Why is there such a lack of understanding towards BSs?

[eeyore1981]

I understood what you meant. I think it's that BS's who stay with the WS tend to assume that the OW didn't mean very much to the WS, which may not be true in all cases. Much like how OW assume the W doesn't mean very much to the MM, also not true across the board.

 

 

BBM

 

I don't know if that's true. I don't see that reading this board, and it wasn't true in my case. The biggest fights we had over the A was my H swearing he had no feelings for her, when I knew that was a lie. From what I can piece together, (using my H as a resource as little as possible, because obviously he can't be trusted ) I think my H was not in love with her, but was at least infatuated. From what I could tell, I think it took him about 1 to 2 months to get over it.

 

I also don't think those feelings were actually 'real', and let me try to explain what I mean. Yes, I believe he had the feelings, and I believe they were very real to him at the time he was having them. I just think, because of the circumstances of MY situation, he would have had those same exact feelings towards any woman he was able to start a relationship with, regardless of who she was, what she was like, etc. They were not specific to that woman, she was just the one who was there. For him, it seems it was more about him having the feelings than who he was having them for.

[silktricks]

Sure it's an assumption. I was just trying to explain why OW may tend to think this way. And also it's not always about what is ACTUALLY easier-- what tends to matter most is what the MM PERCEIVES as easier. And most MM perceive the hard way as the easy way. (Consider that it's "easier" and less complicated to leave a M and then go date, or even to got to MC and fix the marriage problems, yet MM consistently choose to muck things up royal by lying and snaeking and having an A instead. They perceive that as easier, even though it almost never is when it all hits the fan.)

.

 

Let me restate what I'm "hearing" then. The OW's assumption the MM is "settling" when he chooses to stay in the marriage is based on the idea that divorce is more difficult than reconciliation.

 

We both agree that in actuality it is not, but now it's that the MM percieves that it is. You say that the very fact that he chose to have an affair in the first place proves that assumption.

 

Ergo, the fact he had an affair therefore proves he is settling if he chooses to return to his wife.

 

I call that circular logic.

[2sure]

That logic , to me, sounds equivalent to the idea

*If he was happily married , he wouldnt have an affair*

But that is easily countered with

*If he loved you, he would move heaven & earth to be with you*

 

They are both clichés, are both just nonsense.

[Brokenlady]

Let me restate what I'm "hearing" then. The OW's assumption the MM is "settling" when he chooses to stay in the marriage is based on the idea that divorce is more difficult than reconciliation.

 

Right. If the "easy" factor is the only reason he stays, wouldn't you call that settling?

 

We both agree that in actuality it is not, but now it's that the MM percieves that it is. You say that the very fact that he chose to have an affair in the first place proves that assumption.

 

Not quite, but the fact of having an affir certainly illustrates this kind of thinking - that it's "easier" to stay.

 

Ergo, the fact he had an affair therefore proves he is settling if he chooses to return to his wife.

 

Not at all. Each MM has his own reasons for choosing to stay. I wholeheartedly believe that the fact that staying is "easier" / less painful in their mind is one of the big reasons. But not neccessarily the ONLY reason. I'd like to think that MM who stay with the BS do so out of love and genuine commitment to the marriage.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Brokenlady

[Brokenlady]

BBM

 

I don't know if that's true. I don't see that reading this board, and it wasn't true in my case. The biggest fights we had over the A was my H swearing he had no feelings for her, when I knew that was a lie. From what I can piece together, (using my H as a resource as little as possible, because obviously he can't be trusted ) I think my H was not in love with her, but was at least infatuated. From what I could tell, I think it took him about 1 to 2 months to get over it.

 

I also don't think those feelings were actually 'real', and let me try to explain what I mean. Yes, I believe he had the feelings, and I believe they were very real to him at the time he was having them. I just think, because of the circumstances of MY situation, he would have had those same exact feelings towards any woman he was able to start a relationship with, regardless of who she was, what she was like, etc. They were not specific to that woman, she was just the one who was there. For him, it seems it was more about him having the feelings than who he was having them for.

