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.

There are two arguments here.

One around our sexual gatekeeping. No one here is denying that a cheat is responsible for their actions - absolutely no one. And I agree I’m responsible for my own.

But the other is our moral responsibility as humans not to get involved in actions that hurt others, either intentionally or unintentionally. In the case of infidelity it’s intentional. In the case of infidelity don’t argue no responsibility which for the vast majority makes no sense.

This is the part both of you studiously avoid.

But I’m sure this thread will carry on with the pair of you shouting down anyone who disagrees.

Agree to this. My ex cheating when I was pregnant then again when our son was young was all on him.

In the case of infidelity it’s intentional. In the case of infidelity the argument of ‘no responsibility’ by affair partners to the vast majority makes no sense.

No one here is denying that a cheat is responsible for their actions - absolutely no one.

Yes, they are. They deny it, of course. But when you deem an OW "just as bad" and "partly to blame", and the level of vitriol far exceeds that aimed at married cheating men - and it always does, in the number of threads and paragraphs and the kind of language used - then actually, you are indeed claiming that a cheat not only isn't solely responsible, but less responsible.

And married men are laughing. And cheating.

Dismissing any counter argument as "shouting down" is just lazy.

Thank you for this sensible answer. I have never been the OW, nor do I intend to be, but if I am single and get with someone's husband, especially if I don't know that he is married, that's on him, not me.

Why is it that some women on here try so desperately hard to blame the woman (instead of the man in this case) for every situation? He is the cheater, therefore he is 100% in the wrong.

I wonder are there other contracts entered into by other people that I’m supposed to uphold? Is it my responsibility to ensure that others do their job, or is that between them and their employer, ie the parties to the contract? Should I never ring/text a friend during work hours as that may interfere with their work? Or is it up to them to regulate their phone use during work hours? Should I never ask a friend to consider a holiday together lest they somehow be unable to resist, unable to foresee the consequences that spending on a holiday may mean they can’t pay their mortgage next month? Is that my responsibility too or is it between my friend and the lending institution? Last year my friend suggested we go on a last-minute holiday, I would have loved to do so and ordinarily would have jumped at the chance but at that particular time I was financially stressed and spending on the holiday would have meant I couldn’t meet other financial obligations. So I said no. The onus of saying no was all on me. My friend was not wrong to make the suggestion, the responsibility to decline was all on me.

I think the point a number of posters have already tried to make is that many people believe in a moral or social contract, not a legal one.

You're not legally obliged to not tell someone that you think they're ugly, or stupid, or boring. But most of us don't do that, because it would be wrong and cruel to cause someone unnecessary pain.

Just because you haven't signed a contract vowing not to, most people would understand that it's not right to behave that way.

This is pretty similar to the categorical imperative or golden rule. The idea that you should only behave in a way which would be fine if everyone did the same as you, all the time.

It's kind of the basis of society.

But no, of course you're not legally bound not to do things that are avoidable and cause harm.

And you can reject the moral contract too if you want to, and pursue whatever you want regardless of the consequential damage and pain. But it is worth thinking about what life would be like if everyone, always, behaved in that way.

I sort-of agree, OP.

I've never been married but I had a boyfriend who slept with another woman while we were together. This woman knew that my boyfriend and I were together.

I think anyone who knowingly sleeps with someone else's partner is a shitty person, but thinking the OW is a shitty person and still blaming my boyfriend as the one responsible for my pain are not mutually exclusive. She did a horrible thing by sleeping with my boyfriend knowing that it would hurt me, but my boyfriend was the one who made the commitment to me. He was the one who should have taken responsibility and considered the relationship between him and I, it should have been the case that the OW could have been throwing herself at him and he should still have said "no, I have a girlfriend, I am not interested" and walked away.

Shitty people will do shitty things and there will always be someone willing to sleep with someone else's partner - I categorise these sorts of people alongside those who shoplift, bully people etc, just the sort of people who are okay with doing things that they know will harm someone else in whatever way, and I know and accept that these people exist and are out there.

