You can't possibly know that it won't happen again.
You're right, I can't. It's called a hypothetical.
Morgan Le Fay said:
You're just one of those people that want to bury your head in the sand. (apt username!)
Wow, did you think of that all by yourself?
Morgan Le Fay said:
What if someone gets pregnant or contracts an STD? Once one lie is told it can often snowball into more and more lies to cover up the original one.
I'm not getting the impression that you actually
read my posts.
Morgan Le Fay said:
So because you know you will overreact, you don't want to deal with honest disclosure?
In the situation I've outlined, I don't see it being helpful. Most people would find that type of disclosure hurtful, so if it doesn't have important ramifications for the future, there's every reason to avoid it.
I've already acknowledged that we seem to have taken different perspectives on how realistic "never going to happen again" is, and indicated that we should probably just agree to disagree. It seems like your refusal to recognize that as an essential component of my answer is basically fueling our discussion at this point.
Morgan Le Fay said:
This seems like a very immature way of dealing with anything. Haven't you considered that you might forgive your partner? That you might learn something about him and your relationship which might draw you closer or enrich your life together? Or would you always just jump off the deep end?
I don't know. I think I would have a very hard time getting past it. If I had to guess, no, I don't think I could ever forgive them. What really worries me is that I might stay in the relationship initially, but become controlling or jealous or vindictive until things eventually broke down and led to a permanent split.
Morgan Le Fay said:
It's respectful because one assumes we are dealing with adults here, not children or ostriches.
I wondered if you might say something like this. Because it seems like you're treating your hypothetical partner like a child, not an equal.
You know what's best for them, and if they think otherwise, they're just wrong. I don't see anything respectful about that.
Morgan Le Fay said:
Why would it make you feel better? What if it doesn't make you feel better? What if it makes you feel like shit? Is it selfish then? And isn't it also selfish to deny your partner the option to unburden his guilt?
Many people feel relieved about unburdening their consciences. If you read other replies to this thread, you'll find indications of that. If admitting guilt makes you feel worse, I think it would be very hard to view that as selfish. If an admission of guilt makes you feel like shit,
and makes the other person unhappy, I think you need to seriously consider whether this is really a good idea.
Once again, though, you only appear to be considering a single perspective. You only seem to see this from the cheater's point of view, not considering the feelings of the victim. You also don't seem to have allowed for the possibility that your partner might feel differently about these things than you do.
I think it's more selfish for a cheater -- who has
caused the problem -- to insist on unburdening her/himself than for the victim to decide what s/he does and doesn't need to know or be spared possible heartache. The victim has no responsibility to allow the cheater to "unburden his guilt"
*, though s/he also has no real way of preventing it if the cheater is determined to do so. All the power here lies with the cheater.
* And you say I have a twisted sense of right and wrong? How does a person who has been wronged assume additional responsibilities to the one who wronged them? You have to allow them to unburden their guilt, or you're being selfish!
Morgan Le Fay said:
Not at all. I just think happiness should be based on something solid, not a fantasy. I accept some people just want to hear what they want to hear. Maybe most do.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you acknowleding that some people have a different platform for happiness than you do, but basically saying that they're wrong and you're going to impose your own standards on them?
Morgan Le Fay said:
No, I'm considering the Golden Rule. I would do for others (hopefully!) what I would want done for myself. Which is to be given the information so that I can make an informed choice.
spamtar
raised an interesting question: with whom must this information be shared? Is there anyone with whom it
should not be shared?
Morgan Le Fay said:
No one has the right to decide for me what I need to hear and what I don't need to hear to maximise my happiness. And I don't have that right over anyone else.
Of course not. I wouldn't want someone making those decisions for me, either. I've been surprised that you seem to feel so strongly about taking that self-determination away from me. How is your position
not "decid[ing] for me what I need to hear"?
Morgan Le Fay said:
In this particular instance, the "won't happen again/no future repercussions" provision is a huge out: it basically means that I don't need this information, because it's irrevelant to anything else that will happen. In fact, having this information would almost certainly mislead me in attempts to judge this person's trustworthiness in the future.
That simply reflects your own poor judgment, nothing else. I tend to assume that most people are better at judging their own affairs, but maybe in your case that is a false assumption.
<sigh> I'm going to spell this out as precisely as I can:
*
If we accept the the "won't happen again/no future repercussions" provision -- which you needn't do IRL but which is critical to understanding this discussion -- then the partner's cheating
has no future repercussions. Straightforward so far, right?
* If this information is shared, it might lead the cheater's partner to believe the cheating will occur again. By
definition, by the paramaters of this hypothetical, that is not actually a possibility.
* Therefore, this assumption -- that cheating could occur again -- is incorrect, and the shared information has led to a misjudgment regarding the cheater's trustworthiness in the future.
Point A --> Point B.
And surely you acknowledge that even people of
good judgment occasionally make mistakes? Perfect knowledge of the future seems like an awfully high standard to avoid being guilty of poor judgment.
Morgan Le Fay said:
I'm wondering how this works in practice. What do you say to your SO? "Honey, if you cheat once you'd better not tell me about it, but if you cheat twice, I want to know so I can dump your ass"?
Haha, I like that. I can't recall ever having an explicit discussion about "What To Do If You Cheat On Me". I suppose I rely on the information I have available to make informed judgments and decisions. I normally
do want all the available information. Uytuun suggested that INTJs can handle this kind of admission and that it might not be a big deal. Speaking for myself, I don't believe it's likely that I would respond in a constructive way. Therefore,
if there was reasonable certainty that it was an isolated incident in a healthy relationship, I think I would be happiest not knowing about it. That's obviously not the case for you, but I don't see why it's so important to you to change my mind. You're not planning to cheat on me, are you, sweetheart?
Anyway, I kind of like your idea better. "Honey, if you cheat once you'd better not tell me about it, but if you cheat twice, I want to know so I can dump your ass."