Am I just at fault?

[Darken12]

I'm not going to judge you, but I would never, ever do what you're doing here. Even if the other guy is a douchebag, for me the proper course of action is to break up first, then go off to pursue other relationships. Unless the other guy is okay with it, in which case it's not cheating but an open relationship (which is completely fine).

 

[game-lover]

Well, the boyfriend also works at the location and the issue wouldn't have arisen if he wasn't already engaged in the exact same activity he will be tattling the other two parties on. I think he'll be told "and this is why you don't do it in the first place, you're all wrong, nut up or shut up".

True. At least as far as the fraternizing part. If there's a moral clause, it could still be in issue. I remember reading this mention about a guy who had one that he used to determine hiring people. His reasoning was that if your spouse can't trust you in your personal life, why should I trust you in your professional life/how can I trust you professionally? Not sure how one would work when you're already working there and everyone is different. But that's just an example.

Even if no one gets fired, workplaces are like small towns with grapevines. And when it starts spreading about what went down, the dynamic is bound to change. Maybe a little. Maybe a lot. Maybe good. Maybe bad.

Certainly not by the OP. Assault implies intent. I am certain the OP didn't do it to hurt the boyfriend, he did it because he doesn't CARE about the boyfriend's opinion. And there is a difference between the two. For it to be assault the parties must have done it with the direct intention of causing the boyfriend harm. If THAT was the case then yes, the OP is a jerk.

Maybe not intentionally. Hell, maybe the girlfriend is even unintentional. I hear many cheaters have been of the mindset that they "never meant to hurt anyone." But when you continue to do something knowing that likely result is going to cause pain, than that's an issue. And based on his post, the OP knows full well this has a chance of blowing up. Perhaps a better analogy or comparison is along the lines of accidental manslaughter or something. A person didn't mean to cause that much harm or any. They were just trying to do something in particular. But they did. Now they gotta face up to it.

I would say he was entitled to lie for a coworker is not privy to his other coworkers' bedroom antics. I am certain the OP just wanted to get his load off and that's all there is to it from his end. The girlfriend was simply a willing and attractive agent of HIS desire.

I'm certain of that too. Which is where most of my scorn comes from. Because he didn't care about the boyfriend, like you said. All he cared about was getting laid, apparently. Because meaningless sex is apparently that awesome.

Having been an agent and a cuckolded party I can assure you I very much respect the sanctity of relationships - MY relationships. The relationships of others are not my concern in the least unless I have an obligation or interest otherwise. My one-night-stand's relationship situation is not my responsibility or affair. She makes the decision to cheat, not me. I am not about to force a moral decision upon another person as that goes completely against my own code of ethics.

Okay, this sounds like a double standard to me. And because it does and that's a whole other issue... I think we're at an impasse. Because I can think of nothing more to really add.

Could have, yes, but it wasn't the OP's responsibility to do so. As always, it was the girlfriend's. The OP is under no obligation to assist her in upholding her fidelity.

No, it wasn't. But he still didn't have to be that guy. Now from now on, he is gonna be that guy. That guy that sleeps with other guys' girlfriends. If/when people find out about this, it'll probably be the first thing that enters their mind. And change the way people seem him now. Honestly, I think he did have an obligation to say no, but we'll agree to disagree there as well.

If their reputation is made public that's as far as I would ever go in terms of "punishment". I find punishing others for moral "crimes" to be even more dastardly than anything the "criminal" could have possibly done.

And another impasse straight off the bat. I wholeheartedly believe in punishment. Probably the reason so many people can have such mindsets as not giving a damn about other relationships is because there are no consequences to their actions. What would change if people could guarantee such a thing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Erm, No. He commited no mental assault. He did just fulfill the girls wishes and NOTHING MORE. one has to remember that this is a "Friends with benefits" situation, so it is JUST SEX. He was an instrument in the girls unfaithfulness, which does not put the blame on him. Coworkers or not, has nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry but what does them being "Friends with benefits" have to do with the likeliness of pain the boyfriend would feel if he found out? What because this is purely a physical relationship, no one's getting hurt? No one's getting lied to? Slut/girlfriend isn't hiding anything at all? Just because they're not planning on being a couple nullifies everything else? I very strictly put just as much blame on him because he let himself become a tool. And all for something that according to you doesn't mean shit in the long run.

You know why you hear those tragic stories of betrayed people trying to murder these tools and their cheating spouses? And often killing themselves too? Because the pain can and does fuck people up.

Whoa, so relationships are somehow saint now and anyone that does not see relationship as "owning the woman" is terrible person?

To a degree, yeah. Maybe sanctity was the wrong word but it was the only one I could come up with. You're focused a lot on the "owning the woman" aspect. "Owning the man" is just as practiced. The fact that this girlfriend still had to even mention that she was gonna dump him eventually means that she doesn't just allow herself to be claimed. But she claims him. Even while being unfaithful, she's still claiming him as her man. Which is why infidelity is such an infuriating thing.

If being claimed and following that owning and being owned thing was such an issue, she never would have done either in the first place. But she did. And the OP to some degree accepts the whole ownership thing too, I'm certain. Otherwise, this topic wouldn't exist.

and i woulnt be able to be stabbed if knives were banned. lets ban knives because its obviuosly their fault some punk decided to stab me (true story btw).

You can't ban all knives. But you could ban the punk from ever touching a knife ever again. If he even holds a butter knife, he gets consequences. For an indeterminate amount of time, he can only use forks and spoons and sporks. He has to have someone else cut things that need cutting with knives for him. And such and such.

EDIT: Actually, that mostly works for just punishing the girlfriend. Like keeping her from interacting with any man ever again... Plus, this assumes the knife was sentient enough to go to said punk and let itself be used.

It would be more proper to keep whatever place that sold this knife that you were stabbed with from ever selling knives again. To ban the person who exchanged money to give the knife to said punk from doing so. If it was a store, remove all the knives from that store. Take them over to another store. If it was an individual, keep him out of the knife section. If that section was a high position, you demote him. That's more fitting.

 

[Abomination]

By this logic, if I pull a lever to kill someone then I'm not at fault. Because you know, if I didn't know if it would kill someone I wouldn't be guilty. Or in the real world, knowledge matters. From a practical standpoint you are wrong.

He has the obligation not to be immoral. Alas, helping someone else be immoral is immoral.

