Are people who have affairs/cheat bad people?

professore

Walter H Price wrote: »

what about if the married person comes on to you ? what happens to there marriage family etc is on there head to be honest its their vow to keep or break not the other persons, that's the way i'd have always viewed it.

I was never looking for either of the married people i slept with to leave there family or whatever , i didn't pursue either of them, one i actually met out and didn't even know she was married until we'd already slept together a few times, but i wouldn't knock a gift horse in the mouth either , if they were game i wasn't saying no.

I would tape her and play it to her husband.

professore

Another guilty party or parties are "friends" or family who know what's going on and say nothing. These people are enabling the affair. The least I would do is an anonymous tipoff with some proof.

Walter H Price

Drumpot wrote: »

Of course you don't view it as your responsibility . . You have already slept with married people, having to face up to the damage you might of caused wouldn't be easy. Self delusion is strong in people who have done things they know deep down are morally corrupt.



If your comments are genuine, nobody will be able to educate you on what you have done wrong. You are already justifying your actions which gives people an idea of your interpretation of whats acceptable and what you feel responsible for.

To be frank, its a desperately selfish, self absorbed attitude, but don't let that get in the way of you taking care of yourself.

Bot of those girls marriages ended but to be honest i wasn't the first or last person either of them cheated with. Maybe if their husbands had of done a bit more to keep them happy they wouldn't have strayed.

I've not my time for the brotherhood of man BS, you get one shot around and were all in it for ourselves do whatever feels good and works for you, live in the moment and fk the consequences that's always been my attitude.

People are absolving themselves of responsibility for the consequences of their (in tandem with the married persons) actions. Of course they're part of a betrayal, of course they're responsible for enabling the betrayal. Of course it reflects badly on their own moral code that they won't care what happens as a result of their choices. Of course it's selfish.

If you are intimate with a married person, you are not obliged to care what happens to their partner or marriage, but if you don't it certainly marks you out as a bit of a sh!t.

tomwaterford

professore wrote: »

By that logic people who are drug dealers, or push drink on a recovering alcoholic, or giving a known murderer a gun are doing nothing wrong either. "Sure if I don't do it someone else will"

Exactly. ...it's not your job to look after and dictate someone else's lifew choices


I wouldn't do it like....but you can't be going about blaming someone calling them a home wreaker/cheater...when theyve had an affair......

That's literally leavibg the other person off the hook on responsibility....like saying they can't control themselves :rolleyes:

maudgonner

Walter H Price wrote: »

What about if all you want is no stings attached sex ?? that's as good with a married person as it is with a singleton in my experience, so no real concern about how it ends. The onus totally isn't on the non married or committed person they have made no commitment or vow to anybody, so why should they care.

There is no such thing as 'no strings attached' sex with someone who is married or in a relationship. They have strings attached to them.

Yes, they are far more to blame for breaking their commitment. But it's still a shít thing to do, to knowingly have sex with someone who's in a relationship.

Walter H Price

professore wrote: »

I would tape her and play it to her husband.

So you would fk up a marriage anyway just not have the sex , so is it just the sex you see as problematic ? ruining a marriage doesn't make you a bad person , sex does ? did that kind of thinking not die out with the dinosaurs ?

Goya

Walter H Price wrote: »

do whatever feels good and works for you, live in the moment and fk the consequences that's always been my attitude.

I assume "so long as it doesn't harm others" is implicit.

If so, well then you know there are boundaries to this "do whatever feels good" philosophy.

Having sex with someone else's spouse/partner is wrongdoing because it is, as Widdershins suggests, being an accomplice to marriage/relationship wrecking activities. Nobody is stopping you from doing it, it can be hard to resist no doubt, but don't fool yourself you're doing absolutely nothing wrong.

sbsquarepants

Drumpot wrote: »

Its a dangerously ignorant way to absolve yourself of personal responsibility. The phrase "own your sh*t" comes to mind. Its not a question of why you should care, more a question of taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

If you know a person is married and continue to have an affair, you are as much a part of the fallout as the person cheating. Its a total cop out attitude that you suggested. It would be like a soldier killing innocent people saying "well if I didn't do it, somebody else would of" as if they have no accountability for their actions.

If all you want is "no strings attached sex" with a married person you might need to take take a long hard look at your moral compass .

2 individuals marry - not the whole world. If you promise your husband or wife something - it is up to you to keep it, not anybody else. You and you alone are responsible for keeping or breaking your promises.

You don't go round shaking hands and saying thank you to every Tom, Dick and Harry for not sleeping with your wife do you? Why not? Because, simply, you don't owe them anything, they done nothing for you! It's your wife alone who gets the plaudits or the scorn.

What if Mr A was madly in love with Mrs B, but she wasn't interested in him, your classic unrequited love scenario. You getting with her is going to hurt him, should you let that stop you? Of course you shouldn't, that would be stupid. A certificate doesn't change things. If she is happy to go, then that's all the answer anyone should need. Who the hell are you or I to tell her how she should behave to suit another person - people aren't property!

professore

Walter H Price wrote: »

I wouldn't want my OH to cheat on me , i believe the lesson i leaned from the two married women i was with was to be fully involved in the relationship and make sure shes satisfied emotionally and sexually, be open communicate and stay in tune ... if she did cheat, my sense of anger and upset would come more at my own failing then at her infidelity.

