Am I just at fault?

[Abomination]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Strazdas]

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?

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?

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.

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.

 

[infohippie]

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.

 

[proctorninja2]

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

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

 

[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?

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

 

[game-lover]

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.

 

[AngloDoom]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

 

[game-lover]

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-***** 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.

 

[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.

 

[Stampede]

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...

 

[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
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

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....

 

[Bocaj2000]

snip

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

 

[Dark_Reaction]

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.

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).

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.

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).

 

[Smooth Operator]

You are all at fault, but most of all you are all stupid.
- the lady for playing on multiple sides knowing full well what kind of shitstorm this will brew
- you OP for aiding her in this endeavour
- the boyfriend for mistreating her, but more so not admitting the clock is way past happy fun times

And you people are coworkers... this shit will go sky high very soon and the only thing you need to know at this point is what distance to stand at.

 

[fletch_talon]

It doesn't matter who's more wrong.

At the end of the day you're responsible for your actions. If your concerned about doing the right thing you'll tell this girl to make her choice or miss out.
This isn't just to benefit the other bloke or your conscience either. If she thinks its okay to have multiples guys on the go, and is hesitant to leave the guy she's with to be with you, then she isn't going to be a very trustworthy or loyal partner is she?

 

[Pandaman1911]

You're just as much at fault as she is.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hold anything against you. Our baser instincts are fun to fulfill. But if we're going from a purely moral standpoint, you've got zero high ground here.