MM flip-floppers

[Brokenlady]

Most of the time, the MP isn't interested in finding out what they really want, as they already have it. As long as there is an A, they don't have to make a choice. And once the OP starts demanding that they make one, most MPs assume that means that the OP wants them to choose the OP and not the marriage. It is under this assumption that most will do just about anything TO placate the OP under the guise of making a decision.

 

Moving out and away from their family, placates the OP and gives them a false sense of security. It rarely ever works out in the favor of the OP. I've seen this happen most of the time, on LS, other sites, and IRL.

 

This is all true, but that doesn't mean the original goal of choosing what he wants more isn't met. If a MM goes back to the W, he's decides he wants her more. If he doesn't, then he wants the OW more. But we could argue that he isn't going to be happy either way because what he really wants - both - isn't on the table at that point.

 

There is a perception that the W has an "unfair" advantage when the MM remains with her when he is supposedly trying to sort out what he wants. And I can testify to the tug of war between the OW and the BW that occurs when the MM moves out. Ideally, the OW AND the W would leave the MM to make decisions without manipulative influence, but it just isn't realistic to expect this - it's never going to happen in a situation like this that is so fraught with insecurity.

 

It does rarely work out for the OP - but that's the case no matter what she does. Likewise it rarely works out for the BW no matter what she does either. Although the majority of MM choose to stay or return to their W's, most of them will end up divorced anyway. No one wins here.

[Brokenlady]

IAnd help the OW who suggests this knowing that there are minor children involved.

 

What do you mean by this? My xDM had children and I absolutely advocated he move out if he wanted to be with me. I NEVER wanted nor expressed any expectation that I wanted him to abandon his kids. I cannot imagine many OW doing that either.

[OWoman]

Sure, the flip-flopping will end, because the affair ends, because a choice has been made FOR the MM without him having to make one.

 

THAT PARTICULAR A might end... but if the MM has not made a choice, and does not understand what led him to engage in an A in the first place, the risk remains that he will engage in another... or wait for the dust to settle, and resume that one.

[OWoman]

Most of the time' date=' the MP isn't interested in finding out what they really want, as they already have it.[/quote']

 

I think this very much depends on what type of A it is - why the MM is engaged in it. Certainly for some, like my H, they did NOT have what they wanted "because there was an A". They find the situation of an A stressful, they yearn for the simplicity and congruence of NOT having to shuttle between two lives, NOT having to lead a fake existence at home to try to keep the peace, NOT having to suppress who they really are for at least some of the time. That kind of inauthenticity comes at great cost, and is really hard to sustain. Sure, things might be different for the "cake-eater", or the serial MM, but I can't say I've known too many of those to know how enough about how they operate. Most of the MMs I've known IRL were deeply confused and tormented during the A, seeking the simplicity and integrity that a decision would allow them to reclaim - and finding out what they really wanted to was critical to that.

 

Moving out and away from their family' date=' placates the OP and gives them a false sense of security. It rarely ever works out in the favor of the OP. I've seen this happen most of the time, on LS, other sites, and IRL.[/quote']

 

I can attest that the 6 months my H spent alone - after leaving the M, before I moved in with him - was very very hard for him. He did not consider returning to the M - leaving that was, he said, like ceasing to beat your head against a wall - but he did find it very difficult working through his issues, dealing with the death of a parent, making sure his kids were OK, and the constant antics of the BW, without someone there to support him. It would certainly have been EASIER for him if I had been there - but I don't think it would really have been BETTER. I think my presence there may have complicated matters, drawn his attention away from what he needed to do, and risked my interfering in things he needed to do himself (e.g., I would have put the s2bxW on her place and not stood for her nonsense - but HE needed to do that, to stand up to her, and not have me conveniently do it for him).

 

I don't think that the "time alone" needs to work in the W's or the OW's favour - I think so long as it works in the MM's favour it's been useful. Trouble is, it's often "time alone" rather than "time away from the W" - and few MM's want to D their kids, it's their W's they're considering D'ing... so the continued association of W and kids complicates that, instead of allowing the MM to forge bonds with the kids AWAY from the W, as a single parent, to experience how life would be as a father, but not necessarily as a H. Which would be a more accurate reflection of the future they'd be facing than time spent as a hermit, isolated and lonely.

[NoIDidn't]

What do you mean by this? My xDM had children and I absolutely advocated he move out if he wanted to be with me. I NEVER wanted nor expressed any expectation that I wanted him to abandon his kids. I cannot imagine many OW doing that either.

 

(That filter again...)

 

Nothing in that statement mentioned abandoning his kids. It simply said "help the OW" in the case of him having minor children.

 

What I meant by it? If he has minor children he will continue to have a R with their mother, and will likely see her still even if he moves out to a "neutral" location.

 

Most OWs don't take this very well. He ends up going to the marital home alot and they don't like that. He has the kids over at his place and she can't come since BW doesn't want her around the kids, and the OW doesn't like that.

 

Most OWs seem to think that the BW goes away if the M goes away, but not so when there are minor children involved.

 

I really don't know how you jumped to the subject of child abandonment, though. <scratches head>

[Brokenlady]

What I meant by it? If he has minor children he will continue to have a R with their mother' date=' and will likely see her still even if he moves out to a "neutral" location. Most OWs don't take this very well. [/quote']

 

I can only speak for myself, but I was prepared to deal with the fact that he still had to have a relationship with his xW. That was totally fine. Being divorced with kids myself, I get it. The problem was he and I had different ideas in mind of what that relationship between him and her should look like. I believed it should have firm boundaries - be a warm coparenting relationship, and xDM wanted to still act like pseudo-H to her.

 

He ends up going to the marital home alot and they don't like that. He has the kids over at his place and she can't come since BW doesn't want her around the kids, and the OW doesn't like that.

 

It happens this way, but it doesn't have to. (Boundaries for Goodness sakes!) When I Divorced, my xH didn't hang around my house, nor did I hang around his place (also a former residence of ours). Whether or not xW wanted me around the kids or not was irrelevant. I don't get to pick my xH's gf's or who he brings around them, it's something xDM's xW will have to accept as well. It was a decision about what his kids were and were not emotionally ready for - his xW's feelings were not part of that equation.

 

 

Most OWs seem to think that the BW goes away if the M goes away, but not so when there are minor children involved.

 

On what basis do you have this idea? For the OW here involved with MM who have kids, I haven't seen much to support the idea that they think the relationship between the parents can or should be severed.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Brokenlady

[OWoman]

Most OWs seem to think that the BW goes away if the M goes away' date=' but not so when there are minor children involved.[/quote']

 

If they are S, then, yes, the M does go away. Parenting remains - and co-parenting, if the BS is someone with whom that is still possible. But the M no longer exists in the way it used to - and, pending a D, may soon no longer exist at all.

[NoIDidn't]

I can only speak for myself, but I was prepared to deal with the fact that he still had to have a relationship with his xW. That was totally fine. Being divorced with kids myself, I get it. The problem was he and I had different ideas in mind of what that relationship between him and her should look like. I believed it should have firm boundaries - be a warm coparenting relationship, and xDM wanted to still act like pseudo-H to her.

 

 

 

It happens this way, but it doesn't have to. (Boundaries for Goodness sakes!) When I Divorced, my xH didn't hang around my house, nor did I hang around his place (also a former residence of ours). Whether or not xW wanted me around the kids or not was irrelevant. I don't get to pick my xH's gf's or who he brings around them, it's something xDM's xW will have to accept as well. It was a decision about what his kids were and were not emotionally ready for - his xW's feelings were not part of that equation.

 

 

 

 

On what basis do you have this idea? For the OW here involved with MM who have kids, I haven't seen much to support the idea that they think the relationship between the parents can or should be severed.

 

I was speaking "generally", so I am not going to address the situation specific answer you gave concerning your xMM or xH.

 

The idea that the OW seems to think the BW can be managed when it comes to the parental relationship is clearly on here all the time. Because I am coming from a different angle, of course, I am seeing it differently than you might. The talk of not telling the kids about the

affair is trying to manage her children AND her at the same time. The talk about the MM visiting the marital home to see the kids should he decide to, borders on the OW feeling that he isn't welcome in the home where his children live. Sure, its never said that the parental relationship should be severed, but the impression that many get when reading is that it is more than just a minor irritant or thing to accept in that one transitioned from an A to a more open R with the MM.

 

I never said "all", I said "most". And I stand by what I said, as I have seen it too many times to think it wasn't a common outcome.

[NoIDidn't]

If they are S, then, yes, the M does go away. Parenting remains - and co-parenting, if the BS is someone with whom that is still possible. But the M no longer exists in the way it used to - and, pending a D, may soon no longer exist at all.

 

Read the statement again, OWoman. I said they think the "BW" goes away with the M, not that the M didn't go away.

[OWoman]

Read the statement again' date=' OWoman. I said they think the "BW" goes away with the M, not that the M didn't go away.[/quote']

 

sorry. Dyslexia from too much typing....

