Honestly, is it possible to love someone and cheat on them?

[DKT3]

Mark I've answered that question 100 times, continuing to ask doesn't change the answer. 

Its not the cheaters right to decide whats best for the BS. The cheaters judgment is....well compromised,  how can they make unilateral decision as to what outweighs what for someone else when they are proven poor decision makers?

The unfaithful spouse only has thier best interests in mind when saying cheating and staying outweighs leaving because you are unhappy.  Truth is, its rarely a case where the WS is unhappy and the BS is dancing in a field of lilies and daisies with rainbows in the background. 

Maybe the BS would be happier to move on. Unless they have been given the information that can't be known.

[Uruktopi]

26 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

^^ ok, if that is so, please add the "harm" to the list in a cogent fashion that explains what the "harm" is in reasonably concrete terms (e.g. emotional damage or similar is fine, but I will say, fairly I believe, that "harm" is too vague if you can't explain more concretely what harm it is).

Emotional pain, as all subjecivity, is a (better or worst) representation of something that is not the representation itself.

To make sense of the harm, you need to situate it in a certain frame. 

Where the "universal" is not the marriage institution (not only the family) but entails the reasons  by which some  (and not a few) get married and stay married.

For those (again, not all but neither a few) exclusivity is a not an enough but certainly strictly needed attribute of the kind of relationship they would choose and accept.

In that specific frame, it´s part of it´s nature and basic sine qua non "recipe".  So that if not, it´s fraudulent. 

And the opposite would be, for them, like choosing by the bottle instead than by the wine. 

,The harm is in the original meaning of "adultery" (not at all in the legal nor religious one).

To degrade, to dilute something by addding what is not.

By the way, what is really  too vague is the conception of marriage as abstract of what makes people (different reasons for different groups) have the desire to be married. 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Uruktopi

[Seliana]

9 hours ago, neowulf said:

Anyone who's bothered to study ethics would tell you that's simply not true.  Morality isn't always "cut" and "dry".  
That's why we have courts and judges.  We acknowledge that the written law isn't enough to achieve justice.  It has be interpreted.

Cheating may always be wrong, but I don't think the people who engage in all do it for the same reasons.

Is the women who has too much to drink and has a one night stand morally bankrupt? Or has she made a terrible mistake?

Is the man who sleeps with his co-worker after years of sexual rejection in his marriage a monster?  Or is his wife for expecting him to remain faithful, while ignoring his needs?
Why is his need for sex less important than her need for a committed marriage?  

When I speak about these situations, I'm not absolving these people.  They're behaving terribly. 

I'm simply saying that it's possible to love someone, yet behave in a way that hurts them.
And we all hurt the people we love eventually.  It's human nature.

People can justify anything they want to, at the end of the day, you know something is wrong if you feel the need to hide your actions. You know it's wrong if you wouldn't like someone to do it to you.

The right thing is very simple, but never easy. In the end, we all have to live with what we've done, and what kind of person that makes us, whether or not anyone knows. I'm not going to address your examples, b/c everyone thinks they're special some exception to a rule. No-one I've ever been aware of fell into a cavernous vagina on onto a dick, they made a series of choices that led to an action.

Quibbling about different standards or morality is an attempt to color things in shades of grey, but everyone knows deep down, the right/wrongness of their actions. Justifying questionable actions b/c "everyone's doing it" is weak, and at best lemming behavior. Usually the only people who spend a lot of time defending the worst of human nature and not striving to be shining examples of the best, whatever past mistakes they're made, are truly morally bankrupt in the eyes of people who acknowledge their humanity and try to be the best version they can be.

You are the sum of your actions, not who you say you are. Talk is cheap.

 

[Wiseman2]

8 hours ago, mark clemson said:

Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

A dissertation of illogical excuses doesn't make it right no less beneficial to the betrayed to cheat.

That almost seems to me like the same type of argument that smoking cigarettes is not only harmless but, beneficial 

Perhaps it's the enjoyment of debating or playing devil's advocate, but you asked someone to tell you you're wrong...

