Q.E.D. 
By definition, yes, but it’s not the act itself that’s wrong but the fact that a promise was broken to commit it. The person who helps didn’t make any such promise. And no, I don’t think that helping someone who did make it break it, when they’re going to do it without you anyway, is equally wrong. You disagree, obviously. So it goes.
Do you honestly not think that life sometimes presents you with circumstances which you can’t come to a decision about until you’re actually faced with them?
Well, I really don’t understand why you don’t get the double-betrayal thing, but I don’t see much point in my saying it over and over again.
One, see above. Two, I’m just not interested enough to sit here and think up examples.
And No Disguise, I think that was said way back, wasn’t it? That’s how this hijack started.
Yeah. Obviously.
So in a nutshell, it’s okay and morally acceptable to help somebody do something wrong and hurtful to someone else. Something that you haven’t liked having done to you. Something that you found hurtful. But you’ll help someone do it to someone else, because somehow, that’s not wrong.
Gotcha.
Sure, but since you seem so confident that you indeed, would help someone do something wrong and bad to someone else, and that it would be morally okay to help them do this bad thing, I’d think you’d have some inkling of a notion of what the circumstances might be. I mean, I think a lot of people, when pressed, might say something like, “No, I can’t really think of an instance when I would think it was okay to help someone else do something bad and wrong to someone else. But perhaps there could be some extreme example–like if they held my child hostage, or something.”
I am guessing that many people could give an example, like that one above. Or something similar to that. Or, maybe some people would admit that they’ve done something selfish or hurtful things, but they would readily admit that these things were wrong and they were not “okay” things to do.
But to be perfectly blunt, I doubt that too many people, if admitting that they could see themselves helping someone do something hurtful and wrong to someone else, would think that screwing a married person and therefore helping them betray and hurt their spouse was something that they’d consider high up on the list of things that they’d think were okay to do. Especially if they acknowledged that they knew it was going to be hurtful and bad, and that they would be hurt if such a thing were done to them.
Obviously, your opinion differs on this issue.
Well, I don’t get how you can think that it’s perfectly okay to hurt strangers, that it’s perfectly okay to enable someone to hurt someone else, but you’ll draw the line at people you know. As if you think that’s an admirable distinction? Sorry, I’m not seeing it.
But you are so very confident that you would help someone break a business contract or a personal vow, and you are confident that it would be the right thing to do. But you just can’t think of any examples. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
Will men bonk other men’s wives? Of course. Why don’t men call each other a name equivalent to “slut” and distrust each other?
I think I can put this in a different context that will make a bit more sense. Shaw once described [sexual] morality as “the trade unionism of the married.” Yosemitebabe is like a union member telling others they cannot cross her picket lines. ruadh is arguing that she is not a union member, derives no advantage from the union, and is free to cross the lines.
In short if you think of it in the aggregate – as all married women seeking to enjoin all women, married AND single, into protecting their sexual property interest in their husbands – you get a better picture of the situation.
Personally, I don’t see that ruadh is obligated here.
I cheated on my husband when I was married. I felt my marriage was dead and could not be fixed. It was over in all but a legal sense. The person with whom I cheated could see past the shackle, I mean ring, on my finger, and stood by me in some miserable times. I was grateful for him. Obviously I don’t think “cheating” always has to be the evil act of a horrible person.
Yosemite… someone put a link to the “Would you tell about an affair” thread and your answer was as follows:
So by remaining quiet you are “enabling” the guy to continue cheating… even thou you are a “neutral” party. Still since cheating is so horrid… why stay out of it ? The other option of course ratting on the guy… which is interfering like I implied.
So when a married man approaches a woman… she “enables” him as much as you do if you remain silent. In fact less than the “voyeur ratter”… because she is only “enabling” one (or a few) good fucks… The “ratter” stops supposedly the sins of the cheater.
Taking this to extremes means that in your world view people should be "patrolling" others behaviours and ratting on them to avoid STDs and cheated upon spouses. That people DO have business meddling with others lack of faithfullness.
(In the end my personal qualm with your position is putting the “lover” as a ACTIVE participant in a “crime” when in fact the problem is the cheater not the woman who “enables” him. OF course if everyone was super strict about not sleeping with married men… then the married men would just lie anyways… not much difference. Naturally my opinion is that marriage is a silly contract… formalized for societies and economic sake rather than for the couple’s sex life.)
