Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

Accepting Blame and accepting responsibility are the same thing. 

Ah - this is the source of the disagreement here. There is a reason why they are different words, and they are not at all synonymous. As long as they are seen as the same, then obviously the distinction I'm making will not be accepted. My experience has been that makeing the distinction, and getting rid of these three (while keeping the concept of reponsibility, apart from blame) has been very helpful for couples struggling with problems, including infidelity.

Blame, shame, guilt are all debilitating conecpts in a relationship, especially when one spouse is pointing the finger at the other. When these are maintained, they become stumbling stones not only for healing the relationships but for healing the individuals. They promote a victimhood mentality - and seeing oneself as a "victim" is a choice.

Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

Infidelity is not the same as leaving a toilet seat up. 

Where was it suggested it was something trivial?

Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

It should include some admission of guilt without requiring the other person who was faithful to admit guilt. 

Why?

Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

I don't believe that the other person has anything to do with it.

In most cases there is responsibility on the part of both spouses. This is not to say it is anything like 50-50, and certainly it does not excuse the choice to be unfaithful in any way.

Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

Therapists make a living off of women's guilt.

Which is part of why guilt is an ineffective concept in the first place.

Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

 ...the men were not hurting until they got caught.

You know this for a fact.

Okay, Arnie, I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Guilt is NOT an unhealthy emotion.  For many people, it's what keeps them on the straight and narrow.

I am the editor of a small newspaper, and I publish something weekly called the Police Blotter.  In my journalistic salad days, I thought that there was something really prurient about it.  I really believed that people really wanted to have the dirt on their neighbors and their friends' kids out of some nasty side of their own behavior.  One of my advertising reps had a client whose son was arrested for drug use, and she begged me not to put the kid in.  Since I had to cut the column down anyway, I complied against my ethical qualms.  And a funny thing happened.  The client was furious.  He believed his kid should have had to deal with the public scrutiny that came with committing a crime.  He insisted I put the kid in the next week, and I did.

When my ad rep's own kid was arrested for possession, I put the kid in.  He lost a job because of it, but the ad rep similarly had seen the light, and believed the kid had to deal with the consequences of his actions.

Sometimes people need the weight of societal disapproval to control themselves.  If the 'victim' did not 'blame' the offender, instead said things like "Well, there are two sides to every coin, we ended the marriage amicably, etc." she would be dooming his next conquest to life with a guy who cheats on his wife and denies his children's paternity.  

I doubt we can bring back public stockades and the scarlet letter, but I think societal disapproval has a lot of weight, even now.

Jul 20, 2009 -- 4:11PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Okay, Arnie, I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Guilt is NOT an unhealthy emotion.  For many people, it's what keeps them on the straight and narrow.

There are a lot of assumptions here - for example that it is somehow the "guilt," as opposed to public humiliation or punishment, that is the motivator.

Whether one agrees with the "tough love" approach or not, for me it is a stretch to ascribe that what is going on inside the person is "guilt" and that is a positive thing.

There are far more effective motivators than guilt - indeed, with guilt the "cure" is often far worse than the "disease" imo.

The boy was arrested but not yet convicted, and he lost his job. If you were wrongly arrested for something similar and lost your job, would you feel it was a good thing then?

Jul 20, 2009 -- 4:51PM, ArnieBeeGut wrote:

Jul 20, 2009 -- 3:18PM, appy20 wrote:

Would you call someone who has been abused a "victim" if they left their abuser?  Even if they provoked the abuse in some way?

No. In fact leaving an abuser is a healthy response. A pseron who sees themself as a victim often stays with the abuser. There is no "provoking" abuse (any more than there is "causing" infidelity) - the thought that abuse was somehow provoked is of course a rationalization on the part of the abuser.

Yes, the victim stays.  Same with cheaters.  If a person stays, they become the victim.

Jul 20, 2009 -- 3:18PM, appy20 wrote:

Because you think the relationship should be healed.  That minimizes the severity of the crime. In order to heal the relationship, you feel you have to drag the other partner through the mud too.

I said the relationship can be healed under most circumstances with the right kind of choices and work. Deciding to heal a relationship in no way minimizes any infidelity.

Jul 20, 2009 -- 3:18PM, appy20 wrote:

Because you seem to think a person should stay with a cheater or else they become an victim.

Wow - where did I say or even suggest that?

Jul 20, 2009 -- 3:18PM, appy20 wrote:

To take responsibility for one's actions means saying "I did it.  It was wrong.  No one else was to blame."  Period.

Exactly - where was it suggested otherwise? And this still does not mean that the other spouse did not play a role in what happened.

The last of your sentence contradicts what I said.  I wrote Period.  Period means THE END.  Not and, if or but that someone else played a role in it.  You are suggesting otherwise. You are blaming the wife. Contributing to is blame because it is saying that it is cause for the behavior.

 

Jul 20, 2009 -- 1:31PM, appy20 wrote:

I don't believe that the other person has anything to do with it.

In most cases there is responsibility on the part of both spouses. This is not to say it is anything like 50-50, and certainly it does not excuse the choice to be unfaithful in any way.

You are attributing blame then.

Only if "blame" and "responsibility" are equated - which I do not.  Saying  that someone caused another person's bad behavior is blame.  You are giving that person responsibility for another person's actions.  Once again, statistically, you are blaming a larger percentage of women than men or euphemistically saying that those cheated on caused the affair.

No ethical therapist would do this - which is not to say that some don't. I am curious as to the relevance of this to the topic.

Because that is a tactic used to talk women into staying with bad men.  It is creeping into popular culture as well and gaining acceptability.

So you are able to see inside their heads and know what they are thinking and feeling.

I have seen the body language.  I have heard the lies.  I have seen the angst.  After they are caught.   When someone lies that excessively, you cannot believe anything they say.  Once again, the angst is invisible until caught.  Then it is all over the place.  Why can the angst only be seen after they get caught?  If they were hurting that badly before, where was it hidden? The angst is a lie.  Once again, why is hurt only eased by having an affair?  Why didn't the person just say to their spouse, I am hurting so badly that I cannot be with you or I have to have someone else?  Why hide it?  If the hurt is that bad, why can they only lie?  If the hurt is that bad, why if the affair is never caught, do they not always admit it?  If the hurt is truly there, why can they only admit it after they are caught?  This is just an excuse to get off the hook.  They have a vested interest to lie.  The fact is their spouse isn't that awful.  They want to keep the spouse so that is why they lie.  That is why they pretend to hurt.  They want their cake and eat it too which is what they often do if not caught.  They most likely find fault with their spouse when they find themselves attracted to someone else.  They look for a reason to cheat.  If one can't be found (and who is perfect?) then a reason will be created.  By asking the spouse to accept some responsibility, you are letting the cheater maintain face.  At the other person's expense.  A person that has already been hurt.  You may denigrate that pain by calling the person a victim (we do hate victims now, our culture does), shaming that person into staying with the jerk. But.  That is a despicable call.  It lets 65% of men off the hook.  It is same ole, same old.  Boys will be boys and it is all women's fault. 

If the woman leaves, chances are, he will cheat with the next wife.  Of course, then she,too, is supposed to take responsibility.  Just works out so well for a cheater.  Then he has two people to blame for his behavior. 

You can see the angst after they are caught. You can see them cry, moan, whine they are sorry, etc.  There is no hint of that before they are caught. You don't have to read their minds AFTER they are caught.  They put it out there for everyone to see.  But.  They do not do so before they are caught.

i am stridently opposed to women being blamed for the bad behavior of men.  Especially for women being blamed for the biology of men.  Men are biologically inclined to fail at monogamous relationships and I see it as dishonesty to put that blame on 65% of women.    By giving these men excuses and saving these relationships, their genes are being perpetuated.  Thus the problem never gets solved.  The reason men are not better than they are is because their bad behavior is excused, forgiven or allowed and they continue on to have families perpetuating their genes.   I haven't been cheated on nor have I worried about it in a relationship.  I dated good men. No bad ones.  But.  There are not enough good men out there.   The fact is that men that lie are not good men.  You can excuse them all you want but they are not good people.  I have been approached by the jerks.  I have seen them in action.  They ooze with slime. 

There is an inherent belief in our culture, most likely stemming from our biology, that women do not deserve loyalty.  Men can be loyal to their friends, their job, their baseball teams, their dogs but find it beneath them to be loyal to the women in their lives.  When they are disloyal, women have to take "responsibility" for that occurring. 

There is also inherent in our culture, perhaps instigated by our biology, that women are never enough.  We never do enough.  We don't ever, ever, ever measure up.  I believe that is the whole basis of women taking responsibility for men cheating.  Yeah, I get sick of seeing woman after woman up there humiliated by their husband's affairs and then having them have to put up with remarks about them.  When I read Elizabeth Edwards' book, I get so mad that she, while dying, has to put up with this nonsense.  Then gets criticized for even writing about it.  I guess she should take responsiblity for dying.

You dance around it all day long.  You say you don't blame.  If you are not blaming, then why even bring up the woman's responsibility?  You say that relationships heal because women admit to being responsible for something.  Has it ever occurred to you, that the relationships can only heal if a guy has a scapegoat?  And that is not a true healing?  It is just passing the buck? 

To me, this is just so wrong.  I know women who gave everything they had to their relationships and got burned.  It is never enough for people..

Because I will not date again, I don't have to pretend the emperor has clothes.  You, sir, are naked as  a jailbird.