How immoral is "the other woman?"
June 16, 2005 2:35 PM Subscribe
Ethics 101: What are the moral implications of being "the other woman?" If someone leaves their lover/partner/wife/husband for you, have you done anything wrong?
Note: Don't worry, I'm not Amber Frey. I'm just genuinely curious.
Note: Don't worry, I'm not Amber Frey. I'm just genuinely curious.
If the guy is married, you're in it up to your neck, sister. Plus, you have just brought yourself a crapload of bad karma.
posted by shambles at 2:39 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by shambles at 2:39 PM on June 16, 2005
I think in general its a pretty crappy thing to do.
However, is it true love? Will it last? I know a couple who were both married to other people, had an affair with each other and have been married happily since 1965. For them it was right. They are the only ones, though.
posted by caddis at 2:39 PM on June 16, 2005
However, is it true love? Will it last? I know a couple who were both married to other people, had an affair with each other and have been married happily since 1965. For them it was right. They are the only ones, though.
posted by caddis at 2:39 PM on June 16, 2005
"Other women" (and men) are helping someone to screw over their spouse. I'm not religious, but the Golden Rule seems made for situations like these.
posted by juniper at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by juniper at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2005
Well, being the "other woman" or "other man" means that you've most likely knowingly been involved in some kind of close personal romantic/sexual relationship with someone you know to have a significant other. That's still kind of frowned upon in most circles.
posted by mikeh at 2:44 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by mikeh at 2:44 PM on June 16, 2005
Morality is awfully personal, but in this instance, you've done harm to someone who did not try to harm you, particularly if there are children involved. I'm going with more Ethics 101 - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Besides, when you do run off into the sunset together, after the lust dies, you're stuck with a known cheater, and he/she is stuck with a proven homewrecker. Rebuilding trust in each other can be tough.
posted by pomegranate at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2005
Besides, when you do run off into the sunset together, after the lust dies, you're stuck with a known cheater, and he/she is stuck with a proven homewrecker. Rebuilding trust in each other can be tough.
posted by pomegranate at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2005
Oh please. Enough with the sanctimony, people. Any wrong done by the "other woman" (or the "other man") pales in comparison to the wrong done by the person who's actually IN the relationship / marriage which is being affected.
The only thing you... uh, "your friend" should be concerned about is abetting someone he/she cares about in violating a trust.
It's nobody's responsibility to preserve another couple's relationship or marriage.
posted by dersins at 2:52 PM on June 16, 2005 [2 favorites]
The only thing you... uh, "your friend" should be concerned about is abetting someone he/she cares about in violating a trust.
It's nobody's responsibility to preserve another couple's relationship or marriage.
posted by dersins at 2:52 PM on June 16, 2005 [2 favorites]
Given that the person knows (or should know) that the other person is married, then they are guilty of condoning the immoral act, which is not the move of an upstanding person, though not as bad as the cheater him/herself. Like knowing someone robbed a bank and helping them spend the money. It's not as bad as being the getaway driver, but still wrong. That's my opinion.
posted by dness2 at 2:54 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by dness2 at 2:54 PM on June 16, 2005
yeah, if there's an actual affair it's not a complicated situation. Cheating is cheating, whether you're married or screwing around with someone who's married. If everyone's honest from the start and the marriage breaks up before anything happens, then like agregoli said, you're 'in the clear'.
But maybe what you're thinking about is the idea that leaving a marriage for 'true love' elsewhere is itself wrong, since the person originally swore to stay with the spouse until death, not until something better comes along. If the husband is immoral in leaving his wife for someone else (even if nothing actually happened before the papers were signed), then can we consider the 'other woman' equally liable or just an enabler? I would say that the husband would have to be pretty unhappy in his marriage to give it up for the possibility of a new relationship which he couldn't enter on, so in that case, the other woman is really just a symbol, and the husband is getting a divorce because the marriage isn't working, not because anyone's evil.
Given that the person knows (or should know) that the other person is married, then they are guilty of condoning the immoral act, which is not the move of an upstanding person, though not as bad as the cheater him/herself.
no, I disagree - if you're screwing a married person, you're just as fundamentally cheating as the married person. It's like selling something illegal vs. buying something illegal - it takes two.
posted by mdn at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2005
But maybe what you're thinking about is the idea that leaving a marriage for 'true love' elsewhere is itself wrong, since the person originally swore to stay with the spouse until death, not until something better comes along. If the husband is immoral in leaving his wife for someone else (even if nothing actually happened before the papers were signed), then can we consider the 'other woman' equally liable or just an enabler? I would say that the husband would have to be pretty unhappy in his marriage to give it up for the possibility of a new relationship which he couldn't enter on, so in that case, the other woman is really just a symbol, and the husband is getting a divorce because the marriage isn't working, not because anyone's evil.
Given that the person knows (or should know) that the other person is married, then they are guilty of condoning the immoral act, which is not the move of an upstanding person, though not as bad as the cheater him/herself.
no, I disagree - if you're screwing a married person, you're just as fundamentally cheating as the married person. It's like selling something illegal vs. buying something illegal - it takes two.
posted by mdn at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2005
Well, I suppose as Caddis says it can be the "right" thing if two people are truly in love, but that seems like a twisted fairy tale, doesn't it? More likely affairs amoung to little more than lust, infatuation or boredom. Whether it is "less" your responsability than the person who is actually in the other relationship is kind of an empty argument. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Personally, I don't think there is only one person that you can fall in love with. Why don't you wait for someone who is not going to hurt someone else in order to be with you?
posted by sic at 3:10 PM on June 16, 2005
Personally, I don't think there is only one person that you can fall in love with. Why don't you wait for someone who is not going to hurt someone else in order to be with you?
posted by sic at 3:10 PM on June 16, 2005
No, you haven't done anything wrong. It comes down to honesty. You aren't deceiving anybody. Some might say you're decieving yourself because such affairs are inherently "unhealthy" relationships but this doesn't really translate to reality. If you enjoy being with somebody then everything else is an obstacle to be overcome. As long as you're clear about the nature of the relationship then any charge of 'immorality' is just a rulebook play.
posted by nixerman at 3:12 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by nixerman at 3:12 PM on June 16, 2005
It's like selling something illegal vs. buying something illegal - it takes two.
That's an excellent analogy considering that there are things that are illegal to sell and not to buy.
posted by grouse at 3:19 PM on June 16, 2005
That's an excellent analogy considering that there are things that are illegal to sell and not to buy.
posted by grouse at 3:19 PM on June 16, 2005
I think the answer is that you have to answer to your conscience, and you probably know whether or not you (er, the hypothetical you) have done anything wrong.
I think that most people (myself included) answering this question envisioned something fairly specific, and will answer based on their own experiences/prejudices, none of which may be relevant to the hypothetical you's situation.
On a side note:
More likely affairs amoung to little more than lust, infatuation or boredom.
Well, what if the spousal/committed relationship was based on the above, and the affair was deeply-felt and true? Just because two people decide to be a couple doesn't mean their motivations are pure.
posted by desuetude at 3:25 PM on June 16, 2005
I think that most people (myself included) answering this question envisioned something fairly specific, and will answer based on their own experiences/prejudices, none of which may be relevant to the hypothetical you's situation.
On a side note:
More likely affairs amoung to little more than lust, infatuation or boredom.
Well, what if the spousal/committed relationship was based on the above, and the affair was deeply-felt and true? Just because two people decide to be a couple doesn't mean their motivations are pure.
posted by desuetude at 3:25 PM on June 16, 2005
Well, what if the spousal/committed relationship was based on the above, and the affair was deeply-felt and true? Just because two people decide to be a couple doesn't mean their motivations are pure.
See the sentence I wrote preceding the one you are responding to. It's possible that what you are saying is the case, but what percentage of affairs fall into that category? 0.01%? I stand by my original statement, although YMMV, the vast majority of affairs fall into the lust, infatuation, boredom category.
posted by sic at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005
See the sentence I wrote preceding the one you are responding to. It's possible that what you are saying is the case, but what percentage of affairs fall into that category? 0.01%? I stand by my original statement, although YMMV, the vast majority of affairs fall into the lust, infatuation, boredom category.
posted by sic at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005
It's the married person's job not to cheat, not other people's duty to refuse to have sex with them. It's the married cheater who's fucking things up for their spouse, not the person they're getting it on with. The Other Person has no vows to keep, no promises to uphold. Unless, maybe, they were at the wedding and it had a moment where the congregation promised to uphold and support them, or unless the Other Person has some existing relationship with the cheat-ee.
At worst, I'd think that being the Other Person indicates a lapse in judgment if they want a long-term, committed relationship out of it. Depending on the circumstances and wishes, this can be a serious lapse in judgment.
I think the notion that it's the Other Woman's (it's always the woman here, innit?) job to refuse to boink married men is based on misguided notion that the Other Woman somehow lured the Married Man into it. Implicit in this is that any woman, really, could lure Married Man into banging her and it's just that most women are decent enough not to. Me, I think the idea that men are just moral children who will take sexual candy from anyone who offers it, that married men will succumb to almost any temptation to fuck someone, is offensive, even when it's implicit.
So there.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005 [3 favorites]
At worst, I'd think that being the Other Person indicates a lapse in judgment if they want a long-term, committed relationship out of it. Depending on the circumstances and wishes, this can be a serious lapse in judgment.
I think the notion that it's the Other Woman's (it's always the woman here, innit?) job to refuse to boink married men is based on misguided notion that the Other Woman somehow lured the Married Man into it. Implicit in this is that any woman, really, could lure Married Man into banging her and it's just that most women are decent enough not to. Me, I think the idea that men are just moral children who will take sexual candy from anyone who offers it, that married men will succumb to almost any temptation to fuck someone, is offensive, even when it's implicit.
So there.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005 [3 favorites]
Not so much 'wrong' as 'painful for all involved.' The old moral categories are really just shorthand for 'these are the things that will hurt you if you do them' anyhow, and this is a textbook case of that fact: being 'the other woman' sucks. At least: all the 'other women' or 'other men' I've ever known have been incredibly unhappy. It's not a fun situation to be in.
