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.

@pixie5121

I understand that direct an analogy wasn't what you intended to get across, but it was how some people understood based on what you said.

Saying you wish NT people didn't exist was unnecessary and as someone ND myself, it's an unhelpful and divisive thing to say. Your prerogative, of course, but that poster's reading of your post didn't warrant that at all IMO.

Sometimes as ND people (actually as all people in generally, actually) we need to understand that our explanations of things are worded in a way that means the impact is different to our intent.

It doesn't mean the person on the receiving end of it is an arsehole or impatient or unreasonable.

Echoing the comments which have already been said on here saying they aren't equally to blame at all. If dh cheated on me, I probably wouldn't think fondly of the OW/OM, but I don't tend to hate people I've never even met.

As for being friends with someone who I knew had affairs with married people behind their spouses backs...no. Just like I wouldn't be friends with someone who sells drugs or whatever. Just wouldn't be my kind of person.

The only exception is a good friend got into an open relationship type thing where he was joining a couple and then ended up seeing one of them (all three same sex) more than the other and developed feelings for him. It was sort of allowed but he knew lines had become blurred. I understood that and also thought the couple had brought that to their door a bit by looking for more people to join their sexual relationship. A bit much to expect that person to be a robot and never develop any feelings 🤷‍♀️

@pixie5121 There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I fully understand your point that a person can be both outwardly likable, and capable of terrible acts.
My original point, however, was merely that most people can overlook faults in people they like. You have twisted this to a different assertion entirely; namely, that people will overlook ANY fault in someone who is likable. Which is not at all what I said.
Its obvious there are some faults that very few people would overlook, such as murder. However given the thread is about having affairs, I assumed my statement would be received in context.
But, for the avoidance of doubt:
Many people would overlook a person having an affair if they liked them. (Very few would overlook murder. This is because murder is much worse than having an affair.)

But again....no, that's not what I said. Why do you insist on making stuff up and reading things into what I said that just aren't there? It's bizarre.

My point is that you can be an absolutely vile person who does horrific things and still be likeable, charming and fun. No more and no less.

The degree as to which people are willing to overlook the behaviours and actions because the person is 'nice' or 'fun' depends on the person. The guy who killed someone certainly had quite a lot of friends. I personally wouldn't be friends with a woman who'd been the OW.

I may agree with you about the scenario, but can you imagine if someone had written ‘I wish I could live in a world without neurodivergents in it’???
as an autistic person myself I think that’s an utterly disgusting comment to make.

Your point was perfectly clear. And correct.

Making an analogy between two things is not equating them.

That other poster is deliberately pretending not to understand that in order to wind you up and misrepresent what you said.

It's nothing to do with being nt/nd.

@1000Pieces

I think saying they wish neurotypical people didn't exist was taking it pretty far.

They might not say it out loud but their behaviour and treatment of us pretty much confirms that they'd love exactly that.

Aaaaaand again with something I didn't say.

I didn't say they shouldn't exist. I said I wish I could live in another world without NT people in it.

@pixie5121

I think obviously the nuance / tone is lost in translation on here.

As someone ND myself I read it one way but you say your intent was different.

That's not me being disingenuous or manipulating your words / putting them in your mouth.

I simply read your post as saying something different to your intent / didn't realise you didn't specifically mean that.

A bit of understanding both ways is helpful.

People misunderstanding happens. It's not always disingenuous when people read your words in a way you didn't intend them to.

OK, well, now you know my intent.

That's about the fourth or fifth insult I've received on this thread from people insisting I can't be sincere in my posts. It must be because I'm an OW, because I'm not posting in good faith, because I'm making stuff up rather than reading the explicit words in front of me, because I'm pretending to be thick. (I'm not pretending anything, guys. I'm flattered that you think I must be smart.)

The reason I argue this passionately is because I am sick to the back fucking teeth of women being held responsible for shitty and sexually incontinent men. Any argument about holding the OW to blame always descends into sickening misogyny whose equivalent we rarely see directed at the MM. On this thread alone, that they should die, that they're to blame for making it possible for a man to screw, that they're comparable in any way to a killer, that they are inherently demeaned by an affair in a way men are rarely if ever deemed to be. Of course everyone always denies they're doing it, and always has a reason why they're not directing their invective towards the married men. 'Twas ever thus. Nobody ever thinks they're promoting sexist double standards. We are surrounded by misogyny and we inhale and exhale it.