So there it is.

[serial muse]

11 hours ago, mark clemson said:

^^ Perhaps in part, but that's one of what appears to be several related opinions. How about the rest?

Still not seeing an actual answer to the point I'm actually making (see list below). I'm starting to feel like perhaps you don't have one? But you tell me.

I'm going to posit (at the moment) that the benefits for the BS of cheating outweigh the negatives. That's based on the list.

I feel I must be off course somewhere, but when I actually list out the points, I'm seeing a different picture. I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong, as it seems awfully weird to me to be able to tell someone it's to their BS's relative benefit (and so arguably more loving) to cheat rather than leaving.

Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

 

Here's what you did (by cheating):

Do something without their knowledge/awareness that (presumably) would greatly upset your spouse.

Devoted some emotional attention outside the marriage (level will vary, and it's been pointed out that some WS's act more loving during an affair).

Risked their discovery of the above.

 

Here's what you didn't do (by not divorcing):

Actually cause them the emotional harm of divorce.

Actually cause them the emotional harm of telling them you no longer love them (IF that's actually the case).

Greatly disrupt their life and cause them to need to deal with lawyers, make new living arrangements, etc.

Greatly disrupt their social life (in many cases).

Greatly disrupt their finances (in the majority of cases).

Negatively impact their children (who are also yours) emotionally.

Negatively impact their children (who are also yours) financially (in the majority of cases).

Cause them to need to seek new arrangements for child supervision in many cases, e.g. if they work or have other obligations.

 

Points to add (either list)?? Can the top list outweigh the bottom one? Doesn't seem like it right now, but again I'm perfectly willing to be shown I'm wrong.

I'll bite.

The problem here with this framing is that you are assuming mere risk from cheating, rather than actual harm. That's the main premise, I gather. Yet, on what basis do you make this assumption? How do you know that it's true?

I can tell you that, as a former BS, the harm was real and actual, even before I knew the truth. My exH was cruel and distant to me for months while I bent over backwards trying to understand and talk and connect. That is real, actual harm to a marriage, even before the "truth" was out. Because, plain and simple, whether or not the full facts were known, they were already altering the marriage. The damage was already being done. It would be sooooo convenient to pretend that, until all is revealed, no harm is done. But you don't know that. I'm sure he thought the same, in his selfishness. (Yes, I repeat selfishness, which I know I said upthread and seem to have thrown a lighted match on a pile of very dry wood by doing so.)

He wanted to believe that the choice was all in his hands, to reveal or not, and that by not saying anything, he was thereby still holding all the cards. Perhaps he told himself he was "protecting" me from the knowledge. But he wasn't protecting me at all. I was deeply, deeply hurt. When the truth finally came out, it was honestly a relief. For a moment. Gaslighting is truly awful, and you can't know how awful it feels until you experience it.

In the aftermath, too, that period of being lied to over and over again made the whole thing worse. I lost about 15 pounds in the first few weeks because I couldn't keep anything down. I barely slept for 6 months. Is that PTSD or just PTSD-like symptoms? Who cares? It was physically damaging. I saw a therapist, who did very much help me, despite the snide comments of those who would deride therapy here. Sigh. Just goes to show you don't know what it's like. I spent those 6 sleepless months replaying his lies and cruelty during that time over and over again in my head. It was far, far worse than the thought of his physical infidelity. Let's not pretend, please, that cheating is just about physical infidelity. It is not. 

Those are my points to add to your list. I experienced real, actual harm, not "risk", from the cheating, even before I knew that's what it was. Any questions?

 

[mark clemson]

13 hours ago, DKT3 said:

Mark I've answered that question 100 times, continuing to ask doesn't change the answer.

Its not the cheaters right to decide whats best for the BS.

Respectfully, that is not an answer to the question I'm actually asking.

You're welcome to your own views on what a cheater's "rights" should/should not be, but that has little to do with the list of relative benefits I created. If you don't have valid points to add that's fine - no harm/no foul, but it might make more sense to just admit to that.  Or, how would you translate the above into a point not already on the list?

