Am I just at fault?

[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.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

You're basically hurting someone for the sake of your own personal pleasure. Both of you are. It's not like you're ignorant, so yeah, there's no excuse for your behavior.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

If you believe that cheating is wrong, then you're at fault, even though you're not the one cheating. Ask yourself- would you be upset if your girlfriend had a "friends with benefits" relationship with someone else while she was going out with you? If the answer is "yes", then you're a hypocrite.

And if he's such a douchebag to her, why is she still going out with him? Are you sure you're not just making excuses for yourself?

 

[Vegosiux]

-snip-

If that's how you see the world, who am I to stop you? I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped with the "cynical and edgy" act though (and no, "Loathing humanity for what it is" is not what "Cynical and edgy" means). But discussing opinions is like discussing wallpaper.

Poke me again when we have some facts backed up by some solid sources to talk about.

 

[Abomination]

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.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

 

[smithy_2045]

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.

 

[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.

 

[game-lover]

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.

 

[Abomination]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

Oh my, what have i started

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spoiler

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

 

[Darken12]

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).

 

[game-lover]

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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

 

[Abomination]

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.

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).

 

[Bocaj2000]

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.

 

[game-lover]

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?

 

[Frission]

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.

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.