Hahahahahaha! You know nothing about how the psychology of female cheating generally works! They are most likely to cheat on exactly the kind of man you are describing - in fact they seek them out. All that stuff that they say about not being happy and their husband not doing enough for them is a load of nonsense - it's just so they keep their man under control and forever thinking he's the problem when in fact it's her.

Tell me this Walter - did you treat the two married women you cheated with like princesses? Was it your caring personality and kindness that turned them on - since this was what they were missing in their relationships? Or was it they just wanted some strange d1ck?

If you don't believe me have a read of survivinginfidelity.com - the men's stories - they are almost ALL men who bent over backwards in every way possible to keep their women happy.

Walter H Price

Flimpson wrote: »

I assume "so long as it doesn't harm others" is implicit.

If so, well then you know there are boundaries to this "do whatever feels good" philosophy.

Having sex with someone else's spouse/partner is wrongdoing because it is, as Widdershins suggests, being an accomplice to marriage/relationship wrecking activities. Nobody is stopping you from doing it, it can be hard to resist no doubt, but don't fool yourself you're doing absolutely nothing wrong.

i guess i just don't see it that way , the hurt comes from the person breaking the vow , i made no vow , i never even met one of the lads, there marriages were both in the toilet for multiple reasons , i wasn't going out of my way to hurt anyone that wasn't my end game if it was a by product then i suppose my attitude would be ah well.

I've never put much stock in morals anyway, but can honestly say i never felt an ounce of guilt or regret about either of those two "relationships" i learnt allot from them and if i had the time over would do it again.

professore

sbsquarepants wrote: »

2 individuals marry - not the whole world. If you promise your husband or wife something - it is up to you to keep it, not anybody else. You and you alone are responsible for keeping or breaking your promises.

You don't go round shaking hands and saying thank you to every Tom, Dick and Harry for not sleeping with your wife do you? Why not? Because, simply you don't owe them anything, they done nothing for you! It's your wife alone who gets the plaudits or the scorn.

For me, if my wife cheats, it's on HER. If I cheat it's on ME - basically what you are saying in your last sentence. I'm not in the whole school of she was "led astray" bull****. That doesn't make whoever she or I cheated with whiter than the driven snow either though.

Colser

Going against the grain a little here but I'd still hold the person in the relationship that cheats 100% responsible rather than the person they do it with...if I'm with someone then I should be able to trust them and I can't account for people they meet who will do the dirt with them.

The majority of us in relationships have plenty opportunity to do it on nights out but most of us don't and would presume that our o/h wouldn't either but you live and learn and get your heart broken in the process.

BTW when I say I don't hold the other person responsible I don't mean that I don't wish them every misfortune known to man (the biaaatchðŸ˜) but they can only take what's available so it's the cheaters fault ultimately for the affairs ,ONS ect.


Be very interesting to get someone's view who cheated and regretted it,anyone know in that situation?ðŸ˜

Drumpot

Walter H Price wrote: »

Bot of those girls marriages ended but to be honest i wasn't the first or last person either of them cheated with. Maybe if their husbands had of done a bit more to keep them happy they wouldn't have strayed.

I've not my time for the brotherhood of man BS, you get one shot around and were all in it for ourselves do whatever feels good and works for you, live in the moment and fk the consequences that's always been my attitude.

Its not brotherhood of man BS, its actually basic respect for others. If you don't care about the consequences you shouldn't feel the need to add that the woman "slept with other men".


But, like I said, you dress it up however helps you live with your actions. .

tomwaterford

professore wrote: »

For me, if my wife cheats, it's on HER. If I cheat it's on ME - basically what you are saying in your last sentence. I'm not in the whole school of she was "led astray" bull****. That doesn't make whoever she or I cheated with whiter than the driven snow either though.

Aye....but the person he/she cheated with assuming they are single is not and should not be described as a cheater



Noone is that irrestible that someone can't say no and not cheat with them (I know folks have shte relationships etc....but going off with a single person isn't going to fix them)

Potatoeman

Walter H Price wrote: »

Still wouldn't view that as my responsibility , i never made any commitment to them to be honest i never even met the husbands of one of those two married women ... whatever happens after is on the person who broke their vows etc... they made a commitment , they broke it simple as.

I wouldn't want my OH to cheat on me , i believe the lesson i leaned from the two married women i was with was to be fully involved in the relationship and make sure shes satisfied emotionally and sexually, be open communicate and stay in tune ... if she did cheat, my sense of anger and upset would come more at my own failing then at her infidelity.

You have the possibility of their partner finding out and messing with your life though or just beating the **** out of you.

professore

Walter H Price wrote: »

i guess i just don't see it that way , the hurt comes from the person breaking the vow , i made no vow , i never even met one of the lads, there marriages were both in the toilet for multiple reasons ,

That they told you. You didn't even hear the other side of the story.

Walter H Price wrote: »

i wasn't going out of my way to hurt anyone that wasn't my end game if it was a by product then i suppose my attitude would be ah well.

I've never put much stock in morals anyway, but can honestly say i never felt an ounce of guilt or regret about either of those two "relationships" i learnt allot from them and if i had the time over would do it again.

Look, I don't care what your morals are, or if you even have any. That's up to yourself. But let's just say I don't think much of anyone with morals like this. You will say you don't care about that which is fair enough. I'd suggest you try to imagine being cheated on yourself and try to imagine what it might feel like.

professore

tomwaterford wrote: »

Aye....but the person he/she cheated with assuming they are single is not and should not be described as a cheater

Noone is that irrestible that someone can't say no and not cheat with them (I know folks have shte relationships etc....but going off with a single person isn't going to fix them)

Yes they are not a cheater, just an asshole.

Walter H Price

Potatoeman wrote: »

You have the possibility of their partner finding out and messing with your life though or just beating the **** out of you.

yeh i mean that's a risk like but it never happened so wouldn't dwell on it , i have no issue handling myself in a scrap anyway. either way its all in the past now im engaged myself so haven't been in this situation for 6 or so years now , i would never cheat on my own OH.

professore wrote: »

That they told you. You didn't even hear the other side of the story.



Look, I don't care what your morals are, or if you even have any. That's up to yourself. But let's just say I don't think much of anyone with morals like this. You will say you don't care about that which is fair enough. I'd suggest you try to imagine being cheated on yourself and try to imagine what it might feel like.

Like i said i do do regrets they were both great experiences wouldn't change it if i had the time over.

professore

Walter H Price wrote: »

Maybe if their husbands had of done a bit more to keep them happy they wouldn't have strayed.

Biggest lie of modern times. Men are not responsible for women's happiness. Like this guy: http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/359138-wife-continues-affair-no-remorse-emotion-responsibility-her-actions.html There are hundreds and hundreds like him. Lots of men too, and the men are just as bad, but seem in the main less ruthless and own up to their actions a bit easier.

EDIT: Women are also not responsible for men's happiness either. If you have a partner who thinks it's your job to keep them happy in every way, you have a potential cheater on your hands.

I wasn't prepared for what happened next. On 6th November, I found a used emergency morning after pill packet in her handbag. I felt sick to the stomach. I delayed confronting her and decided to track her car for a week. She continued to visit the same address on a daily basis, so I decided to confront her about the morning after pill.

Her first story was that it was a one night stand, drunken, taken advantage of, had to get it out of her system, felt dreadful, blah, blah, blah. That didn't wash. The next day, she admitted she had an affair earlier in the year, work colleague, it was over, but she met him recently hence the morning after pill, drunken, taken advantage of, had to get it out of her system, felt dreadful, blah, blah, blah. The next day she advised that she was seeing someone from else work, recent thing and that they had recently started sleeping together. Three stories in three days, all involving infidelity, all like a dagger through the heart, all absolutely devastating. The cut a long story short, the first guy was made up, the second two exist and the affairs had/have taken place.

She continues the affair with number 3. She has shown absolutely no remorse, upset, guilt, empathy or taken any responsibility for her actions. She thinks she was within her rights to have both relationship as she 'hadn't been happy for a while'. I am absolutely staggered that she can act like this.

Okay, so here it is. We are still living under the same roof, which is a nightmare. My solicitor advised that I should stand my ground as it could effect custody rights, financials etc. You would imagine that she would have offered to move out, but she is hanging around like a bad smell and refuses to leave the house. She has even taken out a HR1 which prevents me from selling the house. Although she has advised she doesn't want a divorce because of the cost involved, she is taking legal advice around equity in the house, money in my business, pension and a flat I bought prior to our marriage. We have specified days to have the children, when she isn't at the house she has been quite open that she is with her new partner, which is tough.

I am an emotional wreck at the moment. I am trying to get head around a 6 month affair from earlier in the year. An ongoing affair which I am having my face rubbed into on a daily basis. The breakdown of my marriage to a women that I absolutely idolised. The logistics of bringing my children up as a part time dad. The financial strain it is going to put on me after settlement. And the biggest thing, that she doesn't seem to care in the slightest and is carrying on as if nothing has happened.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Drumpot

Walter H Price wrote: »

i guess i just don't see it that way , the hurt comes from the person breaking the vow , i made no vow , i never even met one of the lads, there marriages were both in the toilet for multiple reasons , i wasn't going out of my way to hurt anyone that wasn't my end game if it was a by product then i suppose my attitude would be ah well.

I've never put much stock in morals anyway, but can honestly say i never felt an ounce of guilt or regret about either of those two "relationships" i learnt allot from them and if i had the time over would do it again.

Doing something that you know will damage other people for self gratification is a sh*tty act no matter what way its explained.

professore

The cheaters script : http://www.infidelityhelpgroup.com/2014/01/31/rewriting-history/

Keep an eye out for all of these if you are accused of not making your husband or wife "happy".

sbsquarepants

professore wrote: »

For me, if my wife cheats, it's on HER. If I cheat it's on ME - basically what you are saying in your last sentence. I'm not in the whole school of she was "led astray" bull****. That doesn't make whoever she or I cheated with whiter than the driven snow either though.