One's personal happiness is closely entwined with the happiness of the people whose lives s/he affects most. Those who seek to increase their own happiness in ways that might lead to the unhappiness of others, no matter how 'guilt-free' those ways might seem, are most likely to end up miserable.
My closest friend's father left her mother for a woman with whom he had had an affair for some years. If anyone involved in that situation ever believed that the situation would turn out happily for them, they've been cured of it. It isn't pretty.
posted by koeselitz at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]
One's personal happiness is closely entwined with the happiness of the people whose lives s/he affects most. Those who seek to increase their own happiness in ways that might lead to the unhappiness of others, no matter how 'guilt-free' those ways might seem, are most likely to end up miserable.
My closest friend's father left her mother for a woman with whom he had had an affair for some years. If anyone involved in that situation ever believed that the situation would turn out happily for them, they've been cured of it. It isn't pretty.
posted by koeselitz at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]
Have you (theoretically) done anything wrong? Of course (given that you knew John Doe was married). The only arguments otherwise cower behind "moral relativism," which is lazy, immature, and dangerous.
As for the ensuing discussion about "true love," I'll say this: If you stand and vow fidelity to another person without anticipating the likelihood that, in coming years, one or both of you will fall in love with other people, then you're far too immature to make a serious commitment. Or else you're a liar.
posted by cribcage at 3:38 PM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]
As for the ensuing discussion about "true love," I'll say this: If you stand and vow fidelity to another person without anticipating the likelihood that, in coming years, one or both of you will fall in love with other people, then you're far too immature to make a serious commitment. Or else you're a liar.
posted by cribcage at 3:38 PM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]
I've always thought it depends greatly on "the other woman's" relationship to the "wronged" party.
Let's say you, single human, are friends with Person A and Person B, a couple. If you and Person A start messing about or person A leaves person B for you, that's rather crap on your part.
However, lets say you, single human, are casual friends with Person X through work. After a few weeks of flirting you make a pass, Person A seems willing but then says "hey, I'm married". If things keep going "the cheating" is between Person X and their spouse and has nothing to do with you.
And then there's the messy middle.
posted by alana at 3:48 PM on June 16, 2005
Let's say you, single human, are friends with Person A and Person B, a couple. If you and Person A start messing about or person A leaves person B for you, that's rather crap on your part.
However, lets say you, single human, are casual friends with Person X through work. After a few weeks of flirting you make a pass, Person A seems willing but then says "hey, I'm married". If things keep going "the cheating" is between Person X and their spouse and has nothing to do with you.
And then there's the messy middle.
posted by alana at 3:48 PM on June 16, 2005
I agree with koeselitz, it's a bad idea regardless of personal morals. I've never seen it end well.
posted by cali at 3:57 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by cali at 3:57 PM on June 16, 2005
I think it's unethical to carry on a relationship with someone who is otherwise committed behind the back of the person who they are otherwise committed to. Lying is pretty much always bad news in my book.
If the "cheating" in the open, then I think it depends on the type of committment the other people have. Not everyone is monogamous, and we could debate the ethical implications of monogamy itself. Would I, someone who doesn't really believe in monogamy, need to feel guilt about openly messing around with a man who had promised monogamy to another woman? The questionable action would be in helping somone else break a promise, but should I care if it's not a promise I consider important? I'm not sure. I guess I personally wouldn't want to do it, but not exactly for some sort of codified moral reason - more because I don't like to hurt other people's feelings.
But, that's not what you asked. You asked if a woman is in the wrong if a man leaves the woman he is with for her. Assuming the question is concerned with a relationship that takes place after the man has broken it off with his original woman, then I would answer that you haven't done anything wrong as the "other woman." He chose to go for you over her, and that is his choice. Even if he is married, it is his own vow he is breaking in getting divorced or whatever, which isn't your problem. The relationship was between the man and the original woman, and it isn't anyone else'e obligation to preserve it. In my opinion both people should be free to leave whenever they want to, and that means that it is their own responsibility when they do leave.
posted by mai at 3:58 PM on June 16, 2005
If the "cheating" in the open, then I think it depends on the type of committment the other people have. Not everyone is monogamous, and we could debate the ethical implications of monogamy itself. Would I, someone who doesn't really believe in monogamy, need to feel guilt about openly messing around with a man who had promised monogamy to another woman? The questionable action would be in helping somone else break a promise, but should I care if it's not a promise I consider important? I'm not sure. I guess I personally wouldn't want to do it, but not exactly for some sort of codified moral reason - more because I don't like to hurt other people's feelings.
But, that's not what you asked. You asked if a woman is in the wrong if a man leaves the woman he is with for her. Assuming the question is concerned with a relationship that takes place after the man has broken it off with his original woman, then I would answer that you haven't done anything wrong as the "other woman." He chose to go for you over her, and that is his choice. Even if he is married, it is his own vow he is breaking in getting divorced or whatever, which isn't your problem. The relationship was between the man and the original woman, and it isn't anyone else'e obligation to preserve it. In my opinion both people should be free to leave whenever they want to, and that means that it is their own responsibility when they do leave.
posted by mai at 3:58 PM on June 16, 2005
Oh, and as for whether it ever turns out well - my sweetie and I both left other people to be with each other, and we have been together in a happy open relationship for over two years. Yes, it was a mess in the beginning, which we could have handled a lot more gracefully than we did, but it didn't doom our relationship.
posted by mai at 4:02 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by mai at 4:02 PM on June 16, 2005
Here's what I find to be a useful truth: I am responsible for the forseeable consequences of my actions. What does that tell you about Amber Frey? It depends. If Amber has a good idea she'll be ruining someone else (or two someone else's) life for short-term gratification, she probably shouldn't. If she's going to help end a crumbling marriage between two people who hate each other, why the hell not?
Obviously, in a setting as personal as this, the answer won't be based only on the feelings of others. Amber is likely not such a saint as to selflessly assess the likely consequence of an affair on couple X and base her decision on that. Her decision will have a lot to do with how empathic she is - how much she values the emotions and feelings of others relative to her own.
By the way, I disagree with the idea that because the man in the relationship is responsible for his decision, therefore Amber is not responsible for hers. Another example of that logic: I just sold him the combination to the bank vault - it was his decision to go ahead and rob the bank with it.
posted by louigi at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2005
Obviously, in a setting as personal as this, the answer won't be based only on the feelings of others. Amber is likely not such a saint as to selflessly assess the likely consequence of an affair on couple X and base her decision on that. Her decision will have a lot to do with how empathic she is - how much she values the emotions and feelings of others relative to her own.
By the way, I disagree with the idea that because the man in the relationship is responsible for his decision, therefore Amber is not responsible for hers. Another example of that logic: I just sold him the combination to the bank vault - it was his decision to go ahead and rob the bank with it.
posted by louigi at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2005
Being the "other" person pretty much indicates that you do not value the social contract one person made with another person. If you do not value that social contract, then it may become harder for others to believe that you genuinely value other social contracts --- ones that you may be involved in. I would have a very, very, very hard time trusting someone who had cheated on his or her spouse. While it "isn't your job" to make sure married people don't cheat on one another, it's pretty reprehensible to help a married person cheat. It's like being a co-conspirator. On my barometer, it falls into the category of "pretty damn wrong, but less wrong than say, killing people."
Incidentally, unless someone has an unhealthy obsession with someone else, s/he generally is not going to just leave his/her spouse "for you." If someone is leaving his/her spouse "for you" I would imagine you've been encouraging that impulse. Then, we're back to where we started from.
posted by Medieval Maven at 4:14 PM on June 16, 2005
Incidentally, unless someone has an unhealthy obsession with someone else, s/he generally is not going to just leave his/her spouse "for you." If someone is leaving his/her spouse "for you" I would imagine you've been encouraging that impulse. Then, we're back to where we started from.
posted by Medieval Maven at 4:14 PM on June 16, 2005
There are two possible "other woman" situations: 1. a guy is happily and monogamously involved with someone and you come along and decide you like him and do your little wiggly mating dance and he leaves her; this is wrong and you are bad; 2. a guy who has a girlfriend or wife hits on you and you go for it; this is not so much your problem; if they weren't fucking you, they'd be fucking someone else; their primary relationship is either open or over.
But note that this assumes that the guy leaves his woman for you before you sleep with him, which is different from being someone's thing on the side in this important way: if you meet their wife or GF, you don't have to be dishonest. Being dishonest is bad.
[By the way, is this the silly season or something? I know like four married people with young children who are divorcing/cheating/thinking about it/suspect their spouse is up to something.]
posted by nicwolff at 4:24 PM on June 16, 2005
But note that this assumes that the guy leaves his woman for you before you sleep with him, which is different from being someone's thing on the side in this important way: if you meet their wife or GF, you don't have to be dishonest. Being dishonest is bad.
[By the way, is this the silly season or something? I know like four married people with young children who are divorcing/cheating/thinking about it/suspect their spouse is up to something.]
posted by nicwolff at 4:24 PM on June 16, 2005
it's kind of surprising to me that no one's considered the following
1) is it really possible for the "other man/woman" to destroy a truly healthy marriage?
2) aren't there spouses whose actions have been so terrible or screwed up that they really can't claim the status of "innocent victim"? ... what if the left spouse is an abuser, an addict/alcoholic or has been cheating first?
i don't think people leave for other people without there being a reason besides "i'm in love with the other person" ... in some cases, the reasons don't seem adequate ... in others, they can be overwhelming ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:36 PM on June 16, 2005
1) is it really possible for the "other man/woman" to destroy a truly healthy marriage?
