Is It Wrong?

[Willie Boy]

Rubbish, you are making excuses for the cheat by saying this. You're suggesting that the third party preys on a weak person, seducing them and wrecking their marriage.

Idiocy. I said no such thing. I said both parties involved in the cheating are responsible. What you suggest is just another attempt by you to rationalize your own wrongdoing.

I know we aren't going to change your mind because you definitely refuse to take responsibility for your own actions. Therefore this is the last time I will respond to you. Talking to you is like talking to a stale pile of dog shit. I get the same response either way, stale shit.

 

[Lefty]

^



this boy still don't talk nothing but excrement.

 

[youngnihilist]

Yeah it's wrong and selfish. But you know what the married men who cheat on their wives with guys are suffering inside so they will get what they deserve.

 

[Ninja108]

Instead of going into a long tirade, I'll simply answer your question with one word.....yes.

 

[easyroad]

There is NO contradiction, no hypocrisy. The positions are completely different. If i told the cheat not to cheat whilst being a cheat myself, THAT is the hypocrisy. I wouldn't cheat so its not.

Agree to disagree. I still think it's very hypocritical. It would be better if nothing was said at all than for a person to give moral lessons while fucking a married guy. What's the point of saying he shouldn't do it if you're gonna fuck him anyway?

Also, a post that I missed that's very good:

It is also wrong to sleep with someone who has agreed to be monogamous with someone else. You aren't just a "free agent" who can do whatever. It is your ethical problem to be sleeping with a cheater.

That's absolutely correct. It's very much an ethical problem (which is probably why I'm so invested in this thread, since I love ethics). And it really bothers me, this posture that "I have no blame in this, he's the one who fucked me, I was just ~there~". What are you, an object or a person?

 

[bankside]

I think it is a sign of a weak argument when people agree to disagree. I also don't put much stake in an argument that hides behind subjectivity. That doesn't excuse name-calling however.

I must say this Mitchymo, i'm a bit shocked that the word "duty" isn't even in your vocabulary that you would reflexively substitute "respect."

Respect is a feeling of deep admiration. Duty is something you're obliged to do whether you have positive feelings about it or not. And it is our duty not to help a cheater fuck over another person, whether we know them or not, whether we are related to them or not. There's nothing subjective about it, that's just how it is.

Unfortunately it seems we will not convince you, none of which changes your duty. But it does mean we move a bit from talking with you, to talking about you. As in "Stay away from him - he's bad news, and he'll fuck you over because in general he doesn't "feel" any obligation to be decent to you."

It's just bollocks and most of us know it.

 

[easyroad]

I think it is a sign of a weak argument when people agree to disagree.

Not necessarily. Maybe it's a sign of not wanting to drag an already long and tiring discussion in which none of the parties involved are willing to budge?

I must say this Mitchymo, i'm a bit shocked that the word "duty" isn't even in your vocabulary that you would reflexively substitute "respect."

Respect is a feeling of deep admiration. Duty is something you're obliged to do whether you have positive feelings about it or not. And it is our duty not to help a cheater fuck over another person, whether we know them or not, whether we are related to them or not. There's nothing subjective about it, that's just how it is.

Agreed. It's an ethical duty. If you really respect the concept of marriage, you must respect other people's commitments as well as your own (stones and glass houses come to mind) - and if you don't do that, you're a hypocrite. Simple as that.

 

[leomendez93]

stevexxx, if you are asking is because your inner values and consciousness are clashing. Try to respond for yourself and act accordingly. You are the only one who can tell yourself what is wrong or right. I would choose to fight the lust and desire but that is your choice and I am not judging you.

 

[Lefty]

my post #51 was an obvious and clumsy attempt to steer the

ship of this thread in a meaningful direction with a destination.

Foolish me to think a rudderless garbage scow could be coursed

let alone guided to a successful dockage.

 

[Lefty]

Star boy..........

wake up and smell the coffee

traditional vows say...Love Honour and Obey.

