Cheaters are BROKEN?!

[goodyblue]

Call me stupid.

 

Well Jesus. BS's have been touting that forever. You must read the threads, surely. I won't call you stupid but i will certainly roll my eyes!!!!

[Danda]

I didn't read the entire thread.

 

I don't think "broken" is the word I'd use.

 

All of the stuff about monogamy and history and gay people and whatnot is irrelevant, although that's the most complex I've ever seen someone get in trying to excuse cheating or something along those lines.

 

When you agree to something with someone else, and they trust you, and then you deliberately take advantage of that trust and betray them, just so you don't have to muster up an courage to change the situation - it's pathetic.

 

That's the word I'd use, actually.

 

Polyamorous people are not wrong.

Open relationships are not wrong.

Refusing to commit is not wrong.

Having a ton of casual sex is not wrong.

Divorce is not wrong.

 

It has nothing to do with what a person is actually doing (or who they are doing).

 

It's a very simple matter of betrayal, cowardice and disregard for those you hurt. It's a matter of a person's character and it typically affects way more in their life than just their relationship/marriage. It just so happen that they tend to hurt their SO the most with all of their cowardly shenanigans.

[MissBee]

Since you believe those who cheat are a persecuted minority and not recognized by main stream society and are as deserving as the gay community to be heard and given legitimacy.

 

I support the gay community, I support their rights to marry. I support their right to living in the open and being free of prejudice. I have gay friends, friends I love and support. I showed them your post and they were saddened by it.

 

I have marched with my gay friends, I have signed petitions that call for their legitimate rights as a human.

 

I dare you Realist, to stand up in public for and lobby for Cheaters rights. I dare you to organize a march and put your voice and face in the news for the legitimization of affairs. I wholeheartedly believe you would never publicly attach your face and words to your gripes. Predictably, cheaters are about secrecy and deceit. Not at all like the real and true minorities who publicly challenge and fight for equal rights.

 

Funny thing, cheaters whine about society and the burden of monogamy, even go as far as comparing their plight with the plight of the gay community. It's shallow and ignorant to suggest cheaters are in anyway comparable to the plight of minorities.

 

Let us know when you plan to march for recognizing the legitimacy of cheaters in your quest to break free from the constraint of imposed societal monogamy that you willingly signed up for on your wedding day.

 

Sadly, you are an extraordinary example of a cheater cliche, a cheater who will not publicly defend your beliefs but only gripe about them. It's also odd how cheaters are offended if called broken.. Put that on your placards as you lead the March in public protest in bringing legitimacy and understanding to the horrible discrimination cheaters face. I know an artist who could silkscreen your image on t-shirts with the logo "cheaters are not broken".

 

The strange part of it all is that the opposite of monogamy isn't cheating so technically, one shouldn't be fighting for the right to cheat, but to be non-monogamous...and oops...that ALREADY exists!

 

One cannot be polygamous, i.e. marry multiple people in the U.S....but one is very much free to NEVER marry and just see a bunch of people or marry but have an open marriage. So that's already solved!

 

I truly don't understand the leap from monogamy being unnatural or not believing in it to cheating. If you don't think it's natural there is no monogamy task force making you practice it. Monogamy is certainly the norm in most North American and Western societies with a Christian ethos, so yes there is some element of social pressure or assumption that this is what most people choose. But at the end of the day, no one is gonna come beating down your door or harassing you for not choosing it. It's a personal decision that most people even if they wouldn't do it themselves won't care if in your own life you choose differently. Further it's not like one has to announce one is not monogamous to all you meet...so long as your SO knows the deal then that's the only person whose opinion on the matter counts.

 

Frankly, it's silly to make cheaters seem like a group requiring legitimacy when the opposite of monogamy isn't cheating but non-monogamy, which is something people can ALREADY choose. As you've pointed out and I said some pages back, no one cares really if people don't want to be monogamous, it's about how you go about it though. Do you let your partner know your beliefs on it beforehand? If you used to believe in monogamy but have an epiphany and don't anymore do you pretend you still do?Do you rob the person of their say in the matter? Do you not mention a word on it until you're caught cheating then you drop the bomb that monogamy is unnatural and you don't subscribe to it anyway lol...I mean come on.

 

Cheating in ALL contexts: relationships, taxes, a test etc. are about lying, omitting the truth, being duplicitous or deceitful in some way and gaining an advantage unfairly. This isn't a positive thing in any context even though I can more understand the persons who are already out the door and are cheating a bit more than those who just cheat for years with no plan for a permanent solution.

