When good people have affairs

[Mme. Chaucer]

1) I think the title of the book is NOTHING but a marketing ploy to get people who are having affairs and who consider themselves "good" people to buy the book.

 

2) I believe that we are "judged" by our actions, not our intentions. I'm not sure who is doing the judging (except me) - but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," etc. I don't believe in hell, but I do think that our choices about how to behave carry more weight than our intentions.

 

3) Contrary to how I may come off here in this forum, I am very much NOT a black and white thinker. I do have moral boundaries, though. I DO believe that some things are inherently wrong, and that not everything can be ameliorated by circumstances.

 

Consciously engaging in dishonesty in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself, in my opinion, falls into the category of "wrong."

 

I'm not sure how long a person gets to indulge in, justify and rationalize that behavior before they've crossed over to the dark side and become more "bad" than "good," but I believe it happens.

[Spark1111]

1) I think the title of the book is NOTHING but a marketing ploy to get people who are having affairs and who consider themselves "good" people to buy the book.

 

2) I believe that we are "judged" by our actions, not our intentions. I'm not sure who is doing the judging (except me) - but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," etc. I don't believe in hell, but I do think that our choices about how to behave carry more weight than our intentions.

 

3) Contrary to how I may come off here in this forum, I am very much NOT a black and white thinker. I do have moral boundaries, though. I DO believe that some things are inherently wrong, and that not everything can be ameliorated by circumstances.

 

Consciously engaging in dishonesty in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself, in my opinion, falls into the category of "wrong."

 

I'm not sure how long a person gets to indulge in, justify and rationalize that behavior before they've crossed over to the dark side and become more "bad" than "good," but I believe it happens.

 

Even if I can understand the "whys" and the "gray areas" of people having an affair, I still think it is an act that causes pain to an unsuspecting third party, which in my book, is always wrong.

 

Having experienced that pain first hand, it will always be wrong in my book.

 

Good people have affairs?

 

Nah, weak, misguided, filled with excuses and justification people have affairs.

 

But not good people.

 

Good people, while they may make mistakes, would never go out of their way to lie, decieve, and betray an unsuspecting third, or fourth party, for weeks, months, and even years, IMO.

[Silly_Girl]

Even if I can understand the "whys" and the "gray areas" of people having an affair, I still think it is an act that causes pain to an unsuspecting third party, which in my book, is always wrong.

 

Having experienced that pain first hand, it will always be wrong in my book.

 

Good people have affairs?

 

Nah, weak, misguided, filled with excuses and justification people have affairs.

 

But not good people.

 

Good people, while they may make mistakes, would never go out of their way to lie, decieve, and betray an unsuspecting third, or fourth party, for weeks, months, and even years, IMO.

 

Did you consider your husband to be a good/bad man before/after the affair?

 

If he was good, how did he become un-good? How does he then become 'good' again? Did you feel apprehensive about reconciling with a 'bad' person?

[MissBee]

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

 

Yes....

 

Or at the least,you tend to have a very apologetic manner of discussing As.

[frozensprouts]

Just some thoughts here. In my teen years, I was physically abused, molested by my father. He was a serial cheater. I certainly did not have a good example of relationships as I was growing up. Yes it warped my views and has had a influence on the way I behave, the choices I've made. Still I've always known right from wrong and irregardless of my history it does not excuse my lack of poor boundaries and the time period where I knew it was an affair. It was wrong and I knew it but I rationalized and excused my own choices, it was hurtful to myself and others and there really isn't any excuse for it. Was I bad, during this time, well it sure as hell wasn't my shining moment.

 

for what it's worth, you certainly seem to be a pretty "good" person now:)

[SoMovinOn]

Owl, Sprouts... I don't think we're really that far off, just that you believe that we are. Perhaps it's a black and white thing, where you feel we either agree or disagree, and I see shades of grey, where we agree on some points, nearly agree on others, and disagree on some.