 

5 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

You're wrong. A dissertation of illogical excuses doesn't make it right no less beneficial to the betrayed to cheat.

Perhaps it's the enjoyment of debating or playing devil's advocate, but you asked someone to tell you you're wrong...

Hmm. You took my quote out of context. The specific thing I was asking if I was wrong about was the composition of my lists and how it seems to favor cheating WRT benefits for the BS relative to divorcing. Your characterization of my list is not particularly reasonable IMO as it based on reasonable statements of fact. Maybe you have some points to add to show how cheating is more harmful?

 

13 hours ago, Uruktopi said:

Emotional pain, as all subjecivity, is a (better or worst) representation of something that is not the representation itself.

The harm is in the original meaning of "adultery" (not at all in the legal nor religious one).

I DO appreciate you responding. I'm honestly having a bit of trouble following what you are presenting. Could you add your point of "harm" to my list if it's not already covered by what I have?

[mark clemson]

3 hours ago, serial muse said:

The problem here with this framing is that you are assuming mere risk from cheating, rather than actual harm.

(1) My exH was cruel and distant to me for months while I bent over backwards trying to understand and talk and connect. That is real, actual harm to a marriage, even before the "truth" was out.

(2) He wanted to believe that the choice was all in his hands, to reveal or not, and that by not saying anything, he was thereby still holding all the cards. Perhaps he told himself he was "protecting" me from the knowledge. But he wasn't protecting me at all.

In the aftermath, too, that period of being lied to over and over again made the whole thing worse.  I spent those 6 sleepless months replaying his lies and cruelty during that time over and over again in my head. It was far, far worse than the thought of his physical infidelity. Let's not pretend, please, that cheating is just about physical infidelity. It is not. 

Those are my points to add to your list. I experienced real, actual harm, not "risk", from the cheating, even before I knew that's what it was. Any questions?

Thanks -  I appreciate your input. Actually I do intend the actual harm, that's exactly what I'm looking at. Some (but certainly not all) of that needs to be stated in terms of risk as it's not yet actualized. I've abbreviated your points somewhat for ease of addressing them.

I think your first paragraph point was covered:

Quote

Devoted some emotional attention outside the marriage (level will vary, and it's been pointed out that some WS's act more loving during an affair).

While that clearly doesn't do justice to your particular experience, I'm making a general purpose list. In your case that harm was substantial, but that's certainly not guaranteed to be the case. So I believe this is covered.

For point (2) - can you give me a concise description of what you feel is stated that is not covered in the original list? Deception/betrayal? I feel like that is covered in my first point of the original list.

Point (3) is interesting. Post D-day is post D-day, so I'm not sure I can add it as-is. However, I think there needs to be something for the risk/potential for LT emotional harm to the BS. There is this potential with a divorce as well - but, I think there's genuinely something beyond regular "breakup/divorce" depression when it comes to cheating. I will think about that and I think add 2 points to the cheat list, but only 1 to the divorce list as I think that's fair.  Will follow up with that after I think about it for a bit - in the meantime feel free to suggest some phrasing WRT the emotional harm that is risked post-Discovery if you wish.

[Uruktopi]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

I DO appreciate you responding. I'm honestly having a bit of trouble following what you are presenting. Could you add your point of "harm" to my list if it's not already covered by what I have?

Yes, of course you  are "honestly having a bit of trouble following what"  I am "presenting".

That´s mainly beacuse we don´t share the same set of wider assumptions.

That is, your frame remains being the "mariage" as an entity abstract of the reasons why each group of people (according to their choices about) would get married (and no if not). and to stay married (and no if not).

As examples

- Some people would only accept an open marriage and some others would never.

- Some people would not be in a same sex marriage (it´s legal in some countries) while others would only be in one.

- Some people would put exclusivity as just a "nice to have" attribute of their relationship while for others is a "sine qua non" condition.

- ......and so on

So, from a causal point of view (the "logic" of things in itselves), I think that is a sort of abuse of language to make general value statements about entities so different in causal nature that would desserve also different names.

