Hypocrisy

[AnotherRound]

Sorry if you thought that was insulting - It was an honest observation, as what she is describing isn't exactly hypocrisy. In some cases, I'm sure there are hypocritical WSs and or OW/OM - but I don't think an A is innately hypocritical. There are far too many variables to consider to push them all into one category and assume that ALL involved in As are hypocritical.

 

I honestly thought she was confused about the definition of the word.

 

 

Let me clarify one last time. Lying is not innately hypocritical. Lying about being faithful, and then having an A, and expecting the BS not to have an A - yes, that would be hypocritical. But, if a BS is asking their WS if they are faithful, and the WS is admitting that they are NOT faithful and have no intentions of being faithful, that is NOT hypocrisy. Unless, the WS would then become angry if the BS also was unfaithful. What is good for one is good for the other.

 

If exMM had become angry when his exW got a boyfriend, then yes, that would have been hypocritical. But in his case, he was relieved, so it wasn't hypocritical. If he had been telling her all along that he was being faithful, then having an affair - or talking about how wrong affairs are but then participating in one himself, that would have been hypocritical.

 

I don't think that my expectation that my SO won't have an affair (that's a dealbreaker for me) but being the OW for someone whose wife KNEW he was having an affair with me is hypocritical. She wasn't being lied to - so no, this affair did not involve any hypocrisy. With other variables, it could have - but it didn't, so not "all" affairs or people involved in affairs are hypocrites.

 

Because I choose to not allow myself to be treated in certain ways, and his exW allowed those things (they weren't dealbreakers for her) is not hypocrisy for either of us - it is simply that we have different boundaries. Different boundaries is not hypocritical - and it's not my job to police all the other adults in the world who have different boundaries than me and tell them that they are "wrong" to accept that treatment. That's their job - to set up their own boundaries and my job is to set up my boundaries (which the exW and I both did). Neither of our boundaries were being crossed - in our case, so, no, not hypocrisy.

 

And, I won't be married again. Not because I don't believe in long term relationships, but bc I don't believe in tying someone to me legally for an emotional reason that we feel at that time. I want everyone to be able to walk away if that ever becomes what is best for either of us - and I don't want half of their earnings or their life, nor do I want them to have half of mine. Sometimes, things just don't work out - and nobody should be penalized for that. Feelings are feelings - they aren't permanent - and none of us can see the future. I can't promise that I will always love someone - I can promise that I will always try to save the relationship, but even that is not a guarantee that it will last "forever". So, to be able to separate our lives again is a necessity if both are to be expected to stay willingly. I don't ever want someone to feel as if they HAVE to stay with me if they don't want to be with me. I'm okay with that - I would rather that than to continue an untrue relationship simply because we are legally bound to do so and ending it would be too complicated and upsetting for everyone involved. If they can just walk away, that alleviates all of that, and that leaves a much truer relationship, imo. When you know that either can leave at any time, with little fuss - you alleviate all that external crap (houses, assets, etc) that gets in the way of the true point - which is love and voluntary commitment - not court ordered commitment.

Edited March 9, 2013 by AnotherRound

[Decorative]

In most marital situations, the marriage carries an expectation of faithfulness and honesty. Period.

 

Unless it is negotiated differently, that's marriage. That's the vast majority of marriage.

 

If you personally had a different situation, AR, then I assume you are able to recognize that your MM's wife's endorsement of your relationship with her spouse is not the default setting for most marriages. And not the normal setting for infidelity.

 

So please stop saying that people don't understand hypocrisy, or are missing something, or that marriage doesn't have an expectation of fidelity and truthfulness.

 

 

 

#cannotbelievethatanyoftheaboveactuallyneededtobesaid

[ComingInHot]

Okay, so I chose the web version of the definition of hypocrisy.

I like to keep things simple

 

" Noun The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

 

 

Just so we're all on the same page*

[ComingInHot]

donnamaybe;

My pleasure! Just trying to keep things clear*

 

By the way, from the first time on LS, I noticed your "avatar"? I think they call it.

 

Yours Rocks! Yours & TaraMaiden's lips. Lol!!

[AnotherRound]

And thank you too!

