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.

Speak for yourself.

It’s ridiculous to say OW not to blame because they didn’t take vows.

It’s a horrible and immoral thing to do and blameworthy, like any other bad thing people do.

Both are to blame.

No one is saying she doesn't shoulder any blame. They're saying she's not even close on the blame stakes to the husband who married the person and publicly committed to them.

A man takes a job in a bank and signs a contract with the bank manager promising he won't take anyone into the vault. He is duly trusted with the keys. And then takes someone to the vault, because she asked in a really nice way.

Who broke the contract?

Who should the bank manager go after?

Second scenario: the man hasn't taken anyone to the vault, but only because he hasn't found anyone who wants to go. Yet.

Should he be trusted with the keys?

Is he a good employee? After all, he hasn't taken anyone to the vault!

I'm sorry for anyone who's married to a shit. And no, I'm not an OW and never have been. But I'm not responsible for your shitty husbands. He can't keep it in his pants, he shouldn't have promised you that he would.

Con artist persuades bank employee to take him to the vault and steals the money.

Not to blame as no contract?

Shows how silly these scenarios are. You can be a shit without breaching a contractual obligation.

The laws of theft bind us all. Personal contracts do not.

Should we blame the wife too then because she failed to keep her husband satisfied? After all he wouldn't have had an affair if his wife was keeping him happy. Let's blame everyone for why a man cheats.

She's not more to blame, I don't think OP thought that one through.

it's very common on here to say that the woman is as much to blame and even on this thread there are far more than the OP stating that.

If the woman is particularly vindictive, I think blame can be pretty high but not as a blanket rule.

And yet no one has the chance to be 'vindictive' unless the husbands lets that happen.

The man isn't getting off free, but nobody's mentioning it because nobody is debating that fact.

There's lots of minimising of the man's behaviour on this thread alone, including a delightful take 'if she didn't give him the opportunity, he couldn't do it'.

It's not like the OW is some 'girl's girl' herself given her actions. If she catches a few stray insults, can't say I care.

Well I do find it interesting that there's no equivalent in terms of 'man's man' or any cultural references to 'men's codes'. But we just don't tend to pass the buck to others for women's sexual transgression in the same way. I don't think anyone's objecting to a few insults, but holding the woman to anything like equivalent responsibility is very telling about how we apportion blame in society.

Yes. They're both terrible things to do. It is worse to betray your own partner than to knowingly cause harm and pain to a stranger. But they're both terrible.

So you don't feel any moral responsibility towards other human beings unless you're legally obliged to do so?

Ohhh...but the man often gets off lightly...he gets taken back often and even does it more than once. OW obviously is highly skilled...

No they aren’t however adulterous people were once looked upon poorly by society….

No, adulteress women were once looked upon poorly by society, and clearly still are. Adulteress men barely raised an eyebrow, in fact in many societal circles it was the norm and 'sensible women' turned a blind eye. Thankfully attitudes are changing, but the especial vindictiveness directed towards OW is a hangover from these attitudes.

Adulterous not adulteress.

Please don't get me wrong, it is true to say my ex husband was incredibly entitled, and I hold him fully accountable for what he did.... On the OW, you have to understand she's a particular type of woman, extremely insecure, who felt I was outrageous to expect to maintain my role as mother of our child, I should hand over my child and walk off into the sunset so she could have her fairy tale.... when I (obviously) refused her reaction was unbelievable. I still can't believe the shit I had to listen to in court (litigation she funded because i would not respect that they were a ''family''....) ... or her being forcibly refused entry to the court room for our hearings because well, I had nothing to do with her... she just couldn't understand why she wasn't the most important person in the equation. I've never known anyone behave like this..

I just always found it astonishing how anyone could be so obtuse and expect that I react to their affair / the destruction of our family with ''oh ok then, hope you guys are really happy, let me know what I can do to help'' and then spend my life making hers easier.. years down the line she still does... while it upset me back terribly in the day, these days I find it hilarious that she feels I somehow wronged her and owe her something... if anyone had the right to be pissed off I feel it was me.

It's easy to blame the "other woman" because you don't know her in the same way you know your husband. Presumably you see some good points in him, or at least have in the past, otherwise you wouldn't have married him or stayed with him. The "other woman" is often unknown therefore easy to blame.

Think of it as akin to the problems people have with immigrants. Often people despise immigrants as a group - thinking they're coming over here, stealing our jobs, going on benefits, jumping the housing queue and so on. Yet people who have this belief often also know immigrants personally, and see them as having come here legitimately and as being decent members of society.

It's easier to blame or dislike the different or unknown.

I agree with you Pinky. Some people here sound ridiculously stoic but in reality, if it was them, they wouldn't be having a cuppa with the woman who slept with their husband.

Sure, it should be directed at the man. But I get the impression some people have this 'it wouldn't be me' mentality. Well, it could be, and most people have human emotions.

Even if she didn't promise you marriage vows like your husband, there will still be anger there, especially for if she's not even apologetic etc.

@Dotjones it's not the same! You wouldn't be mad if a woman got it on in your bed, not even a little? Because someone like that isn't affording you the same courtesy.

It's comforting to read I'm not the only one who has been on the receiving end of this type of woman.. I'm so sorry for you if you've endured this as well, it's hell, long slow torturous hell. And I agree such women deserve every drop of vitriol directed at them.

The damage this does to the children involved is unforgiveable.

It's like blaming the chocolate for me eating it. Oh, it was so tempting, just sitting there all available, so smooth sweet and smelled delicious. Yes, yes, it's totally the chocolate's fault that I succumbed.

This ^. Exactly this wot @WallaceinAnderland said.

And yes I do sometimes blame the chocolate. I leave it in the shop, I hide it in the freezer and in a plain envelope. But as an adult human I understand that ultimately I am the only person who can control this.

The buck stops with me.

In the case of cheating within the marriage, only the married partners can control whether adultery takes place.

The thing is, Sarah, in the era before the sexual revolution, female solidarity meant ostracising any female who threatened to undercut the honest price of sex (marriage), just as class solidarity meant ostracising anyone who provided non-union labour. This had some pretty cruel results.
Today we are all supposed to make our own rules and not notice the pain caused by other people’s rules, or lack thereof, because that’s the price of freedom for the individual.

In the case of cheating within the marriage, only the married partners can control whether adultery takes place.

The decision to commit adultery is made by the adulterer themselves, unilaterally. Likewise, the OW has the choice whether she is complicit in committing adultery or whether she chooses not to.... the only party who has no choice is the spouse being cheated on.

Just because you offer me a cup doesn't mean I will drink from it...

Oh this is ridiculous. What people are objecting to is the relentless focus on the OW ( as well attested by this thread even existing) whilst the H gets, at worst, a brief, ‘well of course he’s bad too’ followed by long vitriol against the woman.

Posters are reacting to that, to the blatant sexism of effectively making women ( the OW) body shields for the shit behavior of men to another woman (their wife).

Yes, it’s a reaction to sexism. That doesn’t mean it’s entirely proportionate.

Don’t think ‘female solidarity’ had much to do with it. Men were allowed to get away with whatever while women paid the price, and not just the ‘other women’. If a woman was unmarried she was automatically suspect, doesn’t matter if she was quite happy single. Unmarried mothers were ostracised and forced to give their children up, and if men cheated the wives were considered to be at fault for not keeping him happy at home. Marital rape was legal, and good luck being treated seriously in the workplace. Good luck too if you wanted to leave your husband and support yourself, because you’d be fucked if you wanted your own bank account or, god forbid, a mortgage. Oh, and it wasn’t unusual for wives that cheated, or unhappy wives, to be shoved into mental hospitals to compel them to be more pliable.

what a golden age of morality.

You only have your own lifetime as a frame a reference. By virtue of never actually having had to experience past eras you can romanticise them as much as you like. Outside of asking the Comte de Saint Germain though, I’m not sure it’s possible to get much real insight into their comparative virtues on a personal level.