 

This is exactly what I mean. This may well be true in your case, but it isn't realistic for every MM. There are some that were never in a "fog" and really truly loved their OW despite staying with their W's. (I tend to believe this is more often the case with MM who are dumped by the OW rather than an OW dumoed by MM at D-day).

 

Point is there is no one-size fit all. Some MM used the OW's for sex, some really loved. Some MM really love their W, and some just stay for unromantic reasons. Everyone is different and I guess I am just a little disturbed by the defensive idea that every last MM on earth only stays with his W because of great real love and never really loved an OW. But, whatever helps people cope I guess.

[Spark1111]

I find it very interesting that we all speak to what a MM may percieve to be easier; reconciling or divorcing.

 

But we actually do not know because they aren't too many of them on this board trying to convince us of their motives one way or another.

 

Unfortunately, all we know is what the MM has told us, and that, IMO, must remain sorely suspect for both the BS and the OW. On that, we must agree.

 

My WS actually did move in with her for a few weeks post DDay, when I did not care at the time what he did, I just knew I did not want him. I was in total self-preservation for myself and my children, thinking of how to move into MY future without him.

 

She told him they would get through it. He said the two weeks he lived with her proved disasterous for him. It could no longer be romanticized the way the affair had been. He sat there realizing it was not where he was supposed to be.

 

Look, once the illicit nature was gone, and it was no longer as forbidden, it was no longer as exciting to him. Like a child who could finally have what he was told he couldn't, the balloon went psssst, the thrill was gone.

 

One of his first responses? "Please don't tell anyone." I told the world because I did not believe I wanted him at all.

 

My heart broke for her too. And if she wants to believe he returned or settled because he had too, well, she doesn't know ME very well, only what she ASSUMED of me based on his overly negative spin on the marriage at the time of the affair.

 

Settled? OMG! I have put him through hell for his lying and to also convince myself I will never be anyone's default choice. The changes he had to make, the person he had to become to win back my heart, the struggles he had to endure to regain the respect of his family, the loss of friends who found our mess to uncomfortable, his self-view tarnished.....I could go on and on.

 

Divorce would have been so much easier for him, no matter what his assumptions were at the time.

[Spark1111]

Point is there is no one-size fit all. Some MM used the OW's for sex, some really loved. Some MM really love their W, and some just stay for unromantic reasons. Everyone is different and I guess I am just a little disturbed by the defensive idea that every last MM on earth only stays with his W because of great real love and never really loved an OW. But, whatever helps people cope I guess.

 

I agree. And I believe it also points to more similiarities between us than the polarizing point of views often expressed on these boards between BSs and OW/OM.

[anne1707]

Right. If the "easy" factor is the only reason he stays, wouldn't you call that settling?

 

.......

 

I wholeheartedly believe that the fact that staying is "easier" / less painful in their mind is one of the big reasons. But not neccessarily the ONLY reason. I'd like to think that MM who stay with the BS do so out of love and genuine commitment to the marriage.

 

 

As a former WS, I can assure you that staying in the marriage was not an "easy" option. It has been an extremely painful journey for both my H and I as we recover from the affair and work on our marriage.

 

And yes, I stayed because I love my H and want our marriage.

[silktricks]

A lot of MM are also acting under the presumption that their affair will not be discovered. So because of that it is perceived to be easier to stay in the marriage. Staying does not necessarily include working out the problems of the marriage.

Of course we weren't discussing either of these options. We were talking about why ow

Assume (and usually state here at LS) that the mm is "settling" when/if he "returns" to his wife.

 

"Returns" in this connotation implies terminating the affair and working on the marriage. The rest of this is just dust being thrown to obfuscate.

[OWoman]

Settled? OMG! I have put him through hell for his lying and to also convince myself I will never be anyone's default choice. The changes he had to make, the person he had to become to win back my heart, the struggles he had to endure to regain the respect of his family, the loss of friends who found our mess to uncomfortable, his self-view tarnished.....I could go on and on.