 

Just to clear this up further for those having difficulty understanding, since the WS has conveniently (purposely) omitted the truth of their cheating, they are pretending to be faithful while not being so.

 

Hypocrisy by the above definition.

 

Again, thank you CIH.

 

Yep, agreed. If a WS is omitted that they are being unfaithful and pretending that the vow of faithfulness still stands, that would be hypocrisy. I was talking about situations where there is not hypocrisy - as the question was "do you think those who cheat are hypocrites". I said no - I think that those who have affairs and are not honest about it could be hypocrites - but I also know that there are those who are in affairs who are not lying or being hypocrites. I guess I was assuming that people would understand that there are different scenarios - I'll see myself out as this seems to be about "hypocrites who are in affairs - are they hypocrites?"... lol. Sorry!

[MissBee]

Yep, agreed. If a WS is omitted that they are being unfaithful and pretending that the vow of faithfulness still stands, that would be hypocrisy. I was talking about situations where there is not hypocrisy - as the question was "do you think those who cheat are hypocrites". I said no - I think that those who have affairs and are not honest about it could be hypocrites - but I also know that there are those who are in affairs who are not lying or being hypocrites. I guess I was assuming that people would understand that there are different scenarios - I'll see myself out as this seems to be about "hypocrites who are in affairs - are they hypocrites?"... lol. Sorry!

 

Why are honest affairs still called affairs?

 

I am really asking.

 

It seems like the definition of an affair in common parlance, if you go to a mall and poll people, would include deception/lies/secrecy. Any other extramarital relationship is extramarital, but not an affair. In open marriages an outside partner is "extra marital"...outside of the marriage, but it isn't considered an affair.

 

So it is always confusing to me when people say affair but get upset when people assume it is secret/includes lying/deception...when that is the common cultural understanding of what the word or concept of an affair is. If you are in a relationship with a married person and everyone knows and there are no lies or deception going on, then you're in something else and not an affair.

[eleanorrigby]

Yep, agreed. If a WS is omitted that they are being unfaithful and pretending that the vow of faithfulness still stands, that would be hypocrisy. I was talking about situations where there is not hypocrisy - as the question was "do you think those who cheat are hypocrites". I said no - I think that those who have affairs and are not honest about it could be hypocrites - but I also know that there are those who are in affairs who are not lying or being hypocrites. I guess I was assuming that people would understand that there are different scenarios - I'll see myself out as this seems to be about "hypocrites who are in affairs - are they hypocrites?"... lol. Sorry!

 

You mention a lot about a category of honest affairs where the WS is not lying to their spouse and not lying to their AP and everyone in the triangle knows where they stand.

 

I define that as an open marriage rather then an affair. IMO you insist on shoving your square peg open marriage situation that you were in into the circle of affairs where there is a spouse that does not know he/she is being betrayed.

[AnotherRound]

 

please tell me that you are only talking about a situation where the spouse has actually be honest and said that they are cheating and not just 'well, their spouse doesn't know and they aren't saying anything so , technically, they are not lying, ergo they are not a hypocrite"...

 

most people, at least in the western world, take marrige to be faithfulness between a husband and wife. they do not need to ask if their spouse is cheating, as they believe that they are upholding the promise made to be faithful... if faithfulness is not expected between the two spouses, on would think they would have discussed that and there would not be the need to lie

 

Yes, I am only saying that IF a WS is being honest with the BS. Not just omitting, or failing to share, or outright lying.

 

I was only taking issue with the "all APs are hypocrites" when I don't think that is the case in reality. Most? Maybe - but definitely not all bc not all As include secrecy and gaslighting.

 

Again, something that was a problem when I posted her last year - in that when I hear the word "affair" I don't automatically think of someone being lied to as that is not always the case.

[AnotherRound]

You mention a lot about a category of honest affairs where the WS is not lying to their spouse and not lying to their AP and everyone in the triangle knows where they stand.

 

I define that as an open marriage rather then an affair. IMO you insist on shoving your square peg open marriage situation that you were in into the circle of affairs where there is a spouse that does not know he/she is being betrayed.