2) aren't there spouses whose actions have been so terrible or screwed up that they really can't claim the status of "innocent victim"? ... what if the left spouse is an abuser, an addict/alcoholic or has been cheating first?
i don't think people leave for other people without there being a reason besides "i'm in love with the other person" ... in some cases, the reasons don't seem adequate ... in others, they can be overwhelming ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:36 PM on June 16, 2005
louigi: "If she's going to help end a crumbling marriage between two people who hate each other, why the hell not?"
I just want to point out that, at least in my experience, this is a pretty useless justification. If the husband or wife being cheated on finds out, it's a recipe for a lot more pain and unhappiness all around than a "clean break," if only because it adds one more person to the misery and forces them to endure it; if they don't, and the person who is cheating is lucky enough actually to find solace and comfort in the love of the person they're cheating with, then a bad situation (the unhappy marriage) is only being prolonged indefinitely.
Marriage isn't about sex. Do not be misled: if you tell yourself that a bad marriage can be fixed by behind-the-spouse's-back sex, no matter how much that spouse "deserves it," or how much s/he has "failed the marriage," you'll probably end up in the unhappy boat with the rest of them. There are only two things to be done when a person has a bad marriage: that person must try to fix it or end it.
On preview:
pyramid termite: "1) is it really possible for the "other man/woman" to destroy a truly healthy marriage?"
If "a truly healthy marriage" means "a marriage between perfect, flawless people," then, well, no. But if "a truly healthy marriage" means "a marriage between two average people, flaws and all, who really love each other," then the answer is yes.
In short: the more moderate and thoughtful a person is, the less likely they'll cheat on their spouse; and the more healthy a marriage is, the less likely either spouse will cheat on the other; but, the world being a strange place, strange things happen; and, people being as weak as we are, we make mistakes.
"2) aren't there spouses whose actions have been so terrible or screwed up that they really can't claim the status of "innocent victim"? ... what if the left spouse is an abuser, an addict/alcoholic or has been cheating first?"
Cheating on someone is like kicking them in the teeth. You might argue, loosely, that there are just some people who deserve to be kicked in the teeth; but you'll never convince me that it's a good disciplinary tool. Like I said above, nowadays, it's easy enough to leave an abusive spouse, and if it isn't, it ought to be. If someone gets to the point where they're 'justified' in cheating on their wife or husband, then they should've left the marriage a long time ago.
posted by koeselitz at 4:45 PM on June 16, 2005
I just want to point out that, at least in my experience, this is a pretty useless justification. If the husband or wife being cheated on finds out, it's a recipe for a lot more pain and unhappiness all around than a "clean break," if only because it adds one more person to the misery and forces them to endure it; if they don't, and the person who is cheating is lucky enough actually to find solace and comfort in the love of the person they're cheating with, then a bad situation (the unhappy marriage) is only being prolonged indefinitely.
Marriage isn't about sex. Do not be misled: if you tell yourself that a bad marriage can be fixed by behind-the-spouse's-back sex, no matter how much that spouse "deserves it," or how much s/he has "failed the marriage," you'll probably end up in the unhappy boat with the rest of them. There are only two things to be done when a person has a bad marriage: that person must try to fix it or end it.
On preview:
pyramid termite: "1) is it really possible for the "other man/woman" to destroy a truly healthy marriage?"
If "a truly healthy marriage" means "a marriage between perfect, flawless people," then, well, no. But if "a truly healthy marriage" means "a marriage between two average people, flaws and all, who really love each other," then the answer is yes.
In short: the more moderate and thoughtful a person is, the less likely they'll cheat on their spouse; and the more healthy a marriage is, the less likely either spouse will cheat on the other; but, the world being a strange place, strange things happen; and, people being as weak as we are, we make mistakes.
"2) aren't there spouses whose actions have been so terrible or screwed up that they really can't claim the status of "innocent victim"? ... what if the left spouse is an abuser, an addict/alcoholic or has been cheating first?"
Cheating on someone is like kicking them in the teeth. You might argue, loosely, that there are just some people who deserve to be kicked in the teeth; but you'll never convince me that it's a good disciplinary tool. Like I said above, nowadays, it's easy enough to leave an abusive spouse, and if it isn't, it ought to be. If someone gets to the point where they're 'justified' in cheating on their wife or husband, then they should've left the marriage a long time ago.
posted by koeselitz at 4:45 PM on June 16, 2005
To say that "it depends" isn't necessarily morally relative. In my opinion, it's neither relative nor absolute. For example:
If someone leaves their boy/girlfriend for the "Other" it's mean, but I'm not sure that it's immoral. There hasn't been any mutual promise of permanent monogamy. Someone in an unmarried relationship is basically free to leave it on a whim (while it might not always be the best idea).
If someone leaves their husband/wife for the "Other" it's a different situation entirely. That is, there has been a mutual promise of permanent monogamy. If you're married and are looking for some extracurricular activity, you probably should un-marry yourself. In that situation, the cheater and the "Other" are in a morally sticky spot. The burden is still mostly on the cheater, however. The "Other" isn't responsible for any vows.
If someone gets to the point where they're 'justified' in cheating on their wife or husband, then they should've left the marriage a long time ago.
I'd say that's about right.
But you might not want to take my word for it. I met my fiance while I was in a relationship. That being said, the relationship that I was in wasn't really that great to begin with. I didn't identify with my girlfriend and we didn't have all that much in common in the first place. She was also a mooch. My fiance is someone who I had known for nearly a year before we got together and we were great friends before we started a relationship. But is she now stuck with a guy she knows to be a cheater? Of course not. Just because I cheated on some lame girlfriend doesn't mean that I would do that to somebody for whom I would sacrifice my life.
posted by Jon-o at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2005
If someone leaves their boy/girlfriend for the "Other" it's mean, but I'm not sure that it's immoral. There hasn't been any mutual promise of permanent monogamy. Someone in an unmarried relationship is basically free to leave it on a whim (while it might not always be the best idea).
If someone leaves their husband/wife for the "Other" it's a different situation entirely. That is, there has been a mutual promise of permanent monogamy. If you're married and are looking for some extracurricular activity, you probably should un-marry yourself. In that situation, the cheater and the "Other" are in a morally sticky spot. The burden is still mostly on the cheater, however. The "Other" isn't responsible for any vows.
If someone gets to the point where they're 'justified' in cheating on their wife or husband, then they should've left the marriage a long time ago.
I'd say that's about right.
But you might not want to take my word for it. I met my fiance while I was in a relationship. That being said, the relationship that I was in wasn't really that great to begin with. I didn't identify with my girlfriend and we didn't have all that much in common in the first place. She was also a mooch. My fiance is someone who I had known for nearly a year before we got together and we were great friends before we started a relationship. But is she now stuck with a guy she knows to be a cheater? Of course not. Just because I cheated on some lame girlfriend doesn't mean that I would do that to somebody for whom I would sacrifice my life.
posted by Jon-o at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2005
Well, would you want someone having an affair with *your* spouse? Would you think that person was being unethical? Secondarily, would you want to have a relationship with someone whom you have proven is untrustworty, unreliable, dishonest and willing to toss his promises (vows) out the window at the first sign of greener pasture?
I personally would want to avoid the karmic load, but that's just me...I'm not in the situation. I can tell you from experience however that once a relationship devolves to the point that one or both members are considering having affairs...the relationship is in deep trouble, and lovers are often the catalyst that destroy the relationship. Once a lover enters the picture, the cheated spouse will have a level of anger, resentment and spite that can often not be repaired.
Also, remember that jilted spouses can be heavily armed and crazy. (At least in my neck of the woods.) I'm just saying...is that bit Motel 6 love worth dying for?
In all seriousness...if someone is too big of a coward to fess up and deal with the problems of their relationship by either working on and solving them, or by breaking it off and moving forward, then that person doesn't deserve to be admitted into your happy space.
I believe that the secret lovers of the married folks are committing just an egregious ethical breach. But that's according to my personal set of ethics...and everyone's ethics are different.
posted by dejah420 at 5:25 PM on June 16, 2005
I personally would want to avoid the karmic load, but that's just me...I'm not in the situation. I can tell you from experience however that once a relationship devolves to the point that one or both members are considering having affairs...the relationship is in deep trouble, and lovers are often the catalyst that destroy the relationship. Once a lover enters the picture, the cheated spouse will have a level of anger, resentment and spite that can often not be repaired.
Also, remember that jilted spouses can be heavily armed and crazy. (At least in my neck of the woods.) I'm just saying...is that bit Motel 6 love worth dying for?
In all seriousness...if someone is too big of a coward to fess up and deal with the problems of their relationship by either working on and solving them, or by breaking it off and moving forward, then that person doesn't deserve to be admitted into your happy space.
I believe that the secret lovers of the married folks are committing just an egregious ethical breach. But that's according to my personal set of ethics...and everyone's ethics are different.
posted by dejah420 at 5:25 PM on June 16, 2005
Why does knowing the spouse make it not okay?
Because it might violate explicit or implicit commitments or promises that people have made to each other.
Why is it okay to do something to a stranger that you wouldn't do to a best friend, or a sister?
Because you don't have any commitments to them, even ones implicit in a friendship. For the same reason, it's fine for someone to drive an extremely hard bargain buying or selling something with a stranger, where it might violate a friendship to treat a friend like that.
People can have sex with married people if they want to. It's just not a very nice thing to have happen to a married person, and you are taking part in that not very nice thing.
The one married person thinks it's a nice thing, or they wouldn't do it. They're skeezy for thinking that though.
It's up to people to keep their own promises, not up to others to keep their promises for them against their will and desire.
I've never seen it end well.
I'd certainly agree that it's usually a bad idea, and that repeatedly or habitually being The Other Person doesn't speak well of a person's judgment. If I knew that someone was TOP time and again, I'd think twice about letting him or her manage my money, say.
Well, would you want someone having an affair with *your* spouse?
Nope. But then I'd prefer my spouse to be faithful, not unfaithful-but-thwarted.
Would you think that person was being unethical?
Not unless it violated some other relationship or compact.
Secondarily, would you want to have a relationship with someone whom you have proven is untrustworty, unreliable, dishonest and willing to toss his promises (vows) out the window at the first sign of greener pasture?