Sure who is as pure as the driven snow?

But in that situation, there's only one person who has crossed you.

Say your wife is a drinker, not a cheater. She's promised you she won't drink anymore, but lo and behold she takes town by storm and drinks the kids Christmas pressies - who is to blame, her or the barman? Only one of them has broken a promise!

sbsquarepants

I am an emotional wreck at the moment. I am trying to get head around a 6 month
affair from earlier in the year. An ongoing affair which I am having my face
rubbed into on a daily basis. The breakdown of my marriage to a women that
I absolutely idolised. The logistics of bringing my children up as a
part time dad. The financial strain it is going to put on me after settlement.
And the biggest thing, that she doesn't seem to care in the slightest and is
carrying on as if nothing has happened.

You know the expression, it takes two to tango - it applies to marriage as well as infidelity. Just because you idolise someone doesn't mean jack shít if it's a one way street - which it clearly is here.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy or something? I don't get it. He is clearly being complicit in his own humiliation, I actually feel more sorry for his wife - I mean Jesus Christ, take the hint and let the woman be will you!

Stalkers idolise people. If you idolise anybody you are setting yourself on a slippery slope to misery and disappointment.

Dickie10

i was with a married woman in a nightclub back in june, she texted me and rang me fairly often after that. her husband works away on an oil rig. she rang me to come over to the house one day in november. we watched a movie, drank tea and of course had sex, which was always on the cards. im single and 33 shes 42. i felt like a bastrd for doing it, but id love to do it again. she talks about the kids a lot to me, that makes me feel very uncomfortable

professore

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You know the expression, it takes two to tango - it applies to marriage as well as infidelity. Just because you idolise someone doesn't mean jack shít if it's a one way street - which it clearly is here.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy or something? I don't get it. He is clearly being complicit in his own humiliation, I actually feel more sorry for his wife - I mean Jesus Christ, take the hint and let the woman be will you!

Stalkers idolise people. If you idolise anybody you are setting yourself on a slippery slope to misery and disappointment.

I was replying to Walter Price's idea that treating a woman well will ensure she doesn't cheat. So I agree with you in a way. However you should cut the guy some slack, he didn't see the train coming. But then again people like you have no empathy, so you couldn't understand how someone in that situation might feel.

And yeah he should "let her be", i.e. **** her out on her ear - which is what many DO end up doing when they finally see the light, although they often end up with 50% of everything. Some never do.

professore

Dickie10 wrote: »

i was with a married woman in a nightclub back in june, she texted me and rang me fairly often after that. her husband works away on an oil rig. she rang me to come over to the house one day in november. we watched a movie, drank tea and of course had sex, which was always on the cards. im single and 33 shes 42. i felt like a bastrd for doing it, but id love to do it again. she talks about the kids a lot to me, that makes me feel very uncomfortable

She is worse than you. If she was confronted by the husband she would make up some bull**** about him being away too much and how she got "lonely" - and you would have lots nodding their head in sympathy. Reverse the roles and you wouldn't see much sympathy for a man in the same situation.

I was in a situation once with a woman that I really fancied, both sexually and personally, and I had the means and the opportunity, and I knew it would be good. I backed out of it - one of the hardest things I ever did. So I get why you would do it, and at least you see that you are wrong, so you have some sort of a conscience, unlike some others on here.

Widdershins

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You know the expression, it takes two to tango - it applies to marriage as well as infidelity. Just because you idolise someone doesn't mean jack shít if it's a one way street - which it clearly is here.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy or something? I don't get it. He is clearly being complicit in his own humiliation, I actually feel more sorry for his wife - I mean Jesus Christ, take the hint and let the woman be will you!

Stalkers idolise people. If you idolise anybody you are setting yourself on a slippery slope to misery and disappointment.

Idolise is a figure of speech though. Better than ''I could take her or leave her most days but she was a good ol' girl really''

Goya

Walter H Price wrote: »

what about if the married person comes on to you ?

Nobody excluded that scenario. You have the choice to spurn their advances of course. I am not saying it's not difficult (a very attractive married man propositioned me one night and I was extremely tempted; I resisted but I can see how someone would be unable to - if I had done so, I may have felt nothing for his wife, but I would still have recognised that what I did was wrong and helping to destroy a marriage). I'm not saying you're a horrible evil person - you may not feel guilty for it, you may have enjoyed it, how it affected their husbands may not have resonated in any way with you... and you've every right to feel that way. But it doesn't change that you actively enabled someone's infidelity to their spouse. And saying you had no responsibility is like saying someone who actually goes into a shop and robs something is not responsible for doing it. Of course you are responsible for an actual act that you carried out!

All people are saying is that you and others are in denial and shirking responsibility - but you can't be stopped feeling the way you feel.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You know the expression, it takes two to tango - it applies to marriage as well as infidelity.

Exactly... but you say that single people who have affairs with people in relationships are not to blame, only the cheater.
Obviously both are to blame - if moreso the cheater. It seems to be the one situation where cognitive dissonance gets to farcical proportions and a person who actually does something is absolved of that act - I get the impression that some people just want to make themselves feel better about what they have done. And they're certainly not in a position to be critical of infidelity if they have enabled it.

professore

Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
Other Related Qualities:
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)


NOTE: In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.


DSM-IV Definition

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV)

1. Since the age of fifteen there has been a disregard for and violation of the right's of others, those right's considered normal by the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:
A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases.
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.
D. Repeated assaults on others.
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.

2. At least eighteen years in age.

3. Evidence of a Conduct Disorder, with its onset before the age of fifteen.

4. Symptoms not due to another mental disorder.


Antisocial Personality Disorder Overview (Written by Derek Wood, RN, BSN, PhD Candidate)

Antisocial Personality Disorder results in what is commonly known as a Sociopath. The criteria for this disorder require an ongoing disregard for the rights of others, since the age of 15 years. Some examples of this disregard are reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, deceitfulness such as repeated lying or deceit for personal profit or pleasure, and lack of remorse for actions that hurt other people in any way. Additionally, they must have evidenced a Conduct Disorder before the age of 15 years, and must be at least 18 years old to receive this diagnosis.

People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes.

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want immediate rewards and gratification. There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of conduct disorder.


THE PSYCHOPATH NEXT DOOR (Source: http://chericola57.tripod.com/infinite.html)

Psychopath. We hear the word and images of Bernardo, Manson and Dahmer pop into our heads; no doubt Ted Bundy too. But they're the bottom of the barrel -- most of the two million psychopaths in North America aren't murderers. They're our friends, lovers and co-workers. They're outgoing and persuasive, dazzling you with charm and flattery. Often you aren't even aware they've taken you for a ride -- until it's too late.

Psychopaths exhibit a Jekyll and Hyde personality. "They play a part so they can get what they want," says Dr. Sheila Willson, a Toronto psychologist who has helped victims of psychopaths. The guy who showers a woman with excessive attention is much more capable of getting her to lend him money, and to put up with him when he strays. The new employee who gains her co-workers' trust has more access to their chequebooks. And so on. Psychopaths have no conscience and their only goal is self-gratification. Many of us have been their victims -- at work, through friendships or relationships -- and not one of us can say, "a psychopath could never fool me."

Think you can spot one? Think again. In general, psychopaths aren't the product of broken homes or the casualties of a materialistic society. Rather they come from all walks of life and there is little evidence that their upbringing affects them. Elements of a psychopath's personality first become evident at a very early age, due to biological or genetic factors. Explains Michael Seto, a psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental health in Toronto, by the time that a person hits their late teens, the disorder is almost certainly permanent. Although many clinicians use the terms psychopath and sociopath interchangeably, writes psychopath expert Robert Hare on his book 'Without Conscience', a sociopath's criminal behavior is shaped by social forces and is the result of a dysfunctional environment.

Psychopaths have only a shallow range of emotions and lack guilt, says Hare. They often see themselves as victims, and lack remorse or the ability to empathize with others. "Psychopaths play on the fact that most of us are trusting and forgiving people," adds Seto. The warning signs are always there; it's just difficult to see them because once we trust someone, the friendship becomes a blinder.

Even lovers get taken for a ride by psychopaths. For a psychopath, a romantic relationship is just another opportunity to find a trusting partner who will buy into the lies. It's primarily why a psychopath rarely stays in a relationship for the long term, and often is involved with three or four partners at once, says Willson. To a psychopath, everything about a relationship is a game. Willson refers to the movie 'Sliding Doors' to illustrate her point. In the film, the main character comes home early after just having been fired from her job. Only moments ago, her boyfriend has let another woman out the front door. But in a matter of minutes he is the attentive and concerned boyfriend, taking her out to dinner and devoting the entire night to comforting her. All the while he's planning to leave the next day on a trip with the other woman.

The boyfriend displays typical psychopathic characteristics because he falsely displays deep emotion toward the relationship, says Willson. In reality, he's less concerned with his girlfriend's depression than with making sure she's clueless about the other woman's existence. In the romance department, psychopaths have an ability to gain your affection quickly, disarming you with words, intriguing you with grandiose plans. If they cheat you'll forgive them, and one day when they've gone too far, they'll leave you with a broken heart (and an empty wallet). By then they'll have a new player for their game.

The problem with their game is that we don't often play by their rules. Where we might occasionally tell a white lie, a psychopath's lying is compulsive. Most of us experience some degree of guilt about lying, preventing us from exhibiting such behavior on a regular basis. "Psychopaths don't discriminate who it is they lie to or cheat," says Seto. "There's no distinction between friend, family and sucker."

No one wants to be the sucker, so how do we prevent ourselves from becoming close friends or getting into a relationship with a psychopath? It's really almost impossible, say Seto and Willson. Unfortunately, laments Seto, one way is to become more suspicious and less trusting of others. Our tendency is to forgive when we catch a loved one in a lie. "Psychopaths play on this fact," he says. "However, I'm certainly not advocating a world where if someone lies once or twice, you never speak to them again." What you can do is look at how often someone lies and how they react when caught. Psychopaths will lie over and over again, and where other people would sincerely apologize, a psychopath may apologize but won't stop.