 

Monogamy being natural or unnatural is totally unrelated to this. Even among open marriage couples there is a definition of cheating and even among polygamous folks....it usually involves going outside of WHATEVER the agreed upon arrangement is and making a point to hide, deny, omit and keep up false pretenses about what you're doing. I think the level of false pretense, justification and drama left in the wake of one's cheating is what people ultimately use to decide if someone is broken or not.

Edited December 11, 2014 by MissBee

[Realist3]

You really crack me up, R3. It wasn't always the case. I got my one and only infraction because one of your threads made me completely insane. But I see now that you're really just what you put out there - no hidden agendas - and when you get it, you say so, and when you don't... Well, it drives people nuts.

 

But, yeah, conflict avoidance. Good job. Next? What will you do as a result of your epiphany? Do you go face the conflicts you've been avoiding in your marriage?

 

Nope. I don't at all. When she busted me I suggested MC. She would have none of that. And I don't necessarily fault her for that because we both know what the resulting prognosis would be. The chasm is there. She is comfortably numb in her existence, and I pretend to be the same.

[Realist3]

I know what the problems are, we both do. I don't need some third party to tell me what they are. We both avoid the conflict of meeting those problems to their natural course.

 

If we both sat down and listed our grievances, any sane person would shout, "Get divorced!!!" I know that, so does she.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Realist3

[beach]

Do you think the conflict avoiders tend to also be rug sweepers?

[velvette]

I have not read all of the responses to this thread, and I will make an attempt to do so.

 

This morning when I was waking up it finally hit me. It is not a broken person it is ALL about conflict avoidance. Prior to going to bed I was in a lengthy discussion with an attorney that works for the firm I still own, and we were hashing out questions he would be asking in court in a couple of days. It didn't hit me then, nor has it ever overtly, but we were creating conflict with what we were posing to ask. Humans by nature are conflict avoidant to varying degrees.

 

Then at 5:00 am it struck me. Most people that engage in affairs are avoiding conflict. They are avoiding a known conflict in their marriage, and the easy way out is the affair.

 

The solidification of this notion became even clearer when thought back on my now experience with my mother in law in our business adventure that is currently taking place. The background is too long, but to humor my wife I entered into a business partnership with her mom. Just like my wife, her mom can't handle conflict. "I don't want to talk about it." In business you are going to have conflicts no matter what. So in essence you have a Dyson rug sweeping operation going on. The exact same reason my wife doesn't ever want to talk about our marriage or my affair. Rug sweeps. I know where she got it.

 

Back to the affair deal, I believe that is what you are dealing with in cheaters. People who choose to avoid conflict/

 

Underlying the desire to avoid conflict is generally a great deal of brokenness or dysfunction usually with its roots in family of origin stuff, traumatic events or both.

 

 

Its healthy to avoid some conflicts, like minor non recurring things, or the driver with road rage, etc. Avoiding conflict in your close or primary relations is not a sign of good mental health. It usually results in a denial of self and eventually turns into rage that either explodes or gets acted out passive aggressively a la cheating as one example.

[merrmeade]

Nope. I don't at all. When she busted me I suggested MC. She would have none of that. And I don't necessarily fault her for that because we both know what the resulting prognosis would be. The chasm is there. She is comfortably numb in her existence, and I pretend to be the same.

I know what the problems are, we both do. I don't need some third party to tell me what they are. We both avoid the conflict of meeting those problems to their natural course.

 

If we both sat down and listed our grievances, any sane person would shout, "Get divorced!!!" I know that, so does she.

It must have made you sad. I'm sorry anyway. Maybe she was just too pissed off and agreeing to MC felt like giving in or something?

 

I don't know where you get the idea that therapy or MC involves a "prognosis." Or that your chasm is so wide or your problems, so intractable. And who would even conceive of defining them by a list? Have you ever been in therapy? It's hard work. It makes you vulnerable. I wish you'd taken enough of a risk to try and persuade her. After all, you trusted each other once. I'm sorry you have to pretend to be numb.

Edited December 11, 2014 by merrmeade

[Got it]

Dear dear me.

 

Unless he had a gun to his head he married her because he loved her and they fit.

 

Before you jump on my post perhaps you should read the rest. Take your anger elsewhere and stop putting words into my mouth

 

I agree, I think this idea that people "fit" and that is why they marry is a little over played.

 

I married my first husband for multiple reason but I don't think I would have ever said I felt we "fit". We were different in many ways.

 

Maybe you are meaning something different/more than how I am reading fit.

 

What do you mean by "fit"? Maybe that will lend to a better understanding.

[Got it]

It must have made you sad. I'm sorry anyway. Maybe she was just too pissed off and agreeing to MC felt like giving in or something?