What I don't do, is hold the OW as the one responsible for the cheating and the subsequent breakdown of the relationship. The person in the relationship is the one who is supposed to turn down advances and in my case he did not. He is therefore the one I felt the most anger towards, the one that caused me the pain, the one who broke my trust. I don't like OW as she knowingly stabbed me in the back, but she wouldn't have been able to do so if the person I was in an exclusive relationship with hadn't allowed for the cheating to happen. I hold him responsible.

I think the point a number of posters have already tried to make is that many people believe in a moral or social contract, not a legal one.

And why do they have the right to impose that contract on others who don't believe it? Consensual adult sex is not a crime. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. It is wrong only when someone involved is breaking a contract contract they've made elsewhere - and that's on them.

I can make any demands on anyone if I just inform them they've entered a moral contract with me by default.

You're not legally obliged to not tell someone that you think they're ugly, or stupid, or boring.

Silly comparison. That's an active interaction with someone with the sole purpose of doing them harm. There is nothing inherently wrong with an unattached adult having consensual adult sex.

And you can reject the moral contract too if you want to, and pursue whatever you want regardless of the consequential damage and pain.

As long as everyone who has actually made a contract adheres to it, your rejection of it won't do squat because none of them will have you.

I ask again: are YOU not solely responsible for your own promises? If you strayed, would you attempt to pin any of it on the OM by claiming he had broken a social contract? Do you consider him your sexual gatekeeper?

@ReneBumsWombats you've made it very clear what you think. Not everyone agrees with you.

I was responding to a different poster and offering an alternative perspective, that a tenet of much social and moral philosophy is that we should all behave in a way that we believe would be good for society if everyone did it.

Or alternatively, on a more emotional and less theoretical level, that as human beings we should try not to do things that cause people pain and harm unnecessarily.

Some of us feel that we owe that to other people generally, as an inherent obligation. You don't believe in that. Fine. That's your prerogative.

Others feel differently, and no amount of shouting about how you're not legally responsible for someone else's happiness changes that.

Whatever happened to morals?

you've made it very clear what you think. Not everyone agrees with you.

Yes, I know. The same is true of you and every other person on the thread.

I was responding to a different poster and offering an alternative perspective

It's a public forum. If you don't want anyone else reading and replying, use PM.

Or alternatively, on a more emotional and less theoretical level, that as human beings we should try not to do things that cause people pain and harm unnecessarily. Some of us feel that we owe that to other people generally, as an inherent obligation. You don't believe in that. Fine. That's your prerogative.

I have to assume that this is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position, because the alternative is that it's just an unintelligent, oversimplified and moralistic one.

I do not believe you can unilaterally impose "moral contracts" upon people in order to dilute your husband's responsibility. You're attempting to imply by this that I am in favour of harming people and, by implication, that I'd be happy to be an OW (God, it's old). In fact I am in favour of holding people responsible for their own commitments, and indeed if they do this, all is well. If I didn't give a shit about harming people, I'd be defending cheaters....which, ironically, you are closer to doing by insisting they're not solely responsible.

shouting

I'm not shouting, I'm typing. I'm probably doing it faster than you but that's just my talent. I'm afraid that being a fast typer doesn't make me wrong.

I didn't say or imply you were an OW. Nor that you shouldn't respond to me.

Also I haven't been cheated on, and I do hold my partner entirely responsible for keeping their promises to me.

I think the way I feel about it is there are three separate relationships. One is between A and B - the people who are officially together. That might be a legal or religious promise, I.e. marriage, or it might be that you have promised each other not to sleep with anyone else (or whatever). Everyone agrees that the person in the relationship who breaks that promise is responsible for that.

Then there is the affair relationship. Between B and C.

Independently of that, there is a relationship between the affair partner C (om/ow) and the person being cheated on (A)

This is an indirect relationship and might well never result in any direct contact. But the actions of person C will cause person A great pain.

