Am I just at fault?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Dijkstra:
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.

I said he is the right party, I never specified magnitude.

Secondly, fuck oaths.
Third, to help betray someone else is wrong.
Lastly, who said she couldn't be punished too? But I guess since a guy got punished you have to cry discrimination when nothing was said about the female.

No, he is entirely the wrong party for any punishment, especially if he is the party being mentioned for punishment FIRST. The girlfriend should be the one who is punished first as she was the one who betrayed, not the OP.

Second, fuck oaths? What do you mean? We should simply not honour any arrangement we make with another person? No deals or promises to be kept? If that's the case then the girlfriend has done NOTHING wrong at all and she should sleep with whoever she likes when she's already in a relationship.

Which brings us to the third point, apparently the moral obligation is simply on who she sleeps with? Because, as you said "fuck oaths" right?

Lastly, when discussing punishment for an act one would figure the primary culprit's would be discussed first. But I understand people in these forums not wanting to say "I would knock you out if I was in the boyfriend's shoes - AFTER I give her a worse beating." because that would just go down SO well.

If you're trying to be enlightened, why the hell are you missing the point so badly? 'how deranged our society has become' implies it's changed to be more deranged. It hasn't.

Furthermore, 'real' crime is BS. It is arbitrarily defined. Who cares if the law says it's a crime or not? That's not what makes it bad.

So... assault is fine provided it is in revenge for a disgrace of honour? Does that mean if a woman insults me I get to rape her? Because hell, rape is essentially just assault with penis involved. Or does including penis suddenly make it far worse than any other thing you can do to someone? "Please hit me all you want, beat me within an inch of my life, just don't slap me with your dick!"

THAT is the absurdity. Rape is terrible but assault is fine and dandy if you slept with a girl who had a boyfriend.

Violence is violence and it is either ALL unacceptable or none of it is. Sleeping with someone else's significant other isn't illegal for several reasons: nobody owns anyone else - the boyfriend has NO command over his girlfriend's vagina, he only commands if they are not in a relationship; sex isn't illegal when both parties are consenting.

The blame is squarely on the girlfriend's shoulders.

Abomination:
So... assault is fine provided it is in revenge for a disgrace of honour? Does that mean if a woman insults me I get to rape her? Because hell, rape is essentially just assault with penis involved. Or does including penis suddenly make it far worse than any other thing you can do to someone? "Please hit me all you want, beat me within an inch of my life, just don't slap me with your dick!"

No, it simply means that law dictates what is or isn't a crime, but there not being any law doesn't suddenly make things okay. If there's no law that outlaws murder, then murder isn't a crime. But that doesn't mean murder is just fine and dandy, it's still a rather bad thing to do. "Crime" is a legal term. It's defined as "breaking a law". It doesn't mean "doing a bad thing".

At least that's what I gathered from his post.

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.

Vegosiux:

Abomination:
So... assault is fine provided it is in revenge for a disgrace of honour? Does that mean if a woman insults me I get to rape her? Because hell, rape is essentially just assault with penis involved. Or does including penis suddenly make it far worse than any other thing you can do to someone? "Please hit me all you want, beat me within an inch of my life, just don't slap me with your dick!"

No, it simply means that law dictates what is or isn't a crime, but there not being any law doesn't suddenly make things okay. If there's no law that outlaws murder, then murder isn't a crime. But that doesn't mean murder is just fine and dandy, it's still a rather bad thing to do. "Crime" is a legal term. It's defined as "breaking a law". It doesn't mean "doing a bad thing".

At least that's what I gathered from his post.

The thing is the violence aspect has been... excused or even "deserving". I find it strange that society will condemn an act of violence in one instance but encourage it the next, especially in a situation where the person the violence would be directed at did no more than fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure.

The OP slept with her, but SHE cheated on the boyfriend... but the OP receives scorn? I suppose it is a feeling of being threatened or insecurity that one could encourage their spouse to leave them so easily. The anger isn't really at the agent but at themselves for being bested in an area they had deemed themselves the master.

Abomination:
The thing is the violence aspect has been... excused or even "deserving". I find it strange that society will condemn an act of violence in one instance but encourage it the next, especially in a situation where the person the violence would be directed at did no more than fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure.

