So Truth Comes Out..Arnold Schwarzenegger Has Other Child!

[tlbwriter]

Because they knew damn well that the person they were involved with was married and they could have said NO. While the spouse does deserve 95% of the blame, what happened to saying NO? I won't get involved with a married man. Sure, there might be someone else who would but maybe if everyone respected the vows of marriage wether they took them or not, then these married cheaters would have no one to cheat with.

So you're saying it's the responsibility of the "other woman" or "other man" to keep the potential cheater in line. I understand your position, but I disagree. It takes two to tango, and unless someone is holding a gun to your head, all it takes to maintain YOUR vow is the word "no." No one else, IMHO, is responsible for your failure to use that word.

(generic "you," not RadioNate. )

 

[Mkrop]

All of the cheaters are disgusting human beings. Unless you were deceived into thinking the other person was single, then you are both gulity.

I feel bad for all the people this woman and Arnold lied to.

 

[castleview]

Ick

 

[RadioNate]

So you're saying it's the responsibility of the "other woman" or "other man" to keep the potential cheater in line. I understand your position, but I disagree. It takes two to tango, and unless someone is holding a gun to your head, all it takes to maintain YOUR vow is the word "no." No one else, IMHO, is responsible for your failure to use that word.

(generic "you," not RadioNate. )

No - it isn't their responsibility but they could actually be a decent human being and say no. It isn't only about the vows. It is about being a decent person and not purposefully hurting another. ANYONE who willingly participates in the destruction of a family, actively participates in hurting and betraying another person is a disgusting human being IMO.

It this "I didn't take a vow" mentality that is problematic. No "you" didn't. But that doesn't mean "you" need to partake in the devastation.

 

[tlbwriter]

No - it isn't their responsibility but they could actually be a decent human being and say no. It isn't only about the vows. It is about being a decent person and not purposefully hurting another. ANYONE who willingly participates in the destruction of a family, actively participates in hurting and betraying another person is a disgusting human being IMO.

It this "I didn't take a vow" mentality that is problematic. No "you" didn't. But that doesn't mean "you" need to partake in the devastation.

Well, I do agree that they are doing a bad thing. I just don't think you can give away any responsibility of the cheater, even 5%, by saying that if the other person had only said "no," it would never have happened.

 

[NY Disney fan]

No - it isn't their responsibility but they could actually be a decent human being and say no. It isn't only about the vows. It is about being a decent person and not purposefully hurting another. ANYONE who willingly participates in the destruction of a family, actively participates in hurting and betraying another person is a disgusting human being IMO.

It this "I didn't take a vow" mentality that is problematic. No "you" didn't. But that doesn't mean "you" need to partake in the devastation.

The voice of reason. Thank you. Like I always say, a mugger or rapist doesn't owe me anything nor took vows to me, but he has no right to interfere in my life.

 

[NaLisa]

CNN story says Arnold has financially supported the child since birth. I imagine her salary was off the charts for a housekeeper. How did he explain the HUGE bump in pay 10 years ago?

Lots of folks (including housekeeper's husband) had to know about this; I'm wondering if her husband took a payoff too. And has Arnold had anything to do with the child?

This is just one messed-up situation, and the awful details will probably continue to leak out for a while.

 

[RadioNate]

Well, I do agree that they are doing a bad thing. I just don't think you can give away any responsibility of the cheater, even 5%, by saying that if the other person had only said "no," it would never have happened.

Well if they did say no, it wouldn't have happened. Sure maybe the cheater would have looked elsewhere but most cheating isn't one-night-stands and prostitutes. They are emotional connections that turn into full blown affairs after some time. If the object of affection isn't available, maybe the cheater would get their head on straight before a new crush comes along.

It is fool proof? No, of course not. But affair partners who KNOW that they are involved with a married person are not blameless in the situation. They weren't helpless to the married person's charms.

 

[MusiqChic99]

Well, I do agree that they are doing a bad thing. I just don't think you can give away any responsibility of the cheater, even 5%, by saying that if the other person had only said "no," it would never have happened.

I agree with this to.

You would have to guarantee that every person is a "decent human being" and will say no. That would be the ONLY way that some people would not cheat.

If someone is looking to cheat, they will. I wouldn't give that much control to the other person. Although I know several close friends who have. And they stayed with their husbands but really do hate that "*****".

 

[Mkrop]

Well, I do agree that they are doing a bad thing. I just don't think you can give away any responsibility of the cheater, even 5%, by saying that if the other person had only said "no," it would never have happened.

That is all it takes is for them to say NO, at least with them. It doesnt stop the spouse from moving on the potential #2, but potential #1 certainly holds the power for the affair from happening, unless like I stated they are mislead to thinking the person is single.

 

[UConnJack]

So you're saying it's the responsibility of the "other woman" or "other man" to keep the potential cheater in line. I understand your position, but I disagree. It takes two to tango, and unless someone is holding a gun to your head, all it takes to maintain YOUR vow is the word "no." No one else, IMHO, is responsible for your failure to use that word.

(generic "you," not RadioNate. )

Again, its not about putting less blame on the cheater, its about giving equal blame and criticism on the person knowingly cheating with them. And I agree that as the wife or husband being cheated on, that person's wrath should be predominately on the cheater as they are the one who specifically betrayed them. If my wife cheated on me, I might take a swing at the other guy if I ever ran across him, but 95% of my anger would be against my wife. But as an impartial third party in a situation not involving me or my loved ones, I would equally have no respect for both.