In particular, the concept of cheating haves a specific meaning for one kind of relationship. The one for which exclusivity is an intrinsic part of that relationship´s nature.

So (given the above and for that people), the point added to your list would sound something like:

- The harm made by infidelity of making them face the choice of either leaving (with the pain that it involves) or, otherwise, living in an arragement that is no more what they choosed it to be (loosing the both team and personal joy and healthy pride, as the one once provided by such choice and no other).

A choice so strong as to be an identity thing (as some other choices are). So it harms both the team and personal identities.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Uruktopi

[Wiseman2]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

The specific thing I was asking if I was wrong about was the composition of my lists and how it seems to favor cheating WRT benefits for the BS relative to divorcing.

Exactly . And the answer is no, it's not beneficial. There are not facts, just opinions.

[DKT3]

Again Mark,  like I said on the other thread your points are not as profound as you believe.  Its really just more words that have very little meaning.  You ask is it more harmful to divorce or risk cheating the answer is you don't get to make that unilateral decision.  You then say I didn't answer the question.  

I then explain it again and you ask again.  

[mark clemson]

2 hours ago, Uruktopi said:

Yes, of course you  are "honestly having a bit of trouble following what"  I am "presenting".

That´s mainly beacuse we don´t share the same set of wider assumptions.

That is, your frame remains being the "mariage" as an entity abstract of the reasons why each group of people (according to their choices about) would get married (and no if not). and to stay married (and no if not).

So, from a causal point of view (the "logic" of things in itselves), I think that is a sort of abuse of language to make general value statements about entities so different in causal nature that would desserve also different names.

Hmm. Perhaps. But I'm using the language we have. I'm not abusing it any more than anyone else is. "Marriage" can indeed refer to a wide range of specific "arrangements"/understandings for the couple. Given that we're talking about cheating, I don't think the kind of marriage I'm talking about is "far out of the norm" or some sort of abstraction. If YOU are talking about a highly specific type of marriage, perhaps you could specify that. If that's what you're doing, I will be honest, I'm not following your logic.

If you care to add to the list (as it applies generally) that would be nice. If there is a specific variety of marriage that you think warrants it's own list, you're of course welcome to suggest that and/or post your own ideas on it. Otherwise, I'm, again, not sure precisely what you're saying.

[mark clemson]

1 hour ago, DKT3 said:

Again Mark,  like I said on the other thread your points are not as profound as you believe.  Its really just more words that have very little meaning. 

You ask is it more harmful to divorce or risk cheating.

The answer is you don't get to make that unilateral decision. 

I guess the problem with this view is that, in reality, people DO get to make those decisions and in fact make them all the time. So I guess I would point out that, again, it's not actually an answer. It's rather a way to dodge the question IMO.

If I ask my friend should I take route A or route B home from work and he answers "you don't get to make that decision," when in fact I'm driving myself home, he's not only not answering the question, but also not making too much sense.

I'm not attempting to be profound, I'm dealing with rather concrete points.

If you insist on believing that you're answering a question that you're not actually answering, I suppose that's your prerogative. Not sure I have much more to say on the matter.

[mark clemson]

2 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Exactly . And the answer is no, it's not beneficial. There are not facts, just opinions.

Hmm. The list IS composed of facts, or at least is intended to be. Perhaps it's better that you point out what's actually non-factual on it?

[basil67]

I can add to your list @mark clemson    You only presented two scenarios: divorce vs affair which isn't discovered.   Problem is, there are three scenarios:  You left off the outcomes of getting discovered and this is ALWAYS a risk.   

If the BS decides to divorce, the outcomes for divorcing are what you wrote, but amplified with issues around the betrayal.  It would also likely result in a far messier divorce as the BS is far more likely to get lawyers who go for the jugular.  Not to mention, what if the BS chooses to be honest with the kids as to why the divorce happened?   It could easily break the relationship between children and WS.

If the BS doesn't decide to divorce, there's still a mountain of trust, hurt and betrayal issues to work through.  

