Bio
AV Flox is a Peruvian transplant living in Los Angeles. She is the editrix-in-command of Sex and the 405, a site that shows you what your newspaper w...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

The Blame Culture

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 23
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The bimbo. The bitch. The whore. The soulless skank. How many names can you think of to describe the other woman?

“Don't forget 20-something gold-digger,” my friend Mia adds.

“Of course.”

We're at Ralph's on a 3 A.M. run for the kind of goodies that run our side of the blogosphere: caviar, strawberries, pate, crackers, Marlboros, Coke and a wide array of cheese.

I've been looking over the tabloids lined by the cashier. In the past week, it seems the entire nation's attention has shifted to the woman now associated with Jon Gosselin, one of the stars of the TLC reality TV series Jon & Kate Plus 8, about a husband and wife and their eight children.

The show, which featured the trials and tribulations of two parents dealing with two sets of multiples, gained traction over the years, but went into a sabbatical during season five to give the Gosselins time to sort out their emotions surrounding a very public separation. The episode announcing the split was the highest rated episode of the series, with some 10.6 million viewers.

That being an old story for the media—and far better told by the Gosselins themselves—the tabloids had moved on to Jon Gosselin's alleged newest (there appear to have been at least two others before her) object of affection. Or, as they preferred to describe her, “his bimbo.”

“For all the grief we give Hollywood about sugarcoating everything, the truth is that there is nothing we like more than the decay and destruction of happy endings,” I tell Mia, grabbing several tabloids and throwing them into the cart. “We are the vulture culture. It's almost like we can't tolerate happiness. We just want to get fat on the misery of others.”

 

Back home, I stayed up all night reading about Jon and the woman with whom he'd spent a weekend in Saint-Tropez. She was described by Us Weekly, In Touch, and People as a raunchy, celebrity-seeking bimbo, a sexually confused party girl mooching off her parents and friends in the pursuit of fun, with a past marijuana possession conviction. This woman, the tabloids are implying, is a dangerous influence, a temptress who is only using Gosselin for celebrity.

I'm really tired of seeing the other woman quartered as though it's always her fault for luring an innocent, hapless man away, as though men somehow don't have the capacity to think for themselves and make the same choices that women do.

It's demeaning to men. What are they, then? Dumb beasts of burden who can't control themselves? Who have no capacity for thought or choice? It's sexist and ridiculous, and yet the notion is so prevalent as to have become some kind of truth.

Men are dogs! They don't know better!

My good friend Shelly is one of the perpetrators of this fallacy. She and her boyfriend recently ended a relationship of twelve years. It's not that things weren't working, that they hadn't had sex in years, that he was disloyal. It's that a “fucking bitch slut whore” came around and ruined everything.

Shelly's forgiven him. It wasn't his fault. Obviously he was no match for the fucking bitch slut whore.

“Shell, you need to stop calling her that,” I said to her the last time we spoke.

“Well, she is!”

“She never made a promise to be faithful to you,” I told her. “He did. And he broke it.”

“With her,” she pointed out. “She's not a saint!”

“No, I'm not saying that—”

“What is he supposed to do with this twenty-something jumping around at work in little shorts?” Shelly screamed. “Men don't know!”

“Men don't know?” I asked. “Men don't know? He was smart enough to hide it, to sneak around, to lie, but somehow the reason he had to do all of this escaped him?”

Men don't know. Men don't think with their head, they think with their dicks. Men are just animals who must be watched and controlled.

How about letting people take some responsibility?

It's not that men are animals, it's that sometimes people make choices that they think are in their best interest and not in the interest of the people in their lives. Sometimes these people are men. But 50 percent of the time, they're women.

I don't know whether the decision the Gosselins made had anything to do with the fact Jon was having an affair. I don't know whether he was having an affair—or several. And I don't know whether the allegations that Kate had an affair are true, either. All I know is that raising a family—especially one that large—is not easy, especially in public.

  • 23
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Daubiri 5 pts

Life is too sweet to blame others for the wrong things that happen to us.  If we know  better, the wrong things we see that make us to blame others are all leading to the solution  we ever needed, we will not think of blaming other for our lack of understanding in life.

This means that every human being has the ability to solve the problems that comes them.

You can do all things in your direction in life.