No, that’s not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that there is no honor or anything admirable about helping someone else break a contract, by sneaking and lying to the other party involved in the contract. As I have repeated many times, I think that is a gutless and weasely way to go about it. If someone wants out of a contract, if they are not gutless, they just say so. They don’t sneak around, pretending to keep up the contract, while they are not really keeping it. They don’t ask other people to help them sneak and lie and keep up the facade of upholding a contract they no longer wish to uphold. I don’t believe that the contract should be upheld at any cost. I just think that the other people involved in the contract should be informed that the contract has been broken. So, in a nutshell, I am “pro-honesty” and “anti-gutless weasel.” That’s pretty much it.
Ooh, yes, I forget, Rashak: I did state that if I knew that a cheating husband was very likely going to give his wife an STD, I would rat on him.
Oh my gosh. This makes me such a meddler and a horrible person. I am being so interfering and horrible. I am trying to prevent the husband from spreading an health- or life-threatening disease to his wife. What was I thinking? Why should I want to do that? Why not just stand by, watch him infect his hapless, clueless, innocent wife instead? That’s ever so much better. And if she gets really ill, because she was never informed of her options, I’ll have a warm fuzzy feeling inside that at least I didn’t interfere.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
You will notice on the other thread, the key point was that when it comes to other people’s lives, you never really know what’s going on. Why would I “rat” on someone for doing something that I didn’t even know that they did?
And in the case of merely rebuffing a man who’d made a pass, instead of ratting on him: that’s a non-involvement. Neither advocating nor disapproving. Just staying out of it. The one who rats on the errant husband is trying to “police” him to stop. The one who enables him to cheat (by agreeing to have sex) is helping him to continue to cheat. By doing nothing, the one who does nothing is doing nothing.
I’ll ask the same question that I asked ruadh: are other “contracts” silly as well? What about business contracts? Would you help someone break a business contract? Would you want someone to break a business contract with you? Or does your contempt and aversion towards contracts only involve the marriage contract?
What if the woman just figures that someone else will "provide" sex ? In her mind it doesn't matter if she does or doesn't help the guy out.... he will cheat anyway. Now if ALL women agreed on it... it would be different. So why not have sex then if its practically the same thing as "doing nothing" like you said ?
Sometimes people just feel trapped or in doubt of their relationship... if the cheater is only doing a "trial" cheat to figure if his relationship is worth going on. No need to formally finish his marriage at that moment. People cheat for various reasons... maybe his wife is in the army and serving in Iraq. Why wait ?
As for other contracts... breaking those is a criminal activity... screwing around isn't.I understand that people use this rationale, I just don’t think it holds water.
I never thought that the reasoning, “Well, they are going to do this bad and hurtful thing anyway, so I might as well help them” was particularly compelling.
I also don’t think that it makes much sense to help someone else do something that you wouldn’t want to have done to you. I understand that by not helping a particular person in doing a bad thing, you may not exactly stop them from doing the bad and hurtful thing. But I figured that the principle of the issue–to not knowingly help someone else do something that you wouldn’t want done to you–would be enough to turn some people off. But apparently I was wrong. Apparently some people will admit that yes, when it was done to them it hurt and they didn’t like it, but it still isn’t wrong to help somebody do the same exact hurtful thing to someone else.
That’s what a trial separation is for. Or at the very least, that’s what “Honey, we need to talk” is for. Some sort of clue or hint needs to be given to the other person.
I’m sorry–I don’t think that keeping the partner in the dark is the way to go. Both parties should be up to speed. I don’t think that it is necessary to do the “sneaking and lying but all the while pretending that everything is peachy-keen” routine.
Seriously–would you like to have this done to you? Let’s keep sex out of it–if it was something else, would you like this done to you? Would you like to have someone you trusted pretend that everything was “normal,” but all the while they are sneaking around, breaking some promise or agreement they made with you?
Why not tell her that since he’s fooling around on the homefront, she is free to do the same in Iraq? I’m sure there are many hunky soldiers who would be happy to keep her company. Why not just tell her what’s up, so she won’t feel obligated to keep a contract that has already been broken?
I don’t think that breaking all other kinds of contracts is a criminal activity. I rarely hear of someone being hauled into jail for breaking a contract to do a certain task, for instance. Usually such issues are settled in civil court. Funny–that’s also what divorce court is for.