The OP slept with her, but SHE cheated on the boyfriend... but the OP receives scorn? I suppose it is a feeling of being threatened or insecurity that one could encourage their spouse to leave them so easily. The anger isn't really at the agent but at themselves for being bested in an area they had deemed themselves the master.

If it means anything, I give them both my scorn. She's an obvious slut. (I call all unfaithful females, sluts, FYI) And he's the guy who succumbed to the slut.

Also, I'm all for types of consequences that don't have to be illegal at all. If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.

But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault. The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.

You might be right about the anger towards themselves about having a spouse that doesn't value them when they were so sure it was the opposite. But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.

SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her. Maybe it would have been someone else in the future. But for present time, that could have been avoided if maybe the OP had just shut her down. Or not pursued her. However it got started. So that's on him.

Now that being said, I don't exactly condone the violence. They deserve consequences but maybe not those. Like I said, I'd rather do something longer lasting like ruining someone's reputation in the boyfriend's place. Both hers and the agent's. But I do accept it as a probable consequence. And honestly, I'm not gonna feel any sympathy.

game-lover:
Also, I'm all for types of consequences that don't have to be illegal at all. If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.

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".

But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault.

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.

The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.

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.

But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.

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.

SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her. Maybe it would have been someone else in the future. But for present time, that could have been avoided if maybe the OP had just shut her down. Or not pursued her. However it got started. So that's on him.

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.

Now that being said, I don't exactly condone the violence. They deserve consequences but maybe not those. Like I said, I'd rather do something longer lasting like ruining someone's reputation in the boyfriend's place. Both hers and the agent's. But I do accept it as a probable consequence. And honestly, I'm not gonna feel any sympathy.

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.

Oh my, what have i started :D

SimpleThunda':

YOU're a rat. Be a man, tell the guy what's up. Face the consequences, but atleast be a man.

It is physically impossible for a human to become a rat.
He does not have to tell anyone anything, it is none of his business.

Vegosiux:
As Katatori pointed out, I didn't clarify myself, but I'm looking at the situation from the practical point of view, rather than the moral one. And that's why I think what the OP is doing is "wrong". Not because it'd be "immoral", but because it just goes against all practical consideration.

oh, so your point of view is not "i think its wrong" but "society thinks its wrong therefore i have no choice to but agree"

The fourth would be that there are just so many women he could hit it off with without putting himself into such a situation in the first place.

No. you dont know that. maybe this is the only woman he will ever be able to get in his whole life (extragarating ofc). This is as good as an excuse as "i dont like salad becuase its raining".

And the fifth? The fact that the OP seems to have doubts himself, and actively seeking validation. That alone should raise a red flag. "Wait, I'm not even sure if I should be doing this, so why am I still doing this?"

he seems different opinions, which is commendable, and is instead met with rage and condemnation. how appropriate.

SimpleThunda':

Look at the world. Does violence serve no purpose? Hell, the world resolves around violence. Violence to get more money, thus power. And whenever we're not actively killing people, we'll be "violent" in others ways, agressive, if you will, without being physical. We'll use money instead of our fists to get what we want out of someone. Or words. Bribery, intimidation. It's all means to the same end as violence.

the fact that you are presenting this as a bad thing already proves you are trying to be better. so your fail your own logic here.

Johnny Impact:

Crime existed before there were laws. The very first time one caveman slapped another and stole his meat, there was no written code drafted by stuffy legislators. There was only the notion of right and wrong.

No. the notion was "i dont like what you did by stealing my meat". there was no right or wrong notions. wrong or right formed with the jugdical system (not nevessarely laws, a shaman could have been judge jury and executioner all at once). But if you look deep enough everything is a "like" or "dislike".

For a crime to exist, all we need is a victim, a perpetrator, and some sort of unfair loss inflicted by one upon the other. The victim is the one being cheated on, who was treated unfairly. The perpetrator is the one doing the cheating, who took unfair advantage of another. The loss in trust, dignity, time, happiness etc might be intangible but it is no less real.

That's all criteria satisfied. Cheating is a crime, a violation in terms of morality rather than legal technicality.

