To disagree with the statement "the other woman owes you nothing"

[Sarahcoggles]

I see this time and again on MN.
Woman posts that husband is having an affair. She hates the OW and is very angry with her, as well as being angry with husband of course.
Then a load of posters pile in saying she should direct all her anger at husband, as he was the only one who owed her anything. The OW owed her nothing, so she shouldn't be angry with her.

I think that's wrong. We all owe our fellow human beings respect and courtesy. If I bump someone's car in a car park I should leave them a note. I don't owe them anything, I never promised I wouldn't bump into their car, they didn't put their trust in me not to bump into their car , I never promised to pay for any damage that I might do to their car. They don't even know me. But it's still my fault, my carelessness, and common courtesy dictates that I should leave a note and be held accountable.

Why is it perfectly fine to have a relationship with someone else's husband, knowing that you're going to hurt that person, just because they're a stranger and you never promised you wouldn't shag their husband?

Personally I think both parties are equally to blame, just in different ways.

Nobody is responsible for your husband's commitment except for him.

But by "sharing blame" - usually meaning a line about the MM and paragraphs of abuse about the OW - you dilute his responsibility for his own dick and contribute to sexist double standards that prime the world for men to keep cheating and women to be blamed for it. Well done.

The problem with thinking someone owes you, imo, is that you’re entirely dependent on the goodwill of a stranger to agree with that sentiment, and be willing to pay what you believe it owed. If they don’t (and judging by the amount of affairs that happen, there’s no shortage of people that don’t) then it’s not like you can do much about it

Exactly. I feel sorry for people whose relationships are such that instead of being able to trust the person they love and who is supposed to love them, the very person with whom they took vows and made a commitment, they instead rely on thousands upon thousands of strangers to behave according to their moral code and not tempt the poor weak little man. It’s utterly pathetic and so misogynistic.

If your husband is faithful only because all the women he propositions says no, his fidelity isn't worth shit.

Did you miss the post which referenced the bible and spoke about not leading people into temptation?

That’s the simple truth, but it’s an uncomfortable one for many. Much easier to blame the temptress!

Strictly speaking, it's a thread about condemnation of the other woman, 'the adultress', if you will.
I think Jesus was quite clear where he stood on that?

What is "sin" if not an opinion? The bible is a book written centuries ago, passing judgement on human behaviour at a time when women were treated like shit and worth less than cattle. It blows my mind why any woman in this day and age would want to use that as a guide on what is right and wrong. The bible is a book of opinions, not facts.

The more of these threads I see, the more it all just seems to be about women who don't trust their husbands and therefore think their best bet is to rain fire and brimstone upon other women in the hope of scaring them into staying away.

Seriously, you can fucking keep any man who can't be trusted to stay faithful unless women stay away from him. Who wants that? His fidelity isn't a choice and he doesn't want to. He's a dog and your problem isn't other women.

As if we have any problem in society for blaming and shaming women for sex anyway. What planet do people live on that they think women aren't always supposed to be the gatekeepers of sexual morality?

If it wasn't her or him it would probably be someone else. In fact sometimes I think these affair partners are doing a public service. You can see who would cheat on you if given half the chance... in fact I think some folks do that like actually try set-ups to see how faithful their partners are. Maybe I'm cynical but I think a whole lotta men would fail! Can't blame other women/men for that.

Yeah, and take him back while raining hellfire on the one who didn't break your trust.

That kind of deflection lasts only so long in a relationship, but on a societal level, cheating men are laughing.

So many times this! The problem is the husbands!
Are you really happy knowing that he would only be faithful if there was no other temptation? Maybe best moving to a deserted island in that case.

"Doesn't the bible also tell a story of a man whose wife couldn't have children, so he went and got a slave pregnant? I also vaguely remember another one about a man throwing his wife and/or daughter out to a gang of men to be raped because that was less shameful than them raping the males in the house. The bible has done a lot of harm to women. It's not a good book to get morals from."

If you want to recall the above extracts from the bible and then swiftly move to "hence the bible is a load of crap" and then "hence there is literally nothing which should prohibit anyone from adultery including adultery which breaks up families" then that is your prerogative.

A lot of people (men and women) in society would agree with you and do indeed live their lives like that (from moment to moment doing whatever they want/desire irrespective of other people and only observing the black letter of the law when they think they are being watched).