All you people who hold three billion strangers accountable for your husbands: if you had an affair (and yes, I know you wouldn't), would you actually tell your heartbroken husband that it wasn't entirely your fault, you can't be solely blamed, that the OM should share up to half of your accountability?

One reason I take my fidelity so seriously is because, while there might be mitigating circumstances that make it forgivable, if I fail my husband then I don't believe I'll have anyone else to blame. It'll be my doing. Do you not feel the same?

There's always a horrible tone to these discussions that goes beyond being sexually ethical. It's a sense that, as long as you don't shag married men (medal for you?), there can be no level of invective that can itself become wrong. Death wishes, evoking killers, name calling, the rest of it. All in the name of being morally upstanding.

And it's rarely, if ever, directed at married men who break faith. It's one sided, it's misogynistic, it's horrible and it creates an environment that favours faithless men at the cost of women in general.

And I am sick of it.

@ReneBumsWombats but all of that is in your own head.

I think cheaters are vile and I think the people who assist in the cheating are vile, regardless of their gender. I wouldn't date a man who had been a third party in someone else's relationship.

Who is solely blaming the OW for cheating happening?

If you ,as a Women, knowingly shag,have sex,with a married man then you are not a good person.

Why would you take it as a compliment he wants to have sex with you.

Women aim higher in life.

I'm not arguing with you, your horrible false equivalences, your denials and your absolute inability to say "I worded that badly" any more. Go find some ND people to discuss it with. Make sure you can spot them...

@pixie5121

OK, well, now you know my intent.

Yes. And mine was to engage in good faith.

An acknowledgment of the fact sometimes misread your intention (including on this thread) and that therefore perhaps they aren't being disingenuous or putting words in your mouth wouldn't go amiss but hey ho, it's your prerogative to respond however you want.

And it's mine too. So I'll leave it to others to continue the discussion on the thread's topic.

I never agree that people shouldn’t be angry with ow. We’re all owed human decency and that include respecting someone’s marriage. Women who have relationships with married men are not decent human beings imo. I’d hate the pair of them.

I believe women should aim higher than marrying a man who is faithful only because he hasn’t had the opportunity to cheat. Yet lots of women seem to believe this of their husbands and worse, think it’s reasonable. I’d far prefer to be married to a man who wouldn’t cheat even if the most beautiful woman in the world suggested it to him.

Exactly. Isn't this just basic common sense?

But not everyone thinks marriage is an institution worthy of respect 🤷‍♀️ Other peoples marriages are their concern, not mine. Just like their jobs, mortgages, and any other legally binding contracts they’ve chosen to sign. Nothing to do with me. It’s up to them to adhere to the terms of those contracts, not me.

It's not just about 'man being faithful', it's equally shitty to try to get with a partnered man even if he refuses the advances. It's actually not hard.
Just like a man who tried to bed a woman with a boyfriend is inappropriate. Why are people arguing about this? Nobody would like it to be done to them, stop defending poor behaviour.

Let's summarise:
Both parties are somewhat to blame. The husband more, but also the woman for being disrespectful, a hypocrite and probably misogynistic herself. There's no point only blaming the woman because you can't control what she does, but it's still not very nice and quite trashy. There isn't more to it.

The problem I and others have is with the ‘equally shitty’ bit. Surely to goodness people should expect more from their spouses than from random strangers? You know, their spouses who have made promises to them, who have entered into a marriage contract with them?

It seems a bit pointless to argue over whether it's 'equally shitty' or 'quite shitty'. The fact is that it's shitty and most of us wouldn't want either party as a friend.

I don’t agree that it’s pointless at all, given that some women seem to absolve their cheating husbands, stay married to them and heap their invective on the woman, who again, had never promised them anything. Perhaps if more women woke up to the reality, that their cheating spouses should not be tolerated, then these men would start to experience the negative consequences of their behaviour, but as it is many of them get off scotfree because an awful OW tempted him 🙄