 

Spark this sounds a LOT like what OWs put their MMs through when they "win" them! Because the MM had treated another woman badly, the OW / GF / new W wants to make sure that he's not harbouring any plans to do that to her, so she really puts him through the mill to prove he's worthy of the faith she's shown (thus far...) in him! He really needs to earn her faith - and he needs to work really hard to show his friends, family, colleagues etc that he made a sound choice and isn't just looking for a soft place to land having jumped out of the tumult of the M! Choosing the OW certainly isn't an "easy" choice either - they might THINK that leaving is the hard part, but the reality of arriving (at the OW) is far, far harder!

 

Poor guys - damned if they do, damned if they don't...

[silktricks]

You're too fast!

 

I wanted to

Add, though, I agree that if the mm isn't working on the marriage and doesn't terminate the affair, he has made the "easy" choice.

[OWoman]

"Returns" in this connotation implies terminating the affair and working on the marriage. The rest of this is just dust being thrown to obfuscate.

 

I think it's this second part that is at issue here. Some / many BWs assume that "return" implies what you've stated - that the MM stops the A and actively works on the M. Which is clearly NOT an easy option.

 

However, some / many OWs do not read "return" in that way at all - they mean the physical bodily return of the MM to the marital home. Such MM don't necessarily stop the A (many don't - they merely lie low for a while before resuming it) and similarly they don't necessarily actively work on the M - again, these MM may give a semblance of cooperation so that they don't get pitched out on their ear, but their heart is not in it and they're buying time before they can resume the A (or start a new one with someone else).

 

Clearly those two scenarios are not the same - the second one might well be an easy option for a conflict-avoiding MM, but the first one wouldn't be easy unless the OW in that case really did mean nothing to the MM and the MM was easily able to prove that to his W and to reconnect with her... and even then, "easy" only on a relative scale comparing it to what he might otherwise have to go through...

[OWoman]

You're too fast!

 

I wanted to

Add, though, I agree that if the mm isn't working on the marriage and doesn't terminate the affair, he has made the "easy" choice.

 

ha - snap!

 

That's pretty much what I was trying to say...

[silktricks]

I think it's this second part that is at issue here. Some / many BWs assume that "return" implies what you've stated - that the MM stops the A and actively works on the M. Which is clearly NOT an easy option.

 

However, some / many OWs do not read "return" in that way at all - they mean the physical bodily return of the MM to the marital home. Such MM don't necessarily stop the A (many don't - they merely lie low for a while before resuming it) and similarly they don't necessarily actively work on the M - again, these MM may give a semblance of cooperation so that they don't get pitched out on their ear, but their heart is not in it and they're buying time before they can resume the A (or start a new one with someone else).

 

Clearly those two scenarios are not the same - the second one might well be an easy option for a conflict-avoiding MM, but the first one wouldn't be easy unless the OW in that case really did mean nothing to the MM and the MM was easily able to prove that to his W and to reconnect with her... and even then, "easy" only on a relative scale comparing it to what he might otherwise have to go through...

Sooooo... Many (most here on LS at least) OW for whatever reason, assume the MM in any given case have only physically returned to the marriage and is staying for appearances only. Therefore it is quite alright for them to consistently refer to the return of the MM to the marriage as "settling" - even though this is patently not always the case.

 

My point is that OW do NOT want BS to refer to the affair (or the OW) as "less than", but are completely comfortable and go to great lengths to refer to both the marriage and th BS in exactly that fashion. To say my husband "settled" when he chose to remain married to me is demeaning to me, our marriage, him, and the amount of work we put in to recover. I'm certainly not the only one who has this feeling of being insulted by this phrase.

 

It is a double standard and refers directly back to the original concept of this thread.

 

The thing is, most OW can very clearly see when they are being denigrated or treated poorly by BS ( another thread about "why won't BS forgive the OW" shows this quite clearlt IMO ), but it is next to impossible for often THOSE SAME POSTERS to see when they are doing the exact same thing to BS.