No, but that's not evil, that's just bad judgment. Hitting yourself in the face with a frying pan is dumb, but not immoral.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2005
Because it might violate explicit or implicit commitments or promises that people have made to each other.
Why is it okay to do something to a stranger that you wouldn't do to a best friend, or a sister?
Because you don't have any commitments to them, even ones implicit in a friendship. For the same reason, it's fine for someone to drive an extremely hard bargain buying or selling something with a stranger, where it might violate a friendship to treat a friend like that.
People can have sex with married people if they want to. It's just not a very nice thing to have happen to a married person, and you are taking part in that not very nice thing.
The one married person thinks it's a nice thing, or they wouldn't do it. They're skeezy for thinking that though.
It's up to people to keep their own promises, not up to others to keep their promises for them against their will and desire.
I've never seen it end well.
I'd certainly agree that it's usually a bad idea, and that repeatedly or habitually being The Other Person doesn't speak well of a person's judgment. If I knew that someone was TOP time and again, I'd think twice about letting him or her manage my money, say.
Well, would you want someone having an affair with *your* spouse?
Nope. But then I'd prefer my spouse to be faithful, not unfaithful-but-thwarted.
Would you think that person was being unethical?
Not unless it violated some other relationship or compact.
Secondarily, would you want to have a relationship with someone whom you have proven is untrustworty, unreliable, dishonest and willing to toss his promises (vows) out the window at the first sign of greener pasture?
No, but that's not evil, that's just bad judgment. Hitting yourself in the face with a frying pan is dumb, but not immoral.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2005
i'm with ROU. If you're seeing someone who's married and you're ok with it, it's not your fault or responsibility if they then leave their spouse for you. (Although i personally would be wary of someone like that--if they cheated on their spouse and left they can do the same to you too)
posted by amberglow at 5:57 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by amberglow at 5:57 PM on June 16, 2005
I join the most recent chorus of voices-- there are ethical problems with 1, lying or 2, breaking promises, but in this situtation if you do neither one, you are likely to be in the clear.
Of course, one owes duties to others beyond promising and truth-telling, but what duties? The notion that one somehow respects an existing relationship by refusing to sleep with one of the parties is confused and paternalistic. The disrespect comes from the person who cheats.
Consider this pragmatically, too-- if you were in a relationship with somebody of dubious fidelity would you want to rest things on the hope that other women would turn him down when he wanted them? God, I hope not. Virtue untested is ignorance and all of that.
Anyway, despite all of that, I do think there are serious reasons to think one might not want to be involved with somebody who has proven to be a promise-breaker and a liar. Nonetheless, lovers often seem to assume that the way of things will be suspended to meet their special case. But it never is.
posted by willbaude at 6:16 PM on June 16, 2005
Of course, one owes duties to others beyond promising and truth-telling, but what duties? The notion that one somehow respects an existing relationship by refusing to sleep with one of the parties is confused and paternalistic. The disrespect comes from the person who cheats.
Consider this pragmatically, too-- if you were in a relationship with somebody of dubious fidelity would you want to rest things on the hope that other women would turn him down when he wanted them? God, I hope not. Virtue untested is ignorance and all of that.
Anyway, despite all of that, I do think there are serious reasons to think one might not want to be involved with somebody who has proven to be a promise-breaker and a liar. Nonetheless, lovers often seem to assume that the way of things will be suspended to meet their special case. But it never is.
posted by willbaude at 6:16 PM on June 16, 2005
pyramid termite: "1) is it really possible for the "other man/woman" to destroy a truly healthy marriage?"
my answer to that is no.
ok, I was the "other man." When I met my wife she was married. We became involved and have been married, happily, for eight years. Would I do it over again? Absolutely. Any regrets about becoming involved with her? None.
posted by busboy789 at 6:31 PM on June 16, 2005
my answer to that is no.
ok, I was the "other man." When I met my wife she was married. We became involved and have been married, happily, for eight years. Would I do it over again? Absolutely. Any regrets about becoming involved with her? None.
posted by busboy789 at 6:31 PM on June 16, 2005
Are you willing to bear at least half of the responsibility for all the things that might occur as a result of your actions? Kids involved?
This is not a matter to take lightly. Hence, your question. But you are not necessarily wrong in your persuit.
Life is crazy and it's all about taking risks. Perhaps you are actually helping that third party. Weigh it out and examine the bigger picture.
posted by snsranch at 6:55 PM on June 16, 2005
This is not a matter to take lightly. Hence, your question. But you are not necessarily wrong in your persuit.
Life is crazy and it's all about taking risks. Perhaps you are actually helping that third party. Weigh it out and examine the bigger picture.
posted by snsranch at 6:55 PM on June 16, 2005
The reason symbols of marital status are always conspicuously displayed, the reason marriage covenants are highly publicized within a community is that they are so vulnerable to outside agents. The covenant is not only between the two individuals; it's between the couple and the rest of society. Respect it.
Maybe you can't destroy a healthy marriage. That doesn't clear you to fuck with an ailing one. It may have gotten better without you.
posted by klarck at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2005 [2 favorites]
Maybe you can't destroy a healthy marriage. That doesn't clear you to fuck with an ailing one. It may have gotten better without you.
posted by klarck at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2005 [2 favorites]
I started my sexual career as "the other man." A lot of shit resulted from it, not the least of which was the guilt that came with damaging three people (counting myself). So I'd say that there's serious ethical questions and dilemmas.
posted by jonmc at 7:19 PM on June 16, 2005
posted by jonmc at 7:19 PM on June 16, 2005
Open relationships are totally cool, and letting someone know that you'd be up for dating them if they were single is fine, too, in my opinion. But dating someone who you know is in a committed relationship is unethical. They are not in a position to make that choice.
The act itself is not moral; neither side can be morally exempt, because both parties must be involved for the act to take place. It is simply cheating. It may be harsher for the husband to cheat on his wife than you for you, a stranger, to cheat on his wife, but it's still what you're doing. She understood the rules as X, and you both are breaking those rules.
posted by mdn at 7:20 PM on June 16, 2005
The act itself is not moral; neither side can be morally exempt, because both parties must be involved for the act to take place. It is simply cheating. It may be harsher for the husband to cheat on his wife than you for you, a stranger, to cheat on his wife, but it's still what you're doing. She understood the rules as X, and you both are breaking those rules.
posted by mdn at 7:20 PM on June 16, 2005
Best answer: My current sweetie/boyfriend/partner/no, we're not married (lets just call him John) and I met while I was living with (and planning a wedding to) my High School Sweetheart (HSS). We were all close friends for years, but over time it became obvious that John and I had sparks -- and feelings -- that could not be ignored.
John was a total gentleman about the entire thing ... our "affair" was backrubs, many long walks in the park, and some light kissing ... but it was emotionally charged as all hell. There were also many things going wrong with the original relationship -- HSS was not really ready for commitment -- but the wedding plans continued, and John was even supposed to be a groomsman.
Eight weeks before the wedding HSS called it off and moved out. Would our relationship have ended if it had not become clear that John and I were deeply in love? Unknown, but I doubt it. I was willing to do the work to make it work and so, I think, was he. But as things stood, he always knew that part of my heart belonged to another man, and couldn't live with that. I don't, frankly, blame him. In retrospect the only two people that didn't realize how deeply in love John and I were were John and I.
We've been together for over ten years now, and its still a fairy-tale romance. Was he the "other man". Yep. Were people hurt in the process of our coming to be together? Yep. Would I change it? No way. I don't think he did anything wrong (although I might feel differently had we slept together before HSS and I parted ways), and frankly I don't think I did anything wrong either.
In the end, you love who you love, and you can't change loving that person.
posted by anastasiav at 8:01 PM on June 16, 2005
John was a total gentleman about the entire thing ... our "affair" was backrubs, many long walks in the park, and some light kissing ... but it was emotionally charged as all hell. There were also many things going wrong with the original relationship -- HSS was not really ready for commitment -- but the wedding plans continued, and John was even supposed to be a groomsman.
Eight weeks before the wedding HSS called it off and moved out. Would our relationship have ended if it had not become clear that John and I were deeply in love? Unknown, but I doubt it. I was willing to do the work to make it work and so, I think, was he. But as things stood, he always knew that part of my heart belonged to another man, and couldn't live with that. I don't, frankly, blame him. In retrospect the only two people that didn't realize how deeply in love John and I were were John and I.
We've been together for over ten years now, and its still a fairy-tale romance. Was he the "other man". Yep. Were people hurt in the process of our coming to be together? Yep. Would I change it? No way. I don't think he did anything wrong (although I might feel differently had we slept together before HSS and I parted ways), and frankly I don't think I did anything wrong either.
In the end, you love who you love, and you can't change loving that person.
posted by anastasiav at 8:01 PM on June 16, 2005
Interestingly, another thread on AskMe right now is about buying diamonds. I find it odd that so many people would find it wrong to say "I'm just buying the diamond, what the warlord does with the money is none of my business" yet so many people look for a justification for saying "I'm just sleeping with the man, what lies he tells his wife are none of my business." You'd expect people to care a lot less about poor people in Africa than they care about the spouse of the person they're fucking and yet it seems to be exactly the other way around. I guess it just goes to show people just like illicit sex more than they like diamonds.
posted by kindall at 8:57 PM on June 16, 2005 [2 favorites]
posted by kindall at 8:57 PM on June 16, 2005 [2 favorites]
If there's been no affair before the marriage crumbled, you're fine.
If you're having an affair behind the person's back--well. Your friend murders someone. You drive the getaway car. You may not have stabbed anyone, but you're still going to trial for being an accomplice.
It's wrong. You know it's wrong, and to argue that you're not responsible for their cheating is bullshit people use to excuse their own actions--you can't stop them from cheating, but you can stop yourself from enabling it.
If you truly have found "true love", then you're relationship will live through the time it takes the person to get a divorce.
posted by Anonymous at 9:39 PM on June 16, 2005
If you're having an affair behind the person's back--well. Your friend murders someone. You drive the getaway car. You may not have stabbed anyone, but you're still going to trial for being an accomplice.
It's wrong. You know it's wrong, and to argue that you're not responsible for their cheating is bullshit people use to excuse their own actions--you can't stop them from cheating, but you can stop yourself from enabling it.
If you truly have found "true love", then you're relationship will live through the time it takes the person to get a divorce.
posted by Anonymous at 9:39 PM on June 16, 2005
I find it odd that so many people would find it wrong to say "I'm just buying the diamond, what the warlord does with the money is none of my business" yet so many people look for a justification for saying "I'm just sleeping with the man, what lies he tells his wife are none of my business."
An affair is consensual sex and/or emotional entanglement between two willing adults, one of which has previously promised not to do such things. Everyone in the affair is (presumably) there willingly, of their own free choice, and under no coercion.
Conflict diamonds are the product of death, slavery, and oppression, not people willingly doing things with each other by their own free choice, and are used to produce further death, slavery, and oppression.
I don't find it hard to see a difference.
Your friend murders someone. You drive the getaway car. You may not have stabbed anyone, but you're still going to trial for being an accomplice.
I think a more apt analogy is that you solemnly promised your spouse to, say, quit smoking, and the guy at the convenience store knows that but nonetheless sells you a pack when you ask for one. There is, at base, nothing objectionable about one adult selling another a pack of smokes, nor is there anything particularly objectionable about two willing adults making the beast with two backs. What's objectionable is someone violating a promise they made, but that's between the people the promise binds together.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:01 PM on June 16, 2005
An affair is consensual sex and/or emotional entanglement between two willing adults, one of which has previously promised not to do such things. Everyone in the affair is (presumably) there willingly, of their own free choice, and under no coercion.
Conflict diamonds are the product of death, slavery, and oppression, not people willingly doing things with each other by their own free choice, and are used to produce further death, slavery, and oppression.
I don't find it hard to see a difference.
Your friend murders someone. You drive the getaway car. You may not have stabbed anyone, but you're still going to trial for being an accomplice.
I think a more apt analogy is that you solemnly promised your spouse to, say, quit smoking, and the guy at the convenience store knows that but nonetheless sells you a pack when you ask for one. There is, at base, nothing objectionable about one adult selling another a pack of smokes, nor is there anything particularly objectionable about two willing adults making the beast with two backs. What's objectionable is someone violating a promise they made, but that's between the people the promise binds together.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:01 PM on June 16, 2005
Conflict diamonds are the product of death, slavery, and oppression, not people willingly doing things with each other by their own free choice, and are used to produce further death, slavery, and oppression.
Well, sure. But I just give them the money; what they do with it is none of my business. After all, it's not my money anymore after I give it to them!
This is exactly the same reasoning as "Well, I'm not the one breaking my promise to my spouse, so my conscience is clean." Because it means that the other person's conscience isn't clean, and you were materially involved in making it that way. Sullying a conscience is a pretty shitty thing to do to someone you claim to love, as do so many of the misguided people involved in affairs, so no, your conscience isn't so clean after all, is it?
posted by kindall at 10:08 PM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]
Well, sure. But I just give them the money; what they do with it is none of my business. After all, it's not my money anymore after I give it to them!
This is exactly the same reasoning as "Well, I'm not the one breaking my promise to my spouse, so my conscience is clean." Because it means that the other person's conscience isn't clean, and you were materially involved in making it that way. Sullying a conscience is a pretty shitty thing to do to someone you claim to love, as do so many of the misguided people involved in affairs, so no, your conscience isn't so clean after all, is it?
posted by kindall at 10:08 PM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]
Because it means that the other person's conscience isn't clean, and you were materially involved in making it that way.
No you weren't. Their conscience was sullied when they began to actually plan to fuck you; not idly fantasize about it, but seriously plan and intend to get you nekkid and make whoopee. Even if you turn them down, their conscience isn't clean.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:07 PM on June 16, 2005
No you weren't. Their conscience was sullied when they began to actually plan to fuck you; not idly fantasize about it, but seriously plan and intend to get you nekkid and make whoopee. Even if you turn them down, their conscience isn't clean.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:07 PM on June 16, 2005
I think it depends on what you define as a "marriage". I've been the other woman, and if two people are only still married because they can't afford to seperate yet and are waiting until they sell their house and essentially don't even have a friendship let alone a marriage, than I think both people are slightly absolved of the "immoral" responsiblity. Especially if BOTH partners in the marriage have found other relationships.
posted by DecemberRaine at 12:11 AM on June 17, 2005
posted by DecemberRaine at 12:11 AM on June 17, 2005
Ugh. I'm struck by how many of the comments are full of so much defensiveness, so much tacit approval, as long as the person with the primary partner isn't you.
In the end, being 'the other woman' is just an invitation to shut the hell up when the louse later leaves you.
posted by yellowcandy at 1:20 AM on June 17, 2005
In the end, being 'the other woman' is just an invitation to shut the hell up when the louse later leaves you.
posted by yellowcandy at 1:20 AM on June 17, 2005
I find it interesting that the poster picked one of the unlikely "fairy tale" endings to infidelity as the best answer. (Unlikely in that it rarely happens that way, not that it is impossible to end that way.) Unfortunately, I've been witness to much marital infidelity, both parents, step-parents, siblings, friends. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE CASE END UP IN TRUE LOVE. Just a lot of fucking and crying.
It can happen, sure, but it is as unlikely as hell. In most cases, particularly for the "other woman" they are sold some bullshit story about how 1) his wife doesn't understand him 2) his wife is ok with him being with other women (the "we have an agreement story") 3) their marriage is ending 4) etc. and vomit. Generally, the other woman deep down knows that this is all bullshit, but is lonely or in lust, or even love, and so rationalizes away any of the nasty consequences of having this affair, like feeling guilt.
Of course, my personal experience has made me vary wary of cheaters and cheating because I've seen the painful part way up close and I suspect that most people who have no problem with the "other" cheater have either been lucky enough (as in winning the lottery lucky) to have a successful relationship born out of the painful wreckage of another relationship or have never been in a relationship where they have put 100% of their trust in another person and so don't realize the pain that can be caused to the "first woman" by an extramarital affair.
By the way, I don't mean to moralize, I realize that this is all relative. But I did want to give some occular proof on the ramifications of cheating.
posted by sic at 1:53 AM on June 17, 2005
It can happen, sure, but it is as unlikely as hell. In most cases, particularly for the "other woman" they are sold some bullshit story about how 1) his wife doesn't understand him 2) his wife is ok with him being with other women (the "we have an agreement story") 3) their marriage is ending 4) etc. and vomit. Generally, the other woman deep down knows that this is all bullshit, but is lonely or in lust, or even love, and so rationalizes away any of the nasty consequences of having this affair, like feeling guilt.
Of course, my personal experience has made me vary wary of cheaters and cheating because I've seen the painful part way up close and I suspect that most people who have no problem with the "other" cheater have either been lucky enough (as in winning the lottery lucky) to have a successful relationship born out of the painful wreckage of another relationship or have never been in a relationship where they have put 100% of their trust in another person and so don't realize the pain that can be caused to the "first woman" by an extramarital affair.
By the way, I don't mean to moralize, I realize that this is all relative. But I did want to give some occular proof on the ramifications of cheating.
posted by sic at 1:53 AM on June 17, 2005
The way my parents raised me and the way I've examined and expanded that raising throughout my adult life would lead me to these conclusions.
If I knew a married woman, but had no serious emotional and no sexual contact with her before she leaves her spouse for whatever reason, then my conscience would be fine.
If I knew a married woman and had serious emotional contact with her, but no sexual contact, before she left her spouse for whatever reason, I would find my own involvement suspect. My conscience would have a definite problem here.
If I knew a married woman and had sexual contact with her before she left her spouse, I would feel incredibly guilty. If I knew both spouses, much more so.
If I knew a woman and became either emotionally or sexually involved with her before she told me she was married, I would have a serious problem with her, but I wouldn't consider myself as having done anything purposefully wrong. I would feel bad for the spouse and cut off my relationship with the woman.
If I'm in a long-term relationship and I get emotionally involved with a married woman, my conscience is going to have a problem with it.
And on. You can probably see what I'd do in most of the other situations you could think up. For me, it's a matter of what you know and do and when you know and do it.
If you're the rebound, as I seem to read your question, then I believe you to be in the clear.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:46 AM on June 17, 2005
If I knew a married woman, but had no serious emotional and no sexual contact with her before she leaves her spouse for whatever reason, then my conscience would be fine.
If I knew a married woman and had serious emotional contact with her, but no sexual contact, before she left her spouse for whatever reason, I would find my own involvement suspect. My conscience would have a definite problem here.
If I knew a married woman and had sexual contact with her before she left her spouse, I would feel incredibly guilty. If I knew both spouses, much more so.
If I knew a woman and became either emotionally or sexually involved with her before she told me she was married, I would have a serious problem with her, but I wouldn't consider myself as having done anything purposefully wrong. I would feel bad for the spouse and cut off my relationship with the woman.
If I'm in a long-term relationship and I get emotionally involved with a married woman, my conscience is going to have a problem with it.
And on. You can probably see what I'd do in most of the other situations you could think up. For me, it's a matter of what you know and do and when you know and do it.
If you're the rebound, as I seem to read your question, then I believe you to be in the clear.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:46 AM on June 17, 2005
John was a total gentleman about the entire thing ... our "affair" was backrubs, many long walks in the park, and some light kissing ... but it was emotionally charged as all hell. There were also many things going wrong with the original relationship -- HSS was not really ready for commitment -- but the wedding plans continued, and John was even supposed to be a groomsman.
It's totally gentlemanly to fool around with the bride when you're a groomsman?! Look, I'm glad things worked out for you, and good that your fiance was with it enough to see what was happening and respond, but please.