But the victim does not exist without definition of a crime. the caveman who lsot his meet was not a victim. victims did not exist back then. maybe his loss was fair and maybe his own moral code said that him being slapped is good? it all depends on perspective. We do not know morality of the female in question therefore we do not know whether she violated it or not.

Is that the ending you're looking for? Do you feel at that point as if the guy who set the whole thing up has done right by you?

That is a risk you have accepted when you went on to follow the map. Treasure maps are great example, because this situation would happen in real life too. You equally accept a risk, when you get into a relationship, that another person may be a liar.

Or we could use sexual harassment as an example. Here we have two people who should get along, extending, if not friendship, then at least the quid pro quo attitude most humans have towards one another. Except one of them is taking what isn't offered, abusing trust, abusing authority, taking advantage of meek complacency, and so forth. There isn't any notion of fairness towards the victim. There isn't any quo or quid. There is only callous greed: "I want this, I'm taking it, ha ha, you can't stop me." Theft of dignity, theft of personal space, emotional damage -- however you categorize it, it is very much an intangible, and very much illegal. This is a crime on both moral and legal grounds.

it could be my lack of english expression knowledge, but i really did not udnerstand what you were tryign to say here.

You can apply the same sort of logic to relationships: I love you, and I give you the right to love me in return, or at least cordially decline my love. I do NOT explicitly or implicitly give you the right to sink a pickaxe into my heart by pretending to love me while you fuck some other guy behind my back.

oh, seriuosly, were back to square one of sex = love?

Don't people in relationships have some claim on each other? Don't they deserve anything for their devotion?

no they do nto have any claim on eachother. they do not "deserve" anything for their devotion. their devition is a charity that they do to reach certain goal - emotional satisfaction.

doesn't that mean you believe there is no requirement to be decent, or repay trust in kind? We can just do whatever we want, without consequence, because hey, you don't own me.

requirement? no.
Posibility of concensus? certainly.

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.

no. The cheree makes a choice to hace sex with a woman, which in no way ties to her current friendship status. The faul does not extend to the person.

He participated in it. He aided it. He has helped someone cause harm. He is guilty as well. He's in the position a tool would be in, except he has a choice.

how have he Aided it? sleeping with a woman that has a boyfriend is aiding her in cheating as much as me not killnig thos guy next door is aiding in him robbing a bank 5 years from now.

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.


He is not pulling a lever that automatically makes her a cheater. She is doing that by chosing to have sex while pretending not to. He has no obligation to be moral as morals are subjective.

Secondly, fuck oaths.
Third, to help betray someone else is wrong.
Lastly, who said she couldn't be punished too? But I guess since a guy got punished you have to cry discrimination when nothing was said about the female.

if you say fuck oaths, then noone is at fault. Oath is the ONLY thing that makes her in the wrong. He is not "helping her betray", she did it all on her own. it was her choice and her choice alone.

Bocaj2000:
If you are ignorant to her relationship, then it's okay. But the very second you find out that she has a boyfriend, you are at fault. At that point, you're both sneaking around behind her boyfriend's back, not just her.

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?

If it's any consolation I'm equally if not more disgusted with your post.

well, at least your honest, even if wrong.

game-lover:
If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.

wikipedia:
Fraternization is "turning people into brothers"-conducting social relations with people who are actually unrelated and/or of a different class (especially those with whom one works) as though they were siblings, family members, personal friends or lovers.

Im sorry, i dont really follow.

game-lover:
But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault. The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.

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.

But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.

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

SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her.

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).

Dijkstra:

Spinozaad:
She's the one in a (less than) committed relationship.

You're not responsible for her personal life.

Nope, but he is responsible for his choice to help someone.

I'm not sure what this crap is about pointing out things he isn't responsible for when what's relevant if anything he is responsible for is wrong. But I'm quite certain we're all smart enough to understand why this deflection occurs.

Is he "responsible to help someone"?

She's in a relationship with some other dude. He's single. She's sexin' him. It's not his job to feel guilty for her slippin'.

The moral question for the OP would be along the lines of: "do I feel comfortable sexin' someone who's cheating on her partner to sex me?"