Well for what its worth I think there are almost only two types of wives… those that will be cheated on and those that will be divorced from. Unless your in some kind of open relation.
When I worked for government most of my older male co-workers barely hid that they were adulterous at some moment. I’ve had students (I teach english to adults) admit all sorts of cheating thou mostly light hancky panky.) They were not by buddies or had any reason to be bragging… it just slipped or was made obvious thru context.
Add to that divorce rates and you will see a bleak picture of married sex and faithfullness. So the contract you cherish so much Yosemite seems like some sort of ritualistic ceremony we persist in holding sacred, but is full of holes.
So yes my bleak view of the issue does color my perception of the cheating issue... which being so common might be called irrelevant as "crimes" go. The impulse to cheat is in every man and woman... some of us manage to hold back, never have the chance or feel "genuinely" happy. Sometimes its for a little cuddle... sometimes its for adventure or ego... but it happens. Getting a divorce everytime you feel like having sex without your SO is not an option. In fact I think many a marriage was "saved" by releasing steam thru extra marital sex...
There is another side too... its not only that we might be hurt by cheating... but that if we think we might cheat... that we should be more understanding of it when we are the cheated upon. I myself might cheat on the first chance I get... and I have openly told my GF that I would rather not know if she cheated. If she does so, much the worse for us I agree... but it could be me cheating. Not going into some raving jealousy drive.... it's life and choices we make. Who knows... she or I might meet the real love of our lives this way.:shrug:
If it is so full of holes, why do people persist in marrying at all? Why are some people such gutless weasels about the whole thing? No one forces these people to make vows.
You never did answer–would you like it if someone made a promise or a vow to you, and then all the while they were sneaking around, behind your back, breaking that vow and promise, but not letting you know about it? Would you like it, yes or no?
Of course I woudnt like it… but its their decision. Its a choice… one that might spoil a relationship… but still their choice. If I accept it or not is another matter. Since I have been pretty close to cheating on occassion I don’t feel I have the moral highground to judge them or third parties.
I understand that sneaking around behind someone’s back, keeping them deluded and in the dark is a choice, but would you consider it a morally right choice? Would you assist somebody in sneaking and lying, under the premise that you are not doing anything morally wrong when you help them sneak and lie?
You claim that you wouldn’t like it if it were done to you–so would you then say that it was still morally right to help a person sneak, cheat and lie to someone else? In other words, even though it is something that you would find painful and undesirable to you (if you were on the recieving end of such treatment), would you still support and assist somebody in doing this painful, undesirable thing to someone else? Yes, or no?
I don’t believe that anyone in this thread has argued that someone who enters a monogamous relationship and then secretly takes a lover outside the marriage has to take moral responsibility for their actions. As has been pointed out, particular marriages can make for very particular morality, and if you judge them all by your “gutless weasel” standard you will very likely condemn some people who probably should not be condemned.
I also do not see how the moral responsibility extends to ANYBODY beyond the cheating partner. To extend your logic farther, are those of us who disagree with you also to be condemned because we create a moral climate wherein spouses will find it easier to find partners to cheat with? How many of the rest of us fall into your widening pool of guilt? Just how far are the rest of us obligated to go to defend your notions of sexual propriety?
Yosemitebabe, I’m curious as to just how black and white your view of the world is. You have repeatedly harped on the marriage contract angle. Are you equally unyielding in questions of having sex with a person who is
- married
- engaged
- living with an SO
- living with an SO, and neither person wants to marry
- common-law married
- dating exclusively
- in the beginning of a relationship that has not been formally agreed upon as exclusive (she assumes it is, he does not, conversation has not come up)
- being harassed by a stalker who is madly in unrequited love
If your moral argument of “but your doing something that hurts someone” does not rely on the fact of marriage, then you must lend equal credence to the final example, because having sex with the person will undoubtedly cause emotional pain to the stalker. How is that different? The linchpin of your argument is simply “causing hurt to someone else”. Or are there now going to be qualifiers to your previously cut-and-dried position?
Are we to assume by your tone (which screams zero tolerance) that if one of your friends or relatives admitted to having an affair with a married man, you would castigate them and treat them as gutless weasels? What kind of friend/relative would that make you?
One more time: I’m not limiting this to sexual propriety. This is just a basic concept of “gutless weasel” vs “honesty.”