[Brokenlady]

The talk about the MM visiting the marital home to see the kids should he decide to' date=' borders on the OW feeling that he isn't welcome in the home where his children live. [/quote']

 

I am not "welcome" in my xH's home, nor he in mine. Obviously we can hang out in the living room while waiting for the kids as needed without any weirdness, but we do not hang out in each other's homes. That's the point of divorce - you lead seperate lives. If people are not willing to accept the reality of divorce - that you have seperate lives and spaces, why bother divorcing?

 

 

Sure, its never said that the parental relationship should be severed, but the impression that many get when reading is that it is more than just a minor irritant or thing to accept in that one transitioned from an A to a more open R with the MM.

 

I disagree. But maybe you've seen different things than I have. I don't think the parental relationship with the child is ever really the problem, it's how the divorced relationship between the parents can remain dysfunctional and blurry.

[MizFit]

The talk about the MM visiting the marital home to see the kids should he decide to, borders on the OW feeling that he isn't welcome in the home where his children live.

The children live there...he's a guest.

[NoIDidn't]

I am not "welcome" in my xH's home, nor he in mine. Obviously we can hang out in the living room while waiting for the kids as needed without any weirdness, but we do not hang out in each other's homes. That's the point of divorce - you lead seperate lives. If people are not willing to accept the reality of divorce - that you have seperate lives and spaces, why bother divorcing?

 

This is where you would run into major problems with a MM that wants to visit his kids in their home for extended periods. You seem to expect him to do what you did as if it were the only correct way to do things. Some people do things the way you did, but not all. Living separate lives in no way is impacted just because a person felt comfortable for a few minutes in your home.

 

 

 

I disagree. But maybe you've seen different things than I have. I don't think the parental relationship with the child is ever really the problem, it's how the divorced relationship between the parents can remain dysfunctional and blurry.

 

This is precisely why I said what I said. Most OW can't handle that "blurry" period. Not all divorces and co-parenting situations are handled as if by a talented surgeon with a scapel, excising the parts of the previous relationship that are no longer needed. This is why the MM usually flip flops.

 

Can you imagine having demands put on you by a woman you aren't married to because of your remaining relationship with your potential exW, her family (which was once yours), etc., etc.? From what I have read and seen IRL, these guys run home because the W generally isn't putting as much pressure on them to be so different from what they are. The W just wants them to stop cheating on her and recommit to the marriage. The OW? Well, she wants him to divorce, show his commitment to her by doing what she tells him to in regards to how she views his life prior to her, see his kids on a schedule acceptable to her, include her in things that she might not ever be included in because of the situation (he may be close to his former in-laws still), tell him how to parent his kids or tell his exW how she will be involved in the kids' lives whether she likes it or not (I've had a friend go through this, it was ridiculous!), posit herself into the divorce and tell him how she feels about his divorce settlement, you name it.

 

I have actually seen these things, not just read about them. And of course, some of the men do go running back home (for many reasons). Its like the OW thought the W treated the MM like property, so him leaving the M and being with her, now makes him her property. You might not feel that way, but this is what I have seen. Its enlightening, to say the least.

 

If I were a man in this situation, and my M wasn't that, I'd consider going back too. This is what you meant about the upgrading and downgrading the options taken or not taken, right? I can't say I would blame them, if this kind of behavior is what they have to look forward to.

 

(Again, this is JMO, not statistically or even completely claimed to be factual)

[Brokenlady]

This is where you would run into major problems with a MM that wants to visit his kids in their home for extended periods. You seem to expect him to do what you did as if it were the only correct way to do things. Some people do things the way you did' date=' but not all. Living separate lives in no way is impacted just because a person felt comfortable for a few minutes in your home. [/quote']

 

1) "My way" causes a whole lot less problems. It doesn't send mixed messages to anyone involved.

2) We're not talking about a few minutes here or there in an ex-house - we're talking about some MM being a constant presence and acting like they still live there (MM eatcing stuff from the fridge, answering the house phone, etc).

3) The MM should be busy making a 2nd home for his kids. I can see visiting with them at his former home until he's set up, but after that I can't see it. His new home IS their home too.

 

This is precisely why I said what I said. Most OW can't handle that "blurry" period. Not all divorces and co-parenting situations are handled as if by a talented surgeon with a scapel, excising the parts of the previous relationship that are no longer needed. This is why the MM usually flip flops.

 

True, and that is why so many BW's and OW's alike feel so much pain at the mixed signals they get.

 

Can you imagine having demands put on you by a woman you aren't married to because of your remaining relationship with your potential exW, her family (which was once yours), etc., etc.?

 

In my case, we got engaged after he was divorced, so there was an expectation of loyalty going both ways. I did what most women do - explain to their SO what makes them uncomfortable and what is hurftul. I see nothing wrong with that. I did not try to control him, or access to anyone. I just said I was uncomfortable with the amount of time and attachment he apparently had to the M. Frankly, I wasn't the only one. HIs family and this therapist, as well as our couple's therapist also pointed this out as creating a serious problem.