 

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.

 

That certainly is contrary to responses I've posted clearly indicating otherwise. I've stated some things clearly are only black or white (harming a child can never be mitigated by motivations or anything else), whereas other thing do have shades of grey.

 

 

It's like if someone murdered of of my kids... do you think I'm going to give much thought to "extenuating circumstances"?

 

I would hope not. I wouldn't, although, there are those that would, and have.

 

 

You say your girlfriend's husband is abusive to her, which I'm sure is really horrible for her.

 

Which provides one example where I think an A is not bad (more accurately, not *all* bad), in that her relationship with me is helping her to deal with her problems. It's certainly not the best answer. It certainly presents an increased risk for her (if her H were to discover our A). Her lies, deceit and abuse of his trust are bad and wrong. No doubt about any of that. ... but, this is how she chooses to make her transition away from him. For her, it's a good thing. Again, not the best good thing, but a good thing none the less.

 

 

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?

 

Mitigate? No.

 

Do you feel he is a bad person because he is abusive to her?

 

Yes.

 

 

If so, does the fact that he does some good things negate the bad that he does?

 

No. And he is usually pretty good. Like a typical abused woman, for her, that he is mostly good and only abusive at times helps keep her around. When he is abusive, she's ready to leave immediately. The next morning when he apologizes and offers excuses for his behavior, everything is fine.

 

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"?

 

Yes. The latter.

 

If you want to go back to the extreme of murder - there are murderers who present a threat to society. They have murdered before and are likely to murder again. However, a number of murders are committed by those who will likely never murder again (think of an abused woman who kills her abuser). In the latter case, there's no need to hang that label on them for a lifetime.

 

Here again, it comes down to knowing enough details, knowing the entire person. Have they changed? Was it a single, isolated incident with a highly unlikely chance of being repeated? ...

 

does the theory of "grey areas" apply to this situation too? ( I don't think it does...abuse is never a "grey area"...

 

Of course all abuse is bad and wrong, but it certainly has grey areas. A person who is occasionally verbally abusive is nowhere near as bad as someone who is constantly physically abusive. A person who is physically abusive by pushing someone around on occasion is not as bad as someone who beats someone severely, breaking bones and causing other severe injuries.

 

... 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.

 

I think cheating on your spouse has plenty of room for grey areas. On one hand, you have a man who just wants to go out and get laid by anyone and everyone possible, not caring who he lies to or hurts. On the other, you have someone who has made every effort to deal with issues with their spouse, who, for whatever reasons, is unable to split with their spouse, so they go out and begin another relationship in the interim. To me, there is a significant different between the two, they two WS are very different people, the pain they cause is even potentially different (one BS says "I can't believe you'd do that to me, to us, our family!!", the other BS says "It figures. We haven't had much of an M for a long time. I've even been thinking of stepping out myself")

 

... and all manner of scenarios in between. Certainly, understanding the details and motivations provides a clear picture of the grey areas involved.

 

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

 

Nope. We're good.

[SoMovinOn]

Consciously engaging in dishonesty in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself, in my opinion, falls into the category of "wrong."

 

The assumption being one only ever engages in an A in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself?

[SoMovinOn]

Yes....

 

Or at the least,you tend to have a very apologetic manner of discussing As.

 

Or maybe, rather than apologetic, understanding?

[donnamaybe]

The assumption being one only ever engages in an A in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself?

 

Would it be likely that someone would engage in an A if it was displeasurable?

[NoIDidn't]

The assumption being one only ever engages in an A in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself?

 

This struck me as a silly question and only to be contrary so as not to affirm what was said.

 

I'm sure engaging in affairs are not a public service and certainly don't add anything pleasurable to the communities they infect. Yes, I said "infect".

 

Who else gets the "pleasure" of the affair outside of the two people in it? Are you in a pleasureLESS affair? If so, Why? And why would your MW be in an unpleasant affair with you when she already has an allegedly unpleasant marriage.

