Cheating

[mrmaximum]

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

 

The morality of people? The only thing you have proved is that anyone who engages in this behavior is lacking morally. That would be looked down on in a job situation and it's looked down on now in a marriage situation to. That would be why divorces can be so painful, right? What happens when contracts are broken again?

 

Another thing about jobs are that no one really knows how long they will be employed however most make the choice to 'forsake all others' when they marry. Most people now pretty much know that theyu won't be at a job for the rest of their lives. Most employers prepare themselves for the chance that any of their employess will bounce for a different and/or better job, or a job that now suits them due to changing priorities. Remember that line..."Till death do us part?" Most people do not get married expecting to divorce soon after or even at all. THEY fully intend and expect to live the rest of their lives with their SO.

 

Once again, apples and oranges.

[Botched]

It's really not interesting how some people justify thier choices. It is just pathetic. Trying to make marriage a contract situation at it's core shows clearly enough a lack of understanding of marriage and it's impact.

 

Marriage need not exist if lostinflorida has made any sense here.

 

P.S. He hasn't

[karvala]

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

 

Well interestingly, my gf was in this position rather recently: the job she would like most out of any in the world (and there's only one like it worldwide), occupied by someone else, but she was offered the job with the other person not knowing anything about it. What did she do? She told the employer that she wouldn't even talk to them about it until the existing person had been told what was going on, and given a choice to either fight for their job (in which case my gf said she would have nothing further to do with it), or voluntarily resign.

 

So some people in the world actually do have the integrity that you doubt, and I was proud of her for it. The other person did resign in the end, and she got the job, and can now feel infinitely better about it than if she'd got it at someone else's expense, behind their back. Integrity pays. The same applies in relationships.

[waveseer]

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.

 

Reread the bold above, are they really forced? Like at gunpoint? lol

[goodguyslast]

Reread the bold above, are they really forced? Like at gunpoint? lol

 

Ok I'll rephrase. They feel obligated to justify, then.

[mrmaximum]

Ok I'll rephrase. They feel obligated to justify, then.

 

Because how do you defend yourself from an indefensible position? There is always a better choice. Your house is on fire, when is it a good choice to put it out with gasoline rather than water?

[thistime]

to answer Davey...I am a reformed "serial cheater"...I'm sure my following statement will get some major negative replies...but I did say "reformed". I damaged enough lives, including my own, that I sought counseling and now understand the whys and actual emotion of cheating. It really has nothing to do with physicality...

Anyway, I cheated on my first husband with my second...(I think thats where it started, as the first husband cheated on me with his current wife). I then cheated on my second husband with a boyfriend, cheated on that boyfriend with a few others, and after a 2 years 'hiatus" from men in general....I sought help. So let me say that I was to blame for most of the cheating, however, the men that knew i was married or at least dating someone exclusively, didnt turn me down or say NO. The ones that had no idea i was married or dating I guess i can give a pass to, and take all of the blame. But I Initiated all of these affairs, so it was obvious to me that I was the one intent on being unfaithful. the other thing I look at is the fact that most of these men have gone on to have very successful relationships with other women...faithfully. So I guess it wasnt them...it was me. Here is a controversial statement...I think infidelity, for some people is just as bad an addiction as drugs or booze. I think people who cheat repeatedly should get counseling...get help!

[LostInFlorida]

Well, considering the FACT that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, should anyone really have a serious expectation that it will last forever? Sure, optimism is great, but facts dont lie. And if half of all marriages end in divorce, and of the half that stay married probably half of those people cant stand each other, you realistically have about a 25% chance (or less) of being happily married forever. That means theres a 3 out of 4 chance that its not going to end well. Pretty bad odds if you ask me. Think about it, if you were about to get on a plane, and the stewardess said there was a 3 out of 4 chance that the plane was going to crash, would you still get on? Hmmmm...