 

From what I have read and seen IRL, these guys run home because the W generally isn't putting as much pressure on them to be so different from what they are.

 

I never wanted him to change his personality. I wanted him to be loyal (which was obviously in doubt because he cheated) and I thought he was capable of that. Maybe I was wrong. His XW wanted him to have a complete makeover. She didn't seem to care much for him, let alone respect him when she was with him, and mostly I think her interest in getting him back was for money and for ego (to "win"). Again, I say these things having spent hours on the phone with her. Since he moved out all she did was scream at him about what an awful terrible person he was. She induced guilt in someone who was terribly prone to it anyway.

 

The W just wants them to stop cheating on her and recommit to the marriage. The OW? Well, she wants him to divorce, show his commitment to her by doing what she tells him to in regards to how she views his life prior to her, see his kids on a schedule acceptable to her, include her in things that she might not ever be included in because of the situation (he may be close to his former in-laws still), tell him how to parent his kids or tell his exW how she will be involved in the kids' lives whether she likes it or not (I've had a friend go through this, it was ridiculous!), posit herself into the divorce and tell him how she feels about his divorce settlement, you name it.

 

Wow, that's completely an unfair generalization. It sounds like you have specific people in mind. The W wants him to not only stop cheating and recommit, she wants access to all his stuff so she can verify all this, she wants him to spend the rest of his life making it up to her, and to constantly reassure her so she never has to worry about it happening again. She wants him to go to MC, to be even better as an H than before.

 

The OW? She just wants to be part of his life. She wants the kind of relationship any woman wants - an exclusive one, and one where they can share their lives with each other. It sounds as if you think this is an ureasonable request!

 

This is what you meant about the upgrading and downgrading the options taken or not taken, right? I can't say I would blame them, if this kind of behavior is what they have to look forward to.

 

The upgrading/downgrading thing could go either way -if the MM leaves the BW, then starts to put a halo on the OW's head and dislike the W even more, It justifies the choice to both cheat and leave in the 1st place - or if he goes back to the W and starts to put the halo on his W's head while demonizing the OW, it justifies the decision to return. In men who've made a real decision, this is pretty typical. It has everything to do with rationalizing behavior and nothing to do with objective reality.

[OWoman]

The talk about the MM visiting the marital home to see the kids should he decide to' date=' borders on the OW feeling that he isn't welcome [b']in the home where his children live. [/b]

 

Perhaps this is a uniquely American thing. In all Ds I've seen both in my home country and in the UK, custody after a D is shared, so "the home where his children live" is both HIS home and the xW's home. And, while there may be very brief stop-overs to collect or drop off, in no case that I've ever heard of, post-D (whether there was an A or not) has there ever been extended visitation by either x in their x partner's home. If they've needed to get together to discuss the kids, it's been in some neutral venue by mutual agreement. ESPECIALLY in the early days, when feelings are most volatile and most likely to explode in anger before the passage of time brings greater emotional distance and equivocation.

[OWoman]

I never wanted him to change his personality. I wanted him to be loyal (which was obviously in doubt because he cheated) and I thought he was capable of that. Maybe I was wrong. His XW wanted him to have a complete makeover. She didn't seem to care much for him, let alone respect him when she was with him, and mostly I think her interest in getting him back was for money and for ego (to "win"). Again, I say these things having spent hours on the phone with her. Since he moved out all she did was scream at him about what an awful terrible person he was. She induced guilt in someone who was terribly prone to it anyway.

 

Wow, that's completely an unfair generalization. It sounds like you have specific people in mind. The W wants him to not only stop cheating and recommit, she wants access to all his stuff so she can verify all this, she wants him to spend the rest of his life making it up to her, and to constantly reassure her so she never has to worry about it happening again. She wants him to go to MC, to be even better as an H than before.

 

The OW? She just wants to be part of his life. She wants the kind of relationship any woman wants - an exclusive one, and one where they can share their lives with each other. It sounds as if you think this is an ureasonable request!

 

This is consistent with what I've experienced, and observed elsewhere, too. The xW wants him to be different - either the man she fell in love with decades ago, and not the man he matured into; or else some DIY project she'd been trying to make him into since the wedding. The OW, OTOH, got to see the other side of him, the side he felt was suppressed and distorted in the M, his "true self" that he was finally free to live out with her. She wants him to be only himself, his "true self", his best self - the self he claims to want to be too.

 

Perhaps there are cases which are different, but I've not personally seen any.

