Why so much hate for the OW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Susie is on the playground. She asks the teacher for a red ball and skips happily playing with it. The teacher has thousands of balls for the children to play, all shapes and colors, but Debbie sees Susie and takes her red ball. Susie is now crying. Debbie could have seen Teacher to get any ball she wished, even a red one like Susie's, but she took Susie's anyway, without Susie's agreement (agreement = sharing = non-exclusivity)

The lessons we have had since childhood: don't take someone else's ball, get your own ball, and play nice.

Debbie is a b!tch. I hate Debbie.

Except in this case - The teacher asked the kids to choose a buddy and play with them. Susie and Peter chose each other because they wanted to play on the Seesaw. After sometime Peter saw Debbie playing in the sandbox and he wanted to play too. Peter thought that he could actually take turns playing with both Susie and Debbie.

How does this become Debbie's fault?

Because Debbie knows it will hurt Susie. She knows this and does it anyway. Debbie could play with anyone, she could even ask Susie to join them, or ask if Susie minded, but she chooses to be disruptive and contribute to an intimate form of social rejection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. See: Red Ball on Playground example

The point of that is there are thousands of balls. Thousands. Why not move on?

Because they don't care who they hurt, that's why. Human behavior, indeed. These women have free will and moral agency. They are not victims. They are not more worthy of scorn than the man. But the lame attempts to absolve these women of responsibility to even think or care about the people impacted by their decisions is pathetic. They are not LESS culpable because they "don't have a vow to the wife.". Give me a break. I am offended by these attempts to minimize this kind of morally bankrupt activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Susie is on the playground. She asks the teacher for a red ball and skips happily playing with it. The teacher has thousands of balls for the children to play, all shapes and colors, but Debbie sees Susie and takes her red ball. Susie is now crying. Debbie could have seen Teacher to get any ball she wished, even a red one like Susie's, but she took Susie's anyway, without Susie's agreement (agreement = sharing = non-exclusivity)

The lessons we have had since childhood: don't take someone else's ball, get your own ball, and play nice.

Debbie is a b!tch. I hate Debbie.

Except in this case - The teacher asked the kids to choose a buddy and play with them. Susie and Peter chose each other because they wanted to play on the Seesaw. After sometime Peter saw Debbie playing in the sandbox and he wanted to play too. Peter thought that he could actually take turns playing with both Susie and Debbie.

How does this become Debbie's fault?

Because Debbie knows it will hurt Susie. She knows this and does it anyway. Debbie could play with anyone, she could even ask Susie to join them, or ask if Susie minded, but she chooses to be disruptive and contribute to an intimate form of social rejection.

+1

Because Debbie is immature and selfish and never grew up.

[Anonymous]

I used to think so too, OP. That she was just a vagina he screwed. But when he broke things off with her, she didn't have the decency or the dignity to just walk away. No, she started targeting our family. She reached out to my elderly in-laws who had no idea their only son was a cheating husband. It really crushed them, my MIL ended up in a hospital. She e-mailed all of our friends who had no clue of the affair. And the worst part? 2 years after the affair ended she sent a message to our DS on FB. We had to explain to a teenage boy who was stunned as well. She went far and beyond to make our life miserable. We filed a restraining order against her, she lost her security clearance. We haven't heard from her in over a year. So yes, I do blame her. A LOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, the sad OW here can't take it when somebody calls them out for what they are and cries to Jeff, huh?

I think the sad fact is you can't face the truth of your moral bankruptcy. You are not victims, ladies - you are homewreckers.

The people you were screaming at are not homewreckers. At least I wasn't. I just thought you were being totally crazy.

This thread, painting women who sleep with married men as some kind of victims, is what's crazy. The illogical rationalizing of immoral and socially unacceptable behavior is crazy.

The answer to OP's original question is simple - because, if you knowingly sleep with a married man, you deserve all the hate that gets thrown your way.

