.... confront other women over a cheating husband/boyfriend? Lol. This will never make sense to me. Whether you choose to forgive or divorce him, what will you gain by confronting the other woman? If the other woman is a friend of yours then confronting her makes sense but if you don't know her, why blame her for your cheating husband? Maybe there are some women on here that can give me some insight on this. Both men and women can share their experiences so that I can get a better understanding of confronting the other woman or in some cases, the other man.

(Personally, if my wife was cheating I wouldn't care to meet or confront her lover. I'd step away and then decide to divorce or to forgive her with a clear head without any verbal or physical altercations.

I'm a woman, but I don't understand it, either. Fortunately I've never been in that position, but if I ever had a guy cheat on me it would be HIM I'd talk to, not her. And I'd talk, not "confront."

I suppose for some women it's easier to forgive him if they put the blame on the other woman, but after all, he was the one who was cheating on them.

It's one of life's little mysteries, I guess.

I suppose for some women it's easier to forgive him if they put the blame on the other woman

Wow. I have no words for that.

Jealousy makes crazy out of otherwise reasonable human beings (men & women).

This love emotion that we have makes women AND men act uncharacteristically at times, when your heart rules your head...no good can come of it.

If my husband was cheating on me I'd like to think I would not blame anyone but him, and know I'd never be able to trust him again, I'd walk away head held high.

In reality I'd probably go crazy, embarrassing myself by attacking him and her, creating scenes and involving people who probably don't want to be involved...this love emotion has a lot to answer for.

If my husband was cheating on me I'd like to think I would not blame anyone but him...

This seems to me to be making a mistake that's a mirror image of the one the >>1 is criticising. Surely if two people have an affair it's a joint decision, for which they are both half to blame - or both entirely to blame - that is, if blame is the appropriate response.

I'm not denying that confronting the spouse rather than the spouse's lover is the right thing to do. I just don't think it has to do with apportioning blame. It's more a matter of jurisdictional rights, so to speak.

Surely the person who cheated in the relationship should be held particularly accountable considering it is entirely on them to remain faithful despite outside influence.

So true, I totally agree.

If the crime is destroying a marriage, and two people conspire to do this - or conspire in an act that brings this about - then they're both responsible for whatever bad consequences come about.*

This is from a god's-eye view, though. It doesn't mean that the spouse cheated on has an equal right to yell at either of them. If a woman's husband conspired with a complete stranger to do some shady business deal, and the woman finds out, she has more right to get angry with her husband - and it makes more sense for her to be angry with the husband - than with the stranger. This doesn't mean that the husband is more guilty. It just means that the husband is the guilty party she happens to be married to.

____________
* I'll admit that in real life there will probably be asymmetries. For instance, the party in an affair who's married is the one who has access to more information - they might know how much the affair will hurt their spouse, while the party they're cheating with can only guess. But this will sometimes make the cheating party less guilty: they might know that the spouse won't care, or that the marriage is doomed anyway, while the party they're cheating with can only guess about that.

If the crime is destroying a marriage, and two people conspire to do this - or conspire in an act that brings this about - then they're both responsible for whatever bad consequences come about.*

Well cheating is not a crime, as it is handled civilly. This means that the consequences are entirely on how the couple handles the situation going forward.

If a woman's husband conspired with a complete stranger to do some shady business deal, and the woman finds out, she has more right to get angry with her husband - and it makes more sense for her to be angry with the husband - than with the stranger. This doesn't mean that the husband is more guilty. It just means that the husband is the guilty party she happens to be married to.

But we're not arguing general guilt, we're arguing personal accountability. In the context of a marriage, it is essentially a contract - literally and figuratively - that is between two people, not anyone else, so they are the only ones that can break it. The person for which the partner cheats with is not beholden to that contract.

But we're not arguing general guilt, we're arguing personal accountability.

I'm arguing about general guilt; I concede that personal accountability, although not that's not the phrase I'd use, is a different thing. Essentially, if the husband cheats, then he and the woman he cheats with are equally to blame - and if one of the consequences of their actions is the breaking of a contract, the two are equally responsible for the breaking of that contract.

But I agree that this doesn't mean that the two people should be treated equally by the man's wife. There are many obvious asymmetries in the wife's relations with her husband and her relations with a third party. She's married to her husband, for one thing, and not to the third party; she has rights over her husband she doesn't have over third parties. This applies generally, whether any adultery is involved or not.

All I was reacting to initially was Jana's use of the word blame. It's simply not true that the husband is the only one to blame.

In my eyes my husband is to blame would be totally all his fault - he and I are committed to each other and he broke that commitment.

It is possible that the woman didn't know the guy was married. That does happen, and you certainly can't assign any blame to her in that situation.

The one who's married always knows.

That's the point I made about the asymmetry of knowledge.

Let's say your a club and this chick or guy tells you they are married but want to sleep with you how many people would turn them down ? Because most likely you won't meet this husband or wife.

It's the same for some men as well I remember at a party last year I slept with a chick who I just met that night only for the next day I got a Facebook message from her boyfriend saying he was going to stab me of course he never.

Don't cheat on your lady dude and you will never have to find it!

Of course, it took me a number of years to come to this conclusion. However, speaking from personal experience, a couple of my past girlfriends who found out I had been cheating on them didn't bother about "the other woman", they just wailed away at me, physically and verbally abusing me at will and immediately taking sex off the table for the forseeable future.

If I can give you another tip Jay. If you girlfriend or wife is suspicious and confronts you and asks if you have been cheating on her, don't ever, ever admit to it. It's just not worth it.

They always say "did you sleep with her?" And you say "no, of course not". So they get all sweet and serious; looking like butter wouldn't melt in their mouth, and the anger seems to go away. Then they say "don't worry I won't be angry, I love you, but I just need to know". So you continue to deny it vehemently. And they continue to say "please tell me the truth darling I won't be cross if you just tell me the thruth". "Did you sleep with her?" So you continues to deny it. Then they get all lovey dovey and continue to say "please tell me if you slept with her, I promise I won't be cross, I love you."

Eventually, after days of this you start feeling guilty and believe her when she says "I won't be cross." So you finally admit to sleeping with another girl and say "but it was all a big mistake, I was so drunk at the time and it definitely won't happen again."

And that is when the sh!t hits the fan. She bursts into tears, rages, punches and kicks and screams "you lousy, low-life motherfecking piece of dirt, I fecking hate you, I'm going to kill you and you are going to sleep on the couch from now on. You will never ever, ever see my p...y again, let alone touch it or enter it. Hell will freeze over before I have sex with you again."

Of course, even if your relationship survives this fury and violence and she lets you make love with her with her again after about six months, blow jobs and anal sex are a thing of the past. It's the missionary position or nothing at all! And you realize that denying it was the better option. Admitting to it is a mistake one should only make once. Rather lie like crazy - even if it goes against your moral principles - and make a silent vow never to cheat again.

I suppose the theory could be that both parties are committing the transgression against the marriage vow -- both parties meaning the cheating spouse and the affair-partner he or she cheated with.

The cheating spouse is to blame for straying, but he or she wouldn't have found an opportunity to actually do so unless another party had no compunction or hesitance to be party to the act, assuming she or he knew the cheater was married.

Theoretically, the person who is willing to sleep with married persons is being as unethical in regards to that other person's vow of fidelity as the person who took the vow. It's a matter of respecting the principle even if that person doesn't care because it's not their marriage. They are still messing up someone else's marriage by being agreeable to the spouse's part in that. Equal unethical behavior in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZssL3nr6JZg

While I would agree with you that the affair-partner should be held accountable, I could not at all see how I could consider them equally accountable. They have less of a responsibility to me than my partner does, as I would have placed my faith and trust in my partner, not to strangers.

Besides, we must consider their justification for doing do. Perhaps my partner lied to them in saying he is in an open relationship that excuses such escapades - In this case I would say accountability it is entirely on him.

It is pointless, but I don't know if it's a general female tendency. One time one of my friends was seeing one of my other friends and cheating on his girlfriend. And my female friend wanted to "meet" the other woman (not necessarily confront her) and she wanted MY help in pretending that she was my date when we all went to a concert together. I was actually willing to go along with the ruse, but only if I could give her a ridiculous name like "Clymenestra" when I introduced her to my male friend's oblivious girlfriend.

That didn't happen, but she did actually later call the other woman for some reason. Why I don't know. Maybe it's some kind of female solidarity thing where women feel they "owe" something to each other. It seems like sometimes everybody, but white males seems to have this. We're just individualistic by nature perhaps, where every else is more group-oriented.

Being raised by 7 women, the only answer I could give you is: Drama.
They love it, They live for it, They almost need it.

Granted not all women are like this but they way I say it is that Women and their Drama is like Guys and their Sports. It's the love of the game, the thrill of competition and the desire to see your team victorious, etc. Its just kind flipped.

Its hard to just walk away sometimes. Damaged pride can make one do unruly things. Its Senseless and thats kind of the point when you feel ashamed.

Men do things even though they are wrong. Women do thing because they are wrong.

Man comes home to relax. Woman is waiting there to fight.

Holidays off season to men, for women it's go time.

I only see women do this on television, and only because it makes compelling television. If the cameras were off, I doubt very much they'd confront the other woman, and even if they did, I doubt they'd act as exaggerated.

Yeah I would agree with that assumption -- I don't think people in real life actually rush to find the other woman and punch her in the face or anything else depicted in fiction, or Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer for that matter.

I do think there probably can be at least some despising of "the other woman" because she's the colluding party who obviously didn't object to the cheating partner's approaches.

>>23
Yeah right. Lol. I see this stuff everyday. It's just not on television.

I see this stuff everyday.

So why do you question the women's ire? Wouldn't it be better to question such rampant infidelity?

Once a month would be excessive, but daily? I'm tempted to call shenanigans.

So why do you question the women's ire? Wouldn't it be better to question such rampant infidelity?

Because people are going to do whatever they want. Men and women are going to cheat. It's never going to change but people can control the situation by how they react to it. No one is going to laugh at you or call you names for getting cheated on but when you confront the other woman & then forgive your husband then people will start to pass judgement.

Once a month would be excessive, but daily? I'm tempted to call shenanigans.

Yep, everyday. From social media, to the news, to "reality" television, to my own experiences, to the experiences of family & friends. So yes, everyday.

From social media, to the news, to "reality" television, to my own experiences, to the experiences of family & friends.

3/5 of the formats you listed are in the entertainment category, where people exaggerate their actions -or the actions of others - to garner attention, which was my point to begin with.

Now I will admit that the number of these occurances in real life has risen in the last decade or two, but I believe that is a case of life imitating art, in that because it is depicted on TV with increasing frequency, people begin to think that is normal and/or acceptable behavior.

hahahaha! Infidelity makes sense. Thoughtless violence/drama doesn't.

"Thoughtless" refers to doing something without reason or unprovoked. To lash out upon being betrayed is reason enough to not be considered thoughtless, and would be all the more understandable if such incidents occured on a routine basis, as it would grow more frustrating to be continually betrayed with seemingly no hope in sight of relief, but as was admitted before, seeing such things on a "daily" basis on television is a compromised statistic.

(*whew*) (*catches breath*)

No, "thoughtless" refers to lack of consideration to others, yourself and consequences of actions.
I don't know where the hell you got your reasoning with that.

No, that would be a "careless" act of violence, and even that wouldn't be applicable as one would care about the situation, as well as caring about causing harm to a specific person.

Or it would be an "inconsiderate" act of violence, but even that's a stretch, as one would consider how their actions will negatively affect the intended party and decide to pursue it as a vendetta.

"Thoughtless" (Break it down) - To be bereft of thought. To have no rationale or reason for one's actions.

hahaha! I don't know where you're getting educated but you're just wrong.

To be careless is to be negligent or indifferent. To NOT care. Being thoughtless is to be absent of thought or consideration not emotion.

You're confused.

I've stated my case, including breaking down the root words for each term as they were crafted for use. To interchangeably apply similar terms is not the fault of the individual, but of the masses who accepts such use. However, that is the very nature of the evolution of language, as most recently seen in the more liberal use of the word "literally."

I wish to discuss this matter no further. We have divulged far from the theme of this thread and are only arguing semantics. You're refusal to accept my explanations - whether stubborn or intentional - is no longer worth my time. Thank you, and have a nice day.

I've seen it happen quite a few times.
I had a cousin whose girlfriend bashed a girl he had a one night stand with, she didn't even break up with him. Just wanted to find out who she was, went and confronted her and threatened her to stay away from "her man". When the other girl said no, she bashed her.

When my ex-fiance cheated on me, I confronted the girl in a fairly polite email.

I guess just trying to find some kind of understanding as to why she'd send me an engagement card wishing me all the luck in the world before fuuking my fiance.

Don't get me wrong, I laid blame 100% with him.. but being as I myself could never contemplate doing such a thing, I was really curious about how her brain worked and needed some closer as to why, as an apparently bright female, she wouldn't have demanded he dump me before she climbed into the sack with him. I literally couldn't get my head around who would want that for themselves. What kind of person is interested in starting a relationship that way, knowing that their prospective boyfriend has no issues with cheating? All in all, I just felt a bit sorry for her because she must not have a lot of self-esteem.

I would be inclined to say that women 'confront' the other women in these scenario's because they have breached the unwritten sisterhood code which comes into play in your teen years, and women with empathy for other ladies cannot grasp the concept of another female doing them over... and those less articulate tend to deal with that by screaming and throwing their fists about.
I can hand on heart say that I never felt it was 'her fault' or any such pi$h, but I was nevertheless a bit miffed by the whole thing.

They're getting hitched next month. Mazel Tov

Wow, sorry to hear that (or maybe not so as you were lucky to get rid of him).

I agree on your empathy part, well said - I just don't get that myself. I think you did the dignified thing though and kept things civil, so good on you for that.

I do think it's fair to have it out with the woman ONLY if she knew about you, otherwise it's just uncouth.

AMEN to this.

It's never their boyfriend/husband's fault, it's the mistress that's the "home wrecker".

I guess they want the other woman to confirm that the husband actually is cheating or not and need sympathy from both parties?

Men do it too. The one with the commitment is the one to blame. Divorce the cheat, get tested for STDs, thank the other person for helping to rid you of the cheat, and hope they get together and cheat on each other.

ok- you are describing women and men who are thinking "what does she/he have that i dont"

most of the time cheating happens because its a bit taboo and exiting and the people the person cheats with may be no better in any shape or form as themselves.

its for vein people not just women.

Probably because she is hurt and pissed off at the woman and thinking from emotions and not clearly for taking her husband/boyfriend away from her.

OT: Why do men .... confront other man over a cheating wife/girlfriend? Lol.

"Love makes you do the wacky"

Some (not all) people can't see reason when they suspect infidelity/ cheating or know it is happening. When you have all those emotions tearing at you rationality can often go out the window. It's easy to try and excuse your other half because that need to believe they wouldn't do that despite what's happening; the need an outlet so the other guilty party by de facto is the one who they will go after. It's a spur of the moment, illogical step that seems right at the time. That's just me rambling though.