Why so much hate for the OW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women here are wives. There is a lot of projection going on. It goes the other way too. Most men would be pissed off at the other guy more than at the cheating wife, because his property rights were infringed on. People are obsessed with possession, I guess.

You have a seriously messed up view of men. Sucks to be you.

I don't. You, OTOH, have not developed any reading comprehension skills. Sucks to be you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

And I suppose that the same would hold true for the OW, right? No one has made any commitment to her either (that includes the married guy). No respect necessary..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women control sex. If the OW was being a proper gate keeper, none of this would have happened. It's why women give other women such a hard time for dressing provocatively.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

Do you know what the Golden Rule is?
Treat others as you'd expect/want to be treated.

Yes, I know what the Golden Rule is. Do you know that different people may prefer being treated differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

And I suppose that the same would hold true for the OW, right? No one has made any commitment to her either (that includes the married guy). No respect necessary..

Has DH's OW asked for your respect? Why change in subject?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

I guess because OW only does wrong by herself. The cheating husband does wrong by his whole family.

I am for one sick and tired of women being blamed for everything from cheating to rape. Husbands cheat, because they want to cheat, not because OW controls anything. I don't understand why this is controversial. I agree this may be a feat of self-defense by wives who can't make it on their own and have to reconcile with a cheating husband. Shifting the blame to OW and picturing DH as an innocent victim makes it possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

You mean marriage as in ownership agreement? This is what it has been historically: Fathers sold off their daughters (means of reproduction) for a doury. Or do you think today's white wedding customs were just made up on a whim? There is a reason some brides' parents still consider it their duty to pay for their daughters weddings.

Unless you see your spouse as private property, you have no moral (formerly legal) grounds to act on OW. He broke his promises, so he needs to sort out his mess. She's free to do as she pleases.

[Anonymous]

It comes from the view that another woman can take your husband away and that's not possible. Men stray and leave if they want to, the OW didn't and can't make them do anything. If a woman a man took vows too can't "make" him be faithful, how does she figure another woman is able to control his actions? What he does is on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

I guess because OW only does wrong by herself. The cheating husband does wrong by his whole family.

I am for one sick and tired of women being blamed for everything from cheating to rape. Husbands cheat, because they want to cheat, not because OW controls anything. I don't understand why this is controversial. I agree this may be a feat of self-defense by wives who can't make it on their own and have to reconcile with a cheating husband. Shifting the blame to OW and picturing DH as an innocent victim makes it possible.

That is not very nuanced. Certainly the cheating husband has done something worse than OW, and I don't think it is really disputed by anyone that cheating on your spouse is wrong. But that does not mean the OW bears no culpability for her part in it. Indeed, I think saying the OW is blameless is really denying her any moral agency in the matter. It takes two to tango, and so I think both are to blame except in circumstances where the wayward spouse has lied by saying the marriage is effectively over, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

You mean marriage as in ownership agreement? This is what it has been historically: Fathers sold off their daughters (means of reproduction) for a doury. Or do you think today's white wedding customs were just made up on a whim? There is a reason some brides' parents still consider it their duty to pay for their daughters weddings.

Unless you see your spouse as private property, you have no moral (formerly legal) grounds to act on OW. He broke his promises, so he needs to sort out his mess. She's free to do as she pleases.

Do you actually know anything about this topic, or are you just reciting talking points you read somewhere?

In any event, you are wrong on the merits. Once can legitimately have an interest in a relationship that is subject to legal protection without viewing the other party as "private property." For instance, tortious interference with contract rights in the business setting is legally actionable in many jurisdictions. I would respectfully submit that the view that there is nothing morally wrong about sleeping with someone else's spouse is rather a minority view, and one that doesn't make much sense.

[Anonymous]

It's always complicated.

It's really easy to say "People cheat because they are sociopaths who don't care about anything but their own gratification." Cheaters justify their actions in any number of ways. Sometimes the justification of "I was not getting what I needed from my marriage and I found it somewhere else" is not a bunch of bullshit. Marriages fail and fall apart with and without cheating all the time.

The vitriol directed at the other woman is almost always protective, though. Setting the OW up to be this complete vixen who lured your husband away maybe staves off the feeling of "Why wasn't I good enough for him?" that will almost certainly come when someone you love betrays you. Placing the blame on the OW makes it easier to justify (to yourself and others) your decision to try to work on the marriage.

I don't blame the wronged spouse for those feelings. They are completely valid. But I do think that many times, the anger directed at the OW is actually a stand in for something else. It's just a lot easier to hate someone you never loved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

You mean marriage as in ownership agreement? This is what it has been historically: Fathers sold off their daughters (means of reproduction) for a doury. Or do you think today's white wedding customs were just made up on a whim? There is a reason some brides' parents still consider it their duty to pay for their daughters weddings.

Unless you see your spouse as private property, you have no moral (formerly legal) grounds to act on OW. He broke his promises, so he needs to sort out his mess. She's free to do as she pleases.

Do you actually know anything about this topic, or are you just reciting talking points you read somewhere?

In any event, you are wrong on the merits. Once can legitimately have an interest in a relationship that is subject to legal protection without viewing the other party as "private property." For instance, tortious interference with contract rights in the business setting is legally actionable in many jurisdictions. I would respectfully submit that the view that there is nothing morally wrong about sleeping with someone else's spouse is rather a minority view, and one that doesn't make much sense.

Where would I read such talking points? LOL

A relationship may not be subject to legal protection. You may only enforce the contract, not the relationship. Once it's gone, it's gone, even though the contract remains. Hence the business setting example. The fact that you disagree with another view does not invalidate it.

[Anonymous]

They hate the other woman because "How dare you give him the sexual fulfillment I've been denying him for so long and making him do dishes with the promise (and denial) of sex?"

The OW takes away the currency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with good character don't sleep with married men.

Justify it all you want. The other woman lacks integrity and is disrespecting the family just like the husband is.

This is it. It isn't either/or - both shoulder blame. Remember the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is flawed.

There is no question of integrity when no promises have been made. OW doesn't owe you any respect. It is pointless to expect it.

This is incorrect. Marriage is not simply a private institution, it is also a public/civic one. That is why the government recognizes it legally. Indeed, being the OW or OM was traditionally actionable at common law, although that action is largely not viable anymore in the age of no-fault divorce. Still, I think most would agree that people have some level of civic duty not to damage the marriages of others.

I don't understand why it is controversial that both parties in this situation have done something wrong.

You mean marriage as in ownership agreement? This is what it has been historically: Fathers sold off their daughters (means of reproduction) for a doury. Or do you think today's white wedding customs were just made up on a whim? There is a reason some brides' parents still consider it their duty to pay for their daughters weddings.

Unless you see your spouse as private property, you have no moral (formerly legal) grounds to act on OW. He broke his promises, so he needs to sort out his mess. She's free to do as she pleases.

Do you actually know anything about this topic, or are you just reciting talking points you read somewhere?

In any event, you are wrong on the merits. Once can legitimately have an interest in a relationship that is subject to legal protection without viewing the other party as "private property." For instance, tortious interference with contract rights in the business setting is legally actionable in many jurisdictions. I would respectfully submit that the view that there is nothing morally wrong about sleeping with someone else's spouse is rather a minority view, and one that doesn't make much sense.

NP, in a marriage setting, which is what is being discussed here, Alienation of Affection laws only exist in about 7 states. It's been abolished everywhere else. Your argument is in the minority.