 

And as for the notion that whether it is a job, or a woman, or anything else in life that we want, we are somehow bound to this idea that we should never "profit" from someone else's misfortune, well that idea is just silly. Ever get a raise? That money came out of someone's pocket, whether it was your boss, the owner, or a shareholder. Ever bought a foreclosure, or a repo'd car, or shopped at a "going out of business" sale? Most of our lives we are somehow profiting at someone elses expense. There's an old saying that sums it up pretty well.....

 

"The Light You Wield Must Blind Another"

 

I didnt make the rules. But I dont ignore them either.

[mrmaximum]

Well, considering the FACT that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.....

 

...I didnt make the rules. But I dont ignore them either.

 

Is that people's intentions make the difference. Sure I agree with you that people do get divorced and all of that and the amount which do is VERY high. However when they get married they INTEND to stay together for the rest of their lives. There are those who get married and simply are with someone until something better comes along. HOWEVER they are the exception, NOT the rule. Business can be indeed a zero sum game, for sure, but partnerships are put into place becuase on person (partner) says "I give you this, you give me that, that way we both profit" so we are better together then we are apart. Whether it's business, marriage or what have you, IF they want a long lasting partnership.

 

By the way, if you're argument was so bullet proof, then why am I not the only one who's poking holes into it?

[tangi39]

Since, we are dealing with statistics, let me present you with some more.

 

In the United States-

 

Every 21 minutes, there is a murder

 

Every 5 minutes, there is a rape

 

And every 48 Seconds, there is a robbery.

 

Those are facts. Do you ever leave your house ? If so, you know you are taking those risks every day. Heck, you don't even HAVE to leave your house.

So, do you live every minute of your life in fear ?

Or to take the argument further, do you assist someone in a robbery because "it's probably going to happen to them anyway ?" Statistically speaking, there is a good chance. I have never met anyone who lives their lives based on statistics. Heck, we all know how bad fast food is for us statistically, but we all still eat it.

 

The divorce rate is high. That does not mean people shouldn't get married simply because they may one day get divorced. It's simple- If you don't believe your marriage has a shot of lasting, then you shouldn't get married.

If you know someone is married, and you proceed to cheat with them, then you are just as responsible regardless of the justification.

If they wanted to be with you enough, they'd get divorced. And if you wanted to be with them enough, you'd wait for them to get divorced.

 

Intent is everything. There's a huge difference between unintentionally harming someone and doing it intentionally. If there wasn't, there'd be no distinction between murder and manslaughter.

[LostInFlorida]

By the way, if you're argument was so bullet proof, then why am I not the only one who's poking holes into it?

 

I fail to see any "holes" you put in my argument. We just happen to disagree. My whole point is that YOUR relationship is not MY problem. See, if someones wife wants to spend time with me, then so be it. Thats his problem. If she was happy with him, then she would have ZERO interest in being with me. And if I'm willing to take a chance on a married/involved woman, than thats on ME.

 

My sole function on this planet is not to be "hall monitor" for the rest of the world, and worry about honoring commitments that she herself isnt worried about. Obviously, her commitment to her man means squat to her, so why on earth should it mean anything to me?

 

And for the record, I never put much stock in having a real "relationship" with a married woman. Of all the married women I have been with, only ONE crossed over into the "future" department. Most times it was solely for my own amusement and to pass the time, and the second they started talking about leaving their guy to be with me, I was out of there.

[LostInFlorida]

Since, we are dealing with statistics, let me present you with some more.

 

In the United States-

 

Every 21 minutes, there is a murder

 

Every 5 minutes, there is a rape

 

And every 48 Seconds, there is a robbery.

 

Those are facts. Do you ever leave your house ? If so, you know you are taking those risks every day. Heck, you don't even HAVE to leave your house.

So, do you live every minute of your life in fear ?

 

LOL. Just the opposite. I do pretty much what I want, when I want. And I dont worry about what other people may think about it.

 

 

Or to take the argument further, do you assist someone in a robbery because "it's probably going to happen to them anyway ?" Statistically speaking, there is a good chance. I have never met anyone who lives their lives based on statistics. Heck, we all know how bad fast food is for us statistically, but we all still eat it.