 

(the lengths some will go to never admit that someone they disagree with is correct smh )

[SoMovinOn]

Would it be likely that someone would engage in an A if it was displeasurable?

 

If those were the only two choices, no.

However, those aren't the only two choices.

[SoMovinOn]

This struck me as a silly question and only to be contrary so as not to affirm what was said.

 

I'm sure engaging in affairs are not a public service and certainly don't add anything pleasurable to the communities they infect. Yes, I said "infect".

 

Who else gets the "pleasure" of the affair outside of the two people in it? Are you in a pleasureLESS affair? If so, Why? And why would your MW be in an unpleasant affair with you when she already has an allegedly unpleasant marriage.

 

(the lengths some will go to never admit that someone they disagree with is correct smh )

 

Yes. Definite lengths.

 

The assumption all A's are undertaken for only the purpose of pleasure is false. Certainly, that would be the case in A's which exist purely for sex, but, many affairs do not.

 

Do people fall in love for the purpose of pleasure? Do you meet someone, find you are attracted to them and think "My! A relationship with them would sure be a pleasurable experience."

 

As you said, such simple minded thinking is silly. I agree.

[frozensprouts]

Yes. Definite lengths.

 

The assumption all A's are undertaken for only the purpose of pleasure is false. Certainly, that would be the case in A's which exist purely for sex, but, many affairs do not.

 

Do people fall in love for the purpose of pleasure? Do you meet someone, find you are attracted to them and think "My! A relationship with them would sure be a pleasurable experience."

 

As you said, such simple minded thinking is silly. I agree.

 

that it's truly on of the most bizarre things i have ever read.

 

people get into relationships because they get something out of them. I wouldn't think there are two many people out here who meet someone, find them utterly repulsive, have a horrible time with them and then choose to start a relationship with them.

why would anyone do this?

[donnamaybe]

If those were the only two choices, no.

However, those aren't the only two choices.

So then the A is entered into just for the sake of doing it with no positive outcome? Why would someone risk so much if it wasn't something they enjoyed doing?

[donnamaybe]

that it's truly on of the most bizarre things i have ever read.

 

people get into relationships because they get something out of them. I wouldn't think there are two many people out here who meet someone, find them utterly repulsive, have a horrible time with them and then choose to start a relationship with them.

why would anyone do this?

Strange, all this denial that an A is pleasurable, isn't it? I wonder why?

[Spark1111]

Yes. Definite lengths.

 

The assumption all A's are undertaken for only the purpose of pleasure is false. Certainly, that would be the case in A's which exist purely for sex, but, many affairs do not.

 

Do people fall in love for the purpose of pleasure? Do you meet someone, find you are attracted to them and think "My! A relationship with them would sure be a pleasurable experience."

 

As you said, such simple minded thinking is silly. I agree.

 

I think we are splitting hairs in the semantics of the word "pleasure."

 

Are you implying pleasure as meaning strictly sexual pleasure?

 

Because I do not believe NID, DM, and FS are implying that.

 

Pleasure can mean emotional satisfaction too.

 

Obviously, the benefits of pleasure(s) of being IN the affair must outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise, who would bother with it at all?

[Mme. Chaucer]

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?

 

Of COURSE someone who has not been involved in an affair is very likely to have a negative bias concerning them. Our culture does not condone them and has a negative bias concerning them. Our culture generally elevates certain qualities like honesty, being trustworthy, faithfulness, loyalty and monogamy, which are all abandoned when people have clandestine affairs.

 

Also, millions of people who HAVE been involved in affairs, or even who are currently involved in affairs have a "negative bias" concerning them. They post here all the time.

 

As I have posted before, I was involved with a married man at one time and I am ashamed of it. My husband cheated on his first wife and the effects of this on his self esteem and confidence (not to mention his marriage, ex wife and family) were devastating, and took years for him to overcome. And we "understand" what we were involved in just as much as you understand what you are.

