MsPrada Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 A man shows a woman he loves them by showing them the three P's according to Steve Harvey.. 1.Profess his love for her 2.Providing for her 3.Protecting her if its not a combination of the 3 he does NOT LOVE you.. According to this a MM cannot possibly LOVE his OW. He professes, provides, and protects his W.. What do u all think? Link to post Share on other sites
CaliforniaGirl Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I don't know. How can this apply in current society where a woman often earns a paycheck too and therefore doesn't need providing for, for example? If she doesn't need that, how does he still show it? KWIM? Link to post Share on other sites
bentnotbroken Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I man shows his love by remaining faithful(emotionally and physically)to the person he is committed to. That would also go for a woman. Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 A man shows a woman he loves them by showing them the three P's according to Steve Harvey.. 1.Profess his love for her 2.Providing for her 3.Protecting her if its not a combination of the 3 he does NOT LOVE you.. According to this a MM cannot possibly LOVE his OW. He professes, provides, and protects his W.. What do u all think? Humm.. my MMs do all that.. Link to post Share on other sites
Athena Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Humm.. my MMs do all that.. He Professes his love for you to all his friends, family, the whole world?! Hmm, I don't think so.... I assume he/they keep you a big secret, and do not openly profess to Anyone at all, that you are their Woman... THAT is how Steve Harvey means to profess his love... just saying,.... not attacking you.... Link to post Share on other sites
jj33 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The man I was involved with did all 3 to an extent - but who cares... At this point I wish he would fall off the face of the earth, lately his mere existence is irksome. A reminder of my mistake... Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 He Professes his love for you to all his friends, family, the whole world?! Hmm, I don't think so.... I assume he/they keep you a big secret, and do not openly profess to Anyone at all, that you are their Woman... THAT is how Steve Harvey means to profess his love... just saying,.... not attacking you.... And do you honestly think that a MM goes around professing his love about his W to the world.. hummm I don't think so.. especially when the majority cheat.. just saying. Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I agree with Steve when it comes to regular relationships - though people who haven't read the book might get confused with the 'profess' part. In the book, he means that if a man introduces you as anything other than 'his' ie: girlfriend, wife, etc. instead of openly professing your relationship then he is holding back on you. If anyone I was dating openly introduced me to someone as 'my friend' or 'my coworker' in an attempt to hide what we are then I'd be pretty mad. Its a little different for OW though. The otherwise attached and MM(en) I was with weren't exactly in a position to introduce me as anything but 'friend', 'coworker', 'etc regardless of how they felt about me. While the MM can protect and provide for his OW, it isn't like he can go around and profess his love for her openly. That wouldn't necessarily be a measure of his feelings, so much as a measure of his discretion. I guess it comes down to the question: does he hide you because he is ashamed of you and doesn't love you, or does he hide you because it is the best chance he has at keeping you? Different for different people - that's for sure. Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 And do you honestly think that a MM goes around professing his love about his W to the world.. hummm I don't think so.. especially when the majority cheat.. just saying. They probably don't go around saying how much they love the W, but they generally introduce her (profess to others) as "my wife". Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 They probably don't go around saying how much they love the W, but they generally introduce her (profess to others) as "my wife". Of course they will.. but that doesn't mean anything.. you know that.. Like you said previously.. the MM cannot introduce the OW for sure.. IMO.. they, in most cases, love the OW much more than their own W.. if it wasn't for the kids, home, friends, most would leave. Link to post Share on other sites
GreenEyedLady Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 A man shows a woman he loves them by showing them the three P's according to Steve Harvey.. 1.Profess his love for her 2.Providing for her 3.Protecting her if its not a combination of the 3 he does NOT LOVE you.. What do u all think? Why can't a MM do all three? As a FOW, mine did all 3. The only people who didn't know was his W and family that live far away. And other than marrying her, he didn't profess his love for her to anyone. There's a reason people divorce. It isn't always due to the OP, but to problems lacking in the marital relationship. Link to post Share on other sites
CaliforniaGirl Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 IMO.. they, in most cases, love the OW much more than their own W.. if it wasn't for the kids, home, friends, most would leave. Well now that's silly. It's likely more the opposite: if they loved the OW that much, they would leave the W. By staying they are making a choice: the W over the OW. And I think we all know that though many MM and MW may make professions of emotion in secret, when it comes down to the rubber hitting the road, what do they actually do about that most of the time? A quick read-through on this and the related forums will tell you that "love" mysteriously vanishes like a puff of air in the face of worrying the actual spouse will leave. Not to be hurtful; just saying "he secretly loves me more" sounds so juvenile and silly. "He's leaving her any day now." Um, sure. Link to post Share on other sites
RecordProducer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This is if the woman is perfect - and since no woman is perfect, men's behavior also deviates from the fairy tales. Love is a feeling, not a behavior. Our behavior does depend on our feelings, but it also depends on other people's behavior and their feelings. I disagree that a MM doesn't profess love to his mistress or wouldn't protect her if necessary. Some even support their OW or the OW don't need MM's financial support. They don't necessarily provide for their wives - they provide for their kids. They also provide themselves with protection from divorce and losing everything they're worked for. I believe that any married person knows better than any never married person how temporary love can be. I think MM who don't leave their wives, know their flaws and don't delude themselves that they would find true happiness with another woman. They have children, history, friendship with their wives, assets, and they're not willing to abandon all that just because they fell in love with another woman. This doesn't mean they don't love the OW. This just means that perhaps their kids are more important to them than their own happiness in love. They know that if they left, it'd cause pain to many people. The OW would replace his wife and sooner or later the honesymoon would be over - but they would be left with many problems to deal with. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Love is a feeling, not a behavior. Our behavior does depend on our feelings, but it also depends on other people's behavior and their feelings. Disagree. It has been said that love is a verb. As in, action. Love is a behavior because one chooses how to behave, take action. But then, it doesn't seem like the poster is real clear on what they believe because they muddle the waters with the next sentence. Our behavior should not depend on other's behavior in most cases. If it did, it would be reactionary. And people that live their lives in reaction to others' actions, are most unhappy and tend to feel out of control (helpless). <end psychobabble threadjack> Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 A man shows a woman he loves them by showing them the three P's according to Steve Harvey.. 1.Profess his love for her 2.Providing for her 3.Protecting her if its not a combination of the 3 he does NOT LOVE you.. According to this a MM cannot possibly LOVE his OW. He professes, provides, and protects his W.. What do u all think? Steve Harvey is always talking about relational stuff as if he knows what he's talking about. LOL. He is not an expert unless you are talking about the typically dysfunctional males that he represents. Yet, I happen to agree with this - but don't make the leap that the OP made by applying this logic to an affair which is usually conducted without ever being professed anyway. With regards to those protesting a man's provision for them: Just because a woman brings in her own paycheck, doesn't mean she won't appreciate that her man can and will step up financially if/when she needs him. Accepting a man's money is not the way to slavery, or make a woman *traditional*. Being his secret OW and allowing him that luxury is a far more traditional avenue. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If a man keeps a woman a secret, he neither loves or respects her. He just enjoys how she makes him feel. Now it's arguable if you can equate that to love but IMO, no. She's solely an addendum, not a person to love. Link to post Share on other sites
climbergirl Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If a man keeps a woman a secret, he neither loves or respects her. He just enjoys how she makes him feel. Now it's arguable if you can equate that to love but IMO, no. She's solely an addendum, not a person to love. So if a guy (as a first date) brings you into his work to introduce you to all his co-workers-that's gotta be a good sign, right? Or is just showing off? Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So if a guy (as a first date) brings you into his work to introduce you to all his co-workers-that's gotta be a good sign, right? Or is just showing off? Going along with the joke: it depends on WHAT he introduces her AS. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So if a guy (as a first date) brings you into his work to introduce you to all his co-workers-that's gotta be a good sign, right? Or is just showing off? If he acknowledges who you are to everyone, as an SO, then yes, it's a good sign. If he pulls the "oh, this is my friend/just your name/etc.", he's not acknowledging the relationship or any commitment on his part. Link to post Share on other sites
climbergirl Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If he acknowledges who you are to everyone, as an SO, then yes, it's a good sign. If he pulls the "oh, this is my friend/just your name/etc.", he's not acknowledging the relationship or any commitment on his part.[/quote Thank you TBF, but only thing is this---I'd be uncomfortable to be introduced as anything on a first date. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Thank you TBF, but only thing is this---I'd be uncomfortable to be introduced as anything on a first date. First date, huh? That's a little different than the OP subject matter. I still think it's a good sign. He's not hiding you, like OWs/OMs are being hidden. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 --I'd be uncomfortable to be introduced as anything on a first date. Me too. I wouldn't let him do it. Probably would be an only date, huh? Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Well now that's silly. It's likely more the opposite: if they loved the OW that much, they would leave the W. By staying they are making a choice: the W over the OW. No.. If they would have a choice they would simply replace the W with the OW and keep everything else intact.. (no doubt about that in MOST cases). Link to post Share on other sites
RinClavin Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I believe that any married person knows better than any never married person how temporary love can be. I think MM who don't leave their wives, know their flaws and don't delude themselves that they would find true happiness with another woman. They have children, history, friendship with their wives, assets, and they're not willing to abandon all that just because they fell in love with another woman. This doesn't mean they don't love the OW. This just means that perhaps their kids are more important to them than their own happiness in love. They know that if they left, it'd cause pain to many people. The OW would replace his wife and sooner or later the honesymoon would be over - but they would be left with many problems to deal with. I think this is an amazing statement (especially the highlighted portions)! Until you've faced the possibility of losing a marriage that you went into with 100% commitment I don't think you can fully appreciate the place love holds. Love is not enough to sustain itself. As a MM/MW that is unhappy in a marriage but *understands* that such difficulties are unavoidable you will be less inclined to throw away your life, kids, finances, friendships, etc for love. There's a disillusionment that occurs (that's not necessarily bad) when one realizes that love cools. Another couple of points that I think are interesting is that a) it seems to be assumed that a MM can only possibly love one of his women, b) it's also assumed that, in being married, he can't be with his OW (the statement "if he loved his OW he'd leave his W to be with her" is strange to me when you consider that he IS with her... and often she's not asking him to make that choice) and c) I find it funny that we're debating whether he loves his wife more than he loves his OW because he "professes" his love to other people. When, ultimately, if he really loved and respected his wife (because he provides, protects, and professes) he wouldn't be in an affair behind her back. Link to post Share on other sites
Owl Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No.. If they would have a choice they would simply replace the W with the OW and keep everything else intact.. (no doubt about that in MOST cases). This just shows which side of the OW/BS coin you live on. Most BS's would of course completely disagree with this statement (including me, of course). But I can see why you'd insist on believing this...it's got to make it easier for you on a day to day basis. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts