fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2505 ]

[ SECRET POST #2505 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2505 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 061 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 16 - one persistent repeat spammer (I have tried to keep your non-repeats, however!) ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How do people manage to convince themselves this is true.

Maybe, heck probably the guy would cheat with some other women, but that doesn't absolve you of blame for not just keeping your legs closed and not being complicit in what you know is going to emotionally devastate another woman.

Where else would we ever apply that logic of "oh I didn't do this terrible thing I just was fundamental in helping someone else do it, and they would have found someone else so don't blame meee!"

"just keeping your legs closed" - do people actually talk like this outside of old conservative men?

*Raises hand* Middle-aged moderate woman here, and I think with regards to the specific situation the OP is talking about here it's a completely appropriate phrase.

ayrt

I've just honestly never heard people use it outside of conservative old men, usually in reference to birth control and slut shaming (though of course they don't use that term). Interesting.

Hmm. What would be the male equivalent? "Keep it in your pants" doesn't have the same tone to it.

Don't stick it everywhere?

DON'T DO IT MAN. KEEP THAT DIRTY DICK IN YOUR PANTS.

DON'T FUCK NO STUDENTS.

DON'T FUCK NO TEACHERS.

+1000

Yeah, both parties are to blame. But usually I see the "homewrecker" used when people are specifically blaming the woman involved in cheating and excusing the married man of any wrong doing. Like it was all this slutty homewrecker's fault, and she seduced him or something.

Are dudes also a homewrecker if it's a married woman doing the cheating?

I rarely see it applied to a male but that's just me. *shrug*

I think it's annoying when people blame the woman by default. Here's a shocker, sometimes some men don't tell the "other women" they're married. because then they KNOW it will be over.

Like I'm all for giving blame to everyone blame is due, but don't make assumptions that the women KNEW the dude was married or had full intentions of pulling him away from his family.

Depends. While it's her fault too, definitely (at least if she knows he's married - if she doesn't because he lied about it, and a lot of them do, then she's blameless) it's a lesser crime unless she's also married/in a relationship. Then it's the same damned thing.

You have to remember, a lot of cheaters not only lie about being married, they lie about being "in an open relationship" or say that they're "in the middle of a separation/divorce" or "she's okay with it". There are dudes in those situations, though, so he might not be lying.

I say this because a friend of mine got into a relationship with a married man, broke it off when she found out he'd lied about his relationship status, and his wife still went batshit on her for being a "homewrecker" while she "worked to forgive" the asshole husband.

Doooubbbbllllle staaaandards.

WOW

That really sucks for her. if I found out my husband was cheating and the other girl broke it off, I dump him and buy her coffee if I knew she did it because she found out he was married.

I generally blame the party who's in the relationship more. Because if you're in a committed, monogamous relationship, it's up to you to make it work and not be a cheater.

I don't think that the person outside of a relationship is absolved of blame, and they did do something wrong (assuming they were aware that the person was in a relationship). Just that if we're assigning blame, that the person in the relationship was the person who was more wrong.

Yeah I agree with this. Not equal, but not blameless.

I disagree. The person in the relationship is 100% at fault. If the relationship is working, there would be no cheating, if the relationship is not working it is entirely the responsibility of the people in the relationship to fix it, end it, or betray it. The betrayal comes from within the relationship, and would happen with at some point with someone, anyone else, regardless. The person outside the relationship is changeable, the cheating partner is the only unchangeable constant in this situation.

From the viewpoint of the spouse who was cheated on, yes, this is largely true. From a neutral viewpoint, no, if you knew your partner was married to someone else (and that's a very important qualifier, but assuming they did know) then you are also doing something very wrong.

See I disagree. If a husband of wife is going to cheat, they are going to cheat regardless of your actions. you don't owe anything to their partner, and assuming you are a free agent, you can do whatever you want to do. I mean it would be a nice thing to do to tell the partner, but it's not your obligation. the only obligation anyone has in this situation is the husband/wife's obligation to not cheated.

I do wonder who would find a person attractive knowing they're willingly betraying their partner, but there are lots of thing's I consider a deal breaker that other people seem more than capable of overlooking, so yeah, if you want to have sex with someone, and they want to have sex with you, you only need to look after you're own life choices, not theirs.

Agree to disagree I guess. Knowingly having sex with a married person who isn't in an open marriage or whatever is a shitty thing to do.

Nope. It's a shitty thing to do, and therefore it's a shitty thing to contribute to. Even if they're going to cheat with someone else (which is by no means a given), you don't have to take part in it yourself, and taking part of it is morally suspect, because you are taking part in an action which you know to be morally harmful and wrong by abetting another person's wrongdoing.

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-12 04:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-12 05:42 (UTC) - Expand

No.

Just fucking no.

and this has nothing to do with women "Keeping their legs closed"

A home wrecker can be of either gender. The home wrecker in any given situation is the person who is in a relationship and then chooses to betray that relationship. A person who is not in a relationship owes no loyalty to that relationship and therefore there is no betrayal.

Even if they're supposedly the friend of the cheated-on partner? And are married to someone else themselves? (Yes I am thinking of a real life scenario, and there is no way in Hell you will ever convince me that bitch didn't betray me, thank you very much.)

If the "other woman" or "other man" having the affair with the married party isn't a friend of the cuckolded spouse, then they are not betraying the spouse -- but they are still hurting them. Betrayal is not the only form of harm you can inflict on someone.

It's still a selfish act that will cause a lot of damage and hurt to people. If someone knowingly does those things and cheats with a partner who is in a relationship, they might not be betraying the cheated-on spouse if they've never met him/her, but they are contributing to a malicious action that will only cause grief in the long run. And only to pursue their own temporary selfish needs.

My issue with this is it's always the woman's fault. Give me a fucking break. Why is this a special label that gets applied to women who cheat with married men, when men don't get the same distinction if they're in the same position? ugh.

My problem with the term, besides it usually only being applied to women, is that it's erroneously used. The "homewrecker" is the cheater, not the person they're cheating with, who is just an asshole (if they're aware of the committed relationship). The person outside of the household cannot be the one responsible for wrecking it, unless they're using mind control. They're only responsible for, at most, contributing to homewrecking. But the cheater themselves is the homewrecker, always.

If the other man/other woman outside of the relationship doesn't know that the person is in a committed monogamous relationship? Then he or she is completely innocent and was just as lied to.

On the other hand, if they know and they decide to enter into a relationship anyway (or worse, initiate the cheating). Then no. They are just as much to blame for being a selfish person who is hurting someone else. Some of them might even be manipulative and not give a damn about how hurt the person being cheated on is. And those people need to own up when their karma comes knocking on their door. Sorry, but I'm not going to coddle anyone, man or woman, who hurts someone else like that willingly.

As far as this debate concerns feminist views? Part of feminism is knowing that women are equal to men. In everything. That includes realizing that women can be thieves, liars, manipulators, abusers, serial killers, and cheaters just like men can be.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2505 ]

"There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

CALLING ALL 21 JUMP STREET GIFS

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Takes two to tango

Re: Takes two to tango

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Re: "There's no such thing as a homewrecker"

Agreeing that it takes two to tango.