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
But you were wrong.
You are priceless! lol
If you lie you are not necessarily a liar because the label liar defines your character. If you tell one lie, you are not necessarily a liar. If you lie on a daily basis, then I'd agree you are a liar. I don't think Melissa is a liar because she tells her dh she is ok with the lack of a sexual relationship. She did lie, but I would not label her a liar - would you?
<<>>
Hopefully their trial already sorted out whether they should be in jail or not. That's why first time offenders are generally treated more gently than repeat offenders. The circumstances surrounding the crime are taken into consideration when issuing the penalty - because circumstances matter alot.
If you are running late and speed to get to work on time, I would not label you a speeder. You are a person who was running late and exceeded the speed limit. If you, as a matter of course, speed, I'd agree you are a speeder.
Yes, there are circumstances that would allow a person to CHOOSE to kill, or CHOOSE to lie, or CHOOSE to cheat. On that we agree. Where we disagree is how we would define the person in question.
Nick
<>
I'm NOT defining the person in question. I'm only defining one single element and I don't believe one element makes us who we are.
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.
But when you say the person is a liar, cheater, killer, thief, you ARE defining a facet of the person. You are describing the person in terms of what they did, which is a definition - hence defining. I realize that when you refer to someone as a liar, you are not negating the fact that said person may also be other things, but you are defining their character to an extent.
Edited to add that if circumstances can negate a murder, an act which is wrong, then we have to acknowledge that circumstances are a factor in determining or labelling a person's action - if I can murder and not be labelled a murderer, then surely there are circumstances where I can lie and not be labelled a liar.
Nick
Edited 2/19/2005 3:23 pm ET ET by ikorky9899
<>
Yes.
<>
So, if I describe the person by what they look like, is that a negative? I don't see putting a definition on someone as a bad thing. Unless you take that definition to be the ONLY thing about a person. I don't do that.
<>
Yes. I've never claimed less.
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.
So would you call Melissa a liar? You neglected to answer that.
If you describe someone by how they look and you say they are ugly - then yes, I'd say that is a negative. If you said she has black hair, a large chin and a wart on her nose, it is not necessarily negative. Some might actually think she is beautiful. If you tell me that she is a liar - I would assume that she lies with frequency. I wouldn't think, well she is a liar, but she might be generous. If you tell me she is an honest person, I would assume that she is trustworthy. When you label people, there is a connotation - either negative or positive. I don't like labels because they are often inaccurate. As in my example of not eating meat for a day - that doesn't make me a vegetarian.
Nick
Pages