 

I don't know where you get the idea that therapy or MC involves a "prognosis." Or that your chasm is so wide or your problems, so intractable. And who would even conceive of defining them by a list? Have you ever been in therapy? It's hard work. It makes you vulnerable. I wish you'd taken enough of a risk to try and persuade her. After all, you trusted each other once. I'm sorry you have to pretend to be numb.

 

I wanted to piggyback on this. Marriage counseling is what you put into it. It can go over ways for you two to communicate better, handle conflict resolution better, etc. but does not have to be about deciding if you should divorce or not. It can be about moving the needle a bit to make the type/level of marital satisfaction you two have a bit more based on the perimeters you put in.

 

If, what you are saying, is that to hear a third party reiterate the issues and somehow that is ringing a bell you can't unring and thusly can't go back from then yes I can see where one would be avoidant for counseling.

 

And I do want to disagree with the idea that all humans are conflict avoidant. That is not true. Some are actually the opposite and seek conflict. Neither spectrum is healthy. But a healthy person does not seek out conflict for the sake of conflict but does not avoid conflict at all costs either. While they may not enjoy conflict they approach it nonetheless.

 

And I don't agree all in affairs are conflict avoidant. We are/were in affairs for different reasons. I am fine with conflict, for me, I just gave up trying to resolve issues and getting little response and no change. So by the point of my affair I was done and had no desire to address them. It was not out of fear, it was because I didn't care. But I also was not trying to keep the status quo either. I was not trying to maintain the marriage.

 

My ex husband was very conflict avoidant. That drove me batty because issues need to be discussed and resolved. In my marriage now, it is top priority to discuss and resolve issues. While I will not try and beat it to death, it does need to be looked at, dissected and resolved. What I love, while my husband does not love all the deep diving all the time, he is always apt to discuss issues and come to a solution/resolve. It may be an agree to disagree but we try to come to solutions that we both compromise on and agree to.

[Got it]

In general I agree. People are usually broken or dysfunctional in certain ways and that doesn't always bleed over into all parts of their lives. On the other hand, sometimes it does. Depends on the person.

 

 

My H was a serial cheater. But beyond that he was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. The one led to the other. And, although he was not always dysfunctional or broken, both things pretty much bled over at some point in time to all aspects of his life until he got extensive therapy to deal with it.

 

Absolutely! Child abuse is going to have a significant impact on someone and their adapted coping mechanisms now are going to be different and can be quite unhealthy without help.

 

That is why I think one is only scratching the surface (and excuse my french but pissing in the wind) when I see a thread on someone's spouse/SO that is cheating and they are an addict, abuse survivor, etc. Until the baseline issues are resolved, until the addiction is addressed and in treatment, one can only then start to address the cheating. The cheating is a symptom of many other issues that will continue to impact their coping mechanisms and thought process. At best, one will have a white knuckling approach but it is only scratching the surface of the issues.

 

And there are some psychological issues, attachment disorders, etc. that will make a relationship with that person harder no matter how healthy they try and become; it will continue to be an uphill battle.

[autumnnight]

i was thinking about this thread as I was reading in Psalms last night (does that mean I read too much here). I think there are 2 types of broken at play here. While someone is cheating/justifying their cheating, they are IMO broken. And in order to stop being broken enough to cheat, they need to be broken over their sin (cheating). Until someone moves from broken enough to cheat to broken enough by their actions to STOP heating and own it they can't move forward. If breaking someone else's heart with betrayal doesn't break our heart then we can't heal. I don't know if that makes sense but it just occurred to me.

[Got it]

i was thinking about this thread as I was reading in Psalms last night (does that mean I read too much here). I think there are 2 types of broken at play here. While someone is cheating/justifying their cheating, they are IMO broken. And in order to stop being broken enough to cheat, they need to be broken over their sin (cheating). Until someone moves from broken enough to cheat to broken enough by their actions to STOP heating and own it they can't move forward. If breaking someone else's heart with betrayal doesn't break our heart then we can't heal. I don't know if that makes sense but it just occurred to me.

 

Yes but I don't agree, personally, that cheating means a sum of totality of the person= broken. I think the actions could be "broken" or what I would be more apt to say, unhealthy, counterproductive, toxic, etc. -

 

Because, to me, then, are we assuming that someone that is cheating in other areas broken? Where else are people deemed broken? And, then, where does one go from there?

 

And, depending on the issues, even if they own it, that doesn't mean the underlining issues are addressed to "fix" the "brokenness". My example in the other post about the addict. There are layers that need to be addressed and it is these coping mechanism that are "broken" not the person.

 

I think it is just a different perception.

 

To me the important thing to look at/understand is the why.