And what kindall said. You are not just an outside observer who is not telling anyone what's happening when you're the other woman. You are taking part in the mutual disregard of a legal and ethical contract. The vows the husband took were not just personal promises to his wife; they were legal, public agreements which were confirmed by the state in saying "you are now husband and wife". The husband is therefore publicly off limits.
posted by mdn at 5:16 AM on June 17, 2005 [1 favorite]
It's totally gentlemanly to fool around with the bride when you're a groomsman?! Look, I'm glad things worked out for you, and good that your fiance was with it enough to see what was happening and respond, but please.
And what kindall said. You are not just an outside observer who is not telling anyone what's happening when you're the other woman. You are taking part in the mutual disregard of a legal and ethical contract. The vows the husband took were not just personal promises to his wife; they were legal, public agreements which were confirmed by the state in saying "you are now husband and wife". The husband is therefore publicly off limits.
posted by mdn at 5:16 AM on June 17, 2005 [1 favorite]
An affair is consensual sex and/or emotional entanglement
"Affair = consensual sex" I can understand. "Affair = emotional entanglement" I can't. Are intimate friendships that do not involve sex now considered taboo for married people?
posted by mediareport at 5:58 AM on June 17, 2005
"Affair = consensual sex" I can understand. "Affair = emotional entanglement" I can't. Are intimate friendships that do not involve sex now considered taboo for married people?
posted by mediareport at 5:58 AM on June 17, 2005
If the person is still married, you're abetting his broken promise and the associated hurt he is probably inflicting on his wife and family. I see little point in trying to assess whether you're "wrong" to a greater or lesser extent than he is: you're both doing wrong, morally.
If the guy is divorced or the marriage has irreparably broken down pending divorce quite apart from your influence on the situation, you're fine, I think.
Imagine you were married and your husband left you for another woman. How would you feel about what that woman was doing? Would you think she was morally irreproachable? That'll probably help you reach an answer more than the opinion of others.
posted by Decani at 6:31 AM on June 17, 2005
If the guy is divorced or the marriage has irreparably broken down pending divorce quite apart from your influence on the situation, you're fine, I think.
Imagine you were married and your husband left you for another woman. How would you feel about what that woman was doing? Would you think she was morally irreproachable? That'll probably help you reach an answer more than the opinion of others.
posted by Decani at 6:31 AM on June 17, 2005
It can happen, sure, but it is as unlikely as hell. In most cases, particularly for the "other woman" they are sold some bullshit story about how 1) his wife doesn't understand him 2) his wife is ok with him being with other women (the "we have an agreement story") 3) their marriage is ending 4) etc. and vomit. Generally, the other woman deep down knows that this is all bullshit, but is lonely or in lust, or even love, and so rationalizes away any of the nasty consequences of having this affair, like feeling guilt.
I understand that you have already said yes, this situation is possible however unlikely, but I'm one of those women who was "sold some bullshit story" and I know now that all the things I was told were true. I suppose your point here is that most men who "cheat" are lying bastards and women who are with married men are naiive. Maybe in generalities and in movies this is true, but I've never seen or experienced this in my own life, with friends or with family. I think the biggest reason that affairs don't turn in to "happily ever after" is because most people don't prepare themselves to deal with and communicate on the issues of trust that arise from beginning your relationship as an affair. In fact, most people don't prepare themselves to communicate about much. I'm lucky that I had an excellent example set for me by my parents, who are just as in love now as they were when they were married 26 years ago.... Maybe that's why I was able to take a less-than-ideal situation and turn it into happily ever after.
posted by DecemberRaine at 6:38 AM on June 17, 2005
I understand that you have already said yes, this situation is possible however unlikely, but I'm one of those women who was "sold some bullshit story" and I know now that all the things I was told were true. I suppose your point here is that most men who "cheat" are lying bastards and women who are with married men are naiive. Maybe in generalities and in movies this is true, but I've never seen or experienced this in my own life, with friends or with family. I think the biggest reason that affairs don't turn in to "happily ever after" is because most people don't prepare themselves to deal with and communicate on the issues of trust that arise from beginning your relationship as an affair. In fact, most people don't prepare themselves to communicate about much. I'm lucky that I had an excellent example set for me by my parents, who are just as in love now as they were when they were married 26 years ago.... Maybe that's why I was able to take a less-than-ideal situation and turn it into happily ever after.
posted by DecemberRaine at 6:38 AM on June 17, 2005
The ethics of the situation depend on things none of us can know. Was he happy in the marriage before he met you? Did you know he was married before you...um...hooked up?
Whatever. In the end, nobody has an ethical responsibility to stay in a relationship that does not fulfuill them. But they do have an ethical responsibility to let the other know as soon as they are sure. Lying is only ethical when the harm done by the truth is the greater harm. But that's another argument.
One thing you may wish to consider, though: you know for a fact that this man is willing to cheat.
posted by jaded at 6:51 AM on June 17, 2005
Whatever. In the end, nobody has an ethical responsibility to stay in a relationship that does not fulfuill them. But they do have an ethical responsibility to let the other know as soon as they are sure. Lying is only ethical when the harm done by the truth is the greater harm. But that's another argument.
One thing you may wish to consider, though: you know for a fact that this man is willing to cheat.
posted by jaded at 6:51 AM on June 17, 2005
> It's the married person's job not to cheat, not other people's duty to
> refuse to have sex with them.
The third person in the triangle is receiving affection and intimacy that rightfully belongs to the spouse. Knowingly receiving stolen goods is generally not thought OK.
posted by jfuller at 7:04 AM on June 17, 2005
> refuse to have sex with them.
The third person in the triangle is receiving affection and intimacy that rightfully belongs to the spouse. Knowingly receiving stolen goods is generally not thought OK.
posted by jfuller at 7:04 AM on June 17, 2005
That's an excellent analogy considering that there are things that are illegal to sell and not to buy.
Huh? I'm not doubting you but... such as what? Even if you're right about this I don't think it's a good argument, since to my mind having something illegal to sell but not to buy is wholly irrational and bizarre.
posted by Decani at 7:47 AM on June 17, 2005
Huh? I'm not doubting you but... such as what? Even if you're right about this I don't think it's a good argument, since to my mind having something illegal to sell but not to buy is wholly irrational and bizarre.
posted by Decani at 7:47 AM on June 17, 2005
kindall,
Your honestly surprised that people have a greater ethical problem with mass murder, slavery, child labour, and child soldiers than they do with a marital affair? That's an interesting ethical world you live in.
posted by carmen at 7:49 AM on June 17, 2005
Your honestly surprised that people have a greater ethical problem with mass murder, slavery, child labour, and child soldiers than they do with a marital affair? That's an interesting ethical world you live in.
posted by carmen at 7:49 AM on June 17, 2005
it's interesting to work backwards from the "best" post in threads like this to see what opinion the original poster wanted confirmation of.
anastasiav says "I don't think I did anything wrong" despite having an affair while in the process of getting married to someone else. so she's quite happy with the fact that she was heading into what most people (presumably her and her high school sweetheart included) would consider a monogamous relationship - maybe the biggest commitment we make in our adult lives - while having "backrubs, many long walks in the park, and some light kissing [that were] emotionally charged as all hell" (my emphasis).
to rub salt into the wounds, she then declares that "I was willing to do the work to make [the marriage] work". what, exaclty, would that work involve? you might think that would include avoiding another relationship that was "emotionally charged as all hell". just a suggestion.
look: you can steal chocolates and still enjoy them. you can publicly humiliate someone that you were ostensibly getting married to, making them call off the marriage because you were too self absorbed, immature, or simply downright cowardly to make the break yourself, and still have a happy life afterwards. you can rob a bank and live well on the proceedings. but in none of those cases, does being happy make your actions morally right.
maybe the confusion is in exactly what was wrong? in anastasiav's case, the wrong thing was not so much that she fell in love with someone else, but that she didn't admit it. that she still doesn't, apparently, think there was anything odd about the way she treated the person she was marrying. despite the fact that she could have had the same result, yet made things easier for the other person. she could have broken off the relationship. she could have taken responsibility. instead, she flops dreamily around the park, letting the other person suffer.
i'm sorry. i've caused a lot of pain to people in my life too. but i've never publicly posted a description of it and said i did nothing wrong. that's pretty sick, in my book.
please, adrober, if someone else's happiness depends on your actions right now, treat them with as much respect and courtesy as you can. no-one is saying you have to live a lie. but if you're breaking the rules, do the decent thing, and take repsonsiility for it yourself.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:59 AM on June 17, 2005
anastasiav says "I don't think I did anything wrong" despite having an affair while in the process of getting married to someone else. so she's quite happy with the fact that she was heading into what most people (presumably her and her high school sweetheart included) would consider a monogamous relationship - maybe the biggest commitment we make in our adult lives - while having "backrubs, many long walks in the park, and some light kissing [that were] emotionally charged as all hell" (my emphasis).
to rub salt into the wounds, she then declares that "I was willing to do the work to make [the marriage] work". what, exaclty, would that work involve? you might think that would include avoiding another relationship that was "emotionally charged as all hell". just a suggestion.
look: you can steal chocolates and still enjoy them. you can publicly humiliate someone that you were ostensibly getting married to, making them call off the marriage because you were too self absorbed, immature, or simply downright cowardly to make the break yourself, and still have a happy life afterwards. you can rob a bank and live well on the proceedings. but in none of those cases, does being happy make your actions morally right.
maybe the confusion is in exactly what was wrong? in anastasiav's case, the wrong thing was not so much that she fell in love with someone else, but that she didn't admit it. that she still doesn't, apparently, think there was anything odd about the way she treated the person she was marrying. despite the fact that she could have had the same result, yet made things easier for the other person. she could have broken off the relationship. she could have taken responsibility. instead, she flops dreamily around the park, letting the other person suffer.
i'm sorry. i've caused a lot of pain to people in my life too. but i've never publicly posted a description of it and said i did nothing wrong. that's pretty sick, in my book.
please, adrober, if someone else's happiness depends on your actions right now, treat them with as much respect and courtesy as you can. no-one is saying you have to live a lie. but if you're breaking the rules, do the decent thing, and take repsonsiility for it yourself.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:59 AM on June 17, 2005
The third person in the triangle is receiving affection and intimacy that rightfully belongs to the spouse. Knowingly receiving stolen goods is generally not thought OK.
