory and contrary about everything. If he was doing it, it was okay. But if it was done to him, there was going to be hell to pay. He cheated on his W, left and right. But she got tired of it and left and started dating. He went ballistic! How DARE she allow another man what was HIS! Yet, he had all these other women thinking that she was the one that owned him.

I like what you said in another post about the TRUE meaning of being open-minded. In this forum it seems to mean easily persuaded to another's point of view, vs. able to consider other points of view while still having your own. Anyone that's not easily persuaded to disagree with their own opinion here is quickly labeled "closed-minded" or "a moralist". Someone should start a new thread on this alone.

 

Yea that should be another thread!

 

I like this:

 

I think it should also figure out a catchy way of saying that they also will "stand" for anything, by not taking a definitive stance on anything.

 

 

It was so refreshing after dating him to find someone who wasn't a contradictory ball of fickleness who blew with every wind. My ex just didn't want to be accountable. Having a standard makes you accountable...it holds you to a standard obviously and your actions can be judged thereafter. Having no standard and being so "open-minded" (misnomer) that his brains were falling out was a not so clever way of trying to avoid accountability and be above reproach. He also proved to be very hypocritical like your ex and most people like this, as they ALWAYS have standards for other people but never for themselves It was also very annoying as since he never had a standard...when trying to hold him accountable or discuss anything....he could situate himself in any place he felt like that suited him at the time so that he could be right. It is very cowardly....as it takes courage to have a standard that you live by, declare loudly and know that people will hold you to it. Whereas the coward can avoid any such possible challenge, reproach, question and critique as they can quickly say "Well that is not my standard" or slip in and out of convenient standards as the case warrants.

 

My former AP was similar, not in that as a whole he had no standards, but he employed that form of ambiguity where he would choose not to be definitive about particular things so that I could never accuse him of lying or holding him accountable to it...he could situate himself comfortably in a spot where he was blameless and if I had a problem it wasn't really his fault as he didn't actually tell me certain things definitively .

Edited December 9, 2011 by MissBee

[SoMovinOn]

I have this image of an old biker dude with oversized sunglasses.

 

I wonder why.

 

Too much TV maybe.

[Fabian Montenegro]

Too much TV maybe.

 

That's probably it.

 

50 year old Lem from The Shield.

 

Or one of those biker guys from Terminator 2.

[Severely Unamused]

That's what I mean though. The back patting couldn't possibly help the people the book is calling "good". That and the lie of omission that it supports.

 

It might have some decent points, but it still goes on to minimize poor behavior and suggest sweeping it under the rug instead of truly dealing with the consequences. I'm sure many an actual, in the trenches, therapist is getting tired of having people come into their office with the backwards logic supported in books like these.

 

I think the book supports moral relativism based on the title and the dishonesty she advises.

 

I agree. The book is fairly hit and miss at times. The hits are fairly balanced though. Which was my point.

 

I largely believe that more honest WSs would disregard the misses (that was a terrible pun) in this book. While more dishonest WSs would have lied anyway; as well as attempted to minimise the psychological impact of their actions, both to themselves and to their spouse.

 

A couple of other points: It sort of dances around the issue of the very low success rate of exit affairs. It also doesn't really bring up the possibility that the WS is to blame for any of the problems in the marriage. The amount of backpatting is also excessive enough that it actually got me to smile a bit (We get it, you're a good person that made some ugly choices. Don't stuff it down our throats). Actually, I'm sort of making the book sound like complete sh*t, aren't I?

 

I'm reading "Infidelity" by Dr Lusterman. It seems to be a more thoughtful book.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Severely Unamused
Boopity shoop.

[SoMovinOn]

smo, not to be too personal, and of course you do not have to answer, but do you work for a living or do you collect disability?

 

Work - from my home office, mostly at my full time job, but also another gig, and some project stuff. I still do some music related work, mostly in the evenings, mostly in the studio I have here, but no longer play in a band or play out on a regular basis. I also, on occasion, do some custom paint work on cars or bikes (mostly bikes).

 

I do not collect disability, but have been told I would be eligible due to PTSD from my experiences in the military. I have no intention of applying for it.

 

As for the thong or french cut panties question... briefs (with a suit & tie) or commando (with jeans)

I wear both on a daily basis - suit & tie during the day, jeans in the evening and on weekends. People that know me one way or the other, can't fathom me in the other.

 

As for what I look like, since he has become popular, a lot of people comment I remind them of Guy Fiery - but I don't spike my hair.

 

Any other questions - feel free to ask.

Edited December 10, 2011 by SoMovinOn