[autumnnight]

Yes but I don't agree, personally, that cheating means a sum of totality of the person= broken. I think the actions could be "broken" or what I would be more apt to say, unhealthy, counterproductive, toxic, etc. -

 

Because, to me, then, are we assuming that someone that is cheating in other areas broken? Where else are people deemed broken? And, then, where does one go from there?

 

And, depending on the issues, even if they own it, that doesn't mean the underlining issues are addressed to "fix" the "brokenness". My example in the other post about the addict. There are layers that need to be addressed and it is these coping mechanism that are "broken" not the person.

 

I think it is just a different perception.

 

To me the important thing to look at/understand is the why.

 

I can see that too. And yes, I think anytime someone is knowingly hurting another person they are displaying some kind of brokenness. And just owning something isn't enough to fix it. But real repentance involves work and changing which to me would include self-investigating.

 

I definitely agree that judging a whole person based on one period and one area of their lives is not very valid or logical or real. It can feel real to the person that was hurt but that doesn't make it valid. Once when I was mouthing back to my mom she slapped me across the face in anger. One time. That in itself does not make her a child abuser. It makes her a good mom who did her best and lost her temper one time. A guy who was a womanizer in his youth but who settles down and marries and is a great husband and dad is not forever a womanizer. Just like we choose our actions we choose whether or not we keep people frozen in one time or we see the big picture.

[elaine567]

I think this idea that people "fit" and that is why they marry is a little over played.

 

So do I, people meet, they want to get married.

There are a multitude of reasons why people want to get married, getting married because they "fit", may be a valid reason, but it is by no means the only one.

[elaine567]

Do cheaters actually "need" to be broken.

Is it possible with the right opportunity a cheater goes "yes thank you very much, very kind of you" and then goes home and reads the paper and makes/eats the tea without a thought in their head.

 

No regrets, no bitterness, no brooding resentment, no abusive childhood, no deep dark thoughts, just another experience and a pleasant one at that.

 

Does it really need to be about deep soul-searching angst and brokenness on the side of the cheater?

Is most of the angst actually on the side of the BS and what happens is that "brokenness is merely being projected on to the cheater?

Is it the BS that is actually the "broken" one?

Does all this "brokenness" abound, because of all the waves caused, as opposed to the actual act of cheating?

[Got it]

Do cheaters actually "need" to be broken.

Is it possible with the right opportunity a cheater goes "yes thank you very much, very kind of you" and then goes home and reads the paper and makes/eats the tea without a thought in their head.

 

No regrets, no bitterness, no brooding resentment, no abusive childhood, no deep dark thoughts, just another experience and a pleasant one at that.

 

Does it really need to be about deep soul-searching angst and brokenness on the side of the cheater?

Is most of the angst actually on the side of the BS and what happens is that "brokenness is merely being projected on to the cheater?

Is it the BS that is actually the "broken" one?

Does all this "brokenness" abound, because of all the waves caused, as opposed to the actual act of cheating?

 

I think can be a little out of column A and a little out of column B.

 

But, I think the idea, that if you are doing something that is going to be in direct opposition to what your SO would agree with if they knew as well as a good chance of direct opposition to their feelings, etc.

 

And then we can get into a tit for tat argument about someone doing something that has had a similar impact and who is right, wrong, etc. Which ultimately doing things to hurt, undermine, or disrespect your SO is wrong and "shouldn't" be done.

 

And I also perceive, that some reactions are the outcry because of the impact of the actions and the need to articulate the magnitude of them.

[autumnnight]

Do cheaters actually "need" to be broken.

Is it possible with the right opportunity a cheater goes "yes thank you very much, very kind of you" and then goes home and reads the paper and makes/eats the tea without a thought in their head.

 

No regrets, no bitterness, no brooding resentment, no abusive childhood, no deep dark thoughts, just another experience and a pleasant one at that.

 

Honestly, the above sounds like a sociopath to me.

[truncated]

Honestly, the above sounds like a sociopath to me.

 

 

I agree. How someone could do something that they know has the potential to be very hurtful to their spouse, and perhaps the person they are seeing on the side as well, yet doesnt give it a second thought is really disturbng.

 

By it's very nature it fits the definition of socipathic behavior. Interestinly, there is a school of thought that there are many more sociopaths in the world than one might be comfortable in thinking. They tend to excell in the business, medical and academic world. While they aren't violent and don't physically hurt anyone, they can cause a lot of mental pain.

[Marshal]

I don't think it can be said that monogamy is unnatural or natural if we're talking about mortals natural instincts. Religions and tribes have their teachings in black and white.