Edited January 14, 2010 by silktricks

[Snowflower]

My point is that OW do NOT want BS to refer to the affair (or the OW) as "less than", but are completely comfortable and go to great lengths to refer to both the marriage and th BS in exactly that fashion. To say my husband "settled" when he chose to remain married to me is demeaning to me, our marriage, him, and the amount of work we put in to recover. I'm certainly not the only one who has this feeling of being insulted by this phrase.

 

It is a double standard and refers directly back to the original concept of this thread.

 

Well written, sk. And I think the original premise of this thread has been proven to be true--any MM/MW who stays in their marriage after an A is being perceived as 'settling.'

 

I also find it insulting because it was SO NOT THE CASE for my marriage.

 

Finally, divorces are not difficult to obtain for either the WS or the BS. IF the A has caused the complete demise of the marriage then a divorce is a logical choice. Divorces are common, whether there was an affair or not, so there is little/no stigma attached to a divorce in this day and age. So that argument that the WS stays because a divorce is too difficult, societal expectations, etc. just doesn't fly. And plenty of children are being raised successfully through divorced co-parenting so 'staying for the kids' is, in most cases, just a cop-out phrase used by WS. Or a convenient excuse used by others.

 

If the MP wants a divorce they can and will get one. No 'settling' needed.

[Snowflower]

 

The thing is, most OW can very clearly see when they are being denigrated or treated poorly by BS ( another thread about "why won't BS forgive the OW" shows this quite clearlt IMO ), but it is next to impossible for often THOSE SAME POSTERS to see when they are doing the exact same thing to BS.

 

It is a sad double-standard. I guess it follows the IRL attitudes of some posters about the BS, in general.

[OWoman]

Sooooo... Many (most here on LS at least) OW for whatever reason, assume the MM in any given case have only physically returned to the marriage and is staying for appearances only. Therefore it is quite alright for them to consistently refer to the return of the MM to the marriage as "settling" - even though this is patently not always the case.

 

My point is that OW do NOT want BS to refer to the affair (or the OW) as "less than", but are completely comfortable and go to great lengths to refer to both the marriage and th BS in exactly that fashion. To say my husband "settled" when he chose to remain married to me is demeaning to me, our marriage, him, and the amount of work we put in to recover. I'm certainly not the only one who has this feeling of being insulted by this phrase.

 

It is a double standard and refers directly back to the original concept of this thread.

 

The thing is, most OW can very clearly see when they are being denigrated or treated poorly by BS ( another thread about "why won't BS forgive the OW" shows this quite clearlt IMO ), but it is next to impossible for often THOSE SAME POSTERS to see when they are doing the exact same thing to BS.

 

I can't speak for any OW but myself, but I can certainly see that expecting different standards of each side is inequitable. However, ST - while YOUR case may well be (and I have no reason to doubt this) a case of a truly recovered M (and there are other examples here on LS - but I'm using you as an example since you raised yourself as one) those OWs have no reason to believe that THEIR MM's situation is the same as yours. Particularly in cases where they have evidence (eg the MM continues to contact them) that he's not committing completely to the M, it fits with their reading that he's "settling" by going back, rather than going back out of love, because he wants to work on the M.

 

And none of us have any more info than they have about their particular situation, so we have to take at face value what they present (assuming it's presented in god faith, not full of contradictions or an obvious troll post). Just as a BW whose errant H returns and vows to commit to the M deserves the benefit of the doubt - unless evidence presents to the contrary (and often these doubts arise first in the BW's mind, wondering if he is fully committed, or isn't still seeing the OW behind her back...).

 

I think the danger comes in when EITHER SIDE universalises from their own, particular case and asserts that ALL cases are necessarily like their own, simply because that is the limit of their own experience (and, perhaps, their own imagination). Not all posters are like that, clearly - and offenders can be found on both "sides" - but it's when assertions like that are made that camps quickly form and tensions run high.

 

I can understand you - or any other poster - feeling insulted and getting frustrated when other posters make claims (especially derogatory ones) about your R. You're in it, you know it best, and other people's potshots often fall way off the mark but have an impact because they're designed to sting. But then, those kinds of posts say more about the poster than about their target. Unless your H is hitting on them behind your back, the only things they know about your M are what you tell them. Projecting one's own prejudice onto a situation doesn't make one an expert, or right - whether one is a BS or AP.

 

But, we live in this world, not an ideal world, so we have to deal with what there is, and not what we'd like there to be...

[silktricks]

I can't speak for any OW but myself, but I can certainly see that expecting different standards of each side is inequitable. However, ST - while YOUR case may well be (and I have no reason to doubt this) a case of a truly recovered M (and there are other examples here on LS - but I'm using you as an example since you raised yourself as one) those OWs have no reason to believe that THEIR MM's situation is the same as yours.

.

Of course this is true. However, they also have no reason to believe MY HUSBAND has any similarity to their MM. But they do and if (heaven forbid) I should get upset about it and react to them negatively, then I (not they) am "bitter" or "unfair" or treating them badly.

And none of us have any more info than they have about their particular situation, so we have to take at face value what they present .

 

I think the danger comes in when EITHER SIDE universalises from their own, particular case and asserts that ALL cases are necessarily like their own, simply because that is the limit of their own experience (and, perhaps, their own imagination). Not all posters are like that, clearly - and offenders can be found on both "sides" - but it's when assertions like that are made that camps quickly form and tensions run high.

I completely agree. There are "offenders" on both sides. However, IMO the BS is being held to a much higher standard of being "fair" or considerate than is the OW. Anf since this thread is about BS not OW, that is what I am talking about - how BS are misunderstood and mistreated generally speaking.

 

I can understand you - or any other poster - feeling insulted and getting frustrated when other posters make claims (especially derogatory ones) about your R. You're in it, you know it best, and other people's potshots often fall way off the mark but have an impact because they're designed to sting. But then, those kinds of posts say more about the poster than about their target. Unless your H is hitting on them behind your back, the only things they know about your M are what you tell them. Projecting one's own prejudice onto a situation doesn't make one an expert, or right - whether one is a BS or AP.

 

But, we live in this world, not an ideal world, so we have to deal with what there is, and not what we'd like there to be...

 

True, but if we don't continue to discuss situations as they are, and point out those inequities that exist, then there isn't much use in any posting at all.

[Snowflower]

I think the danger comes in when EITHER SIDE universalises from their own, particular case and asserts that ALL cases are necessarily like their own, simply because that is the limit of their own experience (and, perhaps, their own imagination). Not all posters are like that, clearly - and offenders can be found on both "sides" - but it's when assertions like that are made that camps quickly form and tensions run high.

 

I can understand you - or any other poster - feeling insulted and getting frustrated when other posters make claims (especially derogatory ones) about your R. You're in it, you know it best, and other people's potshots often fall way off the mark but have an impact because they're designed to sting. But then, those kinds of posts say more about the poster than about their target. Unless your H is hitting on them behind your back, the only things they know about your M are what you tell them. Projecting one's own prejudice onto a situation doesn't make one an expert, or right - whether one is a BS or AP.

 

But, we live in this world, not an ideal world, so we have to deal with what there is, and not what we'd like there to be...

 

Nice post, OW and even though it was directed to Silk, I appreciate it too.

 

My own experience with my H's infidelity was a bit unusual in some aspects and like you mention, we are all 'influenced' by our own perspectives and experiences--especially with one as painful as infidelity. I know I tend to be very 'optimistic' in many cases about repentant WS truly recommitting to their marriages-because that was MY experience. I know it rubs some wrong here sometimes.

 

But, it does sting to be told as a BS that your WS isn't truly committed to your marriage, is 'settling' by staying in the marriage, or worst of all, is probably still cheating behind your (the BS) back. Trust me, I've heard it all by posting here. I heard it from other BS (the ones that are commonly called 'bitter'-I'm usually inclined to agree). And I've heard from the AP side as well.