(Presumably you also disregard FilterWash · Today 17:36 and any kind of philosophy of secular humanist philosophers too).

Seeing as all views are valid and welcome - I had a quick look and it seems Hitler was against adultery too because he made it so a man could divorce his wife after they had 4 children together to enable him to marry another woman. You could also divorce your wife after 3 years if she didn't have children to marry another woman. What nice, upstanding morals that Hitler had.

Hurrah for Godwin.

If you trust your husband, what are you worried about?

BadNomad · Today 18:47 it is a spectacularly weird way to work out your own personal code for living by taking random people from history / religious texts and find examples you don't like (sometimes out of context) and then form your own opinion on how to live life on the basis of your whataboutary analysis!

Why bother? Just decide what suits BadNomad · Today 18:47 or feels nicest for BadNomad · Today 18:47 and do that.

The good news about this thread is that (as I say apart from the black letter of the law and even then, only if you are actually caught) the vast majority of society don't give a shit if you go around causing untold pain to multiple people. You won't be penalised for it! Go ahead! No need to justify.

the vast majority of society don't give a shit if you go around causing untold pain to multiple people. You won't be penalised for it! Go ahead! No need to justify.

You can't criminalise being a hurtful arsehole. Life isn't fair; the Bible definitely teaches that. All you can do is remove hurtful people from your life and not be one yourself. Truly awful people don't tend to make supportive friendships and it's usually only a matter of time before they piss off the wrong person and find they have no allies.

The formation of moral codes, and the motivation to subscribe to one, is fairly complex, honestly. Attached is a simplistic overview that may or may not be of interest.

I see it got a bit Iron Age in here with bible. Could at least have gone for Rousseau tbh. Bit more up to date and he’s not a proponent of killing homosexuals or chopping up prostitutes, so that gives a bit more, well, moral authority. By modern western standards, anyway.

Hope that's not aimed at me as I am (quite literally) a former university lecturer in Philosophy 😁

@bubblesbubbles11 because religion is damaging and dangerous has caused so much war and misery on this planet, so you would think people would have more sense than to bring it in to conversations as the reason why they hold certain values. Be religious, I don't care. But for some people, you saying "Jesus says..." is no different to saying "Hitler says..."

For me it would depend if she knew me, if so she'd get both barrels as she'd know we were married, if she didn't, chances are very high he either didn't say he was married or told her we're on a break.

"So many times on here posters say 'karma will get her. He'll cheat on her too' which proves that they think the correct 'punishment' for a cheating man is that he gets to carry on cheating, while a woman pays the price through humiliation."

So good it needed saying twice.

"You can't criminalise being a hurtful arsehole"

At no point did I suggest this. Goodness knows that overcrowded prisons would take on a whole new meaning and level if something as absurd as this was ever seriously mooted in the uk. And in any event the rate of re offending for non moral "offences" is enough for me to believe very confidently that prison would not be enough of a deterrent for the kind of person who is going to cheat.

I do believe that cheating is largely an immutable characteristic of some peoples presonality, i.e. one you get to adulthood, it is highly likely that you will have had some kind of experience/observed directly or indirectly of the fall out from a relationship which involved cheating.

And you are either a person who is open to still go ahead and cheat themselves if the circumstances are right or you are not that type of person. And for that reason the whole idea of the OW being a "temptress" is largely nonsense. Yes the OW might be incredibly flirtatous and accommodating, gullible, flexible, highly sexed or whatever, but it is the fundamental character and personality of the cheating/not cheating spouse which is the real issue.

The more pressing point is along the lines of "can married women expect a level of morality by other women in their day to day conduct in society which would, indirectly, provide some personal comfort to the married woman that they will not be cheated on" and the answer is categorically "no". And that is because society in the uk clearly says the only things you are prohibited from doing are those things which are against the law.

It's sad that so many people lack a basic sense of not wanting to harm each other unnecessarily. Really sad. But the consequences of that go WAY beyond infidelity.

Well yes, although i’m not sure why you needed this thread to realise that. Adultery hasn’t been a crime in the UK since 1857.

overall I’d say it was better that people choose against doing hurtful things because they don’t want to do hurtful things, not because they fear punishment.