No, you would be guilty of murder if it was your intention to kill someone but the agent, the device you use - the lever in this case - would not be. The OP is that very lever. He is the agent in the girlfriend's "crime". It isn't possible for her to cheat on her boyfriend without an agent and an agent can not cause someone to be cuckolded without a willing spouse. In this case the OP is both the agent of AND the ?crime? taking place.

Let's stop here for now, I can only stand so much ignoring the point at once.

Your logic was "So if he did not know the girl was in a relationship he would be just as guilty? If no then from a practical standpoint he has done nothing wrong."

So I'm merely using the logic of "If you didn't know X would you still be guilty? If no then from a practical standpoint you have done nothing wrong". Applying that to my scenario says I'm innocent. Why are you being inconsistent in using your supposed logic?

What you posted ignores that completely.

Your scenario doesn't have an agent beyond the lever. The "crime" in your example is murder and the "crime" in this situation is cheating on a spouse. For the two to be comparable the OP can not be the murderer because he can not be the one who commits the crime. If you want the analogy to hold up you must introduce a third party. Of course, the point is moot because cheating on a spouse is not a criminal act and murder is. The "crimes" are vastly different in both ethical and damage to victim extremes.

In both situations someone gets hurt no matter if the agent knew what the full situation was or not. In both situations the agent played a part required for the crime to take place but had no obligation to the victim to prevent or decline it.

Perhaps a better analogy or comparison is along the lines of accidental manslaughter or something. A person didn't mean to cause that much harm or any. They were just trying to do something in particular. But they did. Now they gotta face up to it.

I just don't feel comparing this act to manslaughter is really the right way to go. Infidelity and killing are at vastly different ends of the spectrum of damage done to a person. Highschoolers cheat on each other in DROVES yet you hardly hear about highschoolers killing one another. Ignoring that extremity to address the point you're trying to make: everyone must face the consequences of their actions. In this case the consequences for the OP's actions are essentially nothing. Maybe a falling out... with a guy he never respected in the first place? I am certain the OP is distraught beyond belief. Maybe a slightly tarnished reputation of being a "homewrecker" but that's a judgement that - as you can tell by this very thread - people have differing views on being an actual negative thing or not.

I'm certain of that too. Which is where most of my scorn comes from. Because he didn't care about the boyfriend, like you said. All he cared about was getting laid, apparently. Because meaningless sex is apparently that awesome.

Meaningless sex is never meaningless - it's about having sex which is (frequently) an awesome thing to do. I'd suggest many people engage in it for their own well being and happiness.

Okay, this sounds like a double standard to me. And because it does and that's a whole other issue... I think we're at an impasse. Because I can think of nothing more to really add.

It isn't a double standard at all. I will uphold my relationship obligations and my partner will uphold her's. That is the extent of our agreement, third parties have no such agreement with me and I will not hold any cuckold in contempt if they have sex with my significant other - whether they knew of her relationship status or not.

But he still didn't have to be that guy. Now from now on, he is gonna be that guy. That guy that sleeps with other guys' girlfriends. If/when people find out about this, it'll probably be the first thing that enters their mind. And change the way people seem him now. Honestly, I think he did have an obligation to say no, but we'll agree to disagree there as well.

He had the OPTION, but there was no obligation - which implies agreement beforehand. The reputation would be held by people who feel "threatened" by him... which is just a reflection of their own insecurity in the stability of their own romantic relationships.

And another impasse straight off the bat. I wholeheartedly believe in punishment. Probably the reason so many people can have such mindsets as not giving a damn about other relationships is because there are no consequences to their actions. What would change if people could guarantee such a thing?

I imagine a lot of things if there was a government body that punished people for infidelity. I think we did have such things in the past, moral laws upheld by the clergy... women being burned alive for seduction witchcraft and men being sent to the pillory to be pelted with rotten fruit and dung. It was generally agreed to be a BAD thing for society and encroaching on personal freedoms. Next we'll have governments holding the jurisdiction to punish people for engaging in homosexual activity - another "moral" crime (according to some people).

 

[Bocaj2000]

so as long as your stupid its ok and as soon as you gain knowledge it somehow magically starts to become bad? what has changed physically? nothing. then why does youer judgement changes?

On a physical standpoint, knowledge does not change anything. You are nothing but meat and bones no matter what actions you take. However, I was asked about morals. Morals require thought and judgement. Knowledge of one's actions and consequences must be taken into account when debating morals. Sometimes it changes everything and sometimes it doesn't. This is a situation in which I believe that knowledge of plot makes a difference.

When someone cheats and she is the only one who knows about it, then it is her plot and her plot only. Both of the men in this case are nothing more than pawns, and the woman is 100% at fault. But if the man knows that by sleeping with her she is cheating on her boyfriend and makes the choice to continue the affair, he now plays just as big of a role in it as she does.

I'm not calling OP a disgusting excuse for a human, but I am saying that he is at fault for his decisions and should take responsibility.

 

[game-lover]

I just don't feel comparing this act to manslaughter is really the right way to go. Infidelity and killing are at vastly different ends of the spectrum of damage done to a person. Highschoolers cheat on each other in DROVES yet you hardly hear about highschoolers killing one another. Ignoring that extremity to address the point you're trying to make: everyone must face the consequences of their actions. In this case the consequences for the OP's actions are essentially nothing. Maybe a falling out... with a guy he never respected in the first place? I am certain the OP is distraught beyond belief. Maybe a slightly tarnished reputation of being a "homewrecker" but that's a judgement that - as you can tell by this very thread - people have differing views on being an actual negative thing or not.

For high schoolers, I believe killing doesn't happen because just plain old regular fights take its place. Or... bullying. I saw a movie that claimed to be a true story where this clique of girls ruled much of the school. And they all pretty much targeted one girl because she slept with one of the main member's boyfriend. Who's to say a good portion of the bullying that takes place isn't because of such situations. Cyber bullying especially. But mostly just plain fighting. Which I think is much easier to do when you're in high school as most of it happens on school grounds. No one usually goes to claim assault when a fight breaks out in school. Even when you lose. It's once you graduate or whatever that it can lead that way more often than not.