 

And while we are all anonymous posters here, it does sting to be told that my H is probably still cheating on me or that he is not sincere as I have been told here before when I have described my own experience--I agree that statements like this say more about the poster saying it than the target, thank you for mentioning that OW. I agree.

 

And I realize that posters who make these barbed statements are projecting as all of us do here. But, if I were to project my own situation-that MP always return to the marriage because they love their spouse and want to recommit...it would be perceived by many in a very different way...and an opportunity to bash the BS/marriage.

 

Not sure if I explained myself well...but I still feel there is a double-standard.

[OWoman]

.

Of course this is true. However, they also have no reason to believe MY HUSBAND has any similarity to their MM. But they do and if (heaven forbid) I should get upset about it and react to them negatively, then I (not they) am "bitter" or "unfair" or treating them badly.

 

Silk - "there are none so blind as those who WILL not see". You can point out differences between your situation and theirs until you are blue in the face - if they're so deeply invested in believing that "ALL MMs are xyz / do xyz / say xyz" then frankly they're not able to hear someone else saying, "ah, but take this guy over here - see, he's different in this or that way". There's too much at stake for them. Their world view relies on them seeing things a particular way - at least, until they're ready to see things another way, or until something horrible blows up for them and forces them to see things another way. We've all encountered "brick wall" posters here - it simply isn't worth the effort to engage them. Once you've stated your position - which you have, enough for anyone to be able to find if they're interested enough - you're not obliged to restate and restate and restate it simply because someone else is unable to understand, or even hear it. Move on, and invest your effort where there's some chance of pay-off. There are enough other posters on here who can manage a reasonable conversation without having to descend to the lowest common denominator.

 

You know your H. You know your M. Their views on that mean diddlysquat in the bigger scheme of things.

[OWoman]

My own experience with my H's infidelity was a bit unusual in some aspects and like you mention, we are all 'influenced' by our own perspectives and experiences--especially with one as painful as infidelity. I know I tend to be very 'optimistic' in many cases about repentant WS truly recommitting to their marriages-because that was MY experience. I know it rubs some wrong here sometimes.

 

OK perhaps I need another proviso here - it also depends on how it's done. Suggesting to someone who's struggling to understand why she got tossed under a bus when her H returned to a "toxic" M that, perhaps, the M wasn't as toxic as he made out, and that he perhaps did love the W... is very different from stating - as some of the harsher posters here do - that why should she expect different, after all she was just some meaningless bit of tail to the MM to spice up his life on the side. Clearly, the first version is a lot more palatable than the second - even though the gist of the message may be the same. So I wasn't claiming that, necessarily, posting influenced by one's own experience was somehow flawed. (But rather - if one's own experience so blinds one to other possibilities IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE, then such advice is not helpful to the OP but comes across as "bashing" of some kind or another.)

 

Sorry - not at my most coherent tonight...

[Brokenlady]

Sooooo... Many (most here on LS at least) OW for whatever reason, assume the MM in any given case have only physically returned to the marriage and is staying for appearances only. Therefore it is quite alright for them to consistently refer to the return of the MM to the marriage as "settling" - even though this is patently not always the case.

 

 

But for many of the OW's on LS, that is exactly the case. The MM says he wants to "work on" his marriage, yet continues the affair after D-day, with or without a short period of "laying low". The problem is that the experience of the vast majority of OW's here is polar opposite to that of the BS's - where the H's do actually end the affair and work on the marriage. The OW's have good reason to feel that MM may be snowballing their W's and the BS's have good reason to believe that the OW's are deluding themselves into thinking they matter to the MM. It's two very different perspectives. I think the debates would look different if you had OW's and BS's from the side of the same types of affairs.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Brokenlady

[NoIDidn't]

But for many of the OW's on LS, that is exactly the case. The MM says he wants to "work on" his marriage, yet continues the affair after D-day, with or without a short period of "laying low". The problem is that the experience of the vast majority of OW's here is polar opposite to that of the BS's - where the H's do actually end the affair and work on the marriage. The OW's have good reason to feel that MM may be snowballing their W's and the BS's have good reason to believe that the OW's are deluding themselves into thinking they matter to the MM. It's two very different perspectives. I think the debates would look different if you had OW's and BS's from the side of the same types of affairs.

