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.

The married men who have shown interest in me were definitely the pursuers. I didn't find it hard to rebuff them but if they came back saying the next one had just pursued them and ground down their resistance etc etc...hahaha.

Wouldn't make a difference even if it were true anyway. You made a covenant, you guard it. The only reason you made it in the first place was because you knew what the world out there was like and what you needed to guard against if you chose to close it off. There'd be no need for promises and commitments otherwise.

All these OWs- you can't be very well liked if you're just having sex with men with no conscience, who would want to be your friend?

You think OW are all completely socially isolated and hated?

Well if that's true, it's not hard to see why they accept married men. Why wouldn't you, if you'll have nobody when you end it? If you've got no support outside of the affair? If everyone hates you and you're already such an irredeemable turd, why not carry on the affair? Why not have more of them? Why not kick some puppies too? What have you got to lose?

I don't think they're all stupid enough to admit but who wants to be friends with someone who would potentially flirt with or even fuck your husband because 'I don't owe you anything, I made no vows to you.' Sound a bit twattish and lacking in empathy.

Dam right men are the pursers. You can see some are not willing to accept this. I've had patients try and offer me business cards with their "number on claiming we can be friends". I swiftly declined and asked him if his daughter and wife would be visiting him..... I've also been out shopping in Next...man with his family eyeing me up right in front of his own wife and kids whilst I was with my own child.

I can assure you I wasn't "luring" around Next 🤣🤣

You have an incredibly simplistic view of all this, but that's not surprising on here.

Of course some people will choose not to be friends with an OW. We've heard from some of them on here. But plenty of others will. They may think it's not their business, they may not judge and define her solely on the affair, they may think she's a wonderful person acting out of character, they may not think it matters (like I said, some people don't see marriage as any reason to restrict one's sexuality).

They may also not think that her shagging Paul means she's indiscriminate in her shagging - or that their husband has decided he's next.

Once again, though...Where's the social penalty for the actual promise breakers here?

Its only on MN that people ostracise people who have affairs. In RL, most people might vaguely disapprove, but don't feel the need to fall out with amyone. People are friends with people who are fun, good company and interesting, and who are supportive and good to THEM. Few people would see an isolated piece of behaviour they disagreed with as a reason to dump a good friend. Given none of us are perfect, most of us tend to overlook the faults in others.

I think anyone sleeping with someone they know is married is a twat of the first degree.

I think the partner who has the affair is the fucking devil. The betrayal ultimately lies with the partner, not the affairee.

A very good friend of mine had an affair, I'm friends with both her and her partner. The "affair partner" is an acquaintance too but no longer someone I speak to.

The affair was a few years ago and they chose to stay together, but it did affect my feelings towards her. Her partner was devastated and, even now, struggles with the hurt. It's hard to watch how much it's changed the partner. Both women in this case.

On the end , they made a choice to stay together. I wouldn't have. Both my friend and the OW in this case did a bad thing, although the person in the relationship is ultimately responsible. The OW, she was a friend of theirs so did owe them not to do that.

Yeah, whatever those who who want to justify will have an answer for anything. People don't want to be friends with those who brag about sleeping with married men. Too bad, you can't have it all.

Faulty logic.

I knew a guy who had done time in prison for killing someone. Came out of a club drunk and high on coke, started on an innocent man outside, kicked his head in.

The guy was charming and likeable. Do you really think most people would be like "ah well, he made a mistake, but we all make mistakes and he's good fun down the pub?"

People are their behaviour. Some of us have morals and boundaries that make it unthinkable to be the OW or kill someone or hurt someone, and some of us don't. Some people are just bad people. And knowingly dating a married man and contributing to hurting his wife/family makes you a bad person. It really isn't that nuanced. Your behaviour is showing that you are a dishonest, selfish person who can't be trusted and who will put yourself ahead of others at all times and will trample over them if it gets you what you want. Who would want that as a friend?

Tbh a lot of women would be the ow in the right circumstances. I never have been nor would want to be but as a single mum I do suffer from some of the school mums being worried about me around their (usually wholly unexceptional dh) as if because I’m single I will be desperately trying to steal their man. Given that I’m happily single and have high standards they should be more worried about the married women imo. Or alternatively they should have married someone they could trust.

the trope of the wicked other woman tempting away the poor man is deeply misogynist. no one is responsible for your dh behavior except your dh.

The reason people say that the OW 'owes nothing' is because she so often gets ALL the blame. The wicked seductress - the witch etc.

The husband is the betrayer. He is the one who has wronged his wife.

He was not caught/trapped/tricked/honey-ed or whatever. He is an adult who CHOSE to lie/cheat/betray his wife and family.

He is the bastard who deserves the blame.
The wife - who loves him - finds this hard to accept.

The OW's part is not as straightforward.
If the OW knows the woman and knows the man is married - then yes, she is at fault too and she has treated the wife unfairly. She has stepped over a line of good behaviour in society. She is in the wrong. She has been selfish and careless of the feelings of the betrayer's family and of his wife. She is not the betrayer herself though. (Unless a friend of the wife) She made no promises and has broken no vows.

In most cases though - the OW does not know about the wife/family or only knows of or about them through a man keen on her... and willing to present his family as 'out of the picture' and his wife as part of his past. (Men seem to be good at picking young women who don't know much about marriage - or the responsibilities of parents - or the lies they are likely to be told by sex-motivated men!)