Bizarre. Emotions don't work that way for me or anyone I've ever known. They're not property, the "other person" isn't stealing them. I'm definitely with the people who say that the person breaking the promise is the one at fault, since the "other woman" didn't make the promises.
posted by biscotti at 8:10 AM on June 17, 2005
Bizarre. Emotions don't work that way for me or anyone I've ever known. They're not property, the "other person" isn't stealing them. I'm definitely with the people who say that the person breaking the promise is the one at fault, since the "other woman" didn't make the promises.
posted by biscotti at 8:10 AM on June 17, 2005
I'm definitely with the people who say that the person breaking the promise is the one at fault, since the "other woman" didn't make the promises.
once again, how can only one side be at fault? it takes two!. As I said above, you're both cheating "on" the wife, so the husband may have greater guilt, since he professed to love the wife at some point. You're just cheating "on" a stranger, a woman you don't know. But you're still cheating. You're still engaging in a breach of contract (which the husband could not do by himself).
In the end, being 'the other woman' is just an invitation to shut the hell up when the louse later leaves you.
yes. I mean, no matter what the deal is with your personal connection etc, you do have conclusive proof that this person is a liar. I don't have any problem with someone getting divorced and almost immediately going for it with someone who they'd felt a spark with while the marriage was still on. But, you have to address the issues and break the engagement, not go off and "get backrubs" and still plan to marry! That's ludicrous and completely disregards the meaning of commitment.
Basically, this attitude seems to be a general dismissal of marriage having any meaning. As long as you're actively feeling love, then you stay with someone; once that fades, you're ethically allowed to wander. Then what is really the point of making the public commitment of "through thick & thin" and all that? I'm not saying one needs to ever make that commitment, but if you're gonna do it, respect what it's supposed to mean, at least.
posted by mdn at 8:57 AM on June 17, 2005
once again, how can only one side be at fault? it takes two!. As I said above, you're both cheating "on" the wife, so the husband may have greater guilt, since he professed to love the wife at some point. You're just cheating "on" a stranger, a woman you don't know. But you're still cheating. You're still engaging in a breach of contract (which the husband could not do by himself).
In the end, being 'the other woman' is just an invitation to shut the hell up when the louse later leaves you.
yes. I mean, no matter what the deal is with your personal connection etc, you do have conclusive proof that this person is a liar. I don't have any problem with someone getting divorced and almost immediately going for it with someone who they'd felt a spark with while the marriage was still on. But, you have to address the issues and break the engagement, not go off and "get backrubs" and still plan to marry! That's ludicrous and completely disregards the meaning of commitment.
Basically, this attitude seems to be a general dismissal of marriage having any meaning. As long as you're actively feeling love, then you stay with someone; once that fades, you're ethically allowed to wander. Then what is really the point of making the public commitment of "through thick & thin" and all that? I'm not saying one needs to ever make that commitment, but if you're gonna do it, respect what it's supposed to mean, at least.
posted by mdn at 8:57 AM on June 17, 2005
Mdn, that's silly. You can't break a contract that you didn't sign. Being the other woman may not be nice, and it may be inethical, as you are causing someone pain, but you can't be expected to uphold a contract that isn't yours.
posted by dame at 9:04 AM on June 17, 2005
posted by dame at 9:04 AM on June 17, 2005
I like anastaviav, but I'm with andrew cooke on this one. And, like Andrew and others, I think that the selection of anastaviav's answer as best of the lot pretty much says it all.
Pardon the armchair analysis (but you did ask): you seem inclined to go forward with this entanglement, bemused with blue-sky visions of eternal love and happiness for you two, with utter disregard for the current spouse's pain in this scenario. We don't live in a just universe, but even so, sometimes the scales balance; and if they do, someday you yourself will become that hurt spouse, as your cheater moves on to the next fascinating individual to catch his attention. I hope you emerge from the experience wiser and stronger.
posted by clever sheep at 9:14 AM on June 17, 2005
Pardon the armchair analysis (but you did ask): you seem inclined to go forward with this entanglement, bemused with blue-sky visions of eternal love and happiness for you two, with utter disregard for the current spouse's pain in this scenario. We don't live in a just universe, but even so, sometimes the scales balance; and if they do, someday you yourself will become that hurt spouse, as your cheater moves on to the next fascinating individual to catch his attention. I hope you emerge from the experience wiser and stronger.
posted by clever sheep at 9:14 AM on June 17, 2005
I would love to comment on tons of comments made here, but that would make a very long post.
My quick summarized opinion on the matter (followed by random responses to comments): Being the other woman is not nice. It's not a good idea if you're looking for a long-term lasting relationship. But it's not immoral, either.
It is immoral if you have a previous relationship with the person's spouse. Someone asked "Why does knowing the spouse make it not okay? Why is it okay to do something to a stranger that you wouldn't do to a best friend, or a sister?" and I thought that was well answered by ROU_Xenophobe.
Huh? I'm not doubting you but... such as what?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to sell cigarettes to a minor, but not illegal for the minor to have bought them. I'm not positive about that and I'm not sure how to use that analogy in this discussion, but there you go anyway.
You're still engaging in a breach of contract (which the husband could not do by himself).
What if the husband doesn't tell the other woman that he's married? Is the other woman still engaging in a breach of contract? Is she culpable for it if she is?
mai, glad to see someone else brought up the fact that not everyone has a monogamous relationship and that being married and having an outside other relationship isn't automatically cheating.
posted by INTPLibrarian at 9:32 AM on June 17, 2005
My quick summarized opinion on the matter (followed by random responses to comments): Being the other woman is not nice. It's not a good idea if you're looking for a long-term lasting relationship. But it's not immoral, either.
It is immoral if you have a previous relationship with the person's spouse. Someone asked "Why does knowing the spouse make it not okay? Why is it okay to do something to a stranger that you wouldn't do to a best friend, or a sister?" and I thought that was well answered by ROU_Xenophobe.
Huh? I'm not doubting you but... such as what?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to sell cigarettes to a minor, but not illegal for the minor to have bought them. I'm not positive about that and I'm not sure how to use that analogy in this discussion, but there you go anyway.
You're still engaging in a breach of contract (which the husband could not do by himself).
What if the husband doesn't tell the other woman that he's married? Is the other woman still engaging in a breach of contract? Is she culpable for it if she is?
mai, glad to see someone else brought up the fact that not everyone has a monogamous relationship and that being married and having an outside other relationship isn't automatically cheating.
posted by INTPLibrarian at 9:32 AM on June 17, 2005
My father was married when he knocked my mom up with me; he left his wife, married my mom, and they've been inseparable for 40 years.
posted by nicwolff at 10:06 AM on June 17, 2005
posted by nicwolff at 10:06 AM on June 17, 2005
the ends don't justify the means nic. That's the point that a lot of people are making.
posted by dness2 at 10:29 AM on June 17, 2005
posted by dness2 at 10:29 AM on June 17, 2005
My father was married when he knocked my mom up with me; he left his wife, married my mom, and they've been inseparable for 40 years.
My father was married when he knocked my mom up with me, too; he's on #4 now :).
posted by mdn at 10:52 AM on June 17, 2005
My father was married when he knocked my mom up with me, too; he's on #4 now :).
posted by mdn at 10:52 AM on June 17, 2005
once again, how can only one side be at fault?
By only one violating a promise. If I take a solemn oath not to drink booze, but the bartender sells me a whiskey, nobody on God's green earth but me has broken my promise. If I didn't think I could withstand the inevitable temptations that arise from living life, then I shouldn't have made the stinkin' promise.
it takes two!. As I said above, you're both cheating "on" the wife
No, only the husband is (unless the Other Woman had somehow explicitly or implicitly promised, yadda yadda). The other woman is just having sex with a willing partner, though she's probably kind of dumb for doing so in these circumstances unless she just wants a fling.
You're still engaging in a breach of contract (which the husband could not do by himself).
The breach occured purely as a result of the husband's action. As far as I am concerned, it's broken when he propositions someone, or even just sits down and knows that he's going to, or knows that he will say "Yes" if asked to; at any of these points, he is an adulterer, but a thwarted one. Penetration need not occur.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:11 AM on June 17, 2005
By only one violating a promise. If I take a solemn oath not to drink booze, but the bartender sells me a whiskey, nobody on God's green earth but me has broken my promise. If I didn't think I could withstand the inevitable temptations that arise from living life, then I shouldn't have made the stinkin' promise.
it takes two!. As I said above, you're both cheating "on" the wife
No, only the husband is (unless the Other Woman had somehow explicitly or implicitly promised, yadda yadda). The other woman is just having sex with a willing partner, though she's probably kind of dumb for doing so in these circumstances unless she just wants a fling.
You're still engaging in a breach of contract (which the husband could not do by himself).
The breach occured purely as a result of the husband's action. As far as I am concerned, it's broken when he propositions someone, or even just sits down and knows that he's going to, or knows that he will say "Yes" if asked to; at any of these points, he is an adulterer, but a thwarted one. Penetration need not occur.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:11 AM on June 17, 2005
It's condoning the violation of promises that is wrong.
An honorable husband would resolve the bad or unsatisfying marriage before engaging in another relationship.
An honorable "other woman" would not let a relationship progress to the point of an affair before the marriage is dissolved.
The dishonored wife has the most serious beef with the husband, who is the direct source of her being disrespected, and the right to be scornful of the other woman, who is just not being a good or mature person.
