“The mistress doesn’t owe the wife anything”

I hear it time and time again. People who defend the rights of the mistress to sleep with whomever she pleases, that it is her right to foster a relationship with anyone she wants, and then say “the mistress doesn’t owe the wife anything…it’s the husband who is breaking the vows so he is the one at fault. The mistress has no contract with the wife”.

I suppose in a twisted way, I could see this point, but for the sake of discussion, let’s say for a moment that Susan is married to Tom. Susan discovers that Tom has been having an affair with Susan’s best friend Lisa. Does Susan have a right to be angry at Lisa for sleeping with her husband? Can Susan hold Lisa partially at fault? If yes, why? If no, why not? Does Lisa owe her friend Susan anything, or does she have a right to sleep with her husband if she wants to?

I guess the way I see it, If I’d been asked 5 years ago, does Lisa owe Susan anything, my response would have been “yes, Lisa owes Susan a big apology”. All things aside, does The fact that Lisa is a friend to Susan mean that on some level she owes her more than a stranger should? Does her friendship status require her to be more compassionate, more honest, more trustworthy? Does it require that she be less sneaky, less deceptive, less deceitful? Why?

Why should Lisa being a friend to Susan make a difference when the same act was committed? Why do our jaws drop when we learn it was a friend, or a sibling, or a neighbor, but not a complete stranger? Is it because the degree of proximity that a person has to the betrayed spouse dictates that a higher level of compassion and care be exercised, or that they be more worthy of trust?

My answer would have been that yes, because Lisa is a friend to Susan, a certain level of compassion should exist that should inhibit Lisa from desecrating Susan’s boundaries of her friend and hurting someone who trusts her. Because she is her friend, she should care about not causing her harm, not destroying her family, and wanting instead to protect what rightfully belongs to her friend. No?

So then it gets me thinking: why should friendship or proximity to others be the only reason we do the right thing, the only reason we show compassion to another, the only reason we respect someone else’s marriage and strive to protect it, the only reason we give a shit about someone else feelings, their lives, their families? Aren’t we ALL called to act compassionately to others, to avoid harm, and to be humane? Why does being someone’s friend change the landscape?

I fully believe that any woman who knowingly involves herself with a married man is desecrating the sacred marital ground of another. That doesn’t absolve the married man, – don’t get me wrong – they are both doing something abhorrent that violates another, and he is the one violating vows, but if a woman knows that a man is married, is it too much to expect that she will show respect to the bonds of matrimony that you have entered into, and not contribute to a man violating his wife, their vows, and their lives? After all, when we walk through a museum, and see the sign that says “please do not touch the artwork”, do we touch anyway, even though we were asked to respect the work and not contribute to its degradation by touching it, simply because our needs come first, and we’re selfish assholes? Are we entitled to do as we please just cause we want to?

So I pose the question…what does the mistress owe the wife when she knows that a man is married?