 

That's a problem - and we discussed it when I was here before. Not all As are secret - and it's still an affair in that the spouses stay married. My exMMs exW would not agree to an open marriage (he asked, multiple times) but she wouldn't leave the marriage and she wouldn't participate in the marriage. Yes, it was a unique situation - but I don't think it's the first one or the last one like that.

 

So, when I think of it - it's hard not to approach it from my perspective and say, "hey, it's not ALWAYS that way" ya know? Because my label here is FOW - not FOW whose exMMs exW knew about the affair, or whatever. THere is no distinguishing and that is difficult for me bc I want to know the variables bc I consider them important.

 

I have difficulty with all the lumping here - and I had forgotten that in the time I was away. That there are 3 very distinct labels that everyone is squeezed into with no consideration of variables - and it's not justification, just that not all situations are exactly the same.

 

Again, I forgot this from the last time I posted here and have been quickly reminded. I apologize. I probably won't be on anymore anyway as this is the first time in months I have had any down time to play on the internet anyways and probably won't have time for a while again... so, I will just refrain from trying to contribute.

 

Hope all is well with you, I do remember your story from before.

[AnotherRound]

Why are honest affairs still called affairs?

 

I am really asking.

 

It seems like the definition of an affair in common parlance, if you go to a mall and poll people, would include deception/lies/secrecy. Any other extramarital relationship is extramarital, but not an affair. In open marriages an outside partner is "extra marital"...outside of the marriage, but it isn't considered an affair.

 

So it is always confusing to me when people say affair but get upset when people assume it is secret/includes lying/deception...when that is the common cultural understanding of what the word or concept of an affair is. If you are in a relationship with a married person and everyone knows and there are no lies or deception going on, then you're in something else and not an affair.

 

I have no idea what else to call it - we didn't flaunt it bc that was what the exW demanded. She wanted us to remain secret from everyone else so that she could continue on - and we did for the most part. A lot of people knew, but we did try to be discreet - never around her children, her friends, her home, etc. I respected her place and she respected mine ( mostly, she actually violated me much more than I did her, but that's a whole other story). It was still a relationship outside of exMMs marriage - so, it was still an affair, I guess.

 

I think we had this discussion last time - I don't know what to label it. But when I try to respond, I'm responding with my experience of knowing that it is sometimes different - there isn't always abuse or hypocrisy - two threads that I've really stepped on some toes with, completely unintentionally. Because, my perspective is from the affair that I was involved in - and I KNOW that it didn't fit these labels of abusive and/or hypocritical.

 

It's my issue - and again, I apologize. I was hopeful that I could help others since I ended the affair and moved on - but when I try to participate, people tend to take it personally instead of just understanding I'm not talking about their situation - but about a situation that was very real and these things didn't apply. It may have been an exception, but if it was, then I have to believe that there are other exceptions and so no blanket label can be placed on affairs - like "all APs are hypocrites" or "all affairs are abusive to the BS".

[AnotherRound]

fair enough...but may I humbly suggest to you that the vast majority if betrayed spouses don't know about the cheating, and that if the cheating is known about and accepted, then it's not really an affair but an open marriage?

Perhaps this could save some confusion in the future.

 

Yes, and thanks... I get it. I guess I never thought of it as an open marriage bc the exW would never outwardly agree to an open marriage - but wouldn't do anything else either. It was a weird situation, no doubt - and yes, I remember now the confusion when I posted here last year and talked about my affair and how it was seen often as I was invalidating BSs when I was just trying to contribute and answer questions by saying "no, it's not ALWAYS that way"...

[MissBee]

I have no idea what else to call it - we didn't flaunt it bc that was what the exW demanded. She wanted us to remain secret from everyone else so that she could continue on - and we did for the most part. A lot of people knew, but we did try to be discreet - never around her children, her friends, her home, etc. I respected her place and she respected mine ( mostly, she actually violated me much more than I did her, but that's a whole other story). It was still a relationship outside of exMMs marriage - so, it was still an affair, I guess.

 

I think we had this discussion last time - I don't know what to label it. But when I try to respond, I'm responding with my experience of knowing that it is sometimes different - there isn't always abuse or hypocrisy - two threads that I've really stepped on some toes with, completely unintentionally. Because, my perspective is from the affair that I was involved in - and I KNOW that it didn't fit these labels of abusive and/or hypocritical.