To respond to your addressing my point: that's the thing, isn't it? There are no essential consequences. Not for certain. Even the whole "karma" argument isn't for certain. He may become a cuckold or not. A female might seduce him and then blackmail him with claims of sexual harassment or not. Another coworker might betray him professionally in some vein or not. Is it any wonder people are more accepting of what seems to be an immediate consequence?

Meaningless sex is never meaningless - it's about having sex which is (frequently) an awesome thing to do. I'd suggest many people engage in it for their own well being and happiness.

You know, I really like the way you put that. It's so far the only description of just sex that makes some sense to me. Of course, that just makes people who go for the sex at the expense of others even more selfish than before. Which still brings some scorn.

It isn't a double standard at all. I will uphold my relationship obligations and my partner will uphold her's. That is the extent of our agreement, third parties have no such agreement with me and I will not hold any cuckold in contempt if they have sex with my significant other - whether they knew of her relationship status or not.

I see... well, you're a stronger or better person than I am. Even though "ignorance is so excuse for breaking the law" as they say, I don't condemn someone who doesn't know. But anyone who ever did know, I just can't respect as a person.

I'm curious. Does that not condemning the agent count even if they were trying to take your significant other for themselves?

He had the OPTION, but there was no obligation - which implies agreement beforehand. The reputation would be held by people who feel "threatened" by him... which is just a reflection of their own insecurity in the stability of their own romantic relationships.

Okay... that first part is true, technically. I guess you have a point there. He's still scum in my eyes but you're words are very valid.

What about those who are single? Would that still reflect the same if they too consider him morally repugnant? They can't feel threatened if they're playing the field themselves, can they?

 

[Frission]

No, you would be guilty of murder if it was your intention to kill someone but the agent, the device you use - the lever in this case - would not be. The OP is that very lever. He is the agent in the girlfriend's "crime". It isn't possible for her to cheat on her boyfriend without an agent and an agent can not cause someone to be cuckolded without a willing spouse. In this case the OP is both the agent of AND the "crime" taking place.

So in other words, he's a tool?

Look I think we can make all the mental gymnastics we want. Some will justify him and some will not. Some will condemn him and some won't.

He has either the choice of being a thinking human being and being at fault, or he can be a tool. A walking sex toy, in which case he doesn't care, he doesn't think and as such can't be held responsible.

It isn't a double standard at all. I will uphold my relationship obligations and my partner will uphold her's. That is the extent of our agreement, third parties have no such agreement with me and I will not hold any cuckold in contempt if they have sex with my significant other - whether they knew of her relationship status or not.

I would simply try to work things with my significant other, although I would most likely break up with them. I probably won't go Othello, but I know that I will bear a lot of ill will towards the third party if they knew who they were cheating on. Things would probably get very nasty if we worked together. Not violent, just tense.

At least you're consistent.

 

[Abomination]

I saw a movie that claimed to be a true story where this clique of girls ruled much of the school. And they all pretty much targeted one girl because she slept with one of the main member's boyfriend.

That clique of girls sounds like more morally bereft individuals than any homebreaker I've ever heard of.

To respond to your addressing my point: that's the thing, isn't it? There are no essential consequences. Not for certain. Even the whole "karma" argument isn't for certain. He may become a cuckold or not. A female might seduce him and then blackmail him with claims of sexual harassment or not. Another coworker might betray him professionally in some vein or not. Is it any wonder people are more accepting of what seems to be an immediate consequence?

Well, that is all speculation. I firmly believe that the only "punishment" he deserves is on an individual's moral judgement that doesn't expand to breaking the law to carry it out.

You know, I really like the way you put that. It's so far the only description of just sex that makes some sense to me. Of course, that just makes people who go for the sex at the expense of others even more selfish than before. Which still brings some scorn.

Of course manipulating people into having sex is a bad thing to do, but it isn't because sex was involved - it is because you are manipulating someone. A homebreaker is not the one who is actually harming the cuckolded, it is the unfaithful spouse who harms them by sleeping with the homebreaker.

I'm curious. Does that not condemning the agent count even if they were trying to take your significant other for themselves?

"All is fair in love and war" is pretty much my motto. My significant others are not my trophy, I am with them because I believe it is in our mutual benefit. I believe I am good for their well-being and that they are good for mine. Should they be seduced by someone else clearly I wasn't good enough or they weren't good for me. I will still feel a sense of betrayal but they are not my property and we signed no legally binding contract... betrayal of marriage/civil-union vows however would be something I would never forgive.

Considering that, I wouldn't condemn anyone for attempting to 'steal away' my partner, unless I was married and especially if she was the mother of my children. But that's for a whole new plethora of reasons.

What about those who are single? Would that still reflect the same if they too consider him morally repugnant? They can't feel threatened if they're playing the field themselves, can they?

If they're playing the field themselves I would find them to be hypocrites, in a way. Just because someone is in a relationship with somebody else doesn't mean you shouldn't make an attempt, for all you know they might just be "settling" rather than as happy as they could be. If she isn't wed or de-facto she's still on the board, in my opinion. If she is married though she'd only be someone I would engage in casual sex with - for she has proven to be an unreliable romantic partner and legally challenged.

 

[Kurt Cristal]

I personally believe that the cheater is at fault, not the cheatee. It's the cheater's choice to cheat.

Cheating and rape are very different things. The person they cheat with also makes a choice to help someone do something immoral, thereby making them quite immoral as well.

Rape was NOT involved in the OPs post, so I don't know why you brought it up.

You claimed it was the cheater's choice. If it isn't the 'cheatee''s too then it'd be rape. But since it is their choice too it's not rape.

And no, choosing to make someone feel good in bed is not immoral.

Helping someone else do something immoral is though.

Only cheating is, and that's just me. You're only doing wrong if you're cheating.

Nope, you're doing it wrong if you're helping someone do something immoral. This isn't a hard concept.

You're not helping someone do something immoral. Someone chose to do something immoral. Who they chose to do it with was their choice. That's my opinion and this is a semantic arguement, so I cannont "prove that I'm right". So I'll leave it at that.

 

[Yoshi4507]

So, I'm currently seeing this girl quite often. Friends with benefits thing. Its amazing, dont get me wrong. The only problem though is that she has a boyfriend. To make it better, we are all coworkers. Luckily he doesnt know, but has suspicion. I know she is in the wrong for doing it, but whats bugging me is " how wrong am I in comparison"? At the moment all I can think of is I, m not the one cheating, she is, hes a real d-bag to her anyway, and me always coming to that conclusion is whats bothering me. Whos more wrong?