If that's a resounding yes, he's absolved of any blame/guilt/whatever. If that's a no, he should break it off.

Strazdas:

Vegosiux:
As Katatori pointed out, I didn't clarify myself, but I'm looking at the situation from the practical point of view, rather than the moral one. And that's why I think what the OP is doing is "wrong". Not because it'd be "immoral", but because it just goes against all practical consideration.

oh, so your point of view is not "i think its wrong" but "society thinks its wrong therefore i have no choice to but agree"

No, that is not my point of view, however much you wish it was, but that's your problem.

Quit strawmanning. If you want a discussion with me, the first thing you're going to do is stop putting words in my mouth.

The fourth would be that there are just so many women he could hit it off with without putting himself into such a situation in the first place.

No. you dont know that. maybe this is the only woman he will ever be able to get in his whole life (extragarating ofc). This is as good as an excuse as "i dont like salad becuase its raining".

Well, if we go by what we do or don't know, none of us actually know that the OP post is a true story in the first place.

And the fifth? The fact that the OP seems to have doubts himself, and actively seeking validation. That alone should raise a red flag. "Wait, I'm not even sure if I should be doing this, so why am I still doing this?"

he seems different opinions, which is commendable, and is instead met with rage and condemnation. how appropriate.

I seem to be of a different opinion than you, and you meet that with condemnation. How appropriate.

Almost as appropriate as cherry-picking. Or loaded statements (such as "Oh, so you think that...*something completely different from what I said*"). Yeah, seriously. You're not the first person to try and pull that shit on me, seriously. Nor the last.

Vegosiux:

No, that is not my point of view, however much you wish it was, but that's your problem.

Quit strawmanning. If you want a discussion with me, the first thing you're going to do is stop putting words in my mouth.

Then why do you present your point of view like that?

Well, if we go by what we do or don't know, none of us actually know that the OP post is a true story in the first place.

That is irrelevant. We could be discussing this as a hypothetical situation and it would change nothing. If it does, your a hypocrite.

I seem to be of a different opinion than you, and you meet that with condemnation. How appropriate.

No, just disappointment.

Almost as appropriate as cherry-picking. Or loaded statements (such as "Oh, so you think that...*something completely different from what I said*"). Yeah, seriously. You're not the first person to try and pull that shit on me, seriously. Nor the last.

Maybe you should make your statements more clear then.
As you can see, im pretty much responding to all people, and that takes a lot of time, you cant really blame for for cherry-picking.

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).

Kurt Cristal:

Dijkstra:

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.

Abomination:

Dijkstra:
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.

Abomination:
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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Strazdas:
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.

Dijkstra:

Abomination:

Dijkstra:
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.

game-lover:
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).

Strazdas:
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.

Abomination:
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?

Abomination:

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.

Abomination:

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.

game-lover:
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.

Dijkstra:

Kurt Cristal:

Dijkstra:

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.

smithy_2045:

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.

Dijkstra:

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?

game-lover:
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?

Bocaj2000:
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.

Yoshi4507:
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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Vegosiux:

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?

lithium.jelly:
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 :)

Strazdas:
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.

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.

game-lover:
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.

Strazdas:
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-bitch 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.

Strazdas:

Bocaj2000:
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 have already agreed that the cheater is at fault. You don't have to prove this to me.

As for your loaded questions, let me match them with objective questions:
a: Who is betraying the boyfriend?
b: Who will have to lie to cover their tracks?
c: Who is being unfaithful?

If the second guy doesn't know about the girl's boyfriend, then yes, the girl is the only answer to these questions. This is something that we both agree on. In this case, ignorance puts all the fault on the cheater.

But once the second guy is aware that he is participating in her affair and chooses to sleep with her anyway, he is included in the answers of A and B. With the attained knowledge that the man is partaking in an affair, he betrays the boyfriend and lies as well. Whether or not he cares is up to him.

You are both equally at fault. Takes two to cheat. The moment you found out that one of her friendly benefits has a name and a face you are part of the whole shebang. In my opinion, given the fact that you are colleagues, you should come to terms with what your stakes in the relationship are and go from there. It is respectable at the very least to be honest to yourselves and one-another. There are a lot of options in a relationship like this that depend on a lot of complicated things (your emotions for one another, your personal morale, her feelings for "the other guy", the details and logistics of a relationship in the workplace... to name a few) and range from keeping it a secret to coming out and telling her man of the whole thing...

game-lover:

Strazdas:
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?