It's a given that person B is a shitty person in this scenario. But i wouldn't want to be person C, I wouldn't want to be the person that colludes with them in being shitty. Because they are also being shitty.

Of course they will find someone else to do it, and no, of course A and B's relationship isn't my responsibility, but I am responsible for my relationship with A, just as one human being to another not wanting to do something that will hurt someone who's never damaged me.

The moral contract is not something specific to this scenario, it's a universal principle, and as I've said repeatedly, if you don't subscribe to it, that's totally your prerogative. Clearly many people don't. Politics, playgrounds and prisons are clear enough examples of that.

I think there are many women who blame the other woman more than their DH, and that doesn't make sense as DH is the one with the commitment. I think being upset at the other woman is fair as someone knowingly being involved with someone in a committed relationship is morally questionable at the very least. Other woman's role isn't not as bad as betraying partner but is still bad

I didn't say or imply you were an OW. Nor that you shouldn't respond to me.

Yes, you very much implied both. But never mind. People always do.

I do hold my partner entirely responsible for keeping their promises to me.

Followed by seven paragraphs about why you don't. Naturally, your long posts aren't "shouting"!

But anyway. Why, if your husband really is solely responsible, do we need seven paragraphs about indirect relationships and whatnot?

If you did cheat on him (I know you wouldn't), would you consider that entirely on you, as the spouse? Or would you wax lyrical about indirect relationships and moral contracts, effectively diluting your own responsibility and pinning some of it on the OM?

Why would anyone who completely owns their own promises do that?

I'll get flamed for this but the main reason OW are held accountable by other women is because in not recognising their part in enabling a man's shitty behaviour towards another female they are effectively a proactive abuse apologist. Men will always abuse women and using the OW is just an extension of that. If the OW is aware at any point and even so much as doubts him when he tells her his wife is 'mean and let herself go' then the OW's failure to behave in the interests of the wife are abuse apologist behaviour. They're essentially saying that them benefitting from the situation outweighs their moral duty to do something about it. Being a part of the man's lies and deceit of his wife and his children also condones his abusive behaviour. The fact is OW do not care, they are not nice people.

they are effectively a proactive abuse apologist

If this is true, then blaming the OW for the man's cheating is surely the ultimate in abuse apologism. You say the OW don't care....if a married man doesn't give a shit about his family, why are you expecting a stranger to care more?

At any rate, women are getting blamed for men's shittiness. The world continues being round.

I agree with this, but would add the additional element that a woman can be in denial and faced with the prospect of losing her partner and relationship, it's sometimes easier for her to believe that her poor, defenseless, innocent DH was lured away by the nasty, tempting woman with poor morals. Men will often play this card, which is rooted in misogyny, to place the responsibility of their own actions onto the OW. By implying that they were simply an unwilling passenger who was swept up by the OW's irresistible actions, he was unwittingly lured away from his relationship and into the path of unfaithfulness.

This is, obviously, bullshit. The OW can't be a nice person because she is willing to sleep with a married man, that much is true, but the married man being willing to sleep with the OW is the reason harm is being caused to the man's wife. The man has the responsibility to remain faithful and if he doesn't and is then caught, often the responsibility is pushed to the OW by the man in the first instance, which is then believed by the woman as it's easier than admitting that her partner made the decision to cheat on her all by himself.

It's the same sort of argument as "well why did you wear something that skimpy if you didn't want to be groped, you know what some men are like!" It insists that men are just beings with no real control over their actions and no responsibility over their though processes, which can be tempted and swayed by the immoral actions of women. It's a deeply misogynistic outlook which puts the responsibility and blame for men's actions at the feet of women, rather than firmly at the feet of the men who make these decisions.

Completely agree.

Your defensiveness over OW like they're a protected minority is disturbing. I am saying both the man and OW are wrong and my reasoning as to why is very clear. How can you argue that the OW KNOWING that when she's with a married man he is lying to his wife and children is not in any way complicit in causing the inevitable hurt when they find out? And knowing his actions are wrongful but still meeting him and spending time in his company, ignoring the hurt he is causing and abuse of his family is very much abuse apologist behaviour. It isn't a matter of having a different perspective, it is what it is. I always find it odd a woman bold enough to date a married man isn't big enough to stand by their choices and tries to say they have done nothing wrong. An ex friend of mine was seeing a man who had a pregnant wife. His eventual excuse was that ex friend was a personal trainer and his pregnant wife had let herself go. She actually repeated this to me when I questioned wtaf she was doing and seemed disturbingly.proud of herself for being given the prize title. We stopped being friends, his wife found out and was absolutely broken, living off of complan and moved back in with parents whilst he was posting week after week on his Instagram that he and OW were on yet another weekend away. Eventually after a year he cheated on her with one of her sisters and now she, too is in a bad place. She only accepts now according to another friend that she was bloody horrible to his ex wife and deep down she knew all along the ex wife wasn't who he was painting her to be. Funny how now she hates the married man she has this insight. The man got away with all of this because of how he moved all women involved around like chess pieces on a chess board to benefit his life wants at the time. If ex friend had realised how revolting she was being at the time in smugly proclaiming she was essentially more entitled to a relationship with this man than his PREGNANT WIFE because she had a better figure and challenged him on how he was abusing his wife, playing into the narrative that women are in competition with each other and the value is in our bodies and physical appearance, then she could have challenged him on it. But no, her desire to be wanted and picked outweighed her moral duty even though she knew that another woman's life was being destroyed in the process. I also think of the new born baby, who she gave birth to alone believing her partner was away with work whilst ex friend was infact with him and she KNEW his wife was in labour. How can you defend that?

What's disturbing is your belief that holding a man entirely responsible for being a shit equates to defending affairs. That if you can't blame the unattached, uncommitted OW, you're not blaming anyone at all.

If you can't see how misogynistic and arse about fave that is, well...you're in good company, I guess. But watch out for shitty men. They are very much drawn to women who blame other women for their own shittiness. They love them.

I think you're trying very hard to use feminism and misogyny to establish your argument. If everyone thought the way you did, women would be more pathetic than ever. Completely blameless with no expectation of integrity from them. You think you're being clever but you sound so stupid. If you want equality get rid of your outdated concepts that women have always been undermined blah blah blah so now can shit on eachother.

I hold the person in the relationship 100% responsible for breaking their promises. I hold the other person responsible for choosing to do something that causes pain to another human being. It doesn't in any way reduce the blame that falls on the person in the relationship.

I grew up with one serially unfaithful parent. Seen the fallout. My partner knows that if he cheated, there would be no attempt to rebuild or counselling or forgiveness or working on the marriage etc.

And in practice I wouldn't care who the other party was, unless it was someone who knew me personally and was choosing to betray that friendship between us.

I'm still allowed to believe, as I do, that it's wrong to be the third party in this scenario. I wouldn't do it because I believe it's morally wrong.

Incidentally, I really was not implying that you are the ow. I've read your very impassioned posts and you have stated very clearly, over and over again, that you are not. I believe you, which is why I was trying to have the discussion in more theoretical terms.

I genuinely don't understand why this is so important to you, but it is obviously not for that reason.

If you think that I was implying it, I wasn't, so maybe it's not the case that people always do?

I hold the other person responsible for choosing to do something that causes pain to another human being. It doesn't in any way reduce the blame that falls on the person in the relationship.

Yes it does. Because it makes them responsible for the promise. The promise is the only reason the affair was illicit.

No pain was caused by the OW having sex. The pain was caused by the MM having sex.

It's. On. Him.

And if you really do believe that, there is no reason to say anything more.

Your posts, like many on this subject, are full of contradiction. You can say you're not blaming the OW, or holding her responsible, but that doesn't change the fact that you are.