 

RELIGIONS- Being faithful is GOOD, Being unfaithful IS BAD.

 

TRIBES- Some condone being promiscuous, some condemn it.

 

These are values built by societies seeking an acceptable norm. With regards to monogamy being unnatural or not, lets take a look at nature. Dogs, hedge sparrows, bees and topi antelopes are all promiscuous by nature, they practice swinging and orgies however, swans, bald eagles, golden eagles and black vultures practice monogamy, if a black vulture catches its partner being unfaithful it can become aggressive towards its partner.

So when speaking about nature it can't be said that monogamy is unnatural, just like it can't be said that it's natural. Yes promiscuous animal do outnumber monogamous animals but, their are monogamous animals, so neither can be indefinitely labeled as the norm when talking about nature in this physical world.

 

When talking about whether a cheater can be labeled as broken or not lets move away from physical aspect cheating for a second. The cheater vows to be faithful, knowingly takes a vow that now holds responsibility for two. Then the cheater betrays the spouse, gets to the point where they say to themselves, "What I feel is too strong, sorry to my partner but, my desires matter most." Okay you want a different partner, fine but, you don't inform your spouse of this selfish decision, first sign that something is wrong.

Next you return home look at your spouse in the face and go on as if nothing has happened, knowing you've betrayed them terribly, second sign that something is wrong. Thereafter the cheater becomes cold and cruel toward the spouse blaming them for not being what their new found love is, all the while not informing the spouse about the betrayal, Third sign that something is wrong. Lastly when/if caught it's about the cheater and their desires, not the betrayed spouse nor their lovers partner if there is one, another sign that something is wrong.

 

Constant lies, manipulation, sneaking out seeking risky highs are all signs of a problem.

 

Some people don't want many sexual partners, some people do, some people don't mind sharing their partners, some people do. Some people are faithful, some people aren't.

 

An unfaithful individual is broken in the eyes of a faithful invidual.

[elaine567]

An unfaithful individual is broken in the eyes of a faithful invidual.

 

I don't think anyone would dispute that and that is part of my point.

Is the attempt at monogamy by some people, some people who are not naturally monogamous, part of the issue here.

Society is forcing people who are at heart cheaters to commit to one person, when they are not capable of doing that.

They are not "broken", they are merely following their destiny as per their genes, maybe??

[Marshal]

Elaine567, I believe the term "broken" is referring to cheaters whom were spawned from tragedy and a troubled upbringing. There are individuals whom are scarred and psychologically unable to commit to a single partner. Psychology deems the reason being that they deem themselves unworthy of love or can't comprehend offering true love to anyone, so they feed off impulsive pleasures which they know are fleeting rather than a stable relationship which is far less appealing to them. These are "broken" cheaters however this definitely doesn't apply to all cheaters.

 

There are cheaters whom cheat for ego or simply because they care for no-one but themselves, these are two among many other reasons that has nothing to do with personal psychological pain and issues.

 

Maybe whomever uses this term "broken" assumes you'll have to have some deep-seated reason to be capable of cheating and that's not the case.

 

I still believe that human beings have the ability to make the right choice no matter what the circumstance, the problem is that cheaters don't view the right choice as important as they should.

 

So NO elaine567 not all cheaters are broken, many are just cheaters.

[elaine567]

So NO elaine567 not all cheaters are broken, many are just cheaters.

 

YES. That is my contention.

 

Being a cheater does not equate to being "broken", it may do, but not necessarily.

[merrmeade]

NOW we're getting somewhere! This is finally a thoughtful discussion with clarity. Thanks to posters on the last couple of pages that took the time and had the wherewithal.

Edited December 12, 2014 by merrmeade

[merrmeade]

Do cheaters actually "need" to be broken.

Is it possible with the right opportunity a cheater goes "yes thank you very much, very kind of you" and then goes home and reads the paper and makes/eats the tea without a thought in their head.

 

No regrets, no bitterness, no brooding resentment, no abusive childhood, no deep dark thoughts, just another experience and a pleasant one at that.

Does it really need to be about deep soul-searching angst and brokenness on the side of the cheater?

Is most of the angst actually on the side of the BS and what happens is that "brokenness is merely being projected on to the cheater?

 

Is it the BS that is actually the "broken" one?

Does all this "brokenness" abound, because of all the waves caused, as opposed to the actual act of cheating?

You're kidding, right? You don't think there's something f''led up about a man who views his extramarital relations as simply pleasant experiences? It's not abnormal, even pathological that he has no feeling or thought of how his spouse would feel? You've described someone completely self-absorbed and devoid of empathy, a narcissistic sociopath, perhaps. That's not "broken"?