Psychopaths also tend to switch jobs as frequently as they switch partners, mainly because they don't have the qualities to maintain a job for the long haul. Their performance is generally erratic, with chronic absences, misuse of company resources and failed commitments. Often they aren't even qualified for the job and use fake credentials to get it. Seto talks of a patient who would get marketing jobs based on his image; he was a presentable and charming man who layered his conversations with educational and occupational references. But it became evident that the man hadn't a clue what he was talking about, and was unable to hold down a job.

How do you make sure you don't get fooled when you're hiring someone to baby-sit your child or for any other job? Hire based on reputation and not image, says Willson. Check references thoroughly. Psychopaths tend to give vague and inconsistent replies. Of course the best way to solve this problem would be to cure psychopaths of their 'illness.' But there's no recipe for treating them, say psychiatrists. Today's traditional methods of psychotherapy (psychoanalysis, group and one-on-one therapy) and drug treatments have failed. Therapy is more likely to work when an individual admits there's a problem and wants to change. The common problem with psychopaths, says Sets, "Is they don't see a problem with their behavior."

Psychopaths don't seek therapy willingly, says Seto. Rather, they're pushed into it by a desperate relative or by a court order. To a psychopath, a therapist is just one more person who must be conned, and the psychopath plays the part right until the therapist is convinced of his or her 'rehabilitation.'

Even though we can't treat psychopaths effectively with therapy, it doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, writes Hare. Willson agrees, citing the most important factor in keeping psychopaths at bay is to know your vulnerabilities. We need to "realize our own potential and maximize our strengths" so that our insecurities don't overcome us. Because, she says, a psychopath is a chameleon who becomes "an image of what you haven't done for yourself." Over time, she says, "their appearance of perfection will begin to crack," but by that time you will have been emotionally and perhaps financially scathed. There comes a time when you realize there's no point in searching for answers; the only thing is to move on.

Taken in part from MW -- By Caroline Konrad -- September 1999

THE MALIGNANT PERSONALITY:

These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of which they are capable.

First, to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

If you have come into conflict with such a person or persons, do the following immediately!

(1) Notify your friends and relatives of what has happened.

Do not be vague. Name names, and specify dates and circumstances. Identify witnesses if possible and provide supporting documentation if any is available.

(2) Inform the police. The police will do nothing with this information except to keep it on file, since they are powerless to act until a crime has been committed. Unfortunately, that often is usually too late for the victim. Nevertheless, place the information in their hands.

Obviously, if you are assaulted or threatened before witnesses, you can get a restraining order, but those are palliative at best.

(3) Local law enforcement agencies are usually under pressure if wealthy or politically powerful individuals are involved, so include state and federal agencies as well and tell the locals that you have. In my own experience, one agency that can help in a pinch is the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service or (in Canada) Victims Services at your local police unit. It is not easy to think of the IRS as a potential friend, but a Swedish study showed that malignant types (the Swedes called them bullies) usually commit some felony or other by the age of twenty. If the family is wealthy, the fact may never come to light, but many felonies involve tax evasion, and in such cases, the IRS is interested indeed. If large amounts of money are involved, the IRS may solve all your problems for you. For obvious reasons the Drug Enforcement Agency may also be an appropriate agency to approach. The FBI is an important agency to contact, because although the FBI does not have jurisdiction over murder or assault, if informed, they do have an active interest in any other law enforcement agencies that do not follow through with an honest investigation and prosecution should a murder occur. Civil rights are involved at that point. No local crooked lawyer, judge, or corrupt police official wants to be within a country mile if that comes to light! It is in such cases that wealthy psychopaths discover just how firm the "friends" they count on to cover up for them really are! Even some of the drug cartel biggies will scuttle for cover if someone picks up the brick their thugs hide under. Exposure is bad for business.

(4) Make sure that several of your friends have the information in the event something happens to you. That way, an appropriate investigation will follow if you are harmed. Don't tell other people who has the information, because then something bad could happen to them as well. Instruct friends to take such an incident to the newspapers and other media.

If you are dealing with someone who has considerable money, you must realize that they probably won't try to harm you themselves, they will contract with someone to make the hit. The malignant type is a coward and will not expose himself or herself to personal danger if he or she can avoid it.
Update: A thorough article. You may also find more at http://sociopathworld.com/.
I, the creator of this site, am not a psychologist and have no special expertise in the subject. I created the site as a public service, because no similar site existed in 2003. I occasionally get sad calls and emails. I urge you to consult either a clinical psychologist or the police depending on the problem you face, and wish you good luck.

tomwaterford

^^^^^you may be over thinking this :pac:

maudgonner

If ever there was a post that needed a tl;dr...

mzungu

professore wrote: »

Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes (...) and wish you good luck.

Or we could just go with this from Google:

sociopath
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.

:P

professore

mzungu wrote: »

Or we could just go with this from Google:


:P

I didn't realise it was so long when I did select all

I suppose the points about empathy and entitlement and blaming everyone but themselves are the most relevant.

sbsquarepants

professore wrote: »

I was replying to Walter Price's idea that treating a woman well will ensure she doesn't cheat. So I agree with you in a way. However you should cut the guy some slack, he didn't see the train coming. But then again people like you have no empathy, so you couldn't understand how someone in that situation might feel.

