How old is she and how old are you?

>>2606

She's 32. I'm 20. She invited me to party at her house and I honestly have no fucking clue how to present myself. She asked me to play some live music and I agreed.
She likes to smoke the reefer and would probably ask to smoke with me. And from the way she's acted in the past it makes her pretty loose.

She's married. Don't be a homewrecking little fuck.

>>2611

Somebody else breaks an agreement = you're totally awful. Makes sense.

>>2612
Having an affair is a shitty thing to do. Even if you aren't cheating on someone yourself, to abet an affair is still indirectly hurting someone in a really shitty way.

>>2614

This. The person cheating with is just as culpable as the person cheating. Be a stronger person and do the right thing.

>>2615

No, they're really not. If the other knows both of the people in that relationship well enough to understand what kind of consequences there would be, that's one thing, because then you're actually betraying the trust of a friend.

If you don't know the uninvolved party though, or much about the status of the couple's relationship, it's the responsibility the cheating person to tell you whether there's anything important you should know, and if they don't, the worst thing you can be accused of is nailing somebody with low moral standards. I mean, you're jumping to the conclusion that you're a homewrecker. You don't know that. The home could already be good and wrecked, which is often why people cheat. It could be that there's a good reason the cheater isn't satisfied with the sex at home, but still enjoys the relationship in general. It could even be that the couple has an arrangement in which this sort of thing is okay.

The answers that are completely nice and sweet are unlikely, but one of these things has to be true, and if the cheater doesn't think it's the other's business, it isn't.

>>2616
Of course it's possible that these people have an open relationship or that they're estranged or whatever. If you actually have an interest in not causing harm, though, the best thing to do would be to make sure- not to act under the assumption that no one will mind.

I agree that the cheater should be open and honest. But you're arguing that the responsibility for your behaviour rests entirely upon him/her, and not at all on yourself. You're dismissing all personal responsibility for your own actions and the consequences they have. If you don't ask these questions, that means you don't give a fuck about hurting people if you don't know them personally.

In fact, you're very clear about that last point. Right here:
>it's the responsibility the cheating person to tell you whether there's anything important you should know, and if they don't, the worst thing you can be accused of is nailing somebody with low moral standards.
You are more concerned with deflecting culpability than with the possibility of severely fucking up someone's home life.

>>2618

No, my entire point is that there's nothing to deflect. If somebody isn't giving you information, the consequences of the decision are squarely their fault. Should you ask for that information instead of waiting for it to be volunteered? That depends on whether you think screwing people you don't know that well is a moral issue. That's really the only question being asked at that point.

You said:
>Should you ask for that information instead of waiting for it to be volunteered? That depends on whether you think screwing people you don't know that well is a moral issue.

I said:
>you don't give a fuck about hurting people if you don't know them personally.

So... we agree on one thing, at least.

>>2621

You're a real expert at greentexting words into my mouth, but I was talking about screwing people you don't know, i.e. having sex with the person who is cheating for reasons they haven't explained to you.

They're the one making the decision to hurt their partner. You're simply making the decision to have sex. You don't have more information than that. If you need more to feel comfortable having sex with somebody, go right ahead an ask for it. If they're really so awful, it's not like it'll stop them from lying to you, too.

>>2625

>It takes two to tango.

No. That expression very nicely frames exactly why I don't think there is any meaningful culpability in being the person somebody cheats with. It's a holdover from a bygone era when marriage was a much more serious thing, to the point where it was actually against actively enforced laws to have extramarital sex. When this phrase meant anything, the ring alone meant there was no excuse, ever, no matter what's going on with that relationship.

We as a society have generally discarded that rigidity, because we know how incredibly damaging it can be, to both mental health and civil rights. Marriage doesn't mean the same thing anymore, and that's a good thing.

I've already explained this, but I don't mind underlining it; when I said the question was how you felt about "screwing somebody you don't know that well," I meant screwing sex-wise. Of course, screwing over somebody you don't know is bad, and you should feel bad about it, but you don't know whether any such harm is actually being done, and if there is, you are not the one doing it.

If an affair has destructive results, I would argue that Player 3 is a victim of the situation nearly as much as the person who was cheated on. They have fallen prey to a lie of omission, drawn into a relationship based on that falsehood, and had their reputation (and, depending on how the cheated-on reacts, their person) put at risk, all because the cheater could not bring their issues honestly and openly to somebody they were willing to get into bed with.

In any other failure of communication like that, we'd definitely say it's the quiet person's fault. I see no reason this should be any different.

You're going to work on heroin.

Nail this slutty trashheap woman, forget your ideas about morals - hell, you're on motherfucking heroin - soon you won't have any morals left, they are too expensive when you have to sell everything you own, and then everything other people own, to feed your habit.
I hope you get off it fast or die fast. Motherfucking burglars (you'll be one soon) should be vaporised (and maybe inhaled for the buzz).

Yeah, I am condemning you for being a junkie fuckup, but it's also genuine (if spite-ridden) pragmatic advice. If morals are your only obstacle here, well, you may as well do what you want because the morals will shortly be a distant memory.

For what it's worth (nothing!) I will add my voice to the school of thought who say it's a feral dickass move to make a play for someone who is in a relationship.
Yeah, it might not be a great relationship and so you might get it wet, but you're still a predator. It's up to her to leave if unhappy, and if you're applying pressure or temptation then you're a bastard as well, despite the fact that the most moral culpability rests with her.

I do realise I deserve a ban for this. Sage used because although you're soon to be a worthless bag of shrivelled-veined dicks, I'm a bag of standard dicks for making this post, but you can't stop your shitty behaviour and neither can I.

>>2666

After a certain fairly early point, I'd say there were vanishingly few people in Nazi Germany who could honestly say they were unaware of how awful their government was. People tolerate incredibly foul governments because they don't want to die, and believe they have very little chance of doing anything other than dying if they resist. I don't see you plotting assassinations or attacks on American infrastructure. You know you'd die if you did that, and so you sit around telling yourself that voting is good enough, just like everyone else suffering through our country's horseshit.

I'm not passing judgement, either. Revolution is hard to do. A bit harder than fucking someone's wife, and not at all in the same moral context. That's all I'm saying.

>>2624
>>2619

But OP knows what he is getting into, so part of the responsibility is shared. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean you don't contribute to a larger problem.