 

Exactly! And in the end we all take responsibility for our own actions. If I eat fast food, I know its bad for me. If I get lung cancer from smoking, thats my fault. And if I hook up with a married woman, and she cheats on me, then thats on me as well. Freedom of choice!

 

The divorce rate is high. That does not mean people shouldn't get married simply because they may one day get divorced. It's simple- If you don't believe your marriage has a shot of lasting, then you shouldn't get married.

If you know someone is married, and you proceed to cheat with them, then you are just as responsible regardless of the justification.

If they wanted to be with you enough, they'd get divorced. And if you wanted to be with them enough, you'd wait for them to get divorced.

 

And ultimately maybe they will. Or maybe not. But I disagree on the waiting part. Life is sooooo short, and any time we have here is a bonus. If I'm interested in someone, and the feeling is mutual, and all thats left of her marriage is a legal/clerical issue regarding the divorce, then why should I wait 6 months or maybe a year for the legal process to unfold? That just seems silly.

 

Intent is everything. There's a huge difference between unintentionally harming someone and doing it intentionally. If there wasn't, there'd be no distinction between murder and manslaughter

 

But there IS a distinction. Same as there is a distinction between a woman who cheats and has NO intentions of ever leaving her man, and the woman who cheats but IS leaving her man, but just hasnt been able to yet, due to finances, kids, or one of a hundred other reasons. But most folks here see NO difference between the 2. I happen to see a BIG difference between the 2, and have no problem seeing a woman who falls into that second catagory.

[mrmaximum]

And if I'm willing to take a chance on a married/involved woman, than thats on ME.

 

You're point is that if one begins a relationship with someone who is married then there is nothing wrong with it, on their end? That's just it, there is. Maybe I am a Hall Monitor and if we were talking about taking pens from the office stationary cabinet, or calling in sick to work to have a road trip, I would agree that I’m being a little bit ‘prissy’. Cheating however is just a tad more serious that any of these and the argument you are upholding is simply one long justification as to why one shouldn't be responsible for knowingly getting involved with someone who is attached.

 

This isn't as if taking that action is some sort of passive offense like watching someone getting assaulted and doing or saying nothing. To actively take part in this endeavor places 50% of the blame on you. This is not simply "trading up" like you would want us to think, it's assisting someone in the destruction of their marriage and negatively affecting all the lives therein, including innocent children.

 

Cheating is wrong and there are always better choices out there and to state that one isn't at fault because "they came on to me" is simply pointless and self serving.

[Iceman26]

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?

 

I agree for the most part.

 

However, in my opinion there are extenuating circumstances. For example, a male boss cheating with a female employee is an abuse of power and both should be blamed.

 

Another example would be if the other party knows that the person they are cheating with are married w/kids that makes it different as well.

[LostInFlorida]

This isn't as if taking that action is some sort of passive offense like watching someone getting assaulted and doing or saying nothing. To actively take part in this endeavor places 50% of the blame on you. This is not simply "trading up" like you would want us to think, it's assisting someone in the destruction of their marriage and negatively affecting all the lives therein, including innocent children.

 

And I think THATS a main point where we disagree. I dont even get into the whole "blame" thing. Her fault, his fault, my fault, the dog's fault, etc., etc. etc. Who cares whose fault it is? I just dont get this whole logic that says that even though she wants out of the relationship, which sometimes can take a year or more, that I'm supposed to "wait until its official". That just doesnt make sense to me. Wait? For what?

[karvala]

And I think THATS a main point where we disagree. I dont even get into the whole "blame" thing. Her fault, his fault, my fault, the dog's fault, etc., etc. etc. Who cares whose fault it is? I just dont get this whole logic that says that even though she wants out of the relationship, which sometimes can take a year or more, that I'm supposed to "wait until its official". That just doesnt make sense to me. Wait? For what?

 

In this and your previous post you have started to sanitise the scenario we're talking about. The discussion was clearly originally about two people who were cheating, i.e. one of them was in a relationship and their SO didn't know anything was wrong. You've subtly shifted it now to a situation where they're not in relationship in any real sense at all and halfway through a divorce, and asking "what's the problem?".

 

This is not your original position, which was "if you see what you very much want, you're going take regardless of how much it may hurt a third party". Should we take the retreat from your original position to this sanitised version as an indication that you now accept that just moving in and helping yourself to one half of a couple in a normal relationship (i.e. not halfway through a divorce, or waiting for the final piece of paper), is not a nice thing to do, and that you are responsible if you choose to do it?

[mrmaximum]

At the end of the day, we all have to do what we think is right. If one doesn't want to wait until the official end of a relationship, I guess that's their perogative. However, there is a bit of a difference when a couple is separated or simply unhappy and 'searching' so to speak. If one wants to engage someone at this stage, then the choice is up to them, however, one must also realize that some of the blame for the continued downward spiral of the relationship must now be taken on by them. Reconcilliation may have been possible but will now become more problematic with the addition of an affair.

 

Does anyone really know when a relationship is over and it's 'safe' to move in on the unhappy partner in a marriage? Everyone is different and there is no hard fast rule which can apply. Another thing about relationships after affairs is that STATISTICS say they hardly ever last, so why all the hubub anyway? That dream job in the end may simply be just a paper tiger anyway once you there and your boss now changes or your responsibilities change drastically after the other person is let go. This person may not really love you or even like you for that matter, just the feelings which they got from the affair.

 

It all depends on what you want, if this WS says they love you, there may be a chance that they are indeed right, but stats say that this usually isn't the case and all that has happened is that you have assisted someone in killing off a marriage which may have been able to be repaired.

[LostInFlorida]

No, I have not retreated from my original position. Let me put it another way....

 

Is it the fault of the liquor store that someone is an alcoholic?

 

Is it the fault of the car dealer that someone speeds or drives recklessly?

 

Is it the fault of the pharmaceutical company if someone misuses a prescription?

 

For me its all about personal responsibility and choice. If my seeing someone violates no vow or promise that I MYSELF HAVE MADE, then I fail to see the issue. The fact that it may violate a vow or promise that that person may have made to a third party is certainly not my problem or concern.

[karvala]

No, I have not retreated from my original position. Let me put it another way....

 

Is it the fault of the liquor store that someone is an alcoholic?

 

Is it the fault of the car dealer that someone speeds or drives recklessly?

 

Is it the fault of the pharmaceutical company if someone misuses a prescription?

 

For me its all about personal responsibility and choice. If my seeing someone violates no vow or promise that I MYSELF HAVE MADE, then I fail to see the issue. The fact that it may violate a vow or promise that that person may have made to a third party is certainly not my problem or concern.

 

Which is all very well, but you have completely ignored every point that I made, and simply made a few statements on a different subject.

 

I will repeat the central question for you again: do you, or do you not, accept any responsibility for the effect of your actions on other people, including third parties that you have no contractual obligation towards, or towards whom you have made no explicit promises?

 

It's that simple really. I haven't explicitly agreed with random people I see in the street not to punch them in the head if I'm in a bad mood, but I don't do it because I accept responsibility for the effect that my actions will have on all people, regardless of whether or not I've explicitly agreed anything with them. According to you, you have no moral obligation towards these people because don't have any sort of relationship with them, and thereforee you're entitled to act in a way that will hurt them without any regard for their feelings. Is that seriously your position?! Or to you claim that somehow your cheating with someone's partner is not going to hurt that innocent person?

[LostInFlorida]

It all really is based on WHO my obligations in life should be to. Should they be to myself, or to someone I've never met?

 

Pretty much everything we do in life affects someone in one way or another. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Should you quit your job because someone else needs it more? Aren't you negatively affecting their life by not letting them have it? Should you not buy something on sale, knowing the company and the shareholders are taking a hit? Should you never complain about bad service, knowing the person might get fired, and you would be negatively affecting their life?