 

Your statement about "understanding them fully" is quite meaningless, anyway. A person who has an affair does not necessarily "understand them fully." They might understand the relationship they are involved in fully, but relationships between AP's vary immensely, just like relationships between married people, or siblings, etc., do.

 

What does your affair have in common with the relationships a rich old married man has with a series of young women he "keeps"? Or with a guy who screws a particular pretty waitress in a bar a few times a year when he's drunk?

 

About the only thing I can think of that they all have in common is selfishness.

 

SMO, from your posting history here on LS I get the idea that for you personally, "affairs," participating in them, thinking, talking, justifying and rationalizing them are cornerstones of how you define yourself as a person. Your current marriage started as an affair, right? I know there are a handful of people like this posting here on LS, but honestly, I don't think it's very common even among affair - havers generally.

[Severely Unamused]

Well, I see that this thread is still going strong.

 

The book was pretty good.

 

who would bother with it at all?

 

Self-destructive people.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mme. Chaucer

Consciously engaging in dishonesty in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself, in my opinion, falls into the category of "wrong."

 

The assumption being one only ever engages in an A in order to reap pleasurable rewards for oneself?

 

I am sure that if an affair progresses past mere sexual fun, it encompasses many aspects other than pleasure just like all relationships between people do.

 

Still, if it were not yielding pleasurable rewards (which can even include negative things - for example lots of people get off on the emotional intensity of fighting) people would abandon the affair.

 

Bottom line is: if it requires dishonesty to do it, I think it's wrong. And I will tend to judge the people involved harshly. As I judged myself for similar behavior.

[PUREHEARTOM]

 

To me this whole debate is the same as debating whether Good men can come home and beat their wives.

 

One is a criminal act, the other is not illegal. So society disagrees with you.

[donnamaybe]

One is a criminal act, the other is not illegal. So society disagrees with you.

No. The government may, but not society.

[SoMovinOn]

that it's truly on of the most bizarre things i have ever read.

 

people get into relationships because they get something out of them. I wouldn't think there are two many people out here who meet someone, find them utterly repulsive, have a horrible time with them and then choose to start a relationship with them.

why would anyone do this?

 

Why must everything only be one of only two polar opposites with some people?

 

Of course people get pleasure from a relationship, but "pleasure" it not *why* they get into the relationship. As I said, in a sex only relationship, that would obviously be the case, but you don't hear pleasure brought up as the reason in most other relationships. People talk about being in love, how they connect with the other person, how many things they have in common, etc.

 

Yes ... all of those are pleasurable experiences.

 

All I'm saying is people get involved in relationships for, usually, a list of reasons. In listing those reasons "My own pleasure" is generally not going to be their number one item, even if every single item on the list is pleasurable.

[SoMovinOn]

So then the A is entered into just for the sake of doing it with no positive outcome? Why would someone risk so much if it wasn't something they enjoyed doing?

 

The A is entered into for any number of positive motivations other than pure pleasure.

[SoMovinOn]

Strange, all this denial that an A is pleasurable, isn't it? I wonder why?

 

I think some people are deliberately being obtuse. I cannot fathom people honestly believe the only two choices are pleasure or distaste.

[SoMovinOn]

I think we are splitting hairs in the semantics of the word "pleasure."

 

Are you implying pleasure as meaning strictly sexual pleasure?

 

Because I do not believe NID, DM, and FS are implying that.

 

Pleasure can mean emotional satisfaction too.

 

Obviously, the benefits of pleasure(s) of being IN the affair must outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise, who would bother with it at all?

 

Correct. No one would bother with an A if they didn't see positives to it. I think the confusion is some people want to believe that if anything pleasurable is involved (love, companionship, support...), then, ultimately, pleasure is the main motivating factor. I am simply suggesting people don't see it that way except perhaps in A's engaged in purely for sex.