SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs
Find a Conversation
SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs
| Tue, 02-15-2005 - 12:54pm |
I was just at the gym this morning and overheard a conversation between two women on treadmills who were discussing/debating as to whether married sahms were any more or less likely to have affairs than married wohms.
I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

Pages
IT is not non debateable. It isn't necessarily selfish. As in the example I gave, it would have more selfish for the man to divorce his ailing wife. He is not a flawed human being - he is a mortal being who has needs. The need he had was not a need for sex, but for emotional support. Being human though, that led to sex. If he was chiefly concerned about himself, he would have left her. That would have been more harmful. He did the best he could under the lousy hand life dealt him. That one act does not mean he has a character flaw. The manner in which he lives his life defines him. He does not live his life as a cheater. On the contrary.
Nick
Maybe you should go back and read post 372. You know, the one where you said that circumstances don't change the morality of an action.
I'm curious where you think I've faltered in my stance. I said that someone who cheats has a flaw in their character which allows them to cheat. Where have I ever contradicted that?
<<>>
And yet, you claim, that the act does not define the person. What then is a liar if it is not a description of an individual's character? If you are going to give someone a label, you are defining them. And I think that is highly judgemental and wrong. There are no absolutes in life.
Nick
Yes, I saw it.
Emily Watson is fabulous. Don't remember being all that disturbed though.
<>
Maybe. But because Action B is more selfish does not mean Action A is NOT selfish. It is possible that both would be selfish acts.
<<
Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color. Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.
I didn't say circumstances don't change the morality of an action. I also didn't say they do, but of course I am not talking about the morality of the action, but of the person. The point I was making, again, is that there are no absolutes.
Nick
I've broken speeding laws. So, I'm a speeder. That doesn't mean that is ALL I am. People are multi-faceted. And, for someone who cheats, one of their facets (or their character flaws) is of a cheater. That does not mean that is ALL that they are. TM and I have repeatedly said that it isn't defining of all someone is. Why you continue to ignore that is beyond us.
Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color. Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.
<>
How can you separate the two? How can the action be wrong, but the person intentionally doing the action is not wrong?????
Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color. Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.
I did not say that you claimed the label you stick on an individual completely defines them. But, when you label, it is defining. If you call me a liar, you have described me as a liar. Labels define - that's why we use them. I think it is judgemental to label someone, thereby defining a facet of their character, which may be erroneous.
Nick
Pages