SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Hi, Dem. Good question this morning. Did Mr Psych have "morals" and lose them or toss them aside during his affair years? Hmmm. Here's what I think I know. He's always "cut corners" when he could. He was a casual drug user in high school, cheated on girlfriends growing up, basically lived a tolerable, but not overly ethical life. I didn't dig deep into this when we met and started dating. We had a daughter together, got married, and he acted like a good father, spouse, worker, etc. No "bad" behavior that I was aware of.

But apparently he had never really created a core identity of his liking. He lived a lot of shame growing up, hid himself, set himself "above" others in his thinking. So overall I would say he had some morality, knew right from wrong and tried to live on the moral highground, BUT there were veins of lack of integrity, weak morals inherent in him going way back.

So I feel it wasn't such a big leap 18 years later when he first started crossing the boundaries and entered into the EA. But becoming a "moral" man, a "good" man suddenly became very VERY important to him after DDay and throughout that first year when he was trying to wrap his head around how he had fallen so badly. Today, being a "good" man and father and husband is the identity he is seeking. He wants it to fit, to feel comfortable and natural, but in some ways I feel he's swimming against the current. I belive it's important to him today to have morals. And maybe that leads me to say my fWH lacked a solid core of morality in some key areas at the time of his affairs (not all, as there are many aspects of morality).

Damn! Now you have me pondering, Demolished!

WW here. I believe people even moral people are capable of doing immoral things. We are all flawed and imperfect. If morals and integrity were enough why then do we need boundaries? My BH is moral yet he won't put himself in tempting situations. Why? Because he knows it's a risk. The church I used to attend had rules. The pastor wouldn't counsel the opposite sex without his wife there. Married opposite sex adults aren't allowed to volunteer together. Morals aren't enough. Read not just friends.

[This message edited by Root at 11:40 AM, September 27th (Wednesday)]

I believe cheaters are morally bankrupt people. I also don't buy into the first betrayal is to themselves. I think that is what BS tell themselves to make staying palatable.

Do you believe that even after reading DF's descriptions of the thoughts that accompanied her A?

And if WSes are morally bankrupt, I'd expect a lot more embezzlement, bank robberies, strong arm robberies, defaults on debts, etc., etc., etc., than we see now.

Or do I not understand what you've written?

BTW, I can guarantee that my W betrayed her own values and practices before she betrayed me - but you can always say she's an exception.

[This message edited by sisoon at 11:54 AM, September 27th (Wednesday)]

Root, I think that we put boundaries in place in order to respect others. I have read Not Just Friends and have it highlighted.

I applaud Root post.

I think we are all capable of doing wrong, despite our morals. We can consider morals to be guidelines or borders around our actions. What keeps us within those borders is our integrity.

The key issue IMHO is our integrity. How likely are we to remember and stand by our morals, even if it requires we do (or don’t do) something we want (or don’t want) to do.

Like imagine the cashier at the bank mixed up the bills, so when you were expecting 50 you got 500. You realize this when you are walking out of the bank and pocketing the money. Your morals would tell you that you had cash that wasn’t yours, there is no doubt about the moral aspect. Your integrity might argue that since it’s the bank nobody was harmed by the mistake. Your integrity might tell you that you have more need for the cash than the bank. But hopefully your integrity would also make you turn back and let the cashier know of the mistake.

Friend, if I'd known you were gonna ask here, too, I'd have saved all of my typy-typy time and put it in a comment.

So anyway, I think you are conflating morals with values. What is confusing to (some of) us is that a WS will say they knew it was wrong, but the key question to ask is by whom were those actions/choices defined as right or wrong? The Bible or other religious text? Society? Certainly not him or herself, right?

In my mind, morals are rules that are defined by "others". By an external source, whether it's a commandment, or a religious leader, or even a law. There is usually a consequence that is more or less known if one goes against the rule - jail or hell or divorce or something else.

So when these external rules bump up against a situation where the person does not internally VALUE the essence of what the rule or moral is promoting or forbidding, you get someone who is at risk of going against the rule and using rationalization, compartmentalization, justification, etc., to do so.

Stealing, for example, is wrong. We all can probably agree to it. But philosophically, I can say that I would steal if I had no money and no other way to provide food for my kid except to steal (let's put aside for the moment the argument that there are social agencies in place to prevent the need to do that). And that's because I value feeding my kid more than I'd value *not stealing*.

