SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-14-2004
SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs
1037
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:22pm

I agree that we carry our actions with us forever, but IYO do we (or should we) also carry our labels? For example, if one cheats once - are they always labeled a "cheater?"

I think we've all lied at some point in our life, does the label of "liar" follow us all around forever?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:23pm

That would depend on a lot of things. One of the biggest being admission that they were wrong. I've known several cheaters who, 5-10 years later, still say they did

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:24pm

Yep.


The weight of those actions can be reduced by future behavior, etc. But the weight will never be removed.

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:26pm
Circumstances don't make an act right, with the exception of VERY RARE VERY EXTREME circumstances. Someone's wife being a beotch doens't make it right. Someone's husband being emotinally abusive doesn't make it right.

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:26pm

<>


Pretty much. One might be able to find one or two other instances, but I sure as heck dont know of any.

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2004
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:28pm

But, you have yet to explain how labelling does not define. You and TM have repeatedly said that you are not claiming these so called character flaws define the person, and that that is where I am hyperbolizing, so I would be really interested in understanding this.

Nick

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2004
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:31pm

That completely lacks reason and logic. Self defense is also, by definition, selfish.

Nick

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:33pm
Yes it is. But I don't contend that every selfish action is immoral. Hell, I won't let my kids on the computer right now because I'm on it. Selfish? Yes. Immoral? No.

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:35pm
I HAVE explained.

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:35pm
There's a difference. If you kill someone in cold blood, you would be labeled a murderer. Probably forever. If you kill someone in self defense, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would call you a murderer or a killer.

Pages