What you should do is start a friends with benefits thing with her boyfriend as well.

Hahahaha no.
This is probably the funniest thing ive read yet for this topic though.

 

[Strazdas]

Nope, you're doing it wrong if you're helping someone do something immoral. This isn't a hard concept.

no your not. its not a hard concept. why do you fail to udnerstand it then?

Maybe not intentionally. Hell, maybe the girlfriend is even unintentional. I hear many cheaters have been of the mindset that they "never meant to hurt anyone." But when you continue to do something knowing that likely result is going to cause pain, than that's an issue. And based on his post, the OP knows full well this has a chance of blowing up. Perhaps a better analogy or comparison is along the lines of accidental manslaughter or something. A person didn't mean to cause that much harm or any. They were just trying to do something in particular. But they did. Now they gotta face up to it.

Im sure my posts in this thread is causing mental pain for some people. therefore by your logic i should not be allowed to post on forum because there is a chance that someone might get insulted. your logic is flawed. you could say you should not be allowed to drive a car because someone might jump in front of you and get hurt. its not your fault, but its still your fault since you were driving a car.

No, it wasn't. But he still didn't have to be that guy. Now from now on, he is gonna be that guy. That guy that sleeps with other guys' girlfriends. If/when people find out about this, it'll probably be the first thing that enters their mind. And change the way people seem him now. Honestly, I think he did have an obligation to say no, but we'll agree to disagree there as well.

So you would agree that it is good that people will judge him for the rest of his life for sleeping with a girl that apparently had a boyfriend? or were you merely commenting on bad nature of society? i certainly hope the latter.

I'm sorry but what does them being "Friends with benefits" have to do with the likeliness of pain the boyfriend would feel if he found out? What because this is purely a physical relationship, no one's getting hurt? No one's getting lied to? Slut/girlfriend isn't hiding anything at all? Just because they're not planning on being a couple nullifies everything else? I very strictly put just as much blame on him because he let himself become a tool. And all for something that according to you doesn't mean shit in the long run.

The guy is not emotionally involved with her. therefore it could be that the girl is emotionally involved with her boyfriend but physically with him. physical and emotional relationships CAN be separated. yes, it is bad that SHE lied to the boyfriend, and SHE is at fault for that. HE however is NOT.
Why does everything has to mean soemthing in the long run for you? there is nothing wrong with short term relationships.

You know why you hear those tragic stories of betrayed people trying to murder these tools and their cheating spouses? And often killing themselves too? Because the pain can and does fuck people up.

Yes, i am aware of such occurrences. They are committed by people who are mentally unstable.

To a degree, yeah. Maybe sanctity was the wrong word but it was the only one I could come up with. You're focused a lot on the "owning the woman" aspect. "Owning the man" is just as practiced. The fact that this girlfriend still had to even mention that she was gonna dump him eventually means that she doesn't just allow herself to be claimed. But she claims him. Even while being unfaithful, she's still claiming him as her man. Which is why infidelity is such an infuriating thing.

this is the owning a woman situation. if it was a guy that cheated i would be making the same argument for owning the man. She did not state that she claimed him though. we do not know the relationship between the girl and her BF. maybe he is the one that hangs around pretending its his GF. we just dont know. and as such you cant make assumptions that she somehow is forcing him into being in a relationship while at the same time lieing to him. And also i dont think this was mentioned yet, but you CAN have two relationships at once, you know.

If being claimed and following that owning and being owned thing was such an issue, she never would have done either in the first place. But she did. And the OP to some degree accepts the whole ownership thing too, I'm certain. Otherwise, this topic wouldn't exist.

Did she? Where does he say that?

You can't ban all knives. But you could ban the punk from ever touching a knife ever again. If he even holds a butter knife, he gets consequences. For an indeterminate amount of time, he can only use forks and spoons and sporks. He has to have someone else cut things that need cutting with knives for him. And such and such.

EDIT: Actually, that mostly works for just punishing the girlfriend. Like keeping her from interacting with any man ever again... Plus, this assumes the knife was sentient enough to go to said punk and let itself be used.

YOu cant ban knives, so you cant ban the guy from doing it with the girl, therefore you cannot punish him. you just proved yourself wrong.
you can ban the woman from having any other man. which is essential sexual slavery. truly good choice, i "completely agree".
as for bolded part, i guess its stretching it quite a bit, but that analogy would mean she should have somoen else do the sexing for her? like what the...?

It would be more proper to keep whatever place that sold this knife that you were stabbed with from ever selling knives again. To ban the person who exchanged money to give the knife to said punk from doing so. If it was a store, remove all the knives from that store. Take them over to another store. If it was an individual, keep him out of the knife section. If that section was a high position, you demote him. That's more fitting.

so, castrate the guy? logic, where are thou?

On a physical standpoint, knowledge does not change anything. You are nothing but meat and bones no matter what actions you take. However, I was asked about morals. Morals require thought and judgement. Knowledge of one's actions and consequences must be taken into account when debating morals. Sometimes it changes everything and sometimes it doesn't. This is a situation in which I believe that knowledge of plot makes a difference.

Howe does knowledge changes things? Has him knowing or not changed:
a: the fact the the boyfriend was betrayed?
b: the fact that the girl lied?
c: the fact that the girl had sex with another person?
Answer to all of them is NO. therefore, from a psychological standpoint there is no diference. difference can be incurred by your own personal beliefs, and thats the only difference in there. however you have absolutely no right to judge his personal morals. morals are not some universal item that is true the same to everyone. no. what you talk about is societal norms. you know, the thing that changes constantly based on what people are the majority and how well can they attack minority for not acting like them.

I'm not calling OP a disgusting excuse for a human, but I am saying that he is at fault for his decisions and should take responsibility.

what responsibility? he has done nothing wrong.

You know, I really like the way you put that. It's so far the only description of just sex that makes some sense to me. Of course, that just makes people who go for the sex at the expense of others even more selfish than before. Which still brings some scorn.

holding a woman "your property" and not allowing her to sleep with who she wants is more selfish. you deserve more scorn if selfishness is worth scorning about (which i believe is not because then we should scorn 100% of humans and it would loose its meaning).

Okay... that first part is true, technically. I guess you have a point there. He's still scum in my eyes but you're words are very valid.

so you agree with his point, but still call the guy scum, you know, just because, even if you agree that you were proven wrong. you, sir, are more persistent than i am.

What about those who are single? Would that still reflect the same if they too consider him morally repugnant? They can't feel threatened if they're playing the field themselves, can they?

yes. Yes. Yes they can. Thing is, people judge these things ALWAYS from a situation "if it happened to me". and enve if your single you make up a scenario of "if it was my girl". such can be seen in this thread in posts before ours for examples. your current status has no effect on this.

Hahahaha no.
This is probably the funniest thing ive read yet for this topic though.

So your still reading the thread. Woot my bickering isnt going to waste.

 

[infohippie]

OMG, this is still going on? Yes, you are at fault. So is she. It doesn't matter that she is unhappy in her relationship, it is still cheating and you are an accessory to it. You both share the blame and no amount of rationalisation is going to change that.

 

[proctorninja2]

So, I'm currently seeing this girl quite often. Friends with benefits thing. Its amazing, dont get me wrong. The only problem though is that she has a boyfriend. To make it better, we are all coworkers. Luckily he doesnt know, but has suspicion. I know she is in the wrong for doing it, but whats bugging me is " how wrong am I in comparison"? At the moment all I can think of is I, m not the one cheating, she is, hes a real d-bag to her anyway, and me always coming to that conclusion is whats bothering me. Whos more wrong?

I know you feel man im in the exact same situation with my ex except its over the internet because im away at school, its a hard thing and im sure there is a "correct" awenser

 

[Vegosiux]

Im sure my posts in this thread is causing mental pain for some people.

That's kind of narcissistic, don't you think? And it's loaded. It doesn't matter to me what "some people" think about what you're saying.

 

[Strazdas]

Im sure my posts in this thread is causing mental pain for some people.

That's kind of narcissistic, don't you think? And it's loaded. It doesn't matter to me what "some people" think about what you're saying.

Not really. i just know im an asshole and my way of expressing my opinion isnt the...most smooth one.
I was merely using it as an example of "some people get mentally offended, oh no lets ban the activity", not claiming that you should care about it. thats exactly the point actually, who should you care about somoen getting offended at your post? you shoulnt. so why should you care about somoen getting offended at you having sex?

OMG, this is still going on? Yes, you are at fault. So is she. It doesn't matter that she is unhappy in her relationship, it is still cheating and you are an accessory to it. You both share the blame and no amount of rationalisation is going to change that.

yes, im keeping the fire alive

 

[game-lover]

Im sure my posts in this thread is causing mental pain for some people. therefore by your logic i should not be allowed to post on forum because there is a chance that someone might get insulted. your logic is flawed. you could say you should not be allowed to drive a car because someone might jump in front of you and get hurt. its not your fault, but its still your fault since you were driving a car.

No, you're misinterpreting my logic. In this case, take the driving a car and just change to being a drunk driver driving a car. You know if you get in this car totally impaired you're very likely gonna crash. And you may kill someone. You know all the reasons drunk driving is looked down on--and not just legally--but you decide to get behind the wheel anyway. That's what I'd compare this situation to.

Your forum analogy is not so fitting because just because there may be a chance someone gets irked with your posts does not mean that it's a likely occurrence. Your chances of making someone smile are the same as pissing someone off. Being the person someone uses to be unfaithful? There's no chance for anything else other than pain. How severe is very dependent but pain is always gonna happen.

So you would agree that it is good that people will judge him for the rest of his life for sleeping with a girl that apparently had a boyfriend? or were you merely commenting on bad nature of society? i certainly hope the latter.

Both. I think it's very good. If you don't wanna get judged for something negatively, then you should have thought about that before you did it. It's what whole making decisions thing and then acting so surprised at what the consequences turn out to be.

The guy is not emotionally involved with her. therefore it could be that the girl is emotionally involved with her boyfriend but physically with him. physical and emotional relationships CAN be separated. yes, it is bad that SHE lied to the boyfriend, and SHE is at fault for that. HE however is NOT.
Why does everything has to mean soemthing in the long run for you? there is nothing wrong with short term relationships.

That's still not changing anything. Long run or even short run. If the OP was madly in love with her and trying to steal her away or just using her as a sentient blow up doll, she's still cheating. He's being used to cheat.

You're not saying anything I don't already know. But what you're saying is irrelevant to the main problem at hand. This WILL most likely upset the boyfriend. And I never said there's anything wrong with short term relationships. The issue here is that these two are pursuing a short term relationship at the expense of someone else.

But I mention the long run because short term is just that... short. And when they eventually stop mindlessly fucking each other, there will be both short term and long term results to witness.

Yes, i am aware of such occurrences. They are committed by people who are mentally unstable.

I don't disagree. But I'm willing to bet they weren't nearly that way before they were so thoroughly betrayed. They say enough physical pain can drive a person mad, according to things I've seen and read. What's to say emotional/mental pain couldn't do the same?

this is the owning a woman situation. if it was a guy that cheated i would be making the same argument for owning the man. She did not state that she claimed him though. we do not know the relationship between the girl and her BF. maybe he is the one that hangs around pretending its his GF. we just dont know. and as such you cant make assumptions that she somehow is forcing him into being in a relationship while at the same time lieing to him. And also i dont think this was mentioned yet, but you CAN have two relationships at once, you know.

If the guy is pretending, then the OP has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Because he certainly thinks this guy and the girl are boyfriend and girlfriend.

You're right of course that we don't know the deets. And that's why everything I'm basing this on has to do with the OP's post. He says they're a couple and he's sleeping with her behind the dude's back... I assume that's the case. If we go with the OP who is the only source of info here, then we have to figure yeah, she's a liar.

And yeah, you can have two relationships with two people. But you know what's a real factor for that working? Honesty. Whether or not they had an Open relationship or not, she's still breaking the rules. But she didn't tell boyfriend about the guy she was bringing in. An important element for these to work. And in the OP's post, he claims that so far boyfriend as no idea though he may be suspicious. So I assume based on this limited info, that is true too. Henceforth.

Did she? Where does he say that?

In a couple of later posts I think on the first or second page... maybe third, The OP mentions that girlfriend says that she's eventually going to dump her boyfriend. I mentioned that in an earlier post myself.