 

It's my issue - and again, I apologize. I was hopeful that I could help others since I ended the affair and moved on - but when I try to participate, people tend to take it personally instead of just understanding I'm not talking about their situation - but about a situation that was very real and these things didn't apply. It may have been an exception, but if it was, then I have to believe that there are other exceptions and so no blanket label can be placed on affairs - like "all APs are hypocrites" or "all affairs are abusive to the BS".

 

 

If you're talking about your situation that is fine...be clear about that. No one can argue about your situation. But to say "all affairs don't include lies and deception" seems to suggest that everyone else doesn't know the "comprehensive meaning" of an affair. When in reality the meaning of an affair in common understanding is that which is secret...and then you have your situation.

 

Blanket labels are placed on things all the time. We have to do that. The world would be confusing if not. That's how humans understand the world. How it works is, we label things, then make room for outliers and exceptions. Think about the field of medicine. No doctor can study every human body right? Yet, medicine exists. How it exists and manages to be successful (sometimes lol) is that they use some human bodies (the most common ones) to generalize and understand how most human bodies work. It would be ridiculous to throw out the field of medicine or psychology or any human subfield simply because exceptions exist. Generalities aren't crimes. They are very useful, so long as people can see an exception where it exists. Doctors deal with the exceptions when they come and have to have an open mind to note an exception when they see it...but generally, they tend to understand that most human bodies are X way.

 

Likewise...an affair in common understanding is a secret relationship outside of a marriage. If we want to talk about one that is not secret, then you have to do the due diligence and explain YOUR situation...but you can't act like people are wrong/close-minded/simpletons for not constantly thinking about the anomalies.

[AnotherRound]

The situation you describe I would imagine as being 1 out of maybe 100, and I'm being generous when I quote those numbers, and I think we all know that.

 

Agreed - and I was wrongly assuming that posters would be aware that I was simply trying to show that not ALL affairs are that way. I tried to be clear in stating that yes, many can be abusive - but not ALL are. And tried to state that there are situations, and gave examples of the WS being honest with the BS, in which hypocrisy didn't apply.

 

I agree, this wasn't the place to do it, and I sincerely apologize. I was just following what I thought was a natural progression of the convo - and again am sorry for anyone who felt invalidated by my participation. I would never belittle anyone feeling abused - this is just a very interesting topic for me and I wanted to participate in the discussion.

[Owl]

Here's a thought...getting married is a "statement about one's beliefs". It's a public ceremony, in which couples exchange vows...to include a vow of fidelity (typically...exceptions do occur).

 

Cheating or having an affair is an action that's in direct conflict/violation of that public ceremony/statement.

 

Ergo...hypocrisy.

[cocorico]

Here's a thought...getting married is a "statement about one's beliefs". It's a public ceremony, in which couples exchange vows...to include a vow of fidelity (typically...exceptions do occur).

 

I would guess that to be so only in a small minority of cases. Few people IME marry publicly - most opt for a discreet magistrate's court / home affairs dept. / registry office "sign on the dotted line" situation which involves the bare bones of vows (relating only to the legal & financial aspects) and max two witnesses. Hardly "public", nor great protestations of intent to sexual exclusivity or undying love!

[Owl]

I would guess that to be so only in a small minority of cases. Few people IME marry publicly - most opt for a discreet magistrate's court / home affairs dept. / registry office "sign on the dotted line" situation which involves the bare bones of vows (relating only to the legal & financial aspects) and max two witnesses. Hardly "public", nor great protestations of intent to sexual exclusivity or undying love!

 

Really?

 

So the majority of marriages in your country/culture/area are "legal only", not involving any kind of sworn vows of monogamy or fidelity in any fashion?

 

Even "JOP" weddings here in the US typically include vows along the lines of "forsaking all others".

 

If marriage in your country has nothing to do with love, or fidelity/monogamy, and is ONLY a legal contract around property and finances, I guess that given such a huge difference, marriage in your country would be nothing like marriage in mine...and I can imagine that in that type of culture, it clearly would have far less emotional significance to anyone...those involved or those on the outside.

