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
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Okmrsmommy-36, CPmom to DD-16 and DS-14
I asked you a question - I didn't claim you said anything. Asked for clarification, but while we're on the topic, I never said that what you do is wrong. What I did say was that I find it humerous when you slam someone for doing what you do. Even said I enjoy it. I don't hold you to any standard.
We can go round and round all night with you said, I said, but really what's the point? You never admit defeat. I have never said that circumstances contribute to the morality of the act. You see, and this is what you are having trouble grasping, I am not talking about defining the act - I am talking about defining the person. I am talking about giving a person a label for committing AN act - a single act. I have never once disputed that the immoral act is immoral. So, I have said a good deal about circumstances contributing to the morality of the person, not the act. And as I said earlier, Hollie has been clear that she labels the person committing the act, and that the two cannot be separated. She has clarified that in labeling the person, she is only labelling a portion of the person's core, but she is in fact labelling him/her based on one act. I fabricated nothing.
Can you please explain to me how when you said if you lie you are a liar, is not labelling the person who lies a liar? I don't understand your definition of labelling if that means the behaviour is a liar. Perhaps my grammar is not what I think it is, but to label a behaviour as a liar or a thief, just doesn't work for me. I would love to respond to your posts clarifying that point, but I haven't seen them.
You can believe it or not, but I am not able to provide a link. I need to take my pc in for servicing or better yet replace it. When I am able, I will post a nice little collection of posts I have saved in word for you.
You asked me a question that had nothing to do with anything I said. How can I clarify something I haven't said? It's just one more example of you fabricating something in order to debate. And now, it's old.
I'm also wondering why I would admit defeat? You haven't said anything to counter my point. In fact, despite your protests, you've supported my POV. You just hide behind calling it "being human".
Edited 2/19/2005 11:01 pm ET ET by taylormomma
Depends on the behavior.
I can always understand motivation. That doesn't mean I sympathize with the choice.
Is this something you never said:
"If you lie, you are a liar. If you steal, you are a thief"
If not, that is what I am asking you to clarify.
<<>>
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. You keep claiming I am debating with you over the labelling thing - the thing is that debate was with Hollie. Having said that, YOU did start the labelling with the above noted quote.
Yes, I realize that "husbands don't get to "have" their wives committed." I have no idea the degree of the woman's mental illness, whether she is a danger to herself or not or whether her husband can care for her. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "valid" to describe this option since I don't know all the facts - other than she was borderline suicidal and allowed her husband to carry on an affair rather than divorce her.
TM had mentioned there were "other options" for the husband (besides divorce or cheating). I was surmising what these might be since she neglected to share specifics.
Not so difficult.
But since you said "those aren't the only two options" (meaning cheating or divorce) I'm curious what those "other options" would be and which of them you would recommend to him.
I'm guessing she thinks another option would have been not to give in to his emotions. It's an easy choice, especially if you are making it hypothetically and never been in such a situation.
FTR, the wife has been institutionalized.
Nick
Pages