Well, texting behind a wheel is illegal. at least here. so theres that. but we can brust that as its not important for our discussion. you are at fault for crashing, yes. however the driver texting in this case would be the girl in our situation. she chose to do this. the car - tool - the OP, is not at fault she chose to text. And cars are sentient. well not really but now we are experimenting with cars that look at you and decide if your sleeping, if you talking on a phone or whatever and notice you not to. cars are begining to have a choice. yay for robots :D
if i have to finish a conversation i finish it when i arrive at the destination. if destination is far away ill stop and then finish it. but its because im selfish - i dont want to crash MY car. I still dont see how you can consider the OP as the guy who choses to text in front of a wheel. sorry, i dont.

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.

if likelyhood is important, we should follow the rules only when the likelyhood of bad outcome is high. i dont agree at all. your own analogy above is good example. the likelyhood that you crash a car texting is very very small. but its not a good idea nevertheless. because its not a good idea regardless of likelyhood.

CHeating is not a 100% chance of pain. the person being cheated may have been trying to get out of the relationship and use it as an excuse, he may have another one he wants to get into, there is never a 100% chance of him breaking up in pain.

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...

if a possibility of someone else feeling pain is reason enough to stop the activity then we should stop..... pretty much all laws because all thier enforcement takes place at the expense of someone else. (im not talking whether its good or bad, merely that the logic of "its expense of someone else therefore it should not be allowed" is bad). Things are situational and context matters. sadly, we got very little of it.

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?

yes, negative consequences from the boyfriend acting irrational is possible. however irrationality should never be reason for a rule.
There should be no consequence for the OP because he did no damage. damage was done by the girl - lieing (lieing about being in exclusive relationship, lieing about not breaking it up). therefore the consequence shall follow onto her. the guy is not the one who did anything deserving consequence.

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.

i agree that if she signed up for the relationship as you decribed she is at fault for not keeping it up. but one would have to be really stupid to sign up for a relationship where the other partner can dictate your life to an extent of "you cant be friends with him".

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.

or, you know, she could have a boyfriend who udnerstands her free sexual approach and have a exclusive relationship in other ways than just sex?

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.

no its not. thats like saying im at fault because some Islamist has a low trigger point and saw my post and decided to bomb my city for it.

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.

I completely disagree, and we probably shoulnt o into arguing what is a slut as you already said you think anyone who cheats is a slup, so your definition is skewed anyway. if you think all cheaters should get a physical punishment then i would question your sanity. But you have a right to your opinion just like i have mine.

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.

I disagree. i think the crazy person is the only one responsible for his crazyness.

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.

Not in all cases. context does matter. however whether with concession or not, holding someone as your property is extremely selfish.

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.

What makes sex cheating? lieing. if she did not lie, but told the boyfriend she is going to have sex with the OP, then the relationship woudl have been over there and then, and no cheating would have occured. Therefore lieing is the "crime" in this case, cheating is merely a symptom. Hiding is what makes cheating - cheating. its the defining characteristic. Also many people are hiding it out of fear from thier other part when in reality many would agree in retrospect that they wouldn't have been much angry if the partner had not kept it a secret. granted, there are all kinds of people around, thats what makes humans interesting after all.

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.

and this is where we start fisting, figuratively speaking of course.

Well this seems like we got two very different beliefs at odds, but at least its not the case of "he must be murdered because thats how somone told me it should be" here. we will have to agree to disagree in the end i guess.
Now, lets attack some other people :P

Bocaj2000:

As for your loaded questions, let me match them with objective questions:
a: Who is betraying the boyfriend?
b: Who will have to lie to cover their tracks?
c: Who is being unfaithful?

If the second guy doesn't know about the girl's boyfriend, then yes, the girl is the only answer to these questions. This is something that we both agree on. In this case, ignorance puts all the fault on the cheater.