Now maybe implications don't mean much to you but the fact that she even mentions breaking up with the guy in the first place tells me that she still considers them to be a couple. Even with her being an adulterous skank. And if she considers the pair of them to still be an item, then that basically says "I'm seeing him exclusively. He's seeing exclusively. He is MY boyfriend. I am HIS girlfriend." However temporary it is, girlfriend knows they've both claimed each other and she has to break up with him to properly and honorably we'll say end the claims.

YOu cant ban knives, so you cant ban the guy from doing it with the girl, therefore you cannot punish him. you just proved yourself wrong.
you can ban the woman from having any other man. which is essential sexual slavery. truly good choice, i "completely agree".
as for bolded part, i guess its stretching it quite a bit, but that analogy would mean she should have somoen else do the sexing for her? like what the...?

You're looking at it a bit too literal. No, you can't ban knives as I said too. But you can perhaps prevent certain people from using them or keep them from being used period. In any case, as my edit mentioned, that analogy was more suited for the girlfriend and not the Other Man. I added that under.

For the bold, by the way... I see it more as having the woman need a constant chaperone. Guy friends? What guy friends? She gets no guy friends of her own. Any guy friends she has gets to be all buddy buddy with boyfriend too. In fact, they should all mostly be couples too. She does not spend any amount of time alone with a guy in a private area. And boyfriend has to know where she is and where she's going at all times.

Unless of course they break up. In which case that's moot as he wouldn't give a damn as I think he'd be trying to forget all about her. Matter of fact, the break up itself would be the punishment for the most part as she loses him. Provided she's remorseful later. If not, then you hope she catches something nasty.

so, castrate the guy? logic, where are thou?

Extreme, much? Too literal, again. Look, your analogy with the punk stabbing you with the knife was... stabbing=crime, knife=tool and punk=perpetrator. Add that to the sitch: infidelity=crime, OP=tool and girlfriend=perpetrator. But the knife is not sentient. In fact, the organ being castrated has more in common with it. And with GF being the role of punk, the OP needed his own category. That's why I equate him with the person or persons who gave the knife to punk. He did in essence give her himself, but especially that particular organ.

To make this more fitting, you could take the OP and transfer him somewhere else so he can never be near the female ever again. No talking, no nothing.

what responsibility? he has done nothing wrong.

As I was replying to you, I had this thought of what was the perfect legal analogy for this issue. You know how people go to jail on counts of "Accessory to something" or other. Well, that's what the OP currently is. He's an accessory. An accessory before and after the fact.

holding a woman "your property" and not allowing her to sleep with who she wants is more selfish. you deserve more scorn if selfishness is worth scorning about (which i believe is not because then we should scorn 100% of humans and it would loose its meaning).

I agree it's selfish to a point. But it's not more selfish.

That's generally a negative trait to have anyway. But hell, it's not like any woman who allows herself to be owned--and make no mistake, they do--doesn't know what the deal is. Of course, the average guy wouldn't allow her to sleep with anyone else because he wants to be the only one sleeping with her. And it's vice versa. But more to the point, it's not just holding each other as property. It's an agreement. A commitment. If it was gonna be an issue, she never should have made to begin with.

so you agree with his point, but still call the guy scum, you know, just because, even if you agree that you were proven wrong. you, sir, are more persistent than i am.

I'm actually a female. So, replace that with one of the many things we can go by there.

And it's really more like I understand his point. It doesn't mean I agree with it. Yes, technically, there's no obligation to not sleep with her. Just as I know that there's no obligation to do other things or not do other things. I get it. But I still think there should be. And regardless, I will never look fondly on someone who does such a thing. I just can't. Basically, we're at an impasse.

yes. Yes. Yes they can. Thing is, people judge these things ALWAYS from a situation "if it happened to me". and enve if your single you make up a scenario of "if it was my girl". such can be seen in this thread in posts before ours for examples. your current status has no effect on this.

Hm, seeing as I am currently single, I guess I agree with you to some extent.

Just not for the reasons that Abomination was saying.

 

[AngloDoom]

Technically you're not at fault, since you're not the one betraying anyone's trust.
In reality, you're still going to be the one getting bludgeoned with a cricket bat when the truth rears its head.

 

[Strazdas]

No, you're misinterpreting my logic. In this case, take the driving a car and just change to being a drunk driver driving a car. You know if you get in this car totally impaired you're very likely gonna crash. And you may kill someone. You know all the reasons drunk driving is looked down on--and not just legally--but you decide to get behind the wheel anyway. That's what I'd compare this situation to.

Except that the guy is not drunk. he did nothing that would make him drunk in this analogy. your example does not work. either that or you have to explain it better.

Your forum analogy is not so fitting because just because there may be a chance someone gets irked with your posts does not mean that it's a likely occurrence. Your chances of making someone smile are the same as pissing someone off. Being the person someone uses to be unfaithful? There's no chance for anything else other than pain. How severe is very dependent but pain is always gonna happen.

likelyhood is not important. precedent is. A person being unfaithful is making another person happy. you know, the one hes sexing with. just becuase ONE side feels pain another does not loose ability to feel happyness. So by the rationale of making post being able to make somone smile and thus making it good you think being unfaithful is good.
once again, faulty logic.

Both. I think it's very good. If you don't wanna get judged for something negatively, then you should have thought about that before you did it. It's what whole making decisions thing and then acting so surprised at what the consequences turn out to be.

We are not discussing about him being surprised by the consequences. we are discussing the fact that there should be no consequences to begin with. (well obviously there are consequences like increased happyness from sex, but you know what im talking about).

That's still not changing anything. Long run or even short run. If the OP was madly in love with her and trying to steal her away or just using her as a sentient blow up doll, she's still cheating. He's being used to cheat.

You're not saying anything I don't already know. But what you're saying is irrelevant to the main problem at hand. This WILL most likely upset the boyfriend. And I never said there's anything wrong with short term relationships. The issue here is that these two are pursuing a short term relationship at the expense of someone else.

But I mention the long run because short term is just that... short. And when they eventually stop mindlessly fucking each other, there will be both short term and long term results to witness.

so this means that you indeed think she should just give up her own free will and subject herself to "being faithful" just because of our messed up look at the subject from society and what it could lead to. thanks but that is exactly what "owning" is.