 

And you keep referring to the third party as "innocent". Frankly, thats an assumption. They may be innocent, or they may not be. Personally, I dont care either way, and wont spend the time trying to figure it out. But consider this. Assume for a second that the third party is in fact innocent. Then wouldnt I actually be doing them a favor, because perhaps their wife/girlfriend would get caught, and thus I have indirectly alerted them to the fact that she is not who she appears to be? I really dont look at it that way, but I suppose its as valid an argument as anything else. But now that I think about it, perhaps I'm performing a valuable public service in giving spouses the chance to catch their cheating woman. lolol

[mrmaximum]

Justification. That is all which has been done here is justify this choice. So people who do this are public benefactors? This position is highly dubious. However, by the same token, that also means that one who engages in watching out for themselves with little or no regard for anyone else will also have to watch their own back. If their newly acquired previously cheating SO now cheats on them, the other person did THEM a favor, is that correct?

[Botched]

I get it! I really do. If my bank decides to just give my money to an innocent third party I should be cool with it. And if the third party knows that it was MY money and they just take it and roll in it I should be okay with it. I mean, it isn't thier fault is it! Hell no...

 

And they should certainly expect a guy like me to be civil and reasonable. It's not like people would go a bit bizerk about such a plainly not-wrong act. There is no reason to not take someone elses investments. If fact, I guess is pretty saintly.

[LostInFlorida]

I get it! I really do. If my bank decides to just give my money to an innocent third party I should be cool with it. And if the third party knows that it was MY money and they just take it and roll in it I should be okay with it. I mean, it isn't thier fault is it! Hell no...

 

And they should certainly expect a guy like me to be civil and reasonable. It's not like people would go a bit bizerk about such a plainly not-wrong act. There is no reason to not take someone elses investments. If fact, I guess is pretty saintly.

 

 

first of all, bad analogy because bank deposits are insured. Second of all, I do not view women as "property" that someone else has exclusive rights to. You equate a woman to cash, or a car, or a sofa, basically "property". "Dont mess with someone elses woman" and all that. Look, women are NOT someones elses property. I believe in free will, and a woman is free to do whatever she wishes. And that goes for the women in MY life as well. I expcect no courtesy from some Tom, * * * * , or Larry who might be interested in my girl. If they can get her, then they were supposed to have her. Plain and simple. And unless that guy knows me, then he owes me zero.

[LostInFlorida]

Justification. That is all which has been done here is justify this choice. So people who do this are public benefactors? This position is highly dubious. However, by the same token, that also means that one who engages in watching out for themselves with little or no regard for anyone else will also have to watch their own back. If their newly acquired previously cheating SO now cheats on them, the other person did THEM a favor, is that correct?

 

 

actually, the whole "community service" thing was sarcasm. But you are correct. EVERYONE should "watch their back", and make sure they are doing what they need to in their relationships. Because like it or not, if you dont take care of your girl, someone else will.

[mrmaximum]

actually, the whole "community service" thing was sarcasm. But you are correct. EVERYONE should "watch their back", and make sure they are doing what they need to in their relationships. Because like it or not, if you dont take care of your girl, someone else will.

 

Absolutely, which is why I do my best to make sure that I do make my girl happy and I do agree with you there however, the bottom line is that people who move in on something that isn't available are called thieves for a reason.

 

Here's the issue, if you want the honest truth, you asked for people to challenge your line of thinking, (your original post in this thread) and others have indeed done so. Just as Botched has said, it doesn't make sense. One engages a married person, they are culpable in the affair as well. They are an accessory, there is no escaping that and whether you think it is or not is irrelevent. You also mentioned that one also has watch you back, that's just it, cheaters are also liars and in your answer to me you failed to mention what you would do if the married woman you where dating happened to cheat on you.

 

I have no issues with the way you live your life, it is your life and your choice. However, hall monitors or not, we will call you on your posts if you attempt to make your justifications sound like the norm, which they are not.