I think the point was why the woman is more deserving of our contempt than the man, who is the only person in that situation who is breaking a specific vow. I don't think that either one of them is right, but your over the top BS about whores and hellfire was, in fact, over the top and crazy-sounding.

I was thinking about it more from a human behavior perspective - what motivates people to behave the way they do. If that's not your bag, feel free to be angry. It is actually possible for people to think about things differently without it being illogical rationalization.

Okay Miss Social Psychologist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. See: Red Ball on Playground example

The point of that is there are thousands of balls. Thousands. Why not move on?

Because they don't care who they hurt, that's why. Human behavior, indeed. These women have free will and moral agency. They are not victims. They are not more worthy of scorn than the man. But the lame attempts to absolve these women of responsibility to even think or care about the people impacted by their decisions is pathetic. They are not LESS culpable because they "don't have a vow to the wife.". Give me a break. I am offended by these attempts to minimize this kind of morally bankrupt activity.

Claiming that another woman can 'steal' your man is pathetic. And it's apt that a schoolyard scenario was chosen, because it sounds very childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, the sad OW here can't take it when somebody calls them out for what they are and cries to Jeff, huh?

I think the sad fact is you can't face the truth of your moral bankruptcy. You are not victims, ladies - you are homewreckers.

The people you were screaming at are not homewreckers. At least I wasn't. I just thought you were being totally crazy.

This thread, painting women who sleep with married men as some kind of victims, is what's crazy. The illogical rationalizing of immoral and socially unacceptable behavior is crazy.

The answer to OP's original question is simple - because, if you knowingly sleep with a married man, you deserve all the hate that gets thrown your way.

I think the point was why the woman is more deserving of our contempt than the man, who is the only person in that situation who is breaking a specific vow. I don't think that either one of them is right, but your over the top BS about whores and hellfire was, in fact, over the top and crazy-sounding.

I was thinking about it more from a human behavior perspective - what motivates people to behave the way they do. If that's not your bag, feel free to be angry. It is actually possible for people to think about things differently without it being illogical rationalization.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, the sad OW here can't take it when somebody calls them out for what they are and cries to Jeff, huh?

I think the sad fact is you can't face the truth of your moral bankruptcy. You are not victims, ladies - you are homewreckers.

The people you were screaming at are not homewreckers. At least I wasn't. I just thought you were being totally crazy.

This thread, painting women who sleep with married men as some kind of victims, is what's crazy. The illogical rationalizing of immoral and socially unacceptable behavior is crazy.

The answer to OP's original question is simple - because, if you knowingly sleep with a married man, you deserve all the hate that gets thrown your way.

I think the point was why the woman is more deserving of our contempt than the man, who is the only person in that situation who is breaking a specific vow. I don't think that either one of them is right, but your over the top BS about whores and hellfire was, in fact, over the top and crazy-sounding.

I was thinking about it more from a human behavior perspective - what motivates people to behave the way they do. If that's not your bag, feel free to be angry. It is actually possible for people to think about things differently without it being illogical rationalization.

Okay Miss Social Psychologist.

Why is that something to roll your eyes at, seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. See: Red Ball on Playground example

The point of that is there are thousands of balls. Thousands. Why not move on?

Because they don't care who they hurt, that's why. Human behavior, indeed. These women have free will and moral agency. They are not victims. They are not more worthy of scorn than the man. But the lame attempts to absolve these women of responsibility to even think or care about the people impacted by their decisions is pathetic. They are not LESS culpable because they "don't have a vow to the wife.". Give me a break. I am offended by these attempts to minimize this kind of morally bankrupt activity.

Claiming that another woman can 'steal' your man is pathetic. And it's apt that a schoolyard scenario was chosen, because it sounds very childish.

Go ahead thinking that sleeping with another woman's husband is okay. Society will never agree with you. Your line of thinking is twisted. They make meds and offer therapy for people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, the sad OW here can't take it when somebody calls them out for what they are and cries to Jeff, huh?