I don't disagree. But I'm willing to bet they weren't nearly that way before they were so thoroughly betrayed. They say enough physical pain can drive a person mad, according to things I've seen and read. What's to say emotional/mental pain couldn't do the same?

Surely it can, but how is that a fault of anyone else's if their thresholds are so low? mentally unstable (not mad) are mentally unstable and they will blow up from another trigger eventually, unless they are completely sheltered.

Now maybe implications don't mean much to you but the fact that she even mentions breaking up with the guy in the first place tells me that she still considers them to be a couple.

It also mentions the fact that she does not want to be with him if she wants to break up (then again she could be lieing to OP just like she lied to the BF).

For the bold, by the way... I see it more as having the woman need a constant chaperone. Guy friends? What guy friends? She gets no guy friends of her own. Any guy friends she has gets to be all buddy buddy with boyfriend too. In fact, they should all mostly be couples too. She does not spend any amount of time alone with a guy in a private area. And boyfriend has to know where she is and where she's going at all times.

sounds like "i own here and decide what she can and cant do" to me.

[quoet]Unless of course they break up. In which case that's moot as he wouldn't give a damn as I think he'd be trying to forget all about her. Matter of fact, the break up itself would be the punishment for the most part as she loses him. Provided she's remorseful later. If not, then you hope she catches something nasty.[/quote]
so if a woman breaks up and is not sorry for it she deserves to "Catch something nasty"?

Extreme, much? Too literal, again.

am i supposed to interpret you like a poem or something?

Look, your analogy with the punk stabbing you with the knife was... stabbing=crime, knife=tool and punk=perpetrator. Add that to the sitch: infidelity=crime, OP=tool and girlfriend=perpetrator. But the knife is not sentient. In fact, the organ being castrated has more in common with it. And with GF being the role of punk, the OP needed his own category. That's why I equate him with the person or persons who gave the knife to punk. He did in essence give her himself, but especially that particular organ.

I would agree that OP may be a knives trader in this case. So according to you then, knives trader is at fault that a guy decides to stab me with a knife whose purpose, and thats whats its going to be used for as far as the trader is concerned, is to cut vegetables? the person selling the knife is not responsible for the person using it.

To make this more fitting, you could take the OP and transfer him somewhere else so he can never be near the female ever again. No talking, no nothing.

yes, punish everyone but the guilty.

As I was replying to you, I had this thought of what was the perfect legal analogy for this issue. You know how people go to jail on counts of "Accessory to something" or other. Well, that's what the OP currently is. He's an accessory. An accessory before and after the fact.

as i have said before, accessory to crime does not hold in this case. you cant say that, say, a person who sold a train ticket is responsible for a person murdering someone on a train. yes he did let him into the train, but does that mean hes the person responsible?

I agree it's selfish to a point. But it's not more selfish.

so holding a person your object is less selfish than agreeing to grant a request of a woman to have sex with you?

But hell, it's not like any woman who allows herself to be owned--and make no mistake, they do--doesn't know what the deal is. Of course, the average guy wouldn't allow her to sleep with anyone else because he wants to be the only one sleeping with her. And it's vice versa. But more to the point, it's not just holding each other as property. It's an agreement. A commitment. If it was gonna be an issue, she never should have made to begin with.

I agree, she should not have committed, or told him about breaking it before breaking. She is guilty of lieing.

I'm actually a female. So, replace that with one of the many things we can go by there.

Okay, Madam. They really should show genders near nicknames, would save a lot of confusion. there is unusualyl high concentration of active females in this forums.
Actually, that does explain a lot, your hatred for the OP, your attempts to make her thel ess guilty party. But i disgress, lets not get stereotypical.

And it's really more like I understand his point. It doesn't mean I agree with it. Yes, technically, there's no obligation to not sleep with her. Just as I know that there's no obligation to do other things or not do other things. I get it. But I still think there should be. And regardless, I will never look fondly on someone who does such a thing. I just can't. Basically, we're at an impasse.

if you said that what he siad is true, you agree. or do you disagree with the truth?
Now, you have a right to think there should be certain obligations. for condemning people for not following your own internal logic and instead using one of theirs, you have no right to. You dont have to agree or like it, but you cant shove your belief onto others just because you think there "should be".

In reality, you're still going to be the one getting bludgeoned with a cricket bat when the truth rears its head.

so i take it you think its good that people go around beating eachother for things, that you yourself admit, are not their fault.

 

[game-lover]

Except that the guy is not drunk. he did nothing that would make him drunk in this analogy. your example does not work. either that or you have to explain it better.

I think it's the latter. Okay, switch drunk to someone who chooses to text behind the wheel. It's just as much an issue as drunk driving. And sorta same. And you're sober. You know you should pay attention to the road. You know you could in an accident if you text while you're on the move... but you just have finish this wonderful conversation with this person for whatever reason. Besides, you know what you're doing. You're an awesome driver. Until suddenly you're not. You crash. Someone gets hurt. Oh damn, what now?

likelyhood is not important. precedent is. A person being unfaithful is making another person happy. you know, the one hes sexing with. just becuase ONE side feels pain another does not loose ability to feel happyness. So by the rationale of making post being able to make somone smile and thus making it good you think being unfaithful is good.
once again, faulty logic.

Um... no... Where did you get that? I just said your posting on the forum issue didn't fit the analogy I made. That has nothing to do with whether it's good or not. And I think likelihood is very important. It's the whole point of this. I never said someone wasn't gonna be happy just because boyfriend is in pain. Of course someone will be. But more likely than not, their happiness will cause his pain. Certainly his anger and betrayal. Any post on a forum has a 50/50 shot of making someone happy or unhappy. Perhaps even a 50/50 shot of upsetting another poster which leads to another one happy. There's no 50/50 chance with the cheating. It's 100% chance straight up causing someone pain/anger by causing another's happiness or pleasure. Maybe not immediately. Maybe not quickly. But it's a done deal. There's the difference.

As far as your precedent argument goes, both girl and OP have decided that their mutual sexual pleasure takes precedence. This is the whole wrong thing because again, it's at the expense of someone else. So no, being unfaithful is never good and never will be good. There can never be an excuse in my eyes. And happiness doesn't always mean good. Of course pain doesn't always mean bad either but still...