Traditionally people were dead at 40 from old age.

Grey is gray is relative to vows and ages and the

sexual persuasions involved ... eh?

 

[stevexxx]

general census. it is wrong. We know what the right thing to do it's the motivation that takes effort.

 

[tonyboy]

Is it wrong to cheat on your wife with another dude? i have read some posts here that convey a message of, " oh yea it's okay to go fool around with a married guy or try to" i mean seriously that's fucked up. that could destroy a family think about the wife and the kids. if most people do, i am probably on the wrong site.

HOly cow man... you are 100% correct... Gay or straight... I know cheating goes on all the time.. but in every case it's wrong.
Seems to me you have a good head on your shoulders... and I'd guess you are an A+ guy.. someone who has morals and thinks about others rather than just himself..

 

[Ninja108]

cheating is cheating...period

 

[stevexxx]

HOly cow man... you are 100% correct... Gay or straight... I know cheating goes on all the time.. but in every case it's wrong.
Seems to me you have a good head on your shoulders... and I'd guess you are an A+ guy.. someone who has morals and thinks about others rather than just himself..

haha thanks

 

[asu1117]

Easyroad, morality is a subjective thing. You may look at the stance i take and think it is still being immoral, i obviously do not because i take a different view on the issue.
I respect fully what fidelity means, which is why I would never be a cheat on anyone who i was with, marriage is irrelevant, the rule applies to anyone who i was simply seeing as a partner. I am responsible for my own actions and nobody elses, so if someone else is going to cheat, then a) that is their responsibility and b) it means the fidelity which i respect is already a failure as far as their relationship which they are in is concerned, otherwise they wouldn't be cheating in the first place.

So as far as escaping responsibility goes, there is frankly NO responsibility as far as the third party is concerned, a marriage (or fidelity which is in fact the actual issue) is the responsibility of ONLY those within the marriage/relationship.
The only exception to this as far as i'm concerned is when you are being approached by the lover of a friend or family member where you don't have a responsibility towards their relationships but you do have a responsibility to do right by your own loved ones, so getting involved with your best mates or brothers partner for example would indeed be immoral.

That's like saying "I gave him the crack, but he smoked and it was completely his choice to smoke it so I have no responsibility in this".



The enabler isn't completely without blame or responsibility. But you can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about your actions.

 

[bangthisbi]

I have been cheated on and it sucks. The guilt was too much for her to handle and she confessed. We worked through it but the relationship was never the same.
I won't cheat on a partner and I won't get with anyone that has a partner (even if the partner knows). I passed up on a lot of sex with other women when I was married and I have no regrets. I used to work with a gay guy that told me he wanted me and I certainly wanted him but, at the time, I was dating a girl that would end up being my wife. Cheating is no good.
The only time I would get with an attached person would be if both members of a couple invited me to join them. If that's their thing, then why not accept the invitation.

 

[yummylongsword]

If a person is cheating, they are effectively showing that they have no respect of their own commitment, why should i then respect it for them? Cheating behaviour is an obvious sign that they are, or weren't, ready for the concept of marriage with their chosen partner to begin with.

And its not a case of (for me at least) to try making you come around to my way of thinking, i'm simply stating how i see it and defending it from that point. I guess i just have a more liberal view about the situation, where as from your point of view i am simply more immoral/unethical whatever.

I'm certainly not feeling any hostility as if i was in an argument, i trust that we are for the most part engaged simply in debate. I didn't appreciate the other guy's hostile reaction to a point i made, that doesn't help in trying to understand difference.

It all boils down to this: you don't feel the need to protect others from harm or help stop something bad from happening if it costs you anything. If you saw someone getting mugged, you would walk right on by, right? It's not your responsibility to deal with the problems caused by the mugger, it was his choice. Heck you might even stop by afterward and see if they dropped any cash. I mean, it was the mugger's fault for doing the deed, right?