But once the second guy is aware that he is participating in her affair and chooses to sleep with her anyway, he is included in the answers of A and B. With the attained knowledge that the man is partaking in an affair, he betrays the boyfriend and lies as well. Whether or not he cares is up to him.

a. The female in question.
b. The female in question. while this situation may bring the OP lieing too because they work at the same place, generally in a cheating situation the chetee does not even know who the boyfriend is.
c. The female in question.

knowledge changes nothing. there is no obligation from the person to change his actions based on the relationship status of the woman.

The moment you found out that one of her friendly benefits has a name and a face you are part of the whole shebang.

I see what you did there.

Capcha: beg the question.
it always knows what to say....

Strazdas:
snip

Based on your own answers, it is obvious that you have too much bias for me to take you seriously.

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 doesn't 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?

You're knowingly banging someone who is in a relationship.
You're a douchebag.

Regardless of how much of a dick the other guy might be, or whether or not what the girl is doing is wrong, YOU are knowingly banging someone who is still dating someone else.
Not only are you a douchebag for doing so, but you're also kind of a dumbass, considering SHE'S STILL DATING THE OTHER GUY.

Yoshi4507:

Yes, and she said she isnt going to be with him for long. She hates how he treats her, but is afraid to say anything.

If she's afraid, be a man and back her up - except you probably aren't a man, considering you're doing some douchey stuff like knowingly banging a co-worker's girlfriend behind his back.
You're also a dumbass, so you probably believe her when she says she won't be with him for long, which is very likely utter BS.
You're getting played son, just like her boyfriend is.
Whats REALLY sad is, you're dumb enough to want to be with someone who YOU KNOW is willing to cheat on their partner rather than get out of a relationship (they claim) they don't want to be in (yet continue to remain in).

Yoshi4507:
Its been going on before they ever got together and before i worked there, it just never kind of stopped. If irs any consolation, hes cheated before on someone else.

... which changes nothing - if anything, it makes you MORE of a douchebag, since its clear this isn't headed towards any sort of serious relationship: you just like the easy, convenient pussy, and have tried to rationalize your rather scumbag-ish actions to yourself.

Fact is, she may be the one who is 'cheating', but you're basically an approving (or, at the very least, accepting) accomplice to the whole situation - and that makes you a douchebag.

This ain't the 14th century - if she wants to be with you, all she has to do is say so and (if you're a man and this relationship means more to you than some easy pussy every once in awhile) you'll back her up.
That's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned: if she wants to be with you, she leaves him, done. If not, she doesn't really want to be with you, she's just banging you because she's... well, kind of a skeezer.

Just my humble opinion, anyway.

Yoshi4507:
Well, ive come to the conclusion that I am just as much, only cuz now it looks like im hooking up with another coworker. And dont worry, shes single. Appearenty everyone here does. But now i wont let it bother me. More snu snu I guess

Oh, well, congratulations - you made sure the skeezer you're banging doesn't have a boyfriend this time!
*golf clap*
... Oh, and since it came up, you're probably going to wind up with the clap (or something worse, like the herp) if you keep hooking up with random skanks from your work. Make sure you've got a good doctor to go to that you aren't iffy about showing your STD-mangled junk to.

And please, for your own sake, stop justifying your actions/views based on the actions/views of other people.
"Is it wrong for me to bang this girl that's in a relationship? Her boyfriends a dick, so I think its okay" and "Is it okay to bang random skanks at my work? Everyone else does it, so I think its okay" are rather glaring examples - to my mind at least - of someone who doesn't really have a strong handle on their own moral viewpoints and thus bases their viewpoints upon those of their peers.
If you find that one of your coworkers constantly robs the others, will you join in if your other coworkers are mean to you? If your friends at work all start smoking crack, will you do that too?
Whether or not the one cheated upon is a dick, or whether the cheater intends to maintain the relationship long term, or whether the friends w/ benefits or the actual relationship started first - its all irrelevant.
All that matters is the question: Is it okay to cheat?
If yes, then its no prob. If no, then what you're doing isn't okay (whether you're the cheater or the one they cheated with is irrelevant if both parties are aware cheating is going on - one chose to cheat on their partner, the other chose to knowingly engage the cheater).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked