IMHO, the first time we consider it neccessary to rationalize the action.

I consider the ability to rationalize as being comfortable explaining the action to someone else. I consider the moral code as being comfortable explaining something to yourself. I put those in that order, because unfortunately, I think people are generally more concerned about how things look to others as opposed to whether they are all right with it themselves. Sign of the times I guess. I'll add that I assume we are talking about general populations, as I do realize that their are some people (sociopaths, etc.) where these do not apply.

When I say its the first time we consider it neccessary to rationalize the action, it is because that is the first time we think what we are doing would require explanation to anyone observing the event. Basically saying, the average person would think this behavior is incorrect, unless I told them the circumstances. In the case of A's, the first time one thinks they would need to explain the behavior, the behavior is incorrect. (However, rationalization is not always a bad thing, there are many cases where the correct behavior would need to be explained, its just not the case in A's)

That said, I think this gets complicated. As much as we try to consider an A an event, it is a series of events. I suppose people do that because we all feel if we had just chosen differently at that single point in time, none of this would have ever happened. But, IMHO, that is seldom true.

The analogy I tend to use is when you get lost driving your car.

If you have ever been lost (I mean really lost), you tend to only realize it well after the point in which you actually got lost. If you trace back to where you made the "wrong" turn, you will realize that you felt lost, not when you made that turn, but well after it. And even that "wrong" turn is misleading because as you retrace your steps you realize that had you made a different turn before or after that "wrong" turn, you would not be lost at all. Finally, even if you hadn't made what you have concluded to be the "wrong" turn, it still doesn't guareentee you would not have gotten lost.

So, when do you become lost? When you realize you are lost? when you made the wrong turn? When you failed to correct for the wrong turn? Or were you lost the minute you got in the car?

Given the ambiguity in dealing with a series of events, I think everyone's opinion is going to vary.

But, using the above analogy, if I had to pick a point I would say the A started at that "wrong" turn. As an example, you seldom feel compelled to explain all the turns prior to the wrong turn, as everyone would agree that you were going the "right" way. (You don't start an I was lost story explaining why you pulled out of the driveway). Rationalizing in this case is "Well, I turned here, and I saw that building that I recognized, and I could have sworn where I was going was the next street over, etc." Makes sense, people will hear that, agree, maybe even confess to doing the same thing.


If you mean "when does a persons actions cross their moral code?", they don't. People's actions don't cross their moral code. People move their moral code out of the way. As I mentioned above, I think rationalization is an external process, moral code is an internal process. Occassionally, these two compete against each other, but I think they "sync" up at the point of decision making. I know many people will say that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but IMHO, this is not intrepreted in the correct way. Most assume that this feeling meant they were violating their moral code. It didn't, it meant they were changing it. They are reflecting on distress involved in shifting one's value system.


Not sure I follow your question. If one believes in the addiction analogy, then I suppose the want/need is more intense, but the cycle remains. Opportunity, rationalize, moral code, cost/benefit.

Finally, I have always thought waywardness starts long before the A. Using my analogy above, I think waywardness started the minute they got in the car.

Rprynne, because I love your posts...

even when they hurt.



Going with the driving while lost or lost while driving...

I believe they are wayward when they get in the car and their permission to blame is in gear...

"If he hadn't cut me I off, I wouldn't have..."

"If you hadn't said "right" after I asked "left" then I would have..."

The addicts state of mind is one of constant right/wrong, blame/blameless...and oddly enough, as in what we focus are eyes on intently can become blurred.

Justifications/rationalizations for why...as you said...we pick the point we believe we became lost (when we realized it) instead of the getting in the car.

Like a recoverying alcoholic, I don't believe we're cured...we are just recoverying, as believer said, in a lifetime program...

for when we pick up the glass of resentment, the mental habit of judgment, we are drunk again on fantasy before we act. We are already lost.

We will repeat our behaviors as we choose an old mindset...most likely after traumas in our lives. Even as we practice daily our new choices into long-held habits, we will not be "safe" to "never" choose an affair (drink) again.

You cannot make us stray, get us lost or bring us home.

You can choose to be the light or have us light out on our own.

Our behaviors truly aren't about you, who you are, if you're good enough or not...our love doesn't waiver...our hold on reality does.

Same for all addicts...as you said, with rationalization, bending our boundaries...all affairs require self-deception to come first.

Your local serial cheater,

LA

Incredibly perceptive and thought provoking!

LA, you post truely creeps me out.

I hope that what you are saying is not true. If it is, no one in their right mind would stay.

Especially this part.


I've never been a serial cheater, so I can't say you are wrong, or that I disagree with you. But if it is true, it is the scariest thing I have read lately.

Where were you when value systems were being given out?

I'm not trying to fight with you, I want to know why you didn't learn a value system and why you have to fight affairs just like crack for the rest of your life?

And for the record, and I know I am repeating myself. Alcoholics are not ALL lacking value systems.

My dad died of alcoholism, but he was one of the most ethical men I have ever known. He spent his life saving other people.

Crap, I can't even compare cheaters to smokers any more.

Maybe they are not like addicts at all, after all. Although the affair can feel like some kind of drug high and has a very strong pull whilst in the midst of it, and for a while after.

But for forever? I just can't buy that. Too many people who are not perpetual cheaters can't stomach the ex-affair partner.

People screw up, like KY and MRS. W but they are not character defective they just made a bad decision. (one time, lesson learned)

Two different kinds of cheaters I guess, and LA the serial cheater you just describes is one messed up person.

If you mean from a people stand point, I think it can be defined as anything that results in a sustained observable difference in their behaviors or actions. I'll repaste what I commented to you on a locked thread when you said you agree its about judging people based on their actions.

How can you claim to be judging people by their actions, yet then say you do not believe that the actions of a FWS are legit. This approach, at least to me, is no longer judging them by their actions, it's just judging them.

Additionally, leveraging studies, personal experiences, etc. doesn't add support to this POV. Meaning if one truly measures an individual by their actions, the actions of people in a similar situation are irrelevent with respect to measuring that individual's character. Relevent to predicting what their actions may be, yes, but their character will only be defined by the actual actions they take.

If those future actions they take, lead them down a path that does not include adultery, then I would think you would have to conclude they have changed. I suppose the nature of that change can be debated, but still, it's a change.

I would say they have changed when the idea of having an affair becomes so abhorent to them that they would never, under any circumstance, have another.

It's a change in beliefs. A change in their value system.

Because the F will always be in front of the W and the S. Everyone is the sum of all their actions. These were tested, and they failed miserably. And a make-up test counts for all now, does it? (F + A = C, at best.) Besides, I don’t believe in their claim to the F anyway. Give them a chance to do it again, and get away with it, and they will. The data proves it.

What? Will you dumb this down for me?

Again, exempting the few, they are managing. They are managing their choices. They may even be managing the surface texture of their ethics and/or morals. But at root they are managing their actions, their appearances, not their core being. They haven't actually changed their ethics. Perhaps they are simply surrendering to the necessity of avoiding or re-experiencing undesired consequences. But they are still who they always were.

No one ever said on this thread, at least I have not, WS and FWS are stupid ignorant maroonic and brainless colossal fools. They know exactly what they are doing, and knew exactly what they were doing all along.

So, I suppose I ought to add as another exception to the rule the two digit IQ adulterer. They knew not, I suppose.

Weaves,

Why they will not have another affair is the real issue.

You know, there are two schools of thought on values. One says value systems blow in the wind. In fact, that is exactly what the so-called ethical person who commits adultery does. They change their values. Then they change them again. And again. And again. Up and down, all over the map. Values become fungible to these people, the vast majority. Values as excuses become who they are.

The other school says values, once fully integrated, are very difficult to change. If these values are of the right sort these are the people who never commit adultery in the first place. If these values are of the wrong (as in me first) ilk, these are the people who have affairs. And these are the people who only stop when they have to pay too much afterwards.

This does not yet get us to a discussion of ideals.

Dear, dear Aphelion - your cynicism is showing.

For those that think serial cheaters can change, you might want to post some hope to the newest member on JFO, whose hubby has cheated in their 2 year marriage with his ex, their friend, and 4 others. And yes, it was because she wasn't meeting his needs.

Bel,

For this very reason I do not post on JFO. Unless it's an LTA, or worse. Then they need to get out as soon as possible, but with a well planned strategy.

Well, I see that no one has posted hope to the newest JFO poster. Also there is a GQ new poster who is trying to deal with serial adultery. Any takers?

I haven't even looked at this thread (I'm afraid to), but my gut says this is a guy that does it just because he can. Could he change? I don't know for sure but is it really worth the gamble?

Tabby - I don't have the heart for it anymore. But hopefully some of the folks here who think serial cheaters can change will chime in.

I think you might have missed the point, believer. Serial cheaters can change if they choose to change. But no one here is saying that a BS can change a serial cheater against his will.

If you want to help the BS, you might do them a kindness and explain that to them instead of coming here and being snide about it.

Better yet, since you don't have "the heart" for it, tell me where the threads are and I will go tell them. You don't need to bother. You can stay here and make snotty posts that miss the point.

Aphelion,

You avoided answering my question. Why do you post? Are you an evangelist trying to save the rest of us from misguided hope? Clearly you don't believe in MB and you obviously think the Harleys are charlatans. So what is your message? The reason I am curious is that if I shared your opinion, I wouldn't waste my time here. So, in that sense at the very least, you and I are very different. So I'm always curious what drives the evangelical. Are the motives simply altruistic or, as in some cases (Swaggert, Alamo, etc.) more self-serving?

I can't say you are right or wrong. Only time will tell that. If I agreed with you, however, I would already be divorced. I would also never get married again. Actually I think I would hate all women for the lying cheats they all are.

I think we're missing the point here. The question should be....why would anyone want to waste their life with a serial cheater???

I've dabbled with thinking along the lines of Alphelion. In the aftermath of this type of trauma, betrayal, the world feels unsafe. Most of us could not have imagined that our spouses were capable of inflicting this much pain. It feels safer to think they are different than us, that they are wired much differently. I bristled at the notion that Peggy Vaughn, and, apparently, the Harleys put forth, that we all are capable of htis under certain circumstances.
It feels safer to think that cheaters are fundamentally different, their characters etched in stone. If this is true, with really careful investigation, perhaps we can spot this in them in time to flee before getting involved with them. If their characters are etched in stone, then a BS can avoid looking at the marriage and his or her contribution to its demise, as it played no part.
I'm no biblical scholar and not terribly religous, but Paul cppmes to mind as a person that was horrible but changed. I know history has many examples of people that, at one point, were pure evil, but changed.
I had to deal with this dichotomy, past behavior and new behavior, in looking at my alcoholic dad, trying to reconcile his terrible abuse with other facets of his personality that were truly good. I saw him fight to get better and change. He left his family very scarred , but, on whole, he was a truly good man and he regretted what he had done in the past.
So, I think people can and do change. I've seen it many times.
When this pain of betrayal is still really fresh and raw, it is pretty normal to think as Alphelion does. His world was obviously rocked and it takes a good long time to get past this.

Pio - his goal is to suck the hope out of anyone who has any. His wife is in contact with OM - probably never stopped contact. So this is pure projection on his part. He wouldn't recognise a FWS if they were right under his nose.