As someone who has seen the impact of someone killed in a drunken attack, and who has also many years ago, been cheated on, I can assure you that while it lends itself to the hyperbole around this subject, there is literally no comparison between the two.
An affair breaks a relationship, but only those where the married party is not really worth having. Your scenario takes the life of someone's loved one.
Take it from me, there is wide world of difference between a woman contributing to the 'loss' to another woman of some weak lying man, and the loss to a woman caused by the death of her son, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Its entirely possible to tolerate the first in a friend but not the second.

I'm not saying they're comparable. I'm saying that both are situations where the person involved is a shit person. They might be funny, charming, a good laugh, but ultimately they're not a good person, are they?

I would not want a close female friend who has cheated on her partner or been an affair partner. They have demonstrated that they are prepared to lie and hurt to get what they want, that their own gratification comes ahead of other people's feelings and lives. To me, it doesn't matter how fun they are or how superficially nice they seem, because I would never be able to trust them.

I'm not saying they're comparable. I'm saying that both are situations where the person involved is a shit person. They might be funny, charming, a good laugh, but ultimately they're not a good person, are they?

In other words, that they're comparable. You literally compared them, said they're not comparable, then compared them again.

Once someone has equated a consensual adult sexual encounter, however illicit, to murder, it's pointless trying to reason with them.

I'll also add that, for all the invective about how evil and unworthy the OW is, if you equate an affair with murder then I'm not going to set much score by your much vaunted moral compass. If it can't recognise that the world isn't divided into good deeds and the worst possible evil, it's pretty shonky.

What is it with the lack of basic logic on here?

They're not comparable as crimes, as in obviously one is much worse than the other, yes. But that's not what we're talking about, is it? I'm not equating the two situations in terms of how serious the wrongdoing was, or how bad the consequences were. We're talking about how someone who has done something really, really horrible can still be an outwardly nice, charming person. That was what my example was supposed to show. That even an actual murderer can be 'nice' and 'fun'. Nothing more.

I was actually considering adding a sentence about how they obviously weren't comparable as crimes, but thought it would be patronising because it's so blindingly obvious. Obviously overestimated you.

Except I didn't equate the two, did I? You did. You made up a story in your own little brain instead of reading what's on the screen. Which was an example of how someone who commits the most serious, heinous crime can still be charming and nice, the point being that morality doesn't equate to how pleasant and likeable someone is.

I wish I could live in a world without neurotypicals in it. It's so tiresome having to spell out the most basic links between things.

@LiesDoNotBecomeUs well put

This is terrible. How do you know the school mums feel that way about you?

Yes you did equate the two. Explicitly. The only story I am going on is the one you told. This one:

"I knew a guy who had done time in prison for killing someone. Came out of a club drunk and high on coke, started on an innocent man outside, kicked his head in."

On a thread about affairs. Relevant, you think.

Then you added:

"People are their behaviour. Some of us have morals and boundaries that make it unthinkable to be the OW or kill someone or hurt someone, and some of us don't."

You couldn't get a more direct comparison than that. Same sentence. Same clause. Same point. Same self-congratulation. (Why do so many people think it's such a big moral score not to have affairs? Isn't that what you're supposed to do? Why does anyone think they deserve a medal for it?)

The fact that you went on to deny that you'd
made the comparison doesn't change the fact that you did, in fact, make the comparison. You've already offended one person who has experience of both infidelity and knowing someone who was killed by a drunk person. But that doesn't seem to matter. You could reconsider your thought process, perhaps realise you made a false equivalence that doesn't help your case, and think of a different one. But you'd rather deny it, despite the words being plain on the page, and then try to insult me for pointing it out.

I can see why you hate OW so much if you think they are equivalent to killers. Your thoughts on married men remain less passionately externalised. But for someone with so much invective towards them, you aren't half bad at owning your own actions.

But like I said...if this is the level of your reasoning, no point in discussing it.

@pixie5121

I wish I could live in a world without neurotypicals in it. It's so tiresome having to spell out the most basic links between things.

This is a really unfair comment.

As someone ND, your mention of one example (someone who commits murder but can seem good despite doing a bad thing) in a discussion about another (OW who can seem good despite doing a good thing) does seem like a direct, literal comparison.

It's unfair to write off NT people who think so too.

Let alone say you wish they didn't exist.

Yes, it's a comparison in that you can do a shit thing and still be a 'nice' person on the surface. My example illustrates that even someone capable of the most heinous crime can be outwardly likeable, fun and charming. That was literally it. That was my point.

It's not doing what that poster is saying it's doing. It's not equating a murder and having an affair as if the situations themselves are equally bad.

I'm tired of people who jump to conclusions because they lack basic reading comprehension and logic skills, and then accuse me of saying something I never said.

Why are you assuming I'm NT?

We are reading exactly what you said. I'd quote again but I don’t need to. Your whole post is there, explicitly making the connection throughout. It's only after posters pointed out what a terrible false equivalence it was that you started trying to backpedal, deny, insult and assume. You could have just said "eh, yeah, bad example, that."

Even if you were just trying to point out that even killers can be outwardly charming, why is that relevant if you're not trying to draw an equivalent between an outwardly charming OW? You're saying decent people wouldn't sit down with either of them.

It's hyperbole and it's ridiculous.