Bill Cammack 5 pts

You're welcome, AV.

To be clear... I agree in theory, ethically, morally, religiously, however one wants to define it, in being as nice to people as is possible under the circumstances.  I also believe in "responsibility" as both of you have defined it.  People are DEFINITELY to be held "responsible" for their actions.  They're the ones that did it, so the finger must definitely be pointed at them.

IS the third party (assuming they knew the person was in a relationship) "responsible" for the situation?  Yes.  Definitely.  They could have said "No.  Not interested.  You're spoken for" and they didn't.  The question is... "Responsible to whom?".

Yeah.  So that person's responsible.. That's true.  So what?  That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.  The fact remains that if a guy (or gal, in the reverse situation) stands up at an altar and puts his hand on a stack of bibles and swears up and down to you that he's going to be sexually faithful to you, *HE* has taken on the responsibility to do exactly that.  He doesn't say "I'm going to be faithful unless you stop giving it up" or "I'm going to be faithful unless I meet a sexier woman" or "I'm going to be as faithful as I can" or "I'm going to be as faithful as other women allow me to be by not CAUSING ME to cheat on you by throwing it at me".

Similarly, if I tell someone they can park in front of a hydrant (when I knew they couldn't) and they do it and then they get a ticket.. Am I responsible for that?  Yes.  I led them astray.  Do I have to pay ONE. RED. CENT. for their ticket?  Nope.  It's their car.  It's their responsibility.  There's nothing they can say that will have a judge agree that I should chip in for the ticket or pay the entire thing, since it was clearly my fault.

This is why I'm saying the person that made the agreement is the only one to blame in these situations.  They promised to be faithful under all conditions.  They failed.  Period.  When Twitter fails, is TweetDeck blamed? Nope.

Also, anyone who believes that their fellow human being is going to follow the same rules they live by is at a distinct disadvantage.  When a situation occurs, they only consider a subset of the possible explanations, because the rest of them fall outside of "what's right" or what they BELIEVE their SO would do.  Unfortunately, considering reality is depressing and many people would rather not consider the potential depths of the situation and keep their blinders on until "suddenly" their SO has a change of heart when the signs were always right there.

Anyway, didn't intend to hijack your thread, haha I just wanted to put my two cents in as usual. :)  I just find it psychologically fascinating how people make up these relationship dynamics in order to make themselves feel better about themselves and their lives.  I can't imagine myself saying, if I found out that I had been cheated on by a gal I was dating "Hey... Well... At least she gave it up to Tyrese Gibson! :D"  That's ridiculous.  "At least she gave it up to some guy that mentally outsmarted her".. "At least she gave it up to a guy that's richer than I am".. "At least she's not pregnant".. "At least she'll still have sex with me".....

The fact in that hypothetical situation is that SHE promised ME not to have sex with other guys and then had sex with other guys.  She Failed.  My deal was with HER, not with THEM. Are they morally, ethically, religiously, or perhaps karmically responsible?  Yes, they are.  Have they done ethically "wrong" or violated codes of community decency?  Yes, they have.  Does any of that help out my SO about not living up to her promise to me?  Nope.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )

I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

avflox 5 pts

I appreciate the positive message you close with in your comment, Deanna, but I have several issues with the things you're saying.

I don't think blame is the answer. I think accountability is. If you were cheated on, you must realize that it is your partner with whom you should address the issue. Blaming yourself or blaming the other party is not conducive to healing of any sort. More than blaming your partner, I think the focus should be in making them accountable.

Second, this isn't just an issue of "women who don't care who they hurt." Women in monogamous relationships cheat as well. It's not just a a matter of another woman becoming involved with a committed man, though the example of Jon and Kate was employed and the emphasis placed on the media's treatment of "the other woman." In all my media consumption, I simply have not seen the same treatment of women's "other men"--in those cases, the unfaithful woman is usually the "sleeze witch."

Because whereas "men can't help it" or are excused because they are so "willing to give up too easily on their relationships"--women are expected to be able to help it and persevere. So women are villains either way. I take issue with that.

Lastly, the notion that cheating occurs because a woman has stopped taking care of herself is downright outrageous. Beauty does not exempt you from being a victim of infidelity. I don't believe a good monogamous union is saved by you perpetually playing "hot mama." Trust me. I was a very well-kept Stepford wife who never broke 18 on the BMI.