[Samantha0905]

 

So I wondered about the flip-floppers - the ones who made a decision to leave the M and then after some interval return to the W (or fail to cut ties with the W). Finally it hit me (duh!)- they never really made a definitive decision to begin with, they just gave the appearance of such.

 

I separated and moved into an apartment before I started seeing my OM. I felt I had made it pretty clear to him that I was unsure as to whether I wanted to stay married, etc. I was very confused -- still am for that matter. He seemed to think I had told him I was certain I was getting a divorce. I'm sure I did not say that to him. I imagine many BS's do lie their heads off to their AP. I also think sometimes people hear what they want to hear.

 

I don't think "trial togetherness" with an OW works any better than "trial seperation" in a marriage, they both seem to cause the relationships to invariably fail, which I suspect is the point. Trial anything is bascially a lack of full investment one way or the other. The trouble is that OW's often aren't given the heads up that it's just a trial, let alone a trial-togetherness that's concurrent with a trial seperation from the marriage.

 

I agree - there shouldn't be trial anything going on when one is separated. I think it's just too confusing a time and the issues from the marriage need to be resolved completely before a real committed relationship can begin with someone else.

 

In hindsight, this is painfully obvious to me. It seems it should be obvious someone cannot have a committed relationship with a person who is married to someone else. A married person cannot have a committed relationship via an affair. It's so simple, yet ignored during the throes of passion.

 

So basically what I take from all of this is that all xDM's talk about how he "sacrificed" so much for me, that he left "for" me, that he "chose" me, is bull. The proof is in the pudding that he never really chose at all. In a way, that makes me feel more worthless than ever because at least I could hold onto the idea that he chose to be with me. Ugh. Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

I know it's difficult, but I wouldn't turn it all back onto yourself like that. I think he simply wasn't whole at the time and couldn't make a grounded decision. He shouldn't have been having an affair. I know I never felt like I could give myself completely to my AP because I was still married. I often wondered why he was interested in someone who was married. I still love and miss him, but it seems to be an impossible situation to me right now. I'm getting counseling for it, but I have no hopes that I will ever be with my XAP. I'm sure he's moving on with his life and I know it's going to take me a while to get my head on straight. I have no idea if the end of the road means the end of my marriage or not. It's a confusing time.

 

Sometimes I want to contact my XAP because of the huge fear of him being with someone else, but I don't, because he should have a relationship with someone who is available. It's going to be a while before I'm available -- if I do become available. It drives me crazy, but I know my situation is unstable right now and there's no hurrying fixing it.

 

I imagine in an affair relationship the OM/OW often feels their married AP is not doing enough for them. As a WS, I often felt frustrated because I was trying to maintain the affair relationship and it honestly felt like a lot of work fraught with peril and anxiety -- and deservedly so. I was trying to decide whether I wanted a marriage or a relationship with my OM while maintaining a relationship with both. It's hardly a nice thing to do. I wasn't even being nice to myself and in the end -- I still don't feel intimacy in my marriage and I don't have the relationship with my AP any longer. I can't see that the affair did anything but cause more pain.

[NoIDidn't]

1) "My way" causes a whole lot less problems. It doesn't send mixed messages to anyone involved.

2) We're not talking about a few minutes here or there in an ex-house - we're talking about some MM being a constant presence and acting like they still live there (MM eatcing stuff from the fridge, answering the house phone, etc).

3) The MM should be busy making a 2nd home for his kids. I can see visiting with them at his former home until he's set up, but after that I can't see it. His new home IS their home too.

 

I agree with "your way" (lol), its just that we can't count on another person having the same ideas as we do about this. But, I guess, as a former BW, I would have allowed him full access to the kids in the home we once shared. Now, if I left that home, that's a different matter.

 

True, and that is why so many BW's and OW's alike feel so much pain at the mixed signals they get.

 

Agreed. And the MM is generally oblivious to the pain he's causing because of the mixed signals. All the trying to be a good/nice guy in this only leads to confusion and anger.

 

 

 

In my case, we got engaged after he was divorced, so there was an expectation of loyalty going both ways. I did what most women do - explain to their SO what makes them uncomfortable and what is hurftul. I see nothing wrong with that. I did not try to control him, or access to anyone. I just said I was uncomfortable with the amount of time and attachment he apparently had to the M. Frankly, I wasn't the only one. HIs family and this therapist, as well as our couple's therapist also pointed this out as creating a serious problem.

 

I can't disagree with anything you've said here. But here is the problem. The fact that you once accepted just what you are now laying down the law about not accepting. You once accepted the A and all that came with it. I truly believe that the MM has to adjust to the expectation of fidelity in some cases. Some never can see that the OW never intended to share them with their BW forever.