And yeah he should "let her be", i.e. **** her out on her ear - which is what many DO end up doing when they finally see the light, although they often end up with 50% of everything. Some never do.

I can cut him some slack, he didn't see it coming - I can grasp that, I've been there myself. But what's his excuse now, he missed the second and third times too?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me repeatedly - I'm a fúcking idiot, you just carry on!

Widdershins wrote: »

Idolise is a figure of speech though. Better than ''I could take her or leave her most days but she was a good ol' girl really''

I don't think it is a figure of speech in this case anyway. If you let someone treat you like shít because you "idolise" them, as is clearly the case with this guy, there is something wrong with you, not them. You are the cause of your own misery, it's up to you to either fix it or wallow in it.

Flimpson wrote: »

Exactly... but you say that single people who have affairs with people in relationships are not to blame, only the cheater.
Obviously both are to blame - if moreso the cheater. It seems to be the one situation where cognitive dissonance gets to farcical proportions and a person who actually does something is absolved of that act - I get the impression that some people just want to make themselves feel better about what they have done. And they're certainly not in a position to be critical of infidelity if they have enabled it.

I'm saying people have to be responsible for their own actions. In the case of this guys "marriage" he is making a rod for his own back - he can't then moan about it stinging!

The single man or woman can sleep with whoever the hell they like.
I don't know you from a hole in the ground, I have never promised you i'll stay away from your missus, I have no intention of promising you such - if through some chain of events I end up in bed with her - I have not crossed you in any way, she has. My only betrayal is of my own missus. In short i'll only stay away from yours so as not to hurt mine, if I don't have one to hurt, yours is fair game as far as I'm concerned. You don't own her!
If I was to set out to bed your missus solely as a way of upsetting you - that would be a bit weird i'll grant you, but if I just like her and don't know you, I owe you no duty of care whatsoever, for every couple that hook up there is likely a disappointed other suitor or two, that's just life.
It's not my job to look out for you, that's your job!

Walter H Price

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would love if i had a drama filled story for you right now about me being some sensitive sole , madly in love with the girl of my dreams, then she cheats and i become all cold and develop a fk the world attitude.

Sadly the truth is much more boring , I've never really been cheated on (that I'm aware of) , there was no para-dime shift moment , to be honest I've just always been of the Bill Hicks school of thinking , your only here once , life is just a ride don't take it too seriously. I do what feels good for me and yeh to be honest fk the world. There is, in my view, no actual tangible reward for living a moral life , you can deny yourself whatever , there's no gold star or ticket to heaven at the end of it all, you've just missed out on something you might have really enjoyed doing. I suppose all you get from it really is to sit and judge other people for doing what you wanted to but denied yourself , that's not really my thing to be honest.

Like i said those "relationships" were fun , in fact i would say some of the most exciting I've had , i learned allot from them and if i had the time over , without any hint of guilt, remorse or regret , even armed with the knowledge that those Marriages ultimately broke up , i would do it over again. As far as I'm concerned i have nothing to regret i only gained from those relationships , they never impacted me negatively , i don't think they made me a bad person , i dont even view what i did as wrong and in all honesty never will. I don't think either of those girls were bad people either , just people who were unhappy and trying to get through life the same as the rest of us.

Goya

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The single man or woman can sleep with whoever the hell they like.
I don't know you from a hole in the ground, I have never promised you i'll stay away from your missus, I have no intention of promising you such - if through some chain of events I end up in bed with her - I have not crossed you in any way, she has. My only betrayal is of my own missus. In short i'll only stay away from yours so as not to hurt mine, if I don't have one to hurt, yours is fair game as far as I'm concerned. You don't own her!
If I was to set out to bed your missus solely as a way of upsetting you - that would be a bit weird i'll grant you, but if I just like her and don't know you, I owe you no duty of care whatsoever, for every couple that hook up there is likely a disappointed other suitor or two, that's just life.
It's not my job to look out for you, that's your job!

This is bizarre mental gymnastics to, presumably, help those who get involved or have got involved a lot with people in monogamous relationships, thus enabling their infidelity.

As was said, how come this logic isn't applied in other situations? If I borrowed my brother's new car, reassuring I'd be extra careful with it, and then let my friend have a drive off it and they got it scratched or dented... has my friend absolutely no responsibility because they don't know my brother and they're not the one who made a promise not to wreck the car?

If my cousin lets me stay in her house while she and her family are away and she asks me not to invite anyone over but I do and they make a mess... are they completely devoid of responsibility because they don't know my cousin and weren't the ones who committed to minding the place?

In the above two scenarios, I obviously hold a lot of responsibility in that I invited my friend along, but they share some of the responsibility because of choosing to behave recklessly. As you say, people need to take responsibility for their actions and choices.

Is a heroin dealer devoid of responsibility for the community that is their "turf" being damaged... because they never made the commitment not to help mess up a neighbourhood? And I know people choose to take heroin but the dealer is the one who makes it available and uses intimidation tactics and exploits people who are in a bad way.

