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

[mark clemson]

On 3/19/2021 at 6:22 AM, serial muse said:

Those are my points to add to your list.

SM, per your points 2 and 3 I'm going to add the following:

Infidelity:

Deceived your partner on an ongoing basis WRT the affair.

Risked significant medium to long-term emotional harm to your partner (such as depression and loss of self-esteem).

Risked additional significant medium to long term emotional harm to your partner (such as trust issues and PTSD-like symptoms).

 

Divorce:

Deceived your partner on an ongoing basis WRT your intent to divorce while you planned it (typically).

Risked significant medium to long-term emotional harm to your partner (such as depression and loss of self-esteem).

 

I think this is a balanced, general view.  Thanks - I do appreciate your input on this.

[DKT3]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

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.

It's not morality it accountability,  personal responsibility and common sense. 

There is a difference,  when someone files for divorce they are saying and showing that they are done. Finality. 

Simply put, I'm saying be honest with your partner and you're disagreeing by mudding up the water.

[Uruktopi]

5 hours ago, mark clemson said:

SM, per your points 2 and 3 I'm going to add the following:

Infidelity:

Deceived your partner on an ongoing basis WRT the affair.

Risked significant medium to long-term emotional harm to your partner (such as depression and loss of self-esteem).

Risked additional significant medium to long term emotional harm to your partner (such as trust issues and PTSD-like symptoms).

 

Divorce:

Deceived your partner on an ongoing basis WRT your intent to divorce while you planned it (typically).

Risked significant medium to long-term emotional harm to your partner (such as depression and loss of self-esteem).

 

I think this is a balanced, general view.  Thanks - I do appreciate your input on this.

"I think this is a balanced, general view"

As it´s best it seems a balanced view on what is not, in itselfm balanced at all. (The map is not the territory)

[basil67]

6 hours ago, mark clemson said:

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?

I'm not blaming the WS for being taken to the cleaners, I'm simply pointing out that revenge is not an uncommon outcome for someone who's been hurt by the selfish behaviour of another.   It's simply part of the equation of potential outcomes which the WS needs to consider when making their choice.

Meanwhile, comparing an violent illegal action with a legal process is just nuts.   

 

[mark clemson]

2 hours ago, basil67 said:

comparing an violent illegal action with a legal process is just nuts. 

Well, the reason for the comparison was just to make it clear what this kind of reasoning leads to if taken to it's logical conclusion. I guess I thought that was obvious.

Glad that you see the WS is not to blame for any inordinate actions by the BS.

 

[basil67]

32 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

Well, the reason for the comparison was just to make it clear what this kind of reasoning leads to if taken to it's logical conclusion. I guess I thought that was obvious.

Glad that you see the WS is not to blame for any inordinate actions by the BS.

 

Yeah, I don't do slippery slope arguments.  So no, not obvious at all. 

And no, the WS is not to blame, but nor are they a victim.  Just the same as the one who pokes the hornets nest and gets stung.  

[mark clemson]

19 minutes ago, basil67 said:

And no, the WS is not to blame, but nor are they a victim.  Just the same as the one who pokes the hornets nest and gets stung.  

You're entitled to your view. I suppose I disagree in the sense that if the BS's actions are inordinate then the WS is (IMO) a victim. Not all inordinate vindictive actions are crimes and the BS certainly has every right to e.g. hire an aggressive lawyer. But (and YES this is what you are terming a slippery slope argument) if the BS murdered the WS (which happens occasionally) I think most of us would call the WS a murder victim.

Maybe this is mostly a technical point. But (assuming you agree with the murder victim point above) it seems you would have to believe there's a spectrum of inordinate responses and that "victimhood" occurs at some point along that spectrum. That's fine I suppose as you're entitled to your view, but I would point out that the BS is ultimately responsible/accountable for any action they take, from mild and reasonable through "harsh" all the way to completely egregious and criminal.

That would be my take at any rate.

I will reiterate that I appreciate you responding to my original question, rather than, say, taking up your own marginally related points and attempting to pretend you had responded or similar.