[Uruktopi]

1 hour ago, mark clemson said:

Hmm. Perhaps. But I'm using the language we have. I'm not abusing it any more than anyone else is. "Marriage" can indeed refer to a wide range of specific "arrangements"/understandings for the couple. Given that we're talking about cheating, I don't think the kind of marriage I'm talking about is "far out of the norm" or some sort of abstraction. If YOU are talking about a highly specific type of marriage, perhaps you could specify that. If that's what you're doing, I will be honest, I'm not following your logic.

If you care to add to the list (as it applies generally) that would be nice. If there is a specific variety of marriage that you think warrants it's own list, you're of course welcome to suggest that and/or post your own ideas on it. Otherwise, I'm, again, not sure precisely what you're saying.

Your conception of marriage, the one whose only requisites are those that all of them have in common , allows to include atrributes that are mutually exclusive.

(Both monogamous and poligamous, dyadic exclusive ones and open, same sex and opposite sex and so on)  

So, is not a well formulated "universal set". 

May be it would be a bit near to good if we were using such "set" for testing behaviours less involved in those above said conditions (leaving versus...let´s say... household consumption habits).  Not the case.

What I find with not so deep roots in reality is precisely this:

Exactly "Given that we're talking about cheating" is why "I don't think the kind of marriage I'm talking about is "far out of the norm" or some sort of abstraction."  don´t verify and the opposite is true.

So yes, "I´m talking about a highly specific type of marriage".

The kind in which exclusivity is expected and infidelity is not a bump in the road but a serious damage to it´s intrinsic nature.

Please note that such specificity, in this case, do not entail that is rare. Some millions choose that conception of relationship.

Of course, this do not deny the validity of other "arrangements"/understandings".

I say, instead, that no criteria that may apply to not exclusive ""arrangements"/understandings"  can lead to good conclutions for the monogamous ones, if about cheating.

And I also say that the way you define it, if regarding to exclusivity vs cheating, is quite far from being what "applies generally".

May be your arguments would be improved if you say "Cheating it´s not SO harming for the ones that don´t find it SO harming".

What would be near to always be true at the cost of some circular thought, which is already there anyhow.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Uruktopi

[mark clemson]

49 minutes ago, Uruktopi said:

So yes, "I´m talking about a highly specific type of marriage".

Fair enough. I guess since I'm talking about marriage generally I think what you posted doesn't really apply to my list?  If so, you're welcome to voice your thoughts, but there is no need to quote my posts etc as it appears you are making your own points. IF I'm wrong about that, you have my (genuine) apologies.

 

1 hour ago, basil67 said:

I can add to your list @mark clemson    You only presented two scenarios: divorce vs affair which isn't discovered.   Problem is, there are three scenarios:  You left off the outcomes of getting discovered and this is ALWAYS a risk.   

If the BS decides to divorce, the outcomes for divorcing are what you wrote, but amplified with issues around the betrayal.  It would also likely result in a far messier divorce as the BS is far more likely to get lawyers who go for the jugular.  Not to mention, what if the BS chooses to be honest with the kids as to why the divorce happened?   It could easily break the relationship between children and WS.

If the BS doesn't decide to divorce, there's still a mountain of trust, hurt and betrayal issues to work through.  

I appreciate your input. I believe my list actually covered discovery risk (see below).

You have a completely valid point about the additional possible damage. But I'm not sure it quite fits - that's actually the purview of the BS, not the WS. In other words, just as the BS did not cause the WS to cheat (and I've never agreed with those who try to claim that), the WS did not cause the BS to hire a more aggressive lawyer, bring in the children inappropriately, etc, etc. Ultimately the BS (despite some very understandable strong emotions) must be accountable for their own actions, just as the WS must be.

Also that is primarily damage to the WS (and perhaps others,) but not the BS. But this analysis is in the context of whether it's kinder to the BS to cheat (vs. simply divorcing).

So, while I think there's a place on some list for something like "risk very strong and/or inordinate negative reactions and consequences from the BS due to their emotions" I don't think THIS list is the place for it. Perhaps you don't agree or see how it would still fit (given the above)? Happy to hear if so, np.

Note: I'm still thinking through Serial Muse's point about LT emotional consequences for the BS - haven't forgotten, and that DOES IMO partly dovetail with what you're getting at here.
 

Quote

Here's what you did (by cheating):

- Do something without their knowledge/awareness that (presumably) would greatly upset your spouse.

- Devoted some emotional attention outside the marriage (level will vary, and it's been pointed out that some WS's act more loving during an affair).

- Risked their discovery of the above.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by mark clemson

[DKT3]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

I guess the problem with this view is that, in reality, people DO get to make those decisions and in fact make them all the time. So I guess I would point out that, again, it's not actually an answer. It's rather a way to dodge the question IMO.

If I ask my friend should I take route A or route B home from work and he answers "you don't get to make that decision," when in fact I'm driving myself home, he's not only not answering the question, but also not making too much sense.

I'm not attempting to be profound, I'm dealing with rather concrete points.

If you insist on believing that you're answering a question that you're not actually answering, I suppose that's your prerogative. Not sure I have much more to say on the matter.

Asking a friend which way to go is something that impacts only you.

The answer is you have to allow your wife a say, whatever you TWO decide is the direction you go.

Its not what you want to hear so you continue Asking. But you already know the answer,  you always have. 

 

[mark clemson]

52 minutes ago, DKT3 said:

Asking a friend which way to go is something that impacts only you.

^^ while true, this again IMO dodges around the point I'm making. Whether the route chosen impacts only the driver or someone else doesn't have any bearing on whether the decision is under the driver's control or not, although I suppose it could impact what the driver decides to do. That's parallel to the situation with the BS and the decision made by the WS.

The motives you are imputing to me are, once again, incorrect. Honestly from the way you incessantly attempt to bring it up, I'm starting to think my old EA may have more of an "afterlife" in YOUR brain than it does in mine.

For clarity, my interest in analyzing this is due to the impact it may have on how I respond to posters here viz some of things that are presented to them.

Edited March 20, 2021 by mark clemson

[Uruktopi]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

Fair enough. I guess since I'm talking about marriage generally I think what you posted doesn't really apply to my list?  If so, you're welcome to voice your thoughts, but there is no need to quote my posts etc as it appears you are making your own points. IF I'm wrong about that, you have my (genuine) apologies.

 

You took part of what I´ve said and that´s fine.

I´ll repeat now what was ignored: I´ve said that putting in the same bag entieties that share what is mainly formal and are mutually incompatible in what is intrinsic to each one regarding exclusivity (so if in one direction as in the oposite), is not   "talking about marriage generally".

And being constructed that way, such set is no ground for consistent reasoning about what they differ so strongly.

 It would be something like to put in the same set cows and lizzards, because they are both animals.

You can say something valid about their common legs number.

While would make less sense if about bodily temperature (the related metabolism and asociated behaviours).as if mammals and reptiles should have it in common because, after all,  the word animal name both. True but hardly enough.

Well defined conceptual sets are a good tools for a near to consistent thought.

So, regarding cheating, expecting to reach valid general conclutions for all kind of marriages (includding in the same bag the open and the monogamous ones, as just one case) would probably lead to some sophist like dialogs. 

Just like it´s happening.

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Uruktopi

[DKT3]

That is irrelevant.  The reason for asking doesn't change the answer.  You simply are unwilling to accept that in a marriage,  a partnership you just can't make decisions of this magnitude alone. That is the answer, again.  Doing so only continues the relationship down the same path that led to where they are now. 

Sexless marriage,  the only two options are not cheat or divorce. Cheating is easy, divorce is hard,  honest conversation is in the middle,  why is that not an option? Yes, because its uncomfortable and requires the cheat to expose themselves.  In this conversation a conclusion can be drawn.  Maybe it leads to an open marriage,  maybe divorce, most likely a continuation.  If you choose to continue for whatever reason you've accepted the terms of the marriage. 

Sexless marriage claims are hands down one of the most misrepresented marriage issue. Most people in a healthy relationship enjoy sex. What is often the case is the partners making the sexless claim are just as responsible for it. Those same people are also the ones most likely to start an affair.  

When you offer your partner what the want they are more likely to return the favor.  Those who will cheat have a hard time with this because they tend to be arrogant and selfish.  Its all connected. 

*unwilling to have difficult conversations 

*unwilling to accept or even acknowledge shortcomings in the relationship 

*arrogant and selfish to the point they believe thier spouses are happy and content even when they don't offer much.

Example.  A couple both works 60 hrs/wk. One then picks up the kids does all the chores, cooks, get the kids ready for the next day. While the other sits around waiting for sex, then complaining about not getting sex. They come here during their affair and talk about how thier spouse doesn't get them. Hell I work, true. I help with the kids, false.  I do everything I can to help, false.  I talked to them and nothing changes,  false. 

This conversation is exhausted,  at this point its time to just agree to disagree.  

 

[basil67]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

You have a completely valid point about the additional possible damage. But I'm not sure it quite fits - that's actually the purview of the BS, not the WS. In other words, just as the BS did not cause the WS to cheat (and I've never agreed with those who try to claim that), the WS did not cause the BS to hire a more aggressive lawyer, bring in the children inappropriately, etc, etc. Ultimately the BS (despite some very understandable strong emotions) must be accountable for their own actions, just as the WS must be.

Problem is, the BS doesn't care about being accountable.  The damage has been done by the WS, and if hell hath no fury like the BS, it's just the way it is.  Cause and effect.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.    If the WS is worried about this stuff, they should keep their pants on.

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

Also that is primarily damage to the WS (and perhaps others,) but not the BS. But this analysis is in the context of whether it's kinder to the BS to cheat (vs. simply divorcing).

So, while I think there's a place on some list for something like "risk very strong and/or inordinate negative reactions and consequences from the BS due to their emotions" I don't think THIS list is the place for it. Perhaps you don't agree or see how it would still fit (given the above)? Happy to hear if so, np.

Note: I'm still thinking through Serial Muse's point about LT emotional consequences for the BS - haven't forgotten, and that DOES IMO partly dovetail with what you're getting at here.

Taking the WS to the cleaners and ruining their relationship with the children is not primary damage - it's collateral damage.   The primary damage was done when the BS found out.

I believe it's unkind of a person to take a risk knowing that discovery could ruin lives.

[Wiseman2]

11 hours ago, mark clemson said:

 The list IS composed of facts, or at least is intended to be.

I never will and never have considered cheating as altruistic.

Hopefully you're just stirring the pot for discussion purposes.

Fun argument/debate, but "cheating is better than divorce" is nonsense in my opinion.

That's got to be one of the most twisted cognative distortions and rationale cheaters could use.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Wiseman2

[mark clemson]

5 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

That's got to be one of the most twisted cognative distortions and rationale cheaters could use.

Hmm. Well, you're certainly entitled to your view. I'm doing the math.

 

 

[mark clemson]

12 hours ago, basil67 said:

Problem is, the BS doesn't care about being accountable.  The damage has been done by the WS, and if hell hath no fury like the BS, it's just the way it is.  Cause and effect.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.    If the WS is worried about this stuff, they should keep their pants on.

While I see where you're coming from in terms of the strong emotions involved, when it comes to accountability, this view simply doesn't fly.

I mean, are we going to permit road rage murder because someone flipped off another driver? Cause and effect?

If we can blame the WS for things the BS chooses to do, then we're back to allowing blame on the BS for things the WS chooses to do. Such as the cheating. Maybe the BS pissed off the WS. Cause and effect?

Edited March 20, 2021 by mark clemson

[mark clemson]

13 hours ago, DKT3 said:

You simply are unwilling to accept that in a marriage,  a partnership you just can't make decisions of this magnitude alone.

You seem to be implying that a person can't unilaterally decide to divorce.

You also seem to feel that your personal morals impact what others can/can't do.

I will agree to disagree with those points.