 

I don't think we are reading the same posts. If you read through the BSs posts here, you will find that many of them still had to confront a spouse that was breaking NC for a period, for whatever reasons. They may have kicked the spouse out or left themselves knowing that the A was still going on to some extent.

 

Trust me, most BSs here have dealt with spouses that did, in fact, continue to speak to the OP for a time before finally re-committing back to the marriage totally.

 

I had two d-days myself. And I've posted this many times since I've been here. And I knew he was lying to me. Most BSs know they are still being lied to after the initial d-day. Most often the affair does continue under the radar.

 

The BSs here have dealt with that. That's why we *preach* complete NC. Its got nothing to do with not having experienced what you mention here.

 

I understand how the OW sees that as "settling", but wonder why they don't see it as what it is: LYING. Most get thrown under the bus again and again and again by a person they believe to be settling because they are still lying to the BW. How many times does a person have to be thrown under the bus before they stop saying the MP is settling for something they keep getting hurt over?

[jennie-jennie]

I do believe I have a better understanding of how it is to be a BS than many OW, since I have been in two longterm relationships with serial cheaters. I often go back to these experiences in my mind when reading on LS, drawing from my experience of being the BS.

 

I know what it is to be with a serial cheater, but I do not know what it is to be with a partner who goes beyond the initial excitement and establishes a longterm extramarital relationship.

 

So in the case of my exSO (the most recent one), did he settle when he came back to me or not? I believe the bond he has had to me was stronger than any bond he had to any of the OW, that is why our relationship outlasted the others. I remember especially one time (I thought he was gone forever) when he expressed such a sincere wish for us to continue our relationship. We got two more kids after that.

 

But yet, today, I would say that in a sense he did settle. He could do no better than me, that is true. In many ways I was a better woman than he deserved given he had so many personal problems. Still, in many ways we are incompatible. In many ways I was not the kind of woman he needed. I could not give him the support he needed because our view of the world differs too much.

 

He wants me back. He realizes even more now what he had and did not value enough. He was here for Christmas and we had a wonderful time together. He says he understands now that a woman needs more than he gave me.

 

Yet, the bottom line is we are not very compatible. So in that sense we both settled, although at the time we were each other's best choice. I truly loved him, all those years, and in a way, I still do.

[NoIDidn't]

I do believe I have a better understanding of how it is to be a BS than many OW, since I have been in two longterm relationships with serial cheaters. I often go back to these experiences in my mind when reading on LS, drawing from my experience of being the BS.

 

I know what it is to be with a serial cheater, but I do not know what it is to be with a partner who goes beyond the initial excitement and establishes a longterm extramarital relationship.

 

So in the case of my exSO (the most recent one), did he settle when he came back to me or not? I believe the bond he has had to me was stronger than any bond he had to any of the OW, that is why our relationship outlasted the others. I remember especially one time (I thought he was gone forever) when he expressed such a sincere wish for us to continue our relationship. We got two more kids after that.

 

But yet, today, I would say that in a sense he did settle. He could do no better than me, that is true. In many ways I was a better woman than he deserved given he had so many personal problems. Still, in many ways we are incompatible. In many ways I was not the kind of woman he needed. I could not give him the support he needed because our view of the world differs too much.

 

He wants me back. He realizes even more now what he had and did not value enough. He was here for Christmas and we had a wonderful time together. He says he understands now that a woman needs more than he gave me.

 

He didn't settle if he couldn't do better than you, as you say. A person that goes for the better option is hardly settling for it.

 

You settled. You let him come back knowing that you could do and get better than him, knowing that he wasn't giving you what you truly wanted.

 

I'm confused, you say you've been a BS but I recall you saying you've never been married. Just trying to get my facts straight.