Actually, that metaphor is a little too forgiving. It's more like if a mugger came up to you and asked you for a crowbar, saying that he was gonna mug some guy and you'd split the cash. I mean hey, YOU'RE not the one doing the mugging, you have no responsibility to stop the guy from doing it, you might as well benefit from his immoral actions.

 

[Willie Boy]

It all boils down to this: you don't feel the need to protect others from harm or help stop something bad from happening if it costs you anything. If you saw someone getting mugged, you would walk right on by, right? It's not your responsibility to deal with the problems caused by the mugger, it was his choice. Heck you might even stop by afterward and see if they dropped any cash. I mean, it was the mugger's fault for doing the deed, right?

Actually, that metaphor is a little too forgiving. It's more like if a mugger came up to you and asked you for a crowbar, saying that he was gonna mug some guy and you'd split the cash. I mean hey, YOU'RE not the one doing the mugging, you have no responsibility to stop the guy from doing it, you might as well benefit from his immoral actions.

Interesting and quite accurate analogy. In the case of the mugger asking for the crowbar, the courts would consider you to be an accessory to the crime.

 

[yummylongsword]

Interesting and quite accurate analogy. In the case of the mugger asking for the crowbar, the courts would consider you to be an accessory to the crime.

Exactly. I intended to make a comparison that would bring out the obvious response of "oh, that's wrong!" and then point out that it's basically the same thing.

I don't really tend to take strong moral stances unless I have a legitimate reason for backing it up.

 

[yummylongsword]

This is NOT a good analogy at all actually.

This is clearly a crime. A mugging is theft. Are you suggesting that getting involved with an attached person (and one whom initiates and has ultimate responsibility) is somehow stealing?
People are nobody's possessions, they are only their responsibilities.
If i was seeing an attached person, i have no responsibility to complete strangers who that person might be involved with, they do.

And yet, you feel it would be immoral not to stand back from a mugging...

I of course wouldn't stand back if someone was being mugged and there was something i could do because i recognise that they could get hurt and could lose property.

Even though the person being mugged is a stranger, and

i have no responsibility to complete strangers

In this case, the mugger is the cheating spouse. They would not be able to cheat on/mug someone unless you were there to have sex with them/give them a crowbar. You recognize that the cheated spouse/mugged person will get hurt if you help this mugger/cheating spouse do what they're doing, but you help them anyway.

Yet for some reason, one way it's aiding a crime, and the other it's "not your responsibility."

Blaming the third party is wrong. Choosing to proportion blame is wrong. Only the cheating is wrong and i wouldn't be the one doing that. It can be considered immoral to those who look at things opposite to what i have bolded above, but that is not how i view them, there is but one person and one only to blame. Extending to the proportional blame game can prove that the cheated other can also be partially responsible.

A person aiding in a crime is at fault, and it's immoral not to try and stop pain from happening, as you said above:

of course wouldn't stand back if someone was being mugged and there was something i could do because i recognise that they could get hurt

A person who cheats knows full well to whom they have responsibilities, a person who is third party cannot be blamed fairly for their involvement because firstly, like i have said, the responsibility is not theirs to bear at all,

Even though it IS their responsibility to help out a mugged person.

(i accept plenty don't see it like that but) and secondly, the circumstances can be very different from one liason to another. If i seduced a partnered person who was perhaps impressionable and weak, then i could certainly be considered as equally if not more responsible, but on the other hand, if it was me that was weak and impressionable???

To me, blaming the 'other' person is kind of like damage limitation, the deceit of the partner appears a little less if you blame someone else for the affair.
Instead, full realisation that there are issues surrounding the person who you're attached to should be the focus and accepting the problem lies with them.

Nobody wants to blame the "other" alone in a cheating situation, or at least that's not what I'm trying to get across. What I'm saying is that the "other" is far from completely innocent, as they're helping the cheating spouse commit something that will hurt someone. It all comes down to this: you are helping someone cause pain to someone else, because you benefit from the situation.