Men don't just want a hot thing. They need emotional attention as much as women do. They need connection as much as women do. They are not the Darwinian missing link who function differently and need different things than we do. All of the notions expressing the opposite tie into gender stereotypes that do more harm than good.

Men are not from Mars, women are not from Venus. We're both from Earth.

avflox 5 pts

Thank you both. I think my opinion falls somewhere in-between yours. Like CL, my views do tend toward a non-religious belief that we must be held accountable for our actions, whether we made a commitment or not. For example, I never promised my commenters that I would be polite with them no matter how much they may enrage me. But I feel being appropriate is a duty and therefore, I do my best to respond as best as possible to things that require a response no matter how livid such things make me.

That's "personal responsibility" and, of course, as Bill said, I know that the things that I view as part of my personal responsibility vary from person to person. Someone else may not see it as reprehensible to respond in equal measure to being called something nasty.

But it is my belief that we are all responsible for our choices and actions. A woman (or man) who becomes involved with someone in a relationship made a decision and they are responsible for the part they took in the situation. Are they to blame? No. Will putting the blame on them help the person who was wronged heal and move on? No. Will villainizing them in the media as a slutty homewrecker help address the issue? No.

The issue of infidelity should be addressed within the couple. That's where the answers are.

Thank you both for the discussion, I think it really adds to the piece.

Caffeinated Librarian 5 pts

Honey, if you had only read and quoted the next sentence down:

"And there ought to be some responsibility for THAT choice, if they make
it knowing that the man is in a relationship with another woman."

"If" being the key word here. You can't be blamed for what you don't know.

Dating him after you know...well, then I go back to the "taking responsibility for your choices" idea again. Being in love may make it understandably difficult but it doesn't mean you shouldn't take responsibility for the choice and whatever consequences come after that point regardless of whether you decide to stay or go, because there will likely be consequences with either choice. Love isn't a "Get out of Jail Free" card to life.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

malackey 5 pts

"But the other woman was involved...the whole thing wouldn't, couldn't
have happened if the other woman hadn't decided to participate."

Making the assumption the other woman even knew about the pre-existing wife/girlfriend/partner. Having been the other woman, I can assure you that remarkably few men out looking to cheat on their partners are considerate enough to inform their dates that they're otherwise committed. And, in some cases, by the time you find out your boyfriend is married, you're head over heels in love with him. Why should I carry any blame for dating?

Deanna64 5 pts

Whos to blame? Lets see, theres usually two to three to blame. One is the other woman, two is the male and three is you.

Before you jump, let me explain. SOME women nowadays dont care who they hurt, whos famiy they ruin or what it costs, they want what they want when they want it. If you go on a certain game, there are sleeze witches waiting to pick up a guy. Not all are there to have relationships but before you know your spending more time with the other person and then you break into the emotional affair. 

The men are to blame for not taking their relatinships seriously. The are willing to give up too easilly on their current relationship.

Third, is you!!  When you stop caring about yourself and stop making yourself a priority then your mate will see that too. You dont dress up anymore, you dont play the HOT MAMA routing then something is missing.  If you dont do it for your man, then do it for you. Once you start taking care of yourself, and making yourself priority then your other half will wonder and realize what they have.

If that dont work and your man still cheats, then guess what dahling, he wasnt meant to have anyhow. Live your life, take care of yourself and realize your ONE HOT MAMA!

Caffeinated Librarian 5 pts

Maybe in the short-run they're at a disadvantage, but in the long run I don't think they are - it all depends on what your goals are in life.

Plus, karma (or whatever you want to call it) tends to find a way to bite people in the butt in their own lifetimes, given enough time and opportunity. And I'm not so much of a "true believer" that I can't appreciate THAT. :-)

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

Bill Cammack 5 pts

My opinion certainly holds no more or less weight than your own.

All I'm saying is that when someone who believes that people are going to be good to them for some supernatural reason goes up against someone who doesn't follow those rules, the "true believer" is at a GREAT disadvantage.