 

 

I never wanted him to change his personality. I wanted him to be loyal (which was obviously in doubt because he cheated) and I thought he was capable of that. Maybe I was wrong. His XW wanted him to have a complete makeover. She didn't seem to care much for him, let alone respect him when she was with him, and mostly I think her interest in getting him back was for money and for ego (to "win"). Again, I say these things having spent hours on the phone with her. Since he moved out all she did was scream at him about what an awful terrible person he was. She induced guilt in someone who was terribly prone to it anyway.

 

This is funny. You are so right that it isn't always the OW that wants the man to change. And in these cases, there usually is a D.

 

Wow, that's completely an unfair generalization. It sounds like you have specific people in mind. The W wants him to not only stop cheating and recommit, she wants access to all his stuff so she can verify all this, she wants him to spend the rest of his life making it up to her, and to constantly reassure her so she never has to worry about it happening again. She wants him to go to MC, to be even better as an H than before.

 

You are right. It IS an unfair generalization, but its the one I know and have lived. Both women want him to be a better man, but one seemed to demand that he turn his back on all that he knew before. It IS unfair to the OW to want normalcy and want him to be loyal according to her needs. But A aren't set up that way, and in them the OW teaches the MM how to treat her. Everytime she holds her tongue when she should have stood up for herself, she sets a standard that she knows she doesn't want, but he gets used to having.

 

And as for all that the W wants, that's true. I include all that generally under "stop cheating, and recommit". LOL. For simplicity.

 

The OW? She just wants to be part of his life. She wants the kind of relationship any woman wants - an exclusive one, and one where they can share their lives with each other. It sounds as if you think this is an ureasonable request!

 

Again, I don't think its unreasonable. Its what any woman would want. But we are talking about a MM here. A man who got used to being catered to by the OW, accommodated, and the like. He is going to push back again these demands. Then starts the flip-flopping. He may very well want to get out of his M. That's not the issue. There is a reason that so few actually get into a R with the OW they cheated with. It seems to me that they can't get around the paramaters they put on the AR, and want something/someone not "tainted" by those unfair expectations/limitations in there thinking.

 

 

 

The upgrading/downgrading thing could go either way -if the MM leaves the BW, then starts to put a halo on the OW's head and dislike the W even more, It justifies the choice to both cheat and leave in the 1st place - or if he goes back to the W and starts to put the halo on his W's head while demonizing the OW, it justifies the decision to return. In men who've made a real decision, this is pretty typical. It has everything to do with rationalizing behavior and nothing to do with objective reality.

 

Yep. I agree. I know LOTS of MM that have diefied (is that a word, lol) the W. I have been worshipped by my H for staying, but he has never said a bad or ill mannered word about his former OW. I have, out of frustration (never to her, we only spoke once), but not to him. We don't have to demonize or elevate anyone to heal from affairs. That we do just speaks to base human reactions. We are a defensive lot.

 

This has been a really good conversation. Thanks!

[White Flower]

 

 

 

I can't disagree with anything you've said here. But here is the problem. The fact that you once accepted just what you are now laying down the law about not accepting. You once accepted the A and all that came with it. I truly believe that the MM has to adjust to the expectation of fidelity in some cases. Some never can see that the OW never intended to share them with their BW forever.

Yet all Rs change and evolve. We are allowed to renegotiate our R any time we want. Mine has been renegotiated many times over until I was happy in it.

 

 

 

 

 

You are right. It IS an unfair generalization, but its the one I know and have lived. Both women want him to be a better man, but one seemed to demand that he turn his back on all that he knew before. It IS unfair to the OW to want normalcy and want him to be loyal according to her needs. But A aren't set up that way, and in them the OW teaches the MM how to treat her. Everytime she holds her tongue when she should have stood up for herself, she sets a standard that she knows she doesn't want, but he gets used to having.

And that is why she needs to renegotiated her stance and his place in her life. She can get what she wants AS THE OW and as the fiancée or wife in the future.

 

 

 

Again, I don't think its unreasonable. Its what any woman would want. But we are talking about a MM here. A man who got used to being catered to by the OW, accommodated, and the like. He is going to push back again these demands. Then starts the flip-flopping. He may very well want to get out of his M. That's not the issue. There is a reason that so few actually get into a R with the OW they cheated with. It seems to me that they can't get around the paramaters they put on the AR, and want something/someone not "tainted" by those unfair expectations/limitations in there thinking.

The very same could be said about the MM and his W. My exH got used to being catered to by me, his W, and it wasn't good for me in the M.