So a wayward who has ("serendipitously", or who pursues) the opportunity to cheat...well, they don't VALUE fidelity. They know it's wrong - there are rules that tell them so - but they value something else (ego kibbles? more sex? a great body? just the fact that the opportunity is in front of them? etc.) more than they value being faithful. They can tell themselves whatever, but the fact is, while someone can break a rule or behave immorally, I have a very hard time believing that one can violate something that is internally hardwired as a core value.

That's why I have been saying that cheating is about having an external locus of control. A different way of saying that is the aphorism, "There’s something wrong with your character if opportunity controls your loyalty." Because a person of "good" character - a person of integrity - isn't going to go against a core value: "Integrity has no need of rules," as Mr. Camus pointed out.

Morals are rules, and rules...well, they say rules are made to be broken. But a mature and self-aware person isn't going to violate a deeply-held core value.

So I wouldn't say they didn't have morals*, but I would say that they were able to choose immoral behavior because they did not have the values in place to prevent from making those choices.

You can say "I value (or do not value) xyz..." but you can't say "I moral (or do not moral) xyz..." Morals are external, and until they are internalized and become values, they're still negotiable in the mind of those who can be swayed by the right (well, wrong) opportunity.

[This message edited by BlueIris at 12:50 PM, September 27th (Wednesday)]

I believe cheaters are morally bankrupt people. I also don't buy into the first betrayal is to themselves.

Maybe some of them are, but I'd argue that they are more accurately emotionally/philosophically immature, not bankrupt.

I do agree that for those of us who VALUE fidelity, it would, first and foremost, be a self-betrayal. Until then? No, I'm not sure I believe that it was their first betrayal, except perhaps after much work and growth, it becomes a self-betrayal in retrospect.

[This message edited by BlueIris at 12:10 PM, September 27th (Wednesday)]

When boundaries aren't a natural extension of one's core values, they're just more rules...that can be broken.

WW here. I believe people even moral people are capable of doing immoral things. We are all flawed and imperfect. If morals and integrity were enough why then do we need boundaries? My BH is moral yet he won't put himself in tempting situations. Why? Because he knows it's a risk. The church I used to attend had rules. The pastor wouldn't counsel the opposite sex without his wife there. Married opposite sex adults aren't allowed to volunteer together. Morals aren't enough. Read not just friends.

With respect to infidelity, moral people who commit immoral acts are, in fact, immoral people. Moral people who do not commit immoral acts remain moral people.

Yes, we are all flawed in that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, but you are both rationalizing and justifying by suggesting since we all are flawed, adultery is just a routine aspect of that. But we’re talking, specifically, about the act of adultery. In that context, many people are not flawed. I’m not. My wife isn’t.

I think morals can be enough. Just like boundaries can be enough. But for people with the infidelity gene, even both of those aren’t usually enough. It’s a lack of morality, character and integrity.

infidelity gene

Nonsense. It's a choice.

To IWantMyGlasses:

Linda McDonald explains this well in her PDF "Who will you become". I have tried to find it since the first time I read it. I can't locate it. Maybe someone here could?

Linda J MacDonald has, on her self-named web-site, a Mini-Books page from which you can order Who Will You Become? as well as How to Help Your Spouse Heal From Your Affair.

You used to be able to find free download links to smaller versions of the two books if you googled book title and author. Haven't tried it lately, though.

To demolishedinside:

Using the word 'moral' and 'morals' here is tricky. My morals might let me go game hunting while yours might not. If you look up the definition you get:

ADJECTIVE

concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character:

"the moral dimensions of medical intervention" · [more]

synonyms: virtuous · good · righteous · upright · upstanding · high-minded · [more]

holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct:

"he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"

NOUN

a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience:

"the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"

synonyms: lesson · message · meaning · significance · signification · import · point · [more]

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do:

"the corruption of public morals" · "they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted"

Which doesn't exactly tell you what is or is not moral in specific cases.

To me, the better word to use here is 'principle.' I look for both particular ideas of moral behavior as well as principles when dating, for example.

People who commit immoral acts are people who commit immoral acts.