I agree with you that those that dish it out usually can't take it.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

Suziannie 5 pts

My now ex husband cheated, actually he started cheating on me LONG before we were even married. While I never once blamed his girlfriend or harboured any ill feelings towards her (how could I she had no idea I exsisted and was quite shocked to find out he was already married.) I had to laught when I read:

"It's demeaning to men. What are they, then? Dumb beasts of burden who can't control themselves? "

Because while I don't believe that men at large are dumbe beasts of burden, but that's EXACTLY what my husband said when confronted with an email he sent his girlfriend ON OUR WEDDING NIGHT.  That he 'couldn't help it'.  I'm on a support board for people who are trying to get through or get over an adulterous spouse or boyfriend...and wouldn't you know that's the number 2 reason the 'wayward' partners and spouses give when they're caught-they just couldn't help it.

Caffeinated Librarian 5 pts

In YOUR opinion that responsibility doesn't exist. And how is your opinion any more valid than mine?

So basically, people act as they act and anyone who gets caught in the cross-fire, well that's just too damn bad? Better luck next time, chump? Be sure to get them before they get you!

Please. That crap is just an excuse that people use to explain away their own bad behavior. The real test is if they're singing the same tune once they're on the receiving end...and, in my experience they don't, which makes the whole thing fairly suspect.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

Bill Cammack 5 pts

The actual difference between what we're saying is summed up where you say

"I'm talking about the responsibilty that we as human beings have towards every other human being that our lives impact. You don't get to "opt out" of that responsiblity just because you weren't the one who promised to be faithful."

That so-called responsibility simply doesn't exist.

Seeing it from your perspective, I agree with you completely that whomever helps someone to cheat is an accessory and must accept blame because of what you stated above.

The fact of the matter is that not everyone sees things from that perspective and instead follow Free Will and do whatever they want whenever they want within the local laws of the society they happen to be in.  That's why I was saying the third party can't possibly be blamed for anything at all.  From the perspective of everyone having a responsibility towards everyone else, I agree with you entirely.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

Caffeinated Librarian 5 pts

Bill, I don't think you and I are talking about the same things. For some reason you think I'm saying that the other woman is responsible for the man's choice, when clearly I've said that's not what I think. So let me try to explain it another way...with an analogy. You do seem to like those.

In criminal justice there is this thing called an "accessory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term... )" - let me cut and paste from the link for those of you not willing to make the jump (and yes, I know it's Wikipedia, not exactly an authoritative source, but for our purposes I think it'll do): "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal." In other words, you didn't commit the crime directly but you helped the person who committed the crime. That is the nature of the responsibliity I'm talking about for the other woman - not the responsiblity of the principal, but of an accessory.

And I'm not talking about religion here - like law, religion is a whole other level of complexity that I'm not even going to try to get into in this discussion. I'm talking about the responsibilty that we as human beings have towards every other human being that our lives impact. You don't get to "opt out" of that responsiblity just because you weren't the one who promised to be faithful.

As for  "...what's the next woman's incentive to NOT have a good time with your man" - the same reason you shouldn't steal even if you're sure you won't get caught: because it's wrong. Because what you do, how you interact with the world OUGHT to matter to you. It ought to matter to all of us. If it doesn't then don't go looking to other people for why the world is how it is - look to yourself.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

Bill Cammack 5 pts

ok... :)

Let's say you're correct that everyone is "responsible" for their own actions.  "Making the world a better place", as you put it, is an ethical decision.  It has nothing to do with who can be blamed for breaking a promise.

I'll try again. :)  And no, I'm not trying to be funny, hahaha... If YOU buy something with a credit card, who's liable for paying that money?... YOU are.  If someone else gets you to spend your money on something other than paying your bills, who's left holding the bag?  YOU.  You don't get to say "I didn't pay on time because...".  Nobody cares.  You were the only one that made the agreement to pay the money.

I agree with what you're saying from a religious standpoint, as far as "do unto others" and all that, but the fact remains that someone who never entered into an agreement with you can't be blamed for anything at all regarding that agreement.  Was that person there at the altar when your husband said blah blah blah?  No.  Your husband was there BY HIMSELF.  He agreed to it, so he's the one liable for seeing that he sticks to his word.

Other than some sort of religious or moral decision to "do what's right" as far as you see it, what's the next woman's incentive to NOT have a good time with your man, even if it means "being a homewrecker"?  What would you have said to a woman that you knew was going to make a play for your man, other than "Please don't."?