I think the sad fact is you can't face the truth of your moral bankruptcy. You are not victims, ladies - you are homewreckers.

The people you were screaming at are not homewreckers. At least I wasn't. I just thought you were being totally crazy.

This thread, painting women who sleep with married men as some kind of victims, is what's crazy. The illogical rationalizing of immoral and socially unacceptable behavior is crazy.

The answer to OP's original question is simple - because, if you knowingly sleep with a married man, you deserve all the hate that gets thrown your way.

I think the point was why the woman is more deserving of our contempt than the man, who is the only person in that situation who is breaking a specific vow. I don't think that either one of them is right, but your over the top BS about whores and hellfire was, in fact, over the top and crazy-sounding.

I was thinking about it more from a human behavior perspective - what motivates people to behave the way they do. If that's not your bag, feel free to be angry. It is actually possible for people to think about things differently without it being illogical rationalization.

Okay Miss Social Psychologist.

Why is that something to roll your eyes at, seriously?

Because you can talk about the motivations of human behavior all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that some behaviors are just WRONG. Why are you and others here so offended by that? You think it's justifiable to knowingly sleep with another woman's husband? Ever? You really want to make that argument?

As my mother always said, an explanation is not an excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do judge the OW when a man leaves his wife and children for her. Then she does have some accountability.

Why would a wife want a husband who wants to be with someone else? This is what I don't get. Some women have zero self-worth, then complain that their men don't want them.

I am not clear on OW's accountablity here. All three are adults capable of making their choices.

Except because it's done in secret, only DH and OW actually have free will choices. That's why it's so offensive to me. The wife doesn't get to choose. Yes, I get that the husband and wife have an obligation to treat each other well. This is obvious: if the husband doesn't feel treated well, it's in the OPEN. That is, it's not a secret. He has every right to negotiate better treatment. When is that courtesy extended to DW? It's extended to the OW who can decide and weigh in on getting involved. That's why the OW doesn't quite avoid full responsibility. She is at least afforded the option of choices, with access to the full view (I don't buy getting innocently deceived - if you don't know friends and family and haven't been to his place, you shouldn't be sleeping with him)

Single/available people hook up all the time for flings w/o ever meeting friends, relatives, etc. It just never gets that deep for them even though they have sex. That may not be a choice that you or I would make but that doesn't mean that they are "wrong" for having their fling. But if one of those people lies about their own marital status that is just plain deceptive and wrong. A person might agree to have sex with another single/available person but would never knowingly have sex with a married person. I suppose if the person could betray his/her own spouse it is not that surprising that they could dupe their lover as well. While I think that most affair partners know darned well that they are sleeping with a married/taken person, I can see how some might be duped into believing that their married partner is single.

[Anonymous]

PP, I never said that adultery was right, or that both adulterers are super-awesome moral people who should be commended, or offered any sort of justification excusing the behavior. It is helpful, as a human being, to know why people do the things they do. Not every adulterer is a sociopath, pure and simple, motivated by nothing but hedonism and a lack of morals. I am certain that some are, but for those who are people who made mistakes, it's helpful to understand (as a person who is married to one, as a therapist who offers counsel to one, or even as one who wants to be a better person in the future - whichever applies, I'm not speaking of myself) where these things come from.

I get that you have a lot of family baggage, but the hard line is not helpful for people who are trying to move forward from affairs. It offers no guidance or insight. The point of this whole damn post was that it seems that sometimes vitriol is directed at the OW rather than the cheating husband (or vice-versa if the genders are different).

Marriages break down for a lot of reasons. In a broken marriage, the affair itself is a large part of the picture, but it is not the whole picture. Unless you are a person who is totally uninterested in nuance, the hard line of "JUST WRONG, JUST EVIL" is not helpful.