Can you imagine any scenario where you would have preferred to be told the truth about something, but instead everyone lied to you instead? Someone you trusted was too gutless just to tell you like it was? Did it hurt, or did you prefer to be kept in the dark?
I also thought I made it clear–adultery requires the cheating spouse, and someone to cheat with. Usually anyone else–unless they are in the room when the adultery occurs–are usually not involved in the whole process. Merely not getting involved and not making a stance are not the same as actively helping someone be gutless.
The marriage contract issue is the easiest to tackle because there is (usually) a black-and-white angle to it. The spouse married with the understanding (and a marriage vow) of fidelity. (Unless they have an open marriage, that is.) All I am saying that when there is a clear-cut understanding of fidelity, (in whatever form the relationship takes) then honesty is obviously superior to gutless sneaking around and lying. Do you disagree?
Why in the world would I expect any sort of fidelity for a nutcase?
Nope, covered this already on this thread. A few times, in fact.
A hope of fidelity, and the dashing of that hope, and the pain of that hoped dashed, (as would be the case of a loony stalker, an ex boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-spouse, or SO in a non-exclusive relationship) is not the same as a vow or promise that has been broken in a gutless way. Someone should not worry about hurting an ex (or a stalker) by going out with someone new. Obviously the ex has no exclusive claim. They only hope. That’s not the same as a vow or a promise.
And hey–vows and promises can be broken. I am not against a person deciding they don’t want to be held to the vow or promise. I just think that if they wanted to be decent about it, they’d tell the person (who they made the promise to) that the deal’s off, instead of continuing to “play along” and pretend that everything is the same when in fact it is not. Do you consider that to be an unreasonable expectation?
I also think that actively helping someone else be gutless, sneaking and lying isn’t much better than the person who initiates the gutlessness. Staying out of the whole mess is one thing–it’s neither helping nor hindering–it’s just staying out of it. But helping? Why help? Why is it morally acceptable to help someone do something gutless like that?
Well, what do you do when you know someone who is doing a gutless thing? Just smile and play along, or tell them that you think they’re doing something gutless?
Listen–I do understand that people make mistakes, and that “things happen” that people later regret. I can have a lot of slack for mistakes and imperfection because I’ve certainly got plenty of my own. What I don’t get is advocating gutlessness as something that is morally right–as in, “I did it, I don’t regret it, it was the right thing to do, and I’d do it again.” So yes, if I saw someone doing something obviously gutless and that was their attitude about their behavior, yeah, I’d tell them that they were gutless. To not tell them would be gutless.
Erm … actually, no. I wasn’t going to get into this because it’s just adding another complication to a discussion that’s gone way off tangent anyway, but when I said my ex had an affair I mean he had an affair. Ongoing, emotional involvement and all that. That’s what hurt. I haven’t been hurt by an SO just having a one-night stand (which is not to say they haven’t done it - they probably have - but I haven’t known about it, nor would I be particularly hurt).
I now sit back and await your deluge of questions about exactly what the difference is (another reason I wasn’t going to get into this) …
“When pressed” maybe I would, but I’m not going to be pressed on it. We’re not in GD; the point of this forum is to express your opinions, not to have to defend them to the death.
Okay–so, would you think it was wrong to have an “ongoing” affair with a married man, “emotional and all that” while he still wanted to remain with his wife? Would you consider it morally okay for you to engage in such an affair, even though it hurt when your ex did it to you?
Okay, fair enough–if you wouldn’t be hurt by an SO having a one-night-stand behind your back, then at least I can respect that one element of consistency. 
Nope, that’s all the questions I’ve got. I’ve been called the Energizer Bunny sometimes, the way I tackle some of these issues, but that battery is wearing down…
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe this is an issue that can be brought up in GD sometime. (But I doubt it will be started by me!)
What someone does is there own affair I feel… just because your married doesn’t to me at least mean your doing a life sentence or a 24/7 sentence.
If a girl cheats on me she probably had a good personal reason to do so… either I’m not up to the job… or the other guy was too cute… or she was emotionally needy… whatever. I wouldn’t like people sneaking up to me saying “she is sleeping with X and Z guy”… why would I want to know ?
If its false I would be giving undue attention to gossip... and if its true I don't know why or when or if it was important at all. I don't consider kissing others as cheating for example. I did it once or twice for fun and it was negligible influence to my relation... in fact I was all hot about a girl... and kissing her was a major dissapointment. So much for having an affair. So I was barking up the wrong second tree...