liquer Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I have always believed it is the attached party who is cheating is to "blame", and not the other woman/man. I know it's not always as clear cut as above. But what do others think in general? Link to comment
Portage Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I agree, the other person owes you nothing. Link to comment
lostandhurt Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 If the other person knows that they are messing around with a married woman/man then how is that any better. I have found that at times there are people that take advantage of vulnerable people that are having trouble in their relationship and move in. No matter what side you are on it is wrong. There will be people that try and justify their actions but it just shows that they know it is wrong and they don't want to admit it. lost Link to comment
ILikeHockey Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Except in the rare, rare case in which someone holds a gun to the cheaters head and forces them to cheat, it is entirely the cheaters fault. They're big girls/boys now, they know the difference between right and wrong, and they can make decisions for themselves. They chose to make the wrong one, they can't shift the blame to someone else. EDIT: Which is not to say the other party isn't wrong, if they know that cheating is taking place. But I don't think you can blame them for someone elses actions. Link to comment
alli Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 They are both wrong; I don't see either as being more responsible for the wrongdoing. Both are 100% to blame. People sometimes like to blame the "other man/woman" because it's easier than thinking their SO is a dirtbag. If the SO is not to blame than the relationship can be saved if they can get the other person out of the picture. Link to comment
D_Lish Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The other party is an enabler....an accomplice that enables a committed person to cheat. People who go for others and knowing they are in committed relationships, aren't innocent either. But at end of the day, the wayward partner has a choice.....they can either say yes or no. Link to comment
midnightrambler Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The other party is an enabler....an accomplice that enables a committed person to cheat. People who go for others and knowing they are in committed relationships, aren't innocent either. But at end of the day, the wayward partner has a choice.....they can either say yes or no. well stated Link to comment
brahman Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'm gonna say that the attached party is more morally corrupt because they know the person. Basically I look at it this way....... I can work for a corporation that puts other businesses out of business, eat chicken, turkey, ham, and half a dozen other kinds of meats, but I could never bring myself to actively try and get a small business closed, or kill a chicken with my bare hands. Of course both acts have equal value, it is the closer individual who must have a more lax moral system. Link to comment
Davie Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Although with all of these opinions. How many of you have cheated in the past? Link to comment
Crazyaboutdogs Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 A person who gets involved with someone who already has a partner is morally wrong. I am sure if they had a partner who was cheating on them, they would not think too kindly of the person who was messing around with their partner. While the other man/woman is not betraying a partner, they are indeed betraying another human being..they are, in essense, stealing from someone else. Link to comment
liquer Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 A person who gets involved with someone who already has a partner is morally wrong. I am sure if they had a partner who was cheating on them, they would not think too kindly of the person who was messing around with their partner. While the other man/woman is not betraying a partner, they are indeed betraying another human being..they are, in essense, stealing from someone else. True, that is exactly why I would avoid a situation like this. Link to comment
tangi39 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The other party is an enabler....an accomplice that enables a committed person to cheat. People who go for others and knowing they are in committed relationships, aren't innocent either. But at end of the day, the wayward partner has a choice.....they can either say yes or no. Very well said- If it was larceny or murder, the accomplice goes to jail the same as the perputrator. Both are equally responsible. I think the only case in which the affair partner is not to blame is if they don't know their partner is married, etc. Even though they didn't make a vow, they still know they will be hurting someone else and choose to do so or walk away. Link to comment
D_Lish Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Although with all of these opinions. How many of you have cheated in the past? Not me....but been cheated on. Been there, done that....dealt with it! Link to comment
lostandhurt Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I would never betray anyone I love. Ever! It takes a very selfish kind of person to disregard the person they supposedly love for their own wants. lost Although with all of these opinions. How many of you have cheated in the past? Link to comment
yeawutever Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 They are both wrong; I don't see either as being more responsible for the wrongdoing. Both are 100% to blame. People sometimes like to blame the "other man/woman" because it's easier than thinking their SO is a dirtbag. Unless the OP knows nothing about the cheater having a SO. At times the cheaters can lie and say they're single. Link to comment
mrmaximum Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Except in the rare, rare case in which someone holds a gun to the cheaters head and forces them to cheat, it is entirely the cheaters fault. They're big girls/boys now, they know the difference between right and wrong, and they can make decisions for themselves. They chose to make the wrong one, they can't shift the blame to someone else. That's the thing, that isn't cheating, that would be called rape. Or, in the event where it isn't an actual gun but the revelation of some sensitive information, that is called Extortion. Link to comment