The point remains that unless she FORCED HIM (somehow) to have sex with her, your man is the only one liable, because he's the only one that made a promise to you.  If that particular woman swore to you that she'd never have sex with your man, then you'd have something to complain about, because she broke her word TO YOU.  Other than that, unfortunately, anything goes.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

Caffeinated Librarian 5 pts

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Everyone has choices to make, every day, about whether or not they are going to make the world a better or worse place...in ways both large and small.

Has helping someone cheat ever made the world a better place to live in? I kinda think not.

It's not about the other woman being responsible for the relationship of the man who is cheating - that's his responsiblity and his wife's/girlfriend's responsiblity. But for the other woman to take no responsiblity for HER relationship with him is bull, I'm sorry. We're all responsible, all the time - not just some folks some of the time (and as long as it's not us) -  and no relationship happens in a vaccum.

As for your library analogy, sorry sweetheart it holds no water - metaphorically or literally. If you check with your boss to make sure you can leave with your friend then you can, no worries about being fired...so there actually IS a loophole. Not quite the same as being married or being in a committed relationship.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

Bill Cammack 5 pts

The saying goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".   I know that emotionally, it makes sense to blame the water for the horse drinking it.  Logically, that doesn't make any sense at all and makes even less sense if the horse promised you it wouldn't drink water.

It's not the next woman's JOB to maintain, uphold or respect someone else's relationship.  It's the job of the two (or more, in some cases) people that agreed to be exclusively involved with each other.

Let's say you have a job in a library and your friend tells you you should leave work early to go to the park with them.  If you go, who's going to get fired?  YOU are.  Your friend will not get fired because they're not an employee.  They're not involved in the system that hands out the punishment.  They're not the one that promised to work in the library until a certain time and broke that promise.. YOU are.  Therefore, only YOU are at fault for following their lead when they had nothing to lose and you had your job to lose.

When someone promises to be physically exclusive with someone else, there usually aren't any loopholes agreed to, such as "I'll be faithful to you unless the chick's better looking than you are" or "I'll be faithful as long as she's not offering me a type of sex you don't want to have".  It's usually a flat-out across-the-board agreement not to be physical with anyone other than the person you're making that agreement with.  Unless the 'cheater' was coerced into the sex, they're *FULLY* to blame for either failing or REFUSING to keep their promise to their SO.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

Caffeinated Librarian 5 pts

...I have to disagree with your idea that only the person in the relationship should be blamed for straying.

Should the other woman get all the blame? No. As you say, the men involved are presumably adults who are capable of making choices and taking responsiblity for those choices.

Should the other woman get the bulk of the blame? No. As you say, they weren't the ones who made a promise to you.

But the other woman was involved...the whole thing wouldn't, couldn't have happened if the other woman hadn't decided to participate.  And there ought to be some responsiblity for THAT choice, if they make it knowing that the man is in a relationship with another woman. I've never met a woman who said that she herself deserved to be cheated on, but I hear plenty of women saying that if a man cheats then the woman in the relationship somehow deserved it. Do people not see the disconnect there? If you're doing something that you wouldn't want someone else to do to you, that ought to be your clue that you shouldn't be doing it.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

MHoRama 5 pts

I think that often women choose to villify the "other woman" instead of outrightly blaming the man in order to shield themselves from the full pain that infidelity can cause. By convincing themselves that their man was lured away by a super-powerful temptress they can continue to imagine that the man cares for them, and that it took something beyond his own control to split them up.  That illusion can sometimes even be stretched far enough for her to believe that sooner or later the spell will be broken and her man may return. By villifying the other woman she can leave an avenue open for forgiveness and reconciliation. It's a similar delusion to the type that allows women to be continually abused by a partner. If she faces the truth, she'll lose him forever. Unfortunately, by creating this illusion for themselves, women inhibit their own recovery, thus cheating themselves while their man cheats on them.

It's sad that the media perpetuates this sad cycle by throwing words like "bimbo" around. Though, an intruder on a marriage is certainly far from blameless. The compulsion for certain men and women to bust in on marriages, especially happy or famous marriages, can be really destructive. Ultimately it is the spouses responsibility to remain faithful, but sadly, there are people out there who intentionally make that more difficult than it should be. 

