Thoughts on the “other woman”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People,of all ages but particularly the young, currently have this weird contractual view of relationships and see consent as the sole highest arbiter of whats right and wrong. Since the unmarried woman was under no contractual obligation to anyone nor to honor fidelity, she therefore did nothing wrong morally.

This is, of course, nonsense and obviously false, but consent morality is the dominant sentiment in society. “Vows” and “sexual restraint” are completely old fuddy duddy ideas gone the way of the dodo.

You are contradicting yourself. The other woman didn't take any vows. The married man did.

But everyone knows married people take vows and they, the other spouse, and their children should be left alone out of respect for not just the individuals but the institution of marriage and family itself.

You don't have much of a marriage if you're counting on total strangers to keep it together for you. It's on you and your spouse to do that.

This is stupid. It’s a [former] social contract. No different than having the very normal expectation that your neighbors will respect your property and won’t steal your TV when you’re not home, or that a teacher won’t molest your child at school. No one needs to be beholden to an explicit contract of consent to know what’s right or wrong.

No, that's like saying your DH has no control. If someone hits on him, he just has to go for it. That's wrong and dated. Your DH is 100% responsible for his behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women who date married men probably have self esteem issues.

Men who cheat on their wives are much sleazier in my book, in that they are lying repeatedly to someone they claim to love, for sex.

If there is a considerable age difference, it is more pathetic , because the guy should have matured beyond putting another notch in his belt , and have more perspective on what matters in life. (Hint:it is not breast implants.)

Young women are easy to manipulate and may fall for flattery and being swept off their feet by powerful men.

She is potentially hurting a person she has never met (whom he may be badmouthing). He is hurting the people who he promised to honor in front of their families, who gave birth to his children and he is threatening the welfare of those children. Absolutely NO comparison.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I noticed with the Adam Levine controversy that the super feminist take among younger millennials and Gen Z is to victimize the “other woman” and make the husband the sole perpetrator, including situations where the husband is famous and known to be married with kids. The husband IS most responsible for cheating on his wife, I agree with that. He’s the one who made promises he broke. But do women really not owe anything to other women anymore? It’s totally fine to be a side chick now , even when it’s publicly known that the wife has little kids at home?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills watching all these young women fall all over themselves to defend that TikToker who had the affair with Adam Levine. I don’t care what lies he fed her, she knew he was married and she was an adult when their affair started. It’s interesting to me that it’s considered “unfeminist” to call her out for being a homewrecker or to tell her t9 shut her legs to married men. Why can’t two things be true at once? Adam Levine is a trash husband and I hope his wife leaves with half his fortune. But knowingly sleeping with married men is trash behavior too.

So is your thesis “we are not being adequately cruel as a society to a woman who exposed a man for cheating on his wife”? Are you afraid that the scarlet letter she embroidered for herself was too beautiful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are right, of course.

The sin is equal on both sides.

Ah. Since you mention sin, specifically, do you by any chance identify as Christian? If not the rest of the comment is irrelevant for you.

If yes, are you aware that Jesus forgave both adulterous wives and (in some interpretation) prostitutes? And he doesn’t say let’s make sure we call them “sluts” and tell them to “keep their legs closed to married men”, as the OP suggests. Just wondering why the leader of your religion forgives but you assign sin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are right, of course.

The sin is equal on both sides.

No it is not. One made a vow, one did not. That's not equal.

Also, in case you are unaware, married men lie to the other woman. They are told he is no longer in love, the wife is fine with him seeking sex elsewhere, they are in the process of separating, the divorce will be final soon, etc.

But the bottom line is, the cheater is the one who is married.

In my case it was a 48 year old married mother. She definitely wasn’t lied to. The only lying was to her spouse. They both knew what they were doing was wrong so they snuck around and hid like sewer rats.

I was raised in a family that taught adultery/cheating was wrong. Lying and breaking trust was wrong. Banging someone you knew was married was wrong. I would never and I gave never screwed a married guy even the hot rich ones when I was in my 20s starting out and they were 40. I thought they were slimeballs with kids and a wife at home.

You just aren’t a good person if you know that and don’t care. Forget the sisterhood. Take off your pink p@ssy hat. You aren’t a friend of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, the party that took vows is wrong. The "other woman" is also guilty of being a terrible person, though - as a person (married to someone else or not), you should be guided by trying to do no harm to others. That's the basic human contract.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women who date married men probably have self esteem issues.

Men who cheat on their wives are much sleazier in my book, in that they are lying repeatedly to someone they claim to love, for sex.

If there is a considerable age difference, it is more pathetic , because the guy should have matured beyond putting another notch in his belt , and have more perspective on what matters in life. (Hint:it is not breast implants.)

Young women are easy to manipulate and may fall for flattery and being swept off their feet by powerful men.

She is potentially hurting a person she has never met (whom he may be badmouthing). He is hurting the people who he promised to honor in front of their families, who gave birth to his children and he is threatening the welfare of those children. Absolutely NO comparison.

99% of the affairs I know of in the DMV they were BOTH married.

I hate cheaters. Period. I think anyone that knowingly bangs a married person (and with kids!!) is a complete scumbag. I would never trust them. Poor character, lack of integrity, zero empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women who date married men probably have self esteem issues.

Men who cheat on their wives are much sleazier in my book, in that they are lying repeatedly to someone they claim to love, for sex.

If there is a considerable age difference, it is more pathetic , because the guy should have matured beyond putting another notch in his belt , and have more perspective on what matters in life. (Hint:it is not breast implants.)

Young women are easy to manipulate and may fall for flattery and being swept off their feet by powerful men.

She is potentially hurting a person she has never met (whom he may be badmouthing). He is hurting the people who he promised to honor in front of their families, who gave birth to his children and he is threatening the welfare of those children. Absolutely NO comparison.

99% of the affairs I know of in the DMV they were BOTH married.

I hate cheaters. Period. I think anyone that knowingly bangs a married person (and with kids!!) is a complete scumbag. I would never trust them. Poor character, lack of integrity, zero empathy.

Yeah the recent Nia long thing was awful. Young children in both marriages. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People,of all ages but particularly the young, currently have this weird contractual view of relationships and see consent as the sole highest arbiter of whats right and wrong. Since the unmarried woman was under no contractual obligation to anyone nor to honor fidelity, she therefore did nothing wrong morally.

This is, of course, nonsense and obviously false, but consent morality is the dominant sentiment in society. “Vows” and “sexual restraint” are completely old fuddy duddy ideas gone the way of the dodo.

You are contradicting yourself. The other woman didn't take any vows. The married man did.

But everyone knows married people take vows and they, the other spouse, and their children should be left alone out of respect for not just the individuals but the institution of marriage and family itself.

You don't have much of a marriage if you're counting on total strangers to keep it together for you. It's on you and your spouse to do that.

This is stupid. It’s a [former] social contract. No different than having the very normal expectation that your neighbors will respect your property and won’t steal your TV when you’re not home, or that a teacher won’t molest your child at school. No one needs to be beholden to an explicit contract of consent to know what’s right or wrong.

No, that's like saying your DH has no control. If someone hits on him, he just has to go for it. That's wrong and dated. Your DH is 100% responsible for his behavior.

No, it’s saying that DH did something wrong and the other woman did something different than DH, but also wrong. It’s really bizarre that you guys think that both can’t be true at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are right, of course.

The sin is equal on both sides.

No it is not. One made a vow, one did not. That's not equal.

Also, in case you are unaware, married men lie to the other woman. They are told he is no longer in love, the wife is fine with him seeking sex elsewhere, they are in the process of separating, the divorce will be final soon, etc.

But the bottom line is, the cheater is the one who is married.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I noticed with the Adam Levine controversy that the super feminist take among younger millennials and Gen Z is to victimize the “other woman” and make the husband the sole perpetrator, including situations where the husband is famous and known to be married with kids. The husband IS most responsible for cheating on his wife, I agree with that. He’s the one who made promises he broke. But do women really not owe anything to other women anymore? It’s totally fine to be a side chick now , even when it’s publicly known that the wife has little kids at home?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills watching all these young women fall all over themselves to defend that TikToker who had the affair with Adam Levine. I don’t care what lies he fed her, she knew he was married and she was an adult when their affair started. It’s interesting to me that it’s considered “unfeminist” to call her out for being a homewrecker or to tell her t9 shut her legs to married men. Why can’t two things be true at once? Adam Levine is a trash husband and I hope his wife leaves with half his fortune. But knowingly sleeping with married men is trash behavior too.

I hate the mob mentality and cancel culture of TikTok. Sumner Strohl has an only fans account, essentially she is a sex worker. No doubt she is young and has made poor choices, but it is hard not to see this “reveal” as anything but a money grab. Monica Lewinsky, as entitled and oblivious as she was, at least was sincere.

[Anonymous]

The woman is a home wrecker and pure trash.

[Anonymous]

Behati married him knowing he bragged about cheating on his former partners and was out and proud about saying he didn't believe he or any men could be monogamous. I'm not going to insult her intelligence by acting like this is some kind of betrayal. He's been very straightforward about exactly the kind of sleezeball he is for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Behati married him knowing he bragged about cheating on his former partners and was out and proud about saying he didn't believe he or any men could be monogamous. I'm not going to insult her intelligence by acting like this is some kind of betrayal. He's been very straightforward about exactly the kind of sleezeball he is for a long time.

My thoughts about the other woman? Eh, yeah she's trash. But if you marry a guy like this it's hard to blame one individual woman because it was so clear it could be anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are right, of course.

The sin is equal on both sides.

No it is not. One made a vow, one did not. That's not equal.

Also, in case you are unaware, married men lie to the other woman. They are told he is no longer in love, the wife is fine with him seeking sex elsewhere, they are in the process of separating, the divorce will be final soon, etc.

But the bottom line is, the cheater is the one who is married.

It is absolutely equal. My exH's AP gleefully told me "she took" my husband and referred to herself as the new Mrs. These women know exactly what they're doing and don't care.