coastalgirl Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Having been involved with a cheater, which means I was a partner in the cheating, and someone who was cheated on I now have experience on both sides of the issue. I believe it is morally wrong to be the other woman/man. It is a selfish act. It's a choice that we must take full responsibility for. I do believe that the cheating party who is married/engaged/attached is worse but cheating is cheating no matter who is involved. Link to comment
savignon Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Both are to blame....why would the third party be innocent? Intruding on a marriage and relationship like that? I feel like that's akin to "only the police should follow the law b/c their the ones who bought into it" Link to comment
Botched Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 To knowingly sleep with another persons spouse is wrong. It is no better than being married and cheating. It is the same piece of dung, just the other side. I just read Crazyaboutdogs' post as I was writing my own and she says it all. This is in dealing with marriage though. If we are talking about non-marital relations I find it harder to qualify. It isn't anyones responsibility to attain a working knowledge of another persons vague relations prior to establishing thier own relations with said person. Judging anothers commitment in that case is done by observing that person. If they sleep around they aren't commited. Without marriage it's a tough assessment for an outsider to make. Link to comment
LostInFlorida Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 A person who gets involved with someone who already has a partner is morally wrong. I am sure if they had a partner who was cheating on them, they would not think too kindly of the person who was messing around with their partner. While the other man/woman is not betraying a partner, they are indeed betraying another human being..they are, in essense, stealing from someone else. I'm curious about something. If you were offered your dream job, plenty of dough, great benefits, the whole package, but they hadn't yet fired the person currently at that desk, would you pass on the job? Or tell the recruiter "look me up after you fire the other person? Somehow I doubt it. But go ahead and tell me "its not the same thing". Even though it is...... lol Link to comment
mrmaximum Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I'm curious about something. If you were offered your dream job, plenty of dough, great benefits, the whole package, but they hadn't yet fired the person currently at that desk, would you pass on the job? Or tell the recruiter "look me up after you fire the other person? Somehow I doubt it. But go ahead and tell me "its not the same thing". Even though it is...... lol Is it ever placed into writing that they won't hire someone better and then get rid of you at your place of employment? Do they make you take an oath before a certified clergyman or JOP and then write on a certificate the same thing before witnesses? If they do then your argument is valid. However, I do not think this is the case so you are comparing apples to oranges. Link to comment
waveseer Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 If the third party has knowledge that their partner is currently in a committed relationship then they are also committing a shameful act. The proof that even they know it is wrong can be found by listening to them try to justify their behavior. If they didn't think it was wrong, there would be no need to explain. Link to comment
Botched Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I'm curious about something. If you were offered your dream job, plenty of dough, great benefits, the whole package, but they hadn't yet fired the person currently at that desk, would you pass on the job? Or tell the recruiter "look me up after you fire the other person? Somehow I doubt it. But go ahead and tell me "its not the same thing". Even though it is...... lol This is laughable! Dream Job? Jobs are not MARRIAGE! You may think this point has value, but it does not. Justify all you want. Cheating is wrong, on either side. If you know that you are defiling a marriage then you are crossing a very dangerous line. Link to comment
goodguyslast Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 If the third party has knowledge that their partner is currently in a committed relationship then they are also committing a shameful act. The proof that even they know it is wrong can be found by listening to them try to justify their behavior. If they didn't think it was wrong, there would be no need to explain. Technically not true. People justify cheating because it's socially taboo. To some people, it's either not wrong, or not as simple as that. But as the majority of society views it in a black and white way, people are forced to justify themselves. To find people who will not judge others and will simply understand and support them is as tough as ever these days. I'm not saying "cheating" is right. Even the word itself implies wrong doing. However, to say people justify it because they "know it's wrong" is not always true. Link to comment
LostInFlorida Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Is it ever placed into writing that they won't hire someone better and then get rid of you at your place of employment? Do they make you take an oath before a certified clergyman or JOP and then write on a certificate the same thing before witnesses? If they do then your argument is valid. However, I do not think this is the case so you are comparing apples to oranges. Ok, if you want to get "technical", then you make my point even easier. A marriage is essentially a written contract, with an expressed vow of fidelity. thereforee, if a spouse strays, technically the contract has been breached at that point, and provides grounds for dissolution. And in theory isnt a divorce nothing more than a glorified breach of contract suit? lol Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.