Bill Cammack 5 pts

Fascinating articles.  So interesting/educational to see how other people live.

The first one mentions something that Paula mentioned above, which is the so-called inability of men to control themselves.

I think seeing things like this puts women at a disadvantage.  The fact of the matter is that guys see what they want and attempt to get it.  Period.  I know it feels better for women to believe that their man tried as hard as he could to resist temptation and he failed because all men are dogs and blah blah blah, but it's always a conscious decision. Even if he gets drunk and cheats ( http://billcammack.com/2008/09/05/alcohol-is-no-ex... ), he got HIMSELF drunk and unless it was his first time getting that drunk, he knew what was going to happen when he did it.

It's really such an easy out for guys.. "I didn't mean to have sex with her... It just happened".  I really can't believe that women assist men in getting over by blaming it on some kind of biological imperative that the guy was too mentally lame to "control".

As far as your fascinating point about men being allowed to have four wives over there, that's handled in the USA by remaining single.  Single guys have as many women as they want and don't have to commit to any of them.  However, the way I'm reading that the laws are set up over there, that might not be a viable lifestyle and guys might be forced to get married in order to legally get laid, in which case I agree with you that it's incredibly unfair that they would limit women to one husband and men to a rotating roster of four wives.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

hometownwriter 5 pts

Imagine that your husband is allowed to have up to four wives, which means he is always, always, always on the prowl for a replacement and where, thanks to archaic laws which have created an entire dictionary of new forms of marriage - temporary, education, travel, holiday, business, weekend - there's virtually no such thing as male adultery. The competition and paranoia and condemnation between women is astonishing!

And the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the guys is beyond belief. 

The odd thing, of course, is that despite all this, the wives seem to accept blame for anything their husbands do - giving them get-out-of-your-pants free cards! 

Here's a sample of what I'm talking about... 

http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/2007/04/blame...

http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/2009/04/saudi... ( http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/2009/04/saudi... )

http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/2009/03/life-... ( http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/2009/03/life-... )

http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-...

Thanks for a great post on an infuriating topic! 

paulajohnson 5 pts

When there is a third involved it is usually seen as the cause of the break up or crisis when it is actually a symptom of a crumbling relationship. It is way easier to point the finger at the third one instead of looking at the two people in the relationship. 

I find it curious that when a man cheats on his wife, the other one is the maneater and family ruiner. When a woman cheats on his husband then it is more common that the woman is the slut. When a woman forgives an infedelity she is seen as weak and with low self esteem. But when a man forgives a woman for cheating he is more likely to be seen as a good and loyal man who really loves his woman. 

I think the partner who has been cheated on chooses to be angry at either the third one, his or her partner or both because it hurts less than seeing his or her own fault. When the blame is entirely put on the third one in question it generally means the person cheated on still has feelings for her/his partner. They just want to justify getting back together and not look bad. 

Paula ( http://www.paulspublicityblog.com )

AnnQuirk 5 pts

I completely agree with you...I've NEVER understood how women can be so quick to villify "the other women", although they'll forgive their cheating boyfriends and husbands if they come back with their tails (so to speak) between their legs.

I think it's just easier...it allows women to avoid hating their significant other, who they still love.  I think it's also fueled by the strange Competition between women.  I've also never understood how women can tear each other down when we should be building each other up.

But back to the topic -- I agree it's beyond ridiculous to excuse behavior by calling on Biology.  As if men are hapless victims to their Testosterone and caveman desire to spread their seed.  As if they have no choice in the matter.

Bill Cammack 5 pts

For some reason, people fail to focus on the person they had the deal with.  If two people call themselves "together", anyone outside that "relationship" can't be blamed for anything.  Nothing at all.  That person doesn't have any deals with either party.  There's no obligation for them NOT to do whatever they want to do with either person.

The only person you can get mad with when your SO steps out on you... is your SO.  Nobody has to play by the rules that YOU made up with YOUR bf/gf/whatever.

As we know, it rarely works like that, and the outside party is often blamed for "corrupting" someone that was in the relationship.  "Men are dogs" is no more of an explanation than "Women are fools for love".

The fact is that someone promised something to someone else... most likely, sexual exclusivity.  Sometimes, emotional exclusivity.  The only one that can break the promise they made is the person that made it.  Nobody else can be held accountable at all.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )