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 - 2:37pm
The only other valid options I can think of for him are to stay in a sexless, incredibly unhappy marriage for the rest of his life or have his wife committed (if she was truly mentally ill). What would you have recommended? Or can you think of another valid option?
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:37pm
It was a direct answer to a question you asked. Have you already forgotten what you posted?
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:40pm

You'll have to ask someone who is labeling people.


To relate your question to what I've actually said in this debate, someone who lies does so because there is something in their character which allows them to lie. If they choose at some point to not lie anymore, it doesn't change the fact that there is something in their character which allows them to lie.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:41pm

You're the one doing the labeling. Ask yourself the question.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:41pm

I've already pointed out two posts where you've contradicted yourself.


You haven't pointed out one where I've contradicted myself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2004
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:42pm

And herein lies our difference - you have claimed that if you tell a lie, you are a liar, if you cheat on your spouse you are a cheater, if you steal you are a thief, if you speed you are a speeder. I have said not necessarily. I used the separating a child's behaviour from the child as an example, and TM chose to twist it and detract from the point. I think that we must separate the action from the person. You say that labels don't define a person, I say they do. They may not describe the whole person, but at least a facet of the person. There are immoral acts. Killing is wrong, but there are circumstances that could occur that would cause a person to kill. Doesn't make the person a killer. Cheating is wrong - the person who cheats isn't necessarily immoral. Lying is wrong - the person who lies isn't necessarily a liar or immoral.

Nick

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:49pm

You're logic is so completely off here ... I can't even begin to understand. If I lie, how am I not a liar? If I cheat how am I not a cheater? If I speed, how am I not a speeder?


So, lets take your stance .. separate the action from the person.

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: 08-19-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:54pm

So you wouldn't refer to such a person as a "liar"? You'd just say this is a "character flaw" of theirs?

BTW - I think we all have something in our character that allows us to lie. That's a character flaw in everyone of us.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 2:57pm

<< I think we all have something in our character that allows us to lie. That's a character flaw in everyone of us.>>


I don't disagree.


However, there are (hopefully) few of us that have something in our character that would allow us to cheat.

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: 08-19-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 3:00pm
I don't disagree with you either.

Pages