 

Just because her role is/was OW in the beginning (or even now for some of us) does not mean that we 'get what we deserve'. If he promised it would be a good R for us going in, it better damn well remain a good R all the way through it.

[Brokenlady]

I agree with "your way" (lol), its just that we can't count on another person having the same ideas as we do about this.

 

What good is being right if other's won't bend to our will?

 

But, I guess, as a former BW, I would have allowed him full access to the kids in the home we once shared. Now, if I left that home, that's a different matter.

 

I get this. When my xH moved out, I offered to leave the house so he could visit with the kids here. He never took me up on it. There were a few times in the initial weeks he came over and stayed until the kids were both in bed before leaving. (He never slept over here after he moved out, nor did I offer for him to). This kind of thing stopped entirely after a couple months. I understand the idea of a transition period, but to be still sleeping over, spending hours on end in your old house, both with and without your xW there after over a year? Something's wrong with that.

 

Agreed. And the MM is generally oblivious to the pain he's causing because of the mixed signals. All the trying to be a good/nice guy in this only leads to confusion and anger.

 

My xDM doesn't get off that easy. I discussed with him repeatedly the effect his mixed signals were having on everyone. And I know his xW discussed it with him too at least once. He knew- but it didn't jive with his sense of what "should" be the case, and his mental construct won over reality. That was life according to xDM.....

[Brokenlady]

I can't disagree with anything you've said here. But here is the problem. The fact that you once accepted just what you are now laying down the law about not accepting. You once accepted the A and all that came with it. I truly believe that the MM has to adjust to the expectation of fidelity in some cases. Some never can see that the OW never intended to share them with their BW forever.

 

If so, that they must have a very immature worldview. People grow and change. Consider MM who get involved with MW. When the MW is with her husband, he doesn't mind sharing her. But if she gets divorced? Heaven help her if she wants to date. Then the MM gets all jealous. Then he wants exclusivity - for her. He can't have it such that he's allowed to change the rules, but she can't.

 

 

You are right. It IS an unfair generalization, but its the one I know and have lived. Both women want him to be a better man, but one seemed to demand that he turn his back on all that he knew before. It IS unfair to the OW to want normalcy and want him to be loyal according to her needs. But A aren't set up that way, and in them the OW teaches the MM how to treat her. Everytime she holds her tongue when she should have stood up for herself, she sets a standard that she knows she doesn't want, but he gets used to having.

 

The guy both woman are looking at is a liar, a cheater, and indecisive. No wonder they want him to change. I think they should expect him to change his behavior.

 

Again, I don't think its unreasonable. Its what any woman would want. But we are talking about a MM here. A man who got used to being catered to by the OW, accommodated, and the like. He is going to push back again these demands. Then starts the flip-flopping. He may very well want to get out of his M. That's not the issue. There is a reason that so few actually get into a R with the OW they cheated with. It seems to me that they can't get around the paramaters they put on the AR, and want something/someone not "tainted" by those unfair expectations/limitations in there thinking.

 

Well, then that's the mark of a man who cannot adapt and change as a relationship changes, which is probably why he ended up cheating in the 1st place. It all leads back to him. But yes, OW set ourselves up to fail in these situations.

 

In my case, I think that even if I had been able to get past all the crap from how our relationship started, I simply cannot get past the lies and betrayal AFTER he left his xW. Doing it when he was with her was one thing - unfortunate but not surprising. After he was with me though - no - that was just betrayal. And I can't forget it even if i can forgive. I would have wanted to have all his passwords and been always in doubt of what he was telling me. And that, in a way, make me as invasive and neurotic as his xW, a role I didn't want to fill. I don't want to love like that, always in fear.

[NoIDidn't]

First you say:

 

The guy both woman are looking at is a liar, a cheater, and indecisive. No wonder they want him to change. I think they should expect him to change his behavior.

 

 

Then you say:

Well, then that's the mark of a man who cannot adapt and change as a relationship changes, which is probably why he ended up cheating in the 1st place. It all leads back to him. But yes, OW set ourselves up to fail in these situations.

 

And THEN you say:

 

In my case, I think that even if I had been able to get past all the crap from how our relationship started, I simply cannot get past the lies and betrayal AFTER he left his xW. Doing it when he was with her was one thing - unfortunate but not surprising. After he was with me though - no - that was just betrayal. And I can't forget it even if i can forgive. I would have wanted to have all his passwords and been always in doubt of what he was telling me. And that, in a way, make me as invasive and neurotic as his xW, a role I didn't want to fill. I don't want to love like that, always in fear.

 

The progression in this post was so interesting. In one sense, you acknowledge how he likely made it okay for him to cheat while married. But in another, you seem to make it seem like you were even more betrayed than his W was. And you weren't. No matter how you might spin it. He was married to her. If he could do it in a marriage, he can definitely do it to anyone else that comes after. But especially to the person who was okay with him cheating on his W.

 

What he did to his W was "just betrayal" too. What he did to you was not some special kind of betrayal. If you see it as such, this is probably what you should be looking into - your thoughts and expectations, not his. You took this snake into your bosom. Evaluating and re-evaluating why he did what he did to you, ignores your own active participation in it.

 

It IS unfair. It is a Catch-22. To me, the minute a MM starts stepping out of his marriage, even in his mind, he's setting himself up to start the flip-flopping. And like I said before "heaven help the OW" that steps into this confusion.

[Brokenlady]

BTW, NID I responded to the first part of that post at the bottom of page 3 of this thread.

 

The progression in this post was so interesting. In one sense, you acknowledge how he likely made it okay for him to cheat while married. But in another, you seem to make it seem like you were even more betrayed than his W was. And you weren't. No matter how you might spin it. He was married to her. If he could do it in a marriage, he can definitely do it to anyone else that comes after. But especially to the person who was okay with him cheating on his W.

 

What he did to his W was "just betrayal" too. What he did to you was not some special kind of betrayal. If you see it as such, this is probably what you should be looking into - your thoughts and expectations, not his. You took this snake into your bosom. Evaluating and re-evaluating why he did what he did to you, ignores your own active participation in it.

 

It IS unfair. It is a Catch-22. To me, the minute a MM starts stepping out of his marriage, even in his mind, he's setting himself up to start the flip-flopping. And like I said before "heaven help the OW" that steps into this confusion.

 

I'm not implying I'm not responsible for making a bad choice. I took a risk. He betrayed his W and I took a chance that he wouldn't betray me in our committed relationship. (We were supposed to get married afterall). In a way, it put me in the role of a BW who chooses to take their WS back. You KNOW you're taking a risk. Sometimes, often even, you get burned when you take a risk. I got burned. Had I the chance to do it over, I wouldn't do it again. I'd walk away and leave him to his quiet misery in his M. But I don't have that option.

 

I unfortunately got my self-worth all wrapped up in how he behaved. And he wasn't doing much to help me feel secure, which made it worse. Even he said recently: "I guess the guilt kicked in after I moved out and then I spent so much energy trying to alleviate it that you were getting trampled. I do apologize and hope you will both understand and forgive me"

 

When I really sit back and realize it was all this pain for nothing, I get really really sad. I sacrificed my better judgement, my morals, my character, my reputation for a horrificly bad decision. All that is left now is me, and I can't run from what I did like I could when i was with him. At least when with him I could say I did all that for love, and maybe I wasn't so awful. It bothers me, makes me feel broken, like I may never be right again. All that in addition to the fact that now I trust NO ONE. But in the end, I have no one else to blame for not enforcing my own boundaries than me.

[White Flower]

When I really sit back and realize it was all this pain for nothing, I get really really sad. I sacrificed my better judgement, my morals, my character, my reputation for a horrificly bad decision. All that is left now is me, and I can't run from what I did like I could when i was with him. At least when with him I could say I did all that for love, and maybe I wasn't so awful. It bothers me, makes me feel broken, like I may never be right again. All that in addition to the fact that now I trust NO ONE. But in the end, I have no one else to blame for not enforcing my own boundaries than me.

You ARE well on your way to healing, I can see it with each post. Every time you cry you heal just a little bit more. Eventually one day you realize that you don't cry anymore. This WILL happen for you.

 

Trust in yourself. We all learn from our mistakes. Yours was in trusting the wrong guy--this time.

 

((((Brokenlady))))

[wheelwright]

What he did to his W was "just betrayal" too. What he did to you was not some special kind of betrayal. If you see it as such, this is probably what you should be looking into - your thoughts and expectations, not his. You took this snake into your bosom. Evaluating and re-evaluating why he did what he did to you, ignores your own active participation in it.

 

I disagree. The betrayal involved when one MP betrays another, after there is an understanding that at least on one side the love has died in the M, is quite different from a betrayal where an intimate and acknowledged love was part of the equation.

 

One is the betrayal of commitment, of losing what you 'own', the other a love betrayal quite plain and simple. For me the latter would be harder to overcome.

 

It takes one kind of person to betray the life they have built, but another to betray their own heart. I know who I would see as more lost.

 

There is not a BS/OW theme here - it cuts both ways. Some MM/MW betray their hearts in an A. Some by staying in their M.

 

We can act badly on all these different levels - it's hard to deal with.

Edited February 21, 2010 by wheelwright
because I wanted to!!?