I don't have a missus because I'm not a lesbian but if you have sex with someone else's missus, whether you know her husband/partner or not, you are complicit in her betrayal of him. She is the worse of the two of you but you are still partially responsible, because without you, she wouldn't have committed the act in question. Of course you have "crossed him in any way."

And the thing about how he doesn't own her is real empowerment stuff but it's just another tactic you're using to feel better about actively helping someone cheat. No he doesn't own her but she has committed not to cheat on him - something you keep acknowledging.

You say single people can have sex with whomever they want - and they can indeed - but others can express their opinions about it. If they were to have sex with a friend's or relative's spouse/partner though, I don't think "whomever they want" would be quite so literal.

If you're single, do indeed have sex with whomever you want - who can stop you? Nor should you feel bad. But you can't claim you've no responsibility for infidelity when you're directly, actively enabling it - that's just fact.

Goya

Walter H Price wrote: »

to be honest I've just always been of the Bill Hicks school of thinking , your only here once , life is just a ride don't take it too seriously. I do what feels good for me and yeh to be honest fk the world. There is, in my view, no actual tangible reward for living a moral life , you can deny yourself whatever , there's no gold star or ticket to heaven at the end of it all, you've just missed out on something you might have really enjoyed doing.

That's wonderful if it doesn't affect others. If it does though, you can use all the phrases you like about how you should do what feels good, life isn't to be taken seriously etc... but all it is is selfishness.

fin12

How you get them is how you will lose them.

sbsquarepants

Flimpson wrote: »

This is bizarre mental gymnastics to, presumably, help those who get involved or have got involved a lot with people in monogamous relationships, thus enabling their infidelity..

You can't get involved with someone who is already in a monogamous relationship.

Flimpson wrote: »

As was said, how come this logic isn't applied in other situations? If I borrowed my brother's new car, reassuring I'd be extra careful with it, and then let my friend have a drive off it and they got it scratched or dented... has my friend absolutely no responsibility because they don't know my brother and they're not the one who made a promise not to wreck the car?.

Your brother owns the car - the car has no ability to decide to let someone else drive it for a while!

Flimpson wrote: »

If my cousin lets me stay in her house while she and her family are away and she asks me not to invite anyone over but I do and they make a mess... are they completely devoid of responsibility because they don't know my cousin and weren't the ones who committed to minding the place?.

Again your cousin owns the house - they have entrusted you to mind it. The house didn't invite people over who caused a mess - you did. It's clearly your fault.

Flimpson wrote: »

In the above two scenarios, I obviously hold a lot of responsibility in that I invited my friend along, but they share some of the responsibility because of choosing to behave recklessly. As you say, people need to take responsibility for their actions and choices.

Nice of you to take some of the blame!
And yes in your 2 examples the others are also to blame, these points are clearly laid out in law - I can't damage your brothers car even if you tell me I can - you have not got the authority to tell me anything like that. You're comparing apples and oranges, well actually you're comparing machinery and people. People are autonomous and make their own decisions, machinery is at the mercy of whoever owns it.

Flimpson wrote: »

Is a heroin dealer devoid of responsibility for the community that is their "turf" being damaged... because they never made the commitment not to help mess up a neighbourhood? And I know people choose to take heroin but the dealer is the one who makes it available and uses intimidation tactics and exploits people who are in a bad way.

It's a bullshít argument.
Is the supermarket responsible for you being fat?
Is it the barmans fault that you made a show of yourself at the Christmas do?
Is it river islands fault you got sneered at cos you look like jedward in those skinny jeans?

Flimpson wrote: »

I don't have a missus because I'm not a lesbian but if you have sex with someone else's missus, whether you know her husband/partner or not, you are complicit in her betrayal of him. She is the worse of the two of you but you are still partially responsible, because without you, she wouldn't have committed the act in question. Of course you have "crossed him in any way.".

So poor miss innocent simply couldn't control herself in my presence? Her blissful relationship is now in tatters and all because of my raw sexual magnetism?
Eh, I wish Flimpson, I wish!

Flimpson wrote: »

And the thing about how he doesn't own her is real empowerment stuff but it's just another tactic you're using to feel better about actively helping someone cheat. No he doesn't own her but she has committed not to cheat on him - something you keep acknowledging..

It would appear she wasn't really all that committed, wouldn't it!

Flimpson wrote: »

You say single people can have sex with whomever they want - and they can indeed - but others can express their opinions about it. If they were to have sex with a friend's or relative's spouse/partner though, I don't think "whomever they want" would be quite so literal..

If you know them, then it's different.
It stands to reason that you should care more about your brother say, than you do about some bloke who you don't know. That's obvious surely, even in perfect world where everyone looks out for everyone else.

Flimpson wrote: »

If you're single, do indeed have sex with whomever you want - who can stop you? Nor should you feel bad. But you can't claim you've no responsibility for infidelity when you're directly, actively enabling it - that's just fact.

Opinions aren't facts. They're just opinions.
At what point does the bodily autonomy of a person kick in - is it divorce, separation, unrequited love? At what point exactly do you recommend I should begin to consider what the person themselves wants, and consequently when exactly do I need to be mindful of the fact that they belong to another?