How the husband and other woman conduct their lives later, when they may or may not have grown as people, is irrelevant to what they did during this period. Many decent people did screwed up things when they were younger. But being decent and honorable now doesn't mean first marriage affairs aren't screwed up things to have done.
posted by dness2 at 12:19 PM on June 17, 2005 [1 favorite]
An honorable husband would resolve the bad or unsatisfying marriage before engaging in another relationship.
An honorable "other woman" would not let a relationship progress to the point of an affair before the marriage is dissolved.
The dishonored wife has the most serious beef with the husband, who is the direct source of her being disrespected, and the right to be scornful of the other woman, who is just not being a good or mature person.
How the husband and other woman conduct their lives later, when they may or may not have grown as people, is irrelevant to what they did during this period. Many decent people did screwed up things when they were younger. But being decent and honorable now doesn't mean first marriage affairs aren't screwed up things to have done.
posted by dness2 at 12:19 PM on June 17, 2005 [1 favorite]
"What god hath joined here today, let no man set asunder". Sorry about the waspy, religiousy quote, but it was what immediately came to mind.
There are two (2!) social contracts implicit in the institution of marriage. (1) between the individuals to love, honor obey and whatever and (2) between the couple and others ("the other man") in their community not to put the marriage at risk.
The above quoted statement comes from the institution that had a virtual monopoly on the sanctioning of marriages in the west for the last couple hundred years. Marriages have always been conspicuously public affairs because the public is involved in the social contract. Even taken from a secular point of view, it's pretty compelling evidence that this second covenant was accepted by society at large for a long time.
posted by klarck at 12:29 PM on June 17, 2005 [1 favorite]
There are two (2!) social contracts implicit in the institution of marriage. (1) between the individuals to love, honor obey and whatever and (2) between the couple and others ("the other man") in their community not to put the marriage at risk.
The above quoted statement comes from the institution that had a virtual monopoly on the sanctioning of marriages in the west for the last couple hundred years. Marriages have always been conspicuously public affairs because the public is involved in the social contract. Even taken from a secular point of view, it's pretty compelling evidence that this second covenant was accepted by society at large for a long time.
posted by klarck at 12:29 PM on June 17, 2005 [1 favorite]
It's wrong.
If the "other woman" knows (as Amber Frey did not) that the object of her affections is otherwise engaged, she should back off and let the man disentangle himself first.
posted by deborah at 1:01 PM on June 17, 2005
If the "other woman" knows (as Amber Frey did not) that the object of her affections is otherwise engaged, she should back off and let the man disentangle himself first.
posted by deborah at 1:01 PM on June 17, 2005
I was struggling with something like this myself recently. In this case, being "the other man."
I recently re-connected with this girl that I knew from 8 years ago. I had a huge crush on her then. And, she hasn't changed much since then. She is still beautiful. When I am near her, I can feel the heat, the flush in my skin.
What has changed is - she is now married. Also, its clear that she is a bit bored in her marriage. She enjoys seeing me and goes out of her way to speak to me or see me if I am around. She likes me a lot but I don't think she has quite faced that at a conscious level. It's pretty clear to me (I'll spare details) that I could take this farther.
That said, let me say this: I don't fool around with married women. I will not be a party to the breakup of a marriage. Why? I think a marriage is a beautiful thing and I dont want to be responsible for its destruction. Maybe her and her husband are just going through a rough patch, things will get better, and they will be happier than ever. But, that would not happen if I pull her away. In short:
There are many people in this life that will make you happy, there are many roads to happiness in this life. Try to find one that does not cause others great pain. To do anything less is, I believe, to act immorally.
Sure, there are all sorts of exceptions. And, in fact, things may turn out well for everybody. Perhaps the "cheated on" spouse will go on to find someone more suitable for themselves. But, unless you know this to be true, then it is all just wishful thinking and a selfish grab at "what your heart desires" and damn the consequences. If thats what you're going to do then do it. We can't stop you but don't expect us also to absolve your conscience.
posted by vacapinta at 1:44 PM on June 17, 2005 [10 favorites]
I recently re-connected with this girl that I knew from 8 years ago. I had a huge crush on her then. And, she hasn't changed much since then. She is still beautiful. When I am near her, I can feel the heat, the flush in my skin.
What has changed is - she is now married. Also, its clear that she is a bit bored in her marriage. She enjoys seeing me and goes out of her way to speak to me or see me if I am around. She likes me a lot but I don't think she has quite faced that at a conscious level. It's pretty clear to me (I'll spare details) that I could take this farther.
That said, let me say this: I don't fool around with married women. I will not be a party to the breakup of a marriage. Why? I think a marriage is a beautiful thing and I dont want to be responsible for its destruction. Maybe her and her husband are just going through a rough patch, things will get better, and they will be happier than ever. But, that would not happen if I pull her away. In short:
There are many people in this life that will make you happy, there are many roads to happiness in this life. Try to find one that does not cause others great pain. To do anything less is, I believe, to act immorally.
Sure, there are all sorts of exceptions. And, in fact, things may turn out well for everybody. Perhaps the "cheated on" spouse will go on to find someone more suitable for themselves. But, unless you know this to be true, then it is all just wishful thinking and a selfish grab at "what your heart desires" and damn the consequences. If thats what you're going to do then do it. We can't stop you but don't expect us also to absolve your conscience.
posted by vacapinta at 1:44 PM on June 17, 2005 [10 favorites]
DecemberRaine: I'm sorry if I was unclear, I didn't say that women who believe cheating men are naïve, quite the opposite, I believe they use cognitive dissonance to allow themselves to believe what they know is untrue. Once again, I'm only speaking of what I've seen, unfortunately, alot of.
By the way, if this were my thread I would have marked Andrew Cooke's answer as best.
By the way, apparently, Adrober is a man (if s/he isn't lying on the profile page), what gives Adam? :)
posted by sic at 1:50 PM on June 17, 2005
By the way, if this were my thread I would have marked Andrew Cooke's answer as best.
By the way, apparently, Adrober is a man (if s/he isn't lying on the profile page), what gives Adam? :)
posted by sic at 1:50 PM on June 17, 2005
Vacapinta's last comment would have also been "best answered" if this were my thread!
posted by sic at 1:53 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by sic at 1:53 PM on June 17, 2005
Vacapinta proves yet again that he's waaaaay smarter than I am....
posted by clever sheep at 2:30 PM on June 17, 2005
posted by clever sheep at 2:30 PM on June 17, 2005
In the end, nobody has an ethical responsibility to stay in a relationship that does not fulfill them.Marriage vows don't include a conditional fulfillment clause.
posted by cribcage at 2:34 PM on June 17, 2005
vacapinta: word.
I always feel that when people ask this question or try to seek justification for having an affair, they are, at some level, seeking absolution from others. They know, deep down, that it is simply not OK to move in on someone else's partner. No, not even if that someone else is willing. There are three people involved in this, not two.
I always wish that one day it happens to them. Because for so many people it seems that this is the only way they can really understand why it is wrong: when they have that pain inflicted on them by their partner and another "other man/woman". They need to experience how it feels when that other man/woman says how hopelessly, helplessly compelled they are by love for their partner. They need to feel that twisting ache in the guts when they see the phrase "All's fair in love and war". Then they'll know.
posted by Decani at 8:00 AM on June 18, 2005
I always feel that when people ask this question or try to seek justification for having an affair, they are, at some level, seeking absolution from others. They know, deep down, that it is simply not OK to move in on someone else's partner. No, not even if that someone else is willing. There are three people involved in this, not two.
I always wish that one day it happens to them. Because for so many people it seems that this is the only way they can really understand why it is wrong: when they have that pain inflicted on them by their partner and another "other man/woman". They need to experience how it feels when that other man/woman says how hopelessly, helplessly compelled they are by love for their partner. They need to feel that twisting ache in the guts when they see the phrase "All's fair in love and war". Then they'll know.
posted by Decani at 8:00 AM on June 18, 2005
Marriage vows don't include a conditional fulfillment clause.
Indeed. I seem to remember they include phrases like "For richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; for better or for worse; forsaking all others as long as you both shall live."
Too many people seem to think saying these words is just some sort of form ritual you go through in order to wear the fancy clothes and have the big party with your friends and family. No, it's a promise. It means that if things get rough, if you have bad times down the line, you stick it out and you DON'T deal with it by going off with someone else. That's marriage. That's what it means and what it entails. You say that shit, you'd better mean it. Not sure you can mean it? Don't get married.
And yeah, my ex-wife left me for someone else. Can you tell? :-)
posted by Decani at 9:28 AM on June 18, 2005
Indeed. I seem to remember they include phrases like "For richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; for better or for worse; forsaking all others as long as you both shall live."
Too many people seem to think saying these words is just some sort of form ritual you go through in order to wear the fancy clothes and have the big party with your friends and family. No, it's a promise. It means that if things get rough, if you have bad times down the line, you stick it out and you DON'T deal with it by going off with someone else. That's marriage. That's what it means and what it entails. You say that shit, you'd better mean it. Not sure you can mean it? Don't get married.
And yeah, my ex-wife left me for someone else. Can you tell? :-)
posted by Decani at 9:28 AM on June 18, 2005
I would not condemn love (or the people involved) because it happened out of order according to what a large segment claims is proper.
Some people just belong together, like June Carter and Johnny Cash...
Lots of people, however, delude themselves about a situation...
Vacapinta is wise.
[and the poster asked about the moral/ethical implications of being "the other woman"--not about personal guidance... doesn't seem to require a certain set of genitals to ask about the ethics of something, sic]
posted by MightyNez at 8:40 PM on June 22, 2005
Some people just belong together, like June Carter and Johnny Cash...
Lots of people, however, delude themselves about a situation...
Vacapinta is wise.
[and the poster asked about the moral/ethical implications of being "the other woman"--not about personal guidance... doesn't seem to require a certain set of genitals to ask about the ethics of something, sic]
posted by MightyNez at 8:40 PM on June 22, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by agregoli at 2:39 PM on June 16, 2005