Also, people can grow - not just longitudinally in their youth, but also spiritually and emotionally, in wisdom, throughout their lives. It appears that some of them hit some particularly sizable stumbling blocks, where their growth is stunted, at least for a time. But I think it's a gross misrepresentation to speak in such absolutes; this community was founded by a fWS and her fBS. I can think of no greater act of love, of reparation, of healing, than for her and her husband to have nurtured this safe place for each of us who come here to grow, to heal, and hopefully, eventually, to soar.

Think about all of the religious Christians, for example, that cheat. Yes, they have morals but it can be easy for their moral compass to be skewed by mitigating factors. How shocking is it when we find out that the cheating husband is also the pastor of a church? Or the cheating wife is the pastor's wife? Anyone can be a broken person and hide behind a facade of morality.

Nonsense. It's a choice.

We're on the same page. I just say it differently.

Think about all of the religious Christians, for example, that cheat. Yes, they have morals but it can be easy for their moral compass to be skewed by mitigating factors. How shocking is it when we find out that the cheating husband is also the pastor of a church? Or the cheating wife is the pastor's wife? Anyone can be a broken person and hide behind a facade of morality.

This is true. My first wife was one of the most devout people I have ever met. But her heart was dark and she had no true morals.

This is why I tend to subscribe to the idea that infidelity is something one either is or is not. Betrayers are in every walk of life. And I also maintain it's an addiction. You're a betrayer or you're not. And if you are, you have to treat it like an addiction for the rest of your life.

[This message edited by thatbpguy at 12:41 PM, September 27th (Wednesday)]

Blue, your posts are so thoughtful. Today, you even helped me figure my old self out a little more. I knew it was wrong bc I was told it was wrong to be promiscuous but I did not value modesty (or whatever we want to call it). I grew and internalized the rule to become a value.

What about the waywards that bash other waywards? My WS did an enormous amount of that. I really thought he valued fidelity the way he talked of other waywards. And what do you think about waywards who certainly value the fidelity of their spouse? My WS would have lost his mind had I done what he did.

I know, Hardroadout, she is a blessing in my life. SO grateful for our chats or I would not have made it.

I think she really has it here.

Morals are based on strong core beliefs.

But as life progresses we sometimes will alter our boundaries to interpret our moral or core belief differently depending what we wish at the time.

Neither are strict and rigid both can be manipulated. It doesnt mean you can't again have strong morals or core beliefs but it does mean you need to guard them and your boundaries far more protectively. My example is of course the ws cheating even though they know it's wrong but allow themselves the wiggle room and moving boundaries to compromise this moral and yet still know it's wrong and still have a sense of maintaining their morals.

The flipside is the bs....their core beliefs and morals tell them it's wrong and usually believe they shouldn't forgive or reconcile. Yet here are so many of us. From learning more and figuring what they want the are too forced to redefine and reinterpret their moral view and core beliefs to reconcile. In neither case have they rewritten what their actual belief and moral is....but their boundaries and acceptance surrounding it has changed....one for selfish reasons. One for the name of progress. I believe morals and boundaries can be redefined, lost blurred strengthened regained. I don't think it's a case of you have them or you don't and no in-between

Psych, your WS sounds like my WS. So here is the question that flows from that....is a person who WANTS to moral/have internalized values a good person? They don't have morals/internalized values yet, but they want to? What does that make them?

Blue? Weigh in?

Demolished, so many are great on here, Blue especially.

This is a great thread--thanks everyone!

One of the things that surprised me after Dday was when I called my H a liar and a cheater and he looked hurt. When I asked why he replied that he had never thought of himself that way. And he had a four year LTA!

He has come to realize after a lot of work that he lacked self awareness. He was a CSA survivor and had parents who modeled amoral behavior. He basically learned to take care of himself first and foremost. And importantly to hide from himself. He was similar to psychmom's husband in that he made up his own rules about things with almost no introspection and then rationalized if confronted. Even something as simple as eating all the cookies--"I didn't think the kids wanted any." (!)

I, on the other hand, had strict morals modeled for me and thought long and hard about my values. I made rules for my own behavior even in high school (no drugs, no sex--yeah I know!). I gave back a nickel too much in change. But how can I judge how I would have turned out if I had been raised like my H? Or he like me?

I do believe that my H now values fidelity and loyalty--likely for the first time. He can no longer compartmentalize his bad behavior and will own up to it.

And for the sake of argument I agree that what we are seeking is internal values and not rules that can be broken. And I believe that a person, with work and a lot of self reflection, can develop those.