If you are given the option of sleeping with someone, for example a friend that you've flirted/messed around with for a long time, but you know that they have a partner, is it wrong for you to sleep with them? Is it the cheatee's responsibility, as it is not them that's cheating? Is the responsibility soley the cheaters? Or is it the same difference?
Discuss :-)
personally if i knew they had a partner i would not cross that line. i wouldnt like to be cheated on so i wouldnt do it to anyone else,
i think it is both the cheater and cheatee's responsibility. it takes two to have sex and thus it is both partners responsibility
Seconded SL. Equal responsibility; if you care about the uninvolved partner then you would not wish to hurt them and don't put yourself in such a situation. Both parties will hurt the non-cheater equally, and it takes two to tango so to speak. The non-cheater wouldn't be hurt that way if the cheater had a wank solo now would they? Therefore it is logical to think the most likely explanation for the difference is the independent variable i.e. cheatee. The only way to avoid guilt for either half of the equation (not the feeling but the actuallity) is if some kind of drug has been taken involuntarily.
I am assuming here that the hypothetical situation involves a partner in a monogamous relationship who would be upset if their partner was intimate with another person. Assuming that situation, my take on it is slightly different than the others.
Whilst I agree that embarking on a relationship with a person who has an unconsenting partner is likely to have an unpleasant impact, I feel that the person who is cheating in that relationship is the cheater and nobody else. That person is an adult, and is fully and solely responsible for their choice to cheat and their choice to act on that decision to cheat on their partner. If one person wouldn't sleep with them, then they're just as likely to find another. Personally, I cannot and will not blame them all for the transgressions of one.
I think that blaming the person they're using to cheat on their partner with is counter productive and besides the point. If we're going to blame some people for the transgressions of others, we might as well blame the partner cheated on as well. I think that blaming anybody else is passing the buck away from the cheater, and I'm sure the cheater is only too happy to do that by blaming others for their own choices.
And furthermore, if the person who is intimate with the person with an unconsenting partner is single, then they are cheating on nobody. They have made no promises to the other person's partner, so I consider this a matter for their personal ethics. I refuse to condemn a person for cheating when they're actually single and it's their partner who is doing the cheating.
Having said that, I personally think that in general embarking on relationships with people with unconsenting partners is a bad idea and can frequently lead to more trouble than it's worth. I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing "My wife doesn't understand me" or some such nonsense, which I find most usually translates into "No matter how much I try to convince her to celebrate it, my wife insists on deploring and disliking my inconsiderate self--absorbed behaviour". I personally feel that a person who cheats is not a person I can relate to well, but that's my personal choice and I would never blame anybody for their partner's misdeeds.
I strongly feel that as individuals, we each need to be fully and solely accountable and responsible for our own behaviour and nobody else's. In short, that means that ethically I cannot blame one person for another's behaviour, and that means I cannot blame one person for their partner's transgressions.
I would recommend extreme caution to anybody considering embarking on a relationship like this because in my experience they usually lead only to unpleasantness.
Oh, also, I disagree that "it takes two".
It takes only one person to lie, only one person to break a promise, only one person to choose to do these things and only one person to act on their choices. By my definition, those activities comprise the bulk of what cheating is about. In the course of having that affair, the single person is doing none of those things (I mean they might be, but they're not by definition doing them to the other person's partner). Whilst I certainly consider the single person as culpable for something, I cannot hold them responsible for the lying and promise-breaking transgressions of the cheating partner.
I really think it's important to make distinctions between those who do certain things and those who do different things, and I think it's especially important to be clear about who is responsible for precisely which transgressions. I know that when my partner cheats on me, my partner is the only one responsible for lying to me and breaking their promises to me, so that is whom I hold responsible.
And as much as I dislike being cheated on, lied to and given empty promises, I equally dislike being held responsible for other people's behaviour when they themselves are responsible for it. I've often been blamed for what other people do and it's a very unpleasant feeling. I can't fix what other people do and I can't change their behaviour. Only the person themselves can do that, so why blame me? Adults make their own choices and I think they should certainly be held responsible for them, no matter who they blame for their own behaviour.
So that is partly why it is so very important to me to feel very clear about who I'm holding responsible and for exactly which behaviour. And I say that in a cheating situation, the only person who is for sure cheating, lying and breaking promises is the individual who is actually perpetrating these behaviours.
I basically agree with everything that's been said. While I don't think you're breaking any promises to anyone if you get involved with someone who's in a relationship I think it's an unkind thing to do. I wouldn't want it to happen to me and therefore wouldn't wish it on anyone else.
Also I like everything to be out in the open with relationships and therefore wouldn't want to get involved with the kind of person that would cheat...if they're decietful with their current partner how could I trust them to be honest with me? It's self-preservation as much as it is respect towards the potentially betrayed party.
xxKPxx
KittyPurry wrote:
[...] wouldn't want to get involved with the kind of person that would cheat...if they're decietful with their current partner how could I trust them to be honest with me?
Hear here, I definitely agree with this. :)
Nexas wrote:
[...] I don't agree that the person the partner is cheating with should be blamed wholly for it (and I have seen this happen quite often) but I definitely think that if they knew about the relationship then they are partly responsible.
I agree that a person embarking on a relationship with a person they know is already in a monogamous relationship is engaging in some ethically very dodgy behaviour, no question. However, I feel strongly that this ethically dodgy behaviour is an entirely different and separate issue to the transgressions by the person who is cheating on their partner.
By saying one person can be partly responsible for another's behaviour, to me that opens up the possibility to be able to say that one person can be wholly responsible for another's behaviour, and therefore to say that a person can blame their behaviour entirely on somebody else. And I feel very strongly that this whole concept is wrong. I've been considering this point a lot lately in a series of blog posts yet to be published, so I have spent a lot of time on it. Assuming that the adults concerned are in a state of mind to be responsible for themselves (i.e. not mentally ill), I don't think there is any way a person can abdicate any responsibility for their behaviour.
I would not condone someone cheating with someone they know is in a monogamous relationship, but I do make a distinction between the two.
While I think the cheatee (to me that sounds like it should be the person being cheated on, but I'll use it in the context of the "other woman", so to speak) is acting immorally if they know the person has a partner, I would hold the cheater responsible for any impact on their relationship, as well as being immoral on a higher level.
I do think it does take two, up to a certain point. If a single person tries to pull someone they know is taken, then there's some degree of immorality, but it's the person in the relationship who knows it goes against the rules and will damage their relationship who goes ahead and does it regardless.
The cheatee is just going after what they want and the consequences will be good for them because of that. The cheater is deliberately doing something they know will damage their relationship.
I dont know if any of that made sense. I know what I mean but cant get the words out!
Ecksvie wrote:
I would not condone someone cheating with someone they know is in a monogamous relationship, but I do make a distinction between the two.
While I think the cheatee (to me that sounds like it should be the person being cheated on, but I'll use it in the context of the "other woman", so to speak) is acting immorally if they know the person has a partner, I would hold the cheater responsible for any impact on their relationship, as well as being immoral on a higher level.
I do think it does take two, up to a certain point. If a single person tries to pull someone they know is taken, then there's some degree of immorality, but it's the person in the relationship who knows it goes against the rules and will damage their relationship who goes ahead and does it regardless.
The cheatee is just going after what they want and the consequences will be good for them because of that. The cheater is deliberately doing something they know will damage their relationship.
I dont know if any of that made sense. I know what I mean but cant get the words out!
If I understand what you're saying, you're agreeing with me that there are at least two different and separate transgressions in this circumstance, the cheating partner's behaviour and the single person's behaviour in sleeping with a person who is cheating on their partner, am I getting you correctly? Although I'd feel better about referring to the single person as "the third party" rather than the "cheatee". :)
Lubyanka wrote:
Ecksvie wrote:
I would not condone someone cheating with someone they know is in a monogamous relationship, but I do make a distinction between the two.
While I think the cheatee (to me that sounds like it should be the person being cheated on, but I'll use it in the context of the "other woman", so to speak) is acting immorally if they know the person has a partner, I would hold the cheater responsible for any impact on their relationship, as well as being immoral on a higher level.
I do think it does take two, up to a certain point. If a single person tries to pull someone they know is taken, then there's some degree of immorality, but it's the person in the relationship who knows it goes against the rules and will damage their relationship who goes ahead and does it regardless.
The cheatee is just going after what they want and the consequences will be good for them because of that. The cheater is deliberately doing something they know will damage their relationship.
I dont know if any of that made sense. I know what I mean but cant get the words out!
If I understand what you're saying, you're agreeing with me that there are at least two different and separate transgressions in this circumstance, the cheating partner's behaviour and the single person's behaviour in sleeping with a person who is cheating on their partner, am I getting you correctly? Although I'd feel better about referring to the single person as "the third party" rather than the "cheatee". :)
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Perhaps a better way of describing the way I feel is this:
Say a guy has a cake which he's promised to give to his girlfriend to eat, but before his girlfriend can eat it, the guy offers it to another girl he knows is hungry and would like the cake, even though she knows the cake is for his girlfriend.
I can't blame the girl for eating the cake. She's hungry and she's been offered the cake. She might be wrong since she knows it's not her cake, but she's not asking for the cake, she's being given it.
The guy on the other hand, I put the blame on him because he know's he's promised his girlfriend the cake and she will be hurt when she finds out what he's done.
Nexas wrote:
[...] But that was not what was asked here. As such, surely it does "take two to tango" to a certain degree, because if there wasn't anyone willing to aid the cheater in their cheating, they would not be able to cheat in the first place?
I appreciate that you consider the transgressions of the cheater and the third party to be separate.
However as I understand it, the big problems with cheating are the lying and broken promises. And a cheater can and will do those things regardless of who helps or doesn't help them. If a man says to his partner that he's going to a museum, and he's really going to play poker with the guys, and the guys all know and laugh it off and allow him to participate in the card game, does that make them equally guilty in your eyes? Because to me it's the same thing, and if those guys aren't partly responsible for that guy's cheating, then neither is the third party.
If a thief habitually steals candles, will removing all the candles from everywhere make him not be a thief anymore? Are the candles partly responsible for the thief's behaviour? Is food partly responsible for a person's overeating? My point is, removing one temptation isn't going to stop an individual's desire and ability to lie, break promises and cheat, and therefore I think that the responsibility for cheating must rest solely with the cheater and nobody else.
Nexas wrote:
First example yes, second example no.
Not only is the third party in this instance a temptation as the candles will be but is willingly carrying out an act as well, something which the candles are incapable of.
So if a person lies and breaks promises by doing something involving inanimate objects, then they are wholly responsible for their behaviour, but if they lie and break promises by doing something involving another human being, that human being somehow becomes partly responsible for the cheater's behaviour? I don't understand how you work that out.
I'm with Lubyanka. Regardless of whether the third party is a person or inanimate object, I think that the cheater is responsible since it's his actions which allows whatever happens to happen. Yes, the third party has to act as well and they're not completely without blame, but if the cheater didnt allow it to happen, then it wouldn't.
Ecksvie wrote:
I'm with Lubyanka. Regardless of whether the third party is a person or inanimate object, I think that the cheater is responsible since it's his actions which allows whatever happens to happen. Yes, the third party has to act as well and they're not completely without blame, but if the cheater didnt allow it to happen, then it wouldn't.
Oh, phew, somebody understood what I was saying, yay! :D
Well, I was cheated on and I hold NO grudge against the guy she cheated with.
She was with me, so only her actions mattered.
Personally however I wouldn't feel comfortable having sex with someone who I KNEW had a boyfriend (and not just because I'd worry he'd beat me up if he found out!). I wouldn't want to feel like I'd played any part in a relationship breaking down.
Nexas wrote:
Lubyanka wrote:
Nexas wrote:
First example yes, second example no.
Not only is the third party in this instance a temptation as the candles will be but is willingly carrying out an act as well, something which the candles are incapable of.
So if a person lies and breaks promises by doing something involving inanimate objects, then they are wholly responsible for their behaviour, but if they lie and break promises by doing something involving another human being, that human being somehow becomes partly responsible for the cheater's behaviour? I don't understand how you work that out.
No. What I'm saying is that the two analogies are different.
The cheater/liar/thief is WHOLLY responsible for his/her own actions.
The third party is WHOLLY responsible for his/her own actions.
They are both doing something morally wrong, but the actual cheater is the one who has lied/broken promises. But the third party is in the wrong morally because they are fully aware of the cheater's situation and are quite happy to help them carry out this action, thereby making their own act dubious.
Does that make sense? I'm not saying at all that the third party is partly responsible. But you also can't cheat unless there IS a third party.
As such, I can't see the third party as a completely blameless figure. If I knew that someone I was sleeping with had a partner, I'd feel I was doing something wrong to the cheater's partner.
I see what you're saying I think Nexas....in terms of the relationship the 3rd party is not accountable at all, but in terms of their own morallity they have done something wrong....is that what you mean?
I'm refraining from answering this Q until I have thought about it External Media
Ax
In my experience of being shit upon from a great height. . . .
The Cheater is wholly responsible and especially if there are children involved as they have more often than not, lied to everyone, deceived everyone, do a lot of pretending as in overtime at work, joining gyms, going jogging at strange hours, taking up hobbies (supposedly) that take them out of their current situation so they can cheat, spending family money (not just theirs) which is called theft! and therefore spend a lot lot less time with the partner / kids. I think that's behaving irresponsibly.
The Cheatee although not to blame for the cheaters behaviour is wholly responsible for their own behaviour and usually does realise the impact that their actions are going to have upon the people in the cheaters current lifestyle be they single or with children.
Both parties know what is morally right and wrong and so are responsible for their own behaviours and the ripple effect that their actions will cause to every single person involved on both sides.
In my experience nearly all cheating does not work out happily ever after and usually ends in devestation.
SG69 x
Nexas wrote:
Lubyanka wrote:
Nexas wrote:
First example yes, second example no.
Not only is the third party in this instance a temptation as the candles will be but is willingly carrying out an act as well, something which the candles are incapable of.
So if a person lies and breaks promises by doing something involving inanimate objects, then they are wholly responsible for their behaviour, but if they lie and break promises by doing something involving another human being, that human being somehow becomes partly responsible for the cheater's behaviour? I don't understand how you work that out.
No. What I'm saying is that the two analogies are different.
The cheater/liar/thief is WHOLLY responsible for his/her own actions.
The third party is WHOLLY responsible for his/her own actions.
They are both doing something morally wrong, but the actual cheater is the one who has lied/broken promises. But the third party is in the wrong morally because they are fully aware of the cheater's situation and are quite happy to help them carry out this action, thereby making their own act dubious.
Does that make sense? I'm not saying at all that the third party is partly responsible. But you also can't cheat unless there IS a third party.
Ok, thank you for that Nexas, I think I understand more where you're coming from now, and I do mostly agree with you. Yay! :)
And I have also figured out more precisely what my problem is with the part I disagree with. This part here is really problematic for me:
"you can't cheat unless there IS a third party"
The way I see it, your "unless" is totally moot, because there are always going to be people on this planet unless we all get blown up in some sort of vile nylon sock incident (in which case the whole thing becomes moot). So I think my problem with your response is that you're using an impossible example by saying that it's possible to remove something which isn't removable.
Since I think there is no "unless" because we are all going to be living with other people around for the foreseeable future, proposing that a hypothetical cheater will definitely change their behaviour in a hypothetical situation which also happens to be impossible, is not a useful example.
Gosh, I hope that makes sense. :)
Nexas wrote:
There should be an unless because the third party should, when they find out that the person they are attracted to is in a monogamous relationship, not still have sex with that person ^_^'
Well sure, a cheater will cheat unless the world turns into a giant box of dried guavas and gets bought out by some vegans from the Iguana Cluster. Whether or not somebody should or shouldn't do a specific thing, there will always be somebody prepared to do something. So I consider your hypothetical "unless" to be every bit as impossible as my guava scenario and therefore just as pointless to consider.
Besides which, if a cheater decides to use a sex worker to cheat on their partner, that sex worker is going to do the job regardless of partnership status. That's perfectly appropriate behaviour for a sex worker, and expecting them to do otherwise is just unrealistic fantasy. So the only "unless" i know about is that a cheater will cheat unless the cheater decides not to. In my opinion, any other "unless" is hypothetical and unrealistic speculation based on imaginary and impossible scenarios.
I think I would say the cheater is mainly to blame. The "cheatee" has blame somewhere along the line, but not in terms of the relationship. But doesn't the person who has been cheated on *occasionally* have a part to play?
I mean, it's never excusable to cheat and the cheater should deal with things in a better way than by cheating....but there are times when problems within the relationship are the reason and both parties involved *could* have done something about it....of course 99% of the blame lies with the cheater, they should talk to their partner if they aren't happy rather than cheating....but maybe it wouldn't be a problem had *both* parties worked on the relationship before it got to that stage.
Ax