Your mom is absolutely right than an explanation is not an excuse. I was actually just going to say that. An explanation can offer insight, closure, etc. for a person struggling to make sense of a terrible situation. It's not a pass to the people who did wrong, or a justification for what they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I never said that adultery was right, or that both adulterers are super-awesome moral people who should be commended, or offered any sort of justification excusing the behavior. It is helpful, as a human being, to know why people do the things they do. Not every adulterer is a sociopath, pure and simple, motivated by nothing but hedonism and a lack of morals. I am certain that some are, but for those who are people who made mistakes, it's helpful to understand (as a person who is married to one, as a therapist who offers counsel to one, or even as one who wants to be a better person in the future - whichever applies, I'm not speaking of myself) where these things come from.

I get that you have a lot of family baggage, but the hard line is not helpful for people who are trying to move forward from affairs. It offers no guidance or insight. The point of this whole damn post was that it seems that sometimes vitriol is directed at the OW rather than the cheating husband (or vice-versa if the genders are different).

Marriages break down for a lot of reasons. In a broken marriage, the affair itself is a large part of the picture, but it is not the whole picture. Unless you are a person who is totally uninterested in nuance, the hard line of "JUST WRONG, JUST EVIL" is not helpful.

Your mom is absolutely right than an explanation is not an excuse. I was actually just going to say that. An explanation can offer insight, closure, etc. for a person struggling to make sense of a terrible situation. It's not a pass to the people who did wrong, or a justification for what they did.

I'm not trying to be helpful or provide comfort to moral relativists or OW trying to assuage their guilt. I suggest they consult their priest/rabbi/pastor/therapist for that. I also don't care about the "nuance.". You don't apologize for a wrong by saying "sorry, but...".

OP asked a question and I've answered it. I get that you and others don't like my view, and I don't care. I don't like the excuse making going on here. If you were duped by a married man, that's one thing. If you knew full well what you were doing, you deserve scorn. I never said you deserve more than the man, just that you deserve what you get, and no amount of "nuance" changes my opinion on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I never said that adultery was right, or that both adulterers are super-awesome moral people who should be commended, or offered any sort of justification excusing the behavior. It is helpful, as a human being, to know why people do the things they do. Not every adulterer is a sociopath, pure and simple, motivated by nothing but hedonism and a lack of morals. I am certain that some are, but for those who are people who made mistakes, it's helpful to understand (as a person who is married to one, as a therapist who offers counsel to one, or even as one who wants to be a better person in the future - whichever applies, I'm not speaking of myself) where these things come from.

I get that you have a lot of family baggage, but the hard line is not helpful for people who are trying to move forward from affairs. It offers no guidance or insight. The point of this whole damn post was that it seems that sometimes vitriol is directed at the OW rather than the cheating husband (or vice-versa if the genders are different).

Marriages break down for a lot of reasons. In a broken marriage, the affair itself is a large part of the picture, but it is not the whole picture. Unless you are a person who is totally uninterested in nuance, the hard line of "JUST WRONG, JUST EVIL" is not helpful.

Your mom is absolutely right than an explanation is not an excuse. I was actually just going to say that. An explanation can offer insight, closure, etc. for a person struggling to make sense of a terrible situation. It's not a pass to the people who did wrong, or a justification for what they did.

I'm not trying to be helpful or provide comfort to moral relativists or OW trying to assuage their guilt. I suggest they consult their priest/rabbi/pastor/therapist for that. I also don't care about the "nuance.". You don't apologize for a wrong by saying "sorry, but...".

OP asked a question and I've answered it. I get that you and others don't like my view, and I don't care. I don't like the excuse making going on here. If you were duped by a married man, that's one thing. If you knew full well what you were doing, you deserve scorn. I never said you deserve more than the man, just that you deserve what you get, and no amount of "nuance" changes my opinion on that.

Fine. We have different perspectives. Not the end of my world. Stop screaming about whores and hellfire, though. It just makes you look unbalanced.

[Anonymous]

^^Okay, thanks for the unsolicited advice.

Now go direct your smarty pants thinking to the moral relativists trying to justify sleeping with a married man, why don't you?