 

[MusiqChic99]

Well if they did say no, it wouldn't have happened. Sure maybe the cheater would have looked elsewhere but most cheating isn't one-night-stands and prostitutes. They are emotional connections that turn into full blown affairs after some time. If the object of affection isn't available, maybe the cheater would get their head on straight before a new crush comes along.

It is fool proof? No, of course not. But affair partners who KNOW that they are involved with a married person are not blameless in the situation. They weren't helpless to the married person's charms.

I dont think they are blameless either but I dont think they deserve all the credit for destruction.

 

[Mkrop]

Well if they did say no, it wouldn't have happened. Sure maybe the cheater would have looked elsewhere but most cheating isn't one-night-stands and prostitutes. They are emotional connections that turn into full blown affairs after some time. If the object of affection isn't available, maybe the cheater would get their head on straight before a new crush comes along.

It is fool proof? No, of course not. But affair partners who KNOW that they are involved with a married person are not blameless in the situation. They weren't helpless to the married person's charms. :rolleyes:

You said it nicer than me, I was going to say they dont have to allow Tab A to get inserted into Slot B

 

[tlbwriter]

Well if they did say no, it wouldn't have happened. Sure maybe the cheater would have looked elsewhere but most cheating isn't one-night-stands and prostitutes. They are emotional connections that turn into full blown affairs after some time. If the object of affection isn't available, maybe the cheater would get their head on straight before a new crush comes along.

It is fool proof? No, of course not. But affair partners who KNOW that they are involved with a married person are not blameless in the situation. They weren't helpless to the married person's charms.

To me, that's like saying "Well, if you hadn't left your camera on the park bench, I wouldn't have taken it." Yes, that's true. But you could have left the camera where it was. The fact that the opportunity is there doesn't absolve you of your duty to say no. Agree to disagree.

 

[RadioNate]

I agree with this to.

You would have to guarantee that every person is a "decent human being" and will say no. That would be the ONLY way that some people would not cheat.

If someone is looking to cheat, they will. I wouldn't give that much control to the other person. Although I know several close friends who have. And they stayed with their husbands but really do hate that "*****".

But that is the thing with affairs. Most people aren't "looking to cheat." Sure some are but in the majority of affairs they start out as some kind of friendship with attraction before it becomes an affair. There is LOADS of research out there. I could go on and on about how this happens in a marriage but really most cheaters aren't narcissists and sex addicts just looking for hook ups. It isn't like these guys (or ladies) set out with the mentality of "today, I think I'll find someone to cheat on my spouse with." It doesn't happen that way. Not usually. It's bad boundaries, flirting, inappropriate friendships...all situations where the affair partner does have the power to say "wait, no, this isn't right, you are married."

 

[NaLisa]

I'm not defending a person who knowingly gets into a romantic/sexual relationship with a married person. That's immoral in my book. But as the cheated-on spouse, I would reserve the bulk of my anger for the person I married, who made a vow to be faithful to me and who broke that vow.

I also think it's weird that the term "homewrecker" is used for the other woman/man, when the cheating spouse deserves more of the blame for wrecking the family, IMHO.

At any rate, both Arnold and the housekeeper obviously broke their wedding vows. I wonder if the housekeeper and her husband have any other children; yet more victims of this infidelity.

 

[RadioNate]

To me, that's like saying "Well, if you hadn't left your camera on the park bench, I wouldn't have taken it." Yes, that's true. But you could have left the camera where it was. The fact that the opportunity is there doesn't absolve you of your duty to say no. Agree to disagree.

Are you saying the same thing? The affair partner could have absolutely left the camera alone. Just because the spouse left it laying there didn't mean it HAD to be stolen. Like in your camera analogy, no one had to steal the camera...they could have left it be. The affair partner didn't have to get involved with the married person...they could have said "not interested."

 

[tlbwriter]

I also think it's weird that the term "homewrecker" is used for the other woman/man, when the cheating spouse deserves more of the blame for wrecking the family, IMHO.

Yes, that's what I have an issue with. We had a friend whose parents' marriage broke up because her father cheated. This happened when she was an adult. She and her siblings were always referring to "that homewrecking @#$%" or "that @#$% who broke up my parents' marriage," and I really wanted to say "You know, your father was the person who broke up their marriage. She didn't hit him in the head with a club and drag him away kicking and screaming. If anyone deserves to be called a homewrecking @#$%, it's your father."

 

[NaLisa]

But that is the thing with affairs. Most people aren't "looking to cheat." Sure some are but in the majority of affairs they start out as some kind of friendship with attraction before it becomes an affair. There is LOADS of research out there. I could go on and on about how this happens in a marriage but really most cheaters aren't narcissists and sex addicts just looking for hook ups. It isn't like these guys (or ladies) set out with the mentality of "today, I think I'll find someone to cheat on my spouse with." It doesn't happen that way. Not usually. It's bad boundaries, flirting, inappropriate friendships...all situations where the affair partner does have the power to say "wait, no, this isn't right, you are married."

I don't disagree with this, but I think Arnold falls in the minority. Sounds like he's been on the prowl for years. Same with Tiger, Clinton and other big names who got caught. They WERE looking to cheat.

 

[tlbwriter]

Are you saying the same thing? The affair partner could have absolutely left the camera alone. Just because the spouse left it laying there didn't mean it HAD to be stolen. Like in your camera analogy, no one had to steal the camera...they could have left it be. The affair partner didn't have to get involved with the married person...they could have said "not interested."

No. I'm simply saying that you can't say the affair partner is to blame for the married person's decision to cheat. "Because it was there" is a reason to climb mountains, not a reason to break your vows.