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
Well, gosh, why didn't you say so? This would be so much easier if your posts actually had something to do with the post to which you were responding. Context does matter, you know.
I'm not sure why you're asking if I never said something that is right here on the board. How could I have never said it, if it's posted?
<>
Excuse me? Then what were all the posts I made about labelling that Hollie agreed with? If you weren't trying to debate labels with me, what have your last 25 posts to me been about, and why did the word "label" appear in them? And why are you asking me if I made the statement "If you lie, you are a liar" if you're not debating labelling with me?
<>
Actually, you started the labelling with this quote, "If I eat nothing but vegetables one day does that make me a vegetarian?".
There was truly no need to repost the entire debate. But you still haven't clarified your point that your comment on a person telling a lie is a liar and your later claim that you did not assign labels - that you were labelling behavior.
Hollie has said that she does label and I have been debating that with her. You have labelled then said you didn't. She has clearly said she attaches the label and that it sticks for a period of time surrounding the incident. When you label, you are judging. You may not be judging the entire person, but when you say one who lies is a liar, you could be wrong. One lie does not a liar make, one affair does not a cheater make, one day of not eating meat does not a vegetarian make. You say I am hiding behind character flaws being human - well hell yeah! I am not hiding behind it though. And for a person's character to be flawed, in a manner that exceeds normal flaws, they would need to engage in an immoral behaviour frequently. Then you can call them flawed - otherwise they are no more flawed than everyone is. Does that make sense?
I have never assumed that you or Hollie actually believe that one act completely defines a person. I was trying, in vain, to make you see that placing a label on another is defining them to a degree and that the label could be wrong because circumstances matter.
I don't think we disagree - and yes it is semantics - as are most debates.
<>
Debateable ...
<>
I can agree with that.
<>
WRONG. One affair does a cheater make. One affair is all it takes to royally screw up the lives of at least 3 people .. more if there are children involved.
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.
LOL, I was going to be done a looooong time ago.
I used Melissa's lie as an example, because it is a great one. She could tell her dh the truth, but what purpose would it serve? I think that is a perfect example of the wrong thing (the lie)being the right thing to do.
Sure an affair CAN royally screw up the lives of those involved. But not ALWAYS. Sometimes it is actually a catalyst for healing. Obviously, our personal experiences impact our feelings and how we view the world, but our personal experience is not universal.
Nick
How is it presumptuous to question your very words? You said:
"My personal beliefs would not permit ME to seek or desire sexual contact or attention from anyone other than my spouse, period."
You say your beliefs will not allow you to desire sexual contact or attention from anyonje other than your spouse. You later say that is indefinately. I'm not sure what kind of beliefs you have that control your desires.
Also, i am well aware that there is more to sexual contact than intercourse. But if you have an incapacitated spouse who cannot participate in sexual contact of any kind, why would it matter whether hat contact was intercourse or not?
I don't see how I am being presumptuous, nor do I understand your point.
You're a WOHM, working as a spy for a secret, international anti-terrorist organization. You've been working on your target, a Russian you think is negotiating the sale of nuclear materials to al Qaeda, for months. In order to distract him from what your colleague in the next room is doing (or gain his trust once and for all, or get him prone so you can inject him with truth serum, or any number of other immediate reasons), you have sex with him, thus saving millions of U.S. lives.
You're on your second marriage. The corrupt judge is trying to take the children from your first marriage away from you and return them to your abusive ex, who will immediately flee with them to his native country, where U.S. custody laws and women's rights aren't recognized. The clock is ticking. The judge offers you a chance to save your children -- if you have sex with him.
I agree that, in the normal middle-class American life, there is no such thing as selfless adultery. But I'm also pretty sure it *has* happened many, many times over the course of human history.
Some excellent examples of why immoral behaviour is not always immoral, and that circumstances matter, and that we mere mortals are not in a position to judge without knowing all the facts. Two thumbs up! Well said.
Nick
Not necessarily. Affairs can also be carried out in an attempt to keep a marriage alive, entirely for the sake of people other than oneself.
Btw, its equally selfish I guess for a married person to refuse to accomodate the sexual needs of a spouse. Surely, refusal of any thing of that kind is done purely to please oneself and fullfill ones own needs?
Pages