 

In my culture...marriage is considered an EXPRESSION OF LOVE...and even in a "JOP" (Justice of the Peace) type wedding, vows of fidelity are typically exchanged.

 

These cultural difference could go a long ways towards explaining our polar views on monogamy.

 

If monogamy means nothing in a culture, then it would make sense that marriage or emotional/sexual fidelity would mean nothing as well.

[Owl]

Really?

 

So the majority of marriages in your country/culture/area are "legal only", not involving any kind of sworn vows of monogamy or fidelity in any fashion?

 

Even "JOP" weddings here in the US typically include vows along the lines of "forsaking all others".

 

If marriage in your country has nothing to do with love, or fidelity/monogamy, and is ONLY a legal contract around property and finances, I guess that given such a huge difference, marriage in your country would be nothing like marriage in mine...and I can imagine that in that type of culture, it clearly would have far less emotional significance to anyone...those involved or those on the outside.

 

In my culture...marriage is considered an EXPRESSION OF LOVE...and even in a "JOP" (Justice of the Peace) type wedding, vows of fidelity are typically exchanged.

 

These cultural difference could go a long ways towards explaining our polar views on monogamy.

 

If monogamy means nothing in a culture, then it would make sense that marriage or emotional/sexual fidelity would mean nothing as well.

 

To tie this back into the original post...

 

I would have to say that someone in such a culture where there is no expectation of monogamy (emotional or physical) in a marriage would NOT be hypocritical if they didn't remain monogamous in their marriage.

 

They didn't agree to monogamy, there was no expectation of it neither formally nor informally, and since their spouse had no desire nor expectation of it as part of their marital relationship or vows.

 

In that circumstance, the "betrayed spouse" wouldn't be betrayed. Nor would they feel betrayed. There would be no emotional impact in the discovery of their spouse's choice to be with someone else, either physically or emotionally.

 

In that culture, in that circumstance...no, it would not be hypocritical to be married and "cheating"...since "cheating" doesn't exist in that context in that environment.

Edited March 12, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[96nole]

I would guess that to be so only in a small minority of cases. Few people IME marry publicly - most opt for a discreet magistrate's court / home affairs dept. / registry office "sign on the dotted line" situation which involves the bare bones of vows (relating only to the legal & financial aspects) and max two witnesses. Hardly "public", nor great protestations of intent to sexual exclusivity or undying love!

 

That sounds more like a business contract than a marriage.

[Spark1111]

WHERE is this culture??????

 

I am a voracious reader and even in primitive, jungle cultures, males tribesman will slaughter with a machete wife who has been unfaithful with another man in the tribe.

 

A woman in the Middle East was gang raped and put on trial for death because in that culture, she must have done something to encourage the males in a vicious sexual assault.

 

Where is the culture that no one cares about monogamy, or faithfulness, or marries to secure property only?

 

Is it a patriarchal culture where men can have many mistresses but Heaven forbid the wife, OR the mistress steps out with another man? Is it one of those macho, men reign supreme and women remain second-class citizens and second-class rights to sexual equality?

 

I read newspapers every day, cover to cover, and I cannot for the life of me think of a western civilized country where men and women share equal rights where this is okay.

 

can somebody speculate here and give me a clue?

[seren]

Since this thread was started I have searched high and low for a culture or religion that has acceptance of adultery as a commonly held ideology, or value. I couldn't find one. However, I do not think that cultural norms in relation to adultery was the original question, nor the underlying problem. For every relationship that has a promise of fidelity underpinning it, adultery by either is hypocrisy, simply by the reasoning that between the couple, married or otherwise, the relationship is based upon a shared understanding.

 

Most have, at one point or another, promised that if either wanted to look outside that relationship for either an emotional or physical affair, then they would tell the other. That one chooses to deceive the other and lies to continue to have the benefit of the relationship while seeing another places a different expectation on the faithful partner than they are prepared to do themselves. The hypocrisy is that of expecting and promoting fidelity while having the A.

 

So, what of the role of the AP and are they being hypocritical, well not toward the married relationship, as we have read many times, the AP has no place in that relationship, it could be argued that the role of enabler, well, enables the hypocritical behaviour. For the AP to expect the WS to stick to their rules is not hypocrisy, what I think may be the sticking point is that the BS posting here know what went on in their marriages or relationships, to constantly read that the WS promises sexual exclusivity, or that that the marriage was so bad or insert whatever, jars with their experience of how things were. is it hypocritical to want one thing for ourselves and not value or to enable the opposite for another? It isn't a value that I hold as 'good' and I would view myself as hypocritical as it goes against my value system.

 

I suppose it depends on how critical we are of our behaviour and how much value we place on truth, honesty and happiness for others, and what we are knowingly prepared to accept for ourselves. Knowingly enabling the hurt of another and knowingly sharing the man I love is outside what I value for myself, to act otherwise and push that onto another would, IMHO, be hypocritical and I would judge myself so, but then would anyone value hypocrisy as a value? therein lies the problem.

[2sure]

Most people who Particpate in an affair HAVE to be Hypocrites don't they?

You hear them...I know it's wrong but..all justifications define hypocrisy.

 

My xH is a politician. When he was cheating the shyte With Spitzer was going down. Senator resigned , saw prostitutes. My X was LIVID that someone with so much promise would behave so horribly. Someone we supported . My X talked about how his wife was amazing to stand beside him during the resignation.

 

Meanwhile he was cruising Craigslist .

 

Its as though telling lies to others is OK for them because....they are them.

[Spark1111]

I would guess that to be so only in a small minority of cases. Few people IME marry publicly - most opt for a discreet magistrate's court / home affairs dept. / registry office "sign on the dotted line" situation which involves the bare bones of vows (relating only to the legal & financial aspects) and max two witnesses. Hardly "public", nor great protestations of intent to sexual exclusivity or undying love!

 

WHAT?

 

We invited 175 people to our wedding. I didn't.t want that. But HE insisted on it....live music, fine food on a waterfront restaurant and a 1935 Rolls Royce to a special church in NYC.....and we paid for it all.

 

we celebrated at extreme cost and planning to family that flew in from all over the world to be there...at his insistence.

 

We promised out honor, fidelity and love to each other before hundreds In a NYC church and the party lasted for days after our departure for our honeymoon.

[Spark1111]

Most people who Particpate in an affair HAVE to be Hypocrites don't they?

You hear them...I know it's wrong but..all justifications define hypocrisy.

 

My xH is a politician. When he was cheating the shyte With Spitzer was going down. Senator resigned , saw prostitutes. My X was LIVID that someone with so much promise would behave so horribly. Someone we supported . My X talked about how his wife was amazing to stand beside him during the resignation.

 

Meanwhile he was cruising Craigslist .

 

Its as though telling lies to others is OK for them because....they are them.

 

AHAHAHAHA. Your candor is refreshing and always makes me laugh!

 

Spitzer wasn't an idiot for being with a 27 year-old escort.

 

He was an idiot because he was a man of political promise who was stupid enough to get caught.

 

yep! that's hypocritical and oh so telling, isn't it?

.

[eleanorrigby]

Originally Posted by cocorico

I would guess that to be so only in a small minority of cases. Few people IME marry publicly - most opt for a discreet magistrate's court / home affairs dept. / registry office "sign on the dotted line" situation which involves the bare bones of vows (relating only to the legal & financial aspects) and max two witnesses. Hardly "public", nor great protestations of intent to sexual exclusivity or undying love!

 

We got married in City Hall, I was wearing sweat pants with a hole in the knee and Vans. On the way out a vagrant saw us and started singing "here comes the bride" so we gave him some spare change for the serenade.

 

Even though our wedding was simple and private (understatement lol) I still expected fidelity and it definitely felt like undying endless love. (that song is going to be in my head now...)

[2sure]

I would guess that to be so only in a small minority of cases. Few people IME marry publicly - most opt for a discreet magistrate's court / home affairs dept. / registry office "sign on the dotted line" situation which involves the bare bones of vows (relating only to the legal & financial aspects) and max two witnesses. Hardly "public", nor great protestations of intent to sexual exclusivity or undying love!

 

??? Weddings are HUGE . Even a small wedding ceremony includes VOWS said publicly. I mean , think what you want about infidelity...but saying few promise fidelity is...seriously, do you leave the house ? Read the paper?