We are not discussing about him being surprised by the consequences. we are discussing the fact that there should be no consequences to begin with. (well obviously there are consequences like increased happyness from sex, but you know what im talking about).

Yeah, negative consequences.

Well, why not? I'm just gonna ask that. We who think there should be have been getting asked why. Now I wanna know why people like you don't think there should be? Is it simply because he's just not dating the guy? Is that really all there is to it?

so this means that you indeed think she should just give up her own free will and subject herself to "being faithful" just because of our messed up look at the subject from society and what it could lead to. thanks but that is exactly what "owning" is.

I wasn't saying otherwise. Of course, most monogamous types I think use the word "claiming" more than anything. The whole belonging deal. But yeah, that's the gist. It shouldn't be giving up her free will to keep herself faithful. She chose to be in a monogamous relationship, did she not? I highly doubt he forced her into this or that she didn't know what being in that relationship would mean.

But if she wants to practice her sexual free will, she can do that as much as she wants. She just can't have boyfriend. In fact, it's an exchange. If she shouldn't "give up her free will" as you put it, then she shouldn't have a boyfriend. Or fiance. Or husband. Or any significant other, period. If you can't take limiting your sexual free will to only one person, then just keep the fuck away from the monogamous types and find someone more your speed.

Surely it can, but how is that a fault of anyone else's if their thresholds are so low? mentally unstable (not mad) are mentally unstable and they will blow up from another trigger eventually, unless they are completely sheltered.

The considerably low threshold is not anyone else's fault, no. But being the trigger sure the hell is. And you take a risk by doing such an action as the OP when you have no idea how low someone's threshold is. But hey, I'm sure the sex is worth it.

It also mentions the fact that she does not want to be with him if she wants to break up (then again she could be lieing to OP just like she lied to the BF).

True. But it means she did want to be with him at first. And it still means she considered them claiming each other even if she doesn't want that anymore.

sounds like "i own here and decide what she can and cant do" to me.

If she wanted to be with him, oh yeah. If she wanted to keep him, prevent him from leaving her, severing all possible connections and more importantly, sleeping with the next female who caught his eye, than she'd best be all up in that. Especially the last as that'd be telling if she didn't want him with another girl. Otherwise, she could just let him go. Again, most monogamous types like to see it more poetically.

As I said, it's an exchange. Because he doesn't really own her literally. But more in the figurative sense. She gave him her commitment, her promises, her "loyalty," her "love," etc. He has them because she gave them to him. And now she has taken it all away or is at least in the process. And if she wanted to keep him from taking all of his away, then now she has to give more.

so if a woman breaks up and is not sorry for it she deserves to "Catch something nasty"?

No, if the woman cheats and is not sorry. The break up is just a possible result of this. Either she'll dump him first or he'll dump her if he finds out before then. But she deserves to catch something nasty because she's an adulterous slut. I believe all cheaters deserve to catch something nasty or get some kind of punishment for what they've done.

am i supposed to interpret you like a poem or something?

Not like a poem... but if the literal seems too extreme, maybe you can see that's not what I meant.

I would agree that OP may be a knives trader in this case. So according to you then, knives trader is at fault that a guy decides to stab me with a knife whose purpose, and thats whats its going to be used for as far as the trader is concerned, is to cut vegetables? the person selling the knife is not responsible for the person using it.

That is true, to a degree. In that case, the comparison is more if the OP had no idea girl had a boyfriend. Of course if he kept doing it after learning about boyfriend, it's the same as knowing about him from the beginning. For the knife trader, this would be either punk straight up saying he want the sharpest object to hurt someone... or taking the knife, going out the store and stabbing someone across the street, then coming back over and asking for another knife to replace the last one. And trader just goes: "sure!"

yes, punish everyone but the guilty.

But I already mentioned how you could punish the girlfriend too, didn't I? Because make no mistake, the slut-***** is guilty.

as i have said before, accessory to crime does not hold in this case. you cant say that, say, a person who sold a train ticket is responsible for a person murdering someone on a train. yes he did let him into the train, but does that mean hes the person responsible?

You can if this person is inside the train with someone who has made it known one way or the other to tell you not to let the guy outside in this train. Because of fear or whatever. If they ignore this individual and let crazy guy in and then he waltzes over and kills them... Or more dramatically, if one can clearly see this person outside the train has a goddamn weapon but proceed to let them in anyway. Yeah, you can blame the door opener.

so holding a person your object is less selfish than agreeing to grant a request of a woman to have sex with you?

A bit. For the former, the only reason you can hold a person as your own is because the person allows you to. And the person is holding you as their own in turn. The latter sounds like it could easily be the former but it's all about context. The latter's context is that they do this thing without regards to anyone else. In this case, boyfriend. At least for the former, no one's really losing out.

I agree, she should not have committed, or told him about breaking it before breaking. She is guilty of lieing.

And cheating. The lying mostly defines the cheating as much as breaking the terms of the commitment. If there was no breaking the terms, there would be no lying. No deceit. The hiding of the act is what can really make cheating painful, I think. Because it says it me, you knew this wouldn't be accepted so you're hiding it so you don't have to face up to your bullshit.

Okay, Madam. They really should show genders near nicknames, would save a lot of confusion. there is unusualyl high concentration of active females in this forums.
Actually, that does explain a lot, your hatred for the OP, your attempts to make her thel ess guilty party. But i disgress, lets not get stereotypical.

As I mention earlier up there, I'm not trying to make her less guilty. I'm trying to make the OP equally as guilty. But I don't hate the OP. I just don't have any respect for him as a human being right now. They are both terrible people and each needs some emotional suffering as a consequence.

if you said that what he siad is true, you agree. or do you disagree with the truth?
Now, you have a right to think there should be certain obligations. for condemning people for not following your own internal logic and instead using one of theirs, you have no right to. You dont have to agree or like it, but you cant shove your belief onto others just because you think there "should be".

But I'm not shoving my belief onto anyone. That's why we're at an impasse. Agree to disagree.

I concede that there is no obligation to do many things. Or to not do many things. I concede because for all I can spout about moral obligation, it's quite obvious to me that many people are not on the same moral wavelength as I am. So there's nothing more I can say to that. We'd just go around in circles. Because regardless of whether he was obligated to prevent it or not, he's still helping her slut it up. And that's just how I see it.