"Thrown under the bus"

[jennie-jennie]

Is the ultimate goal for the BS to accept an open marriage?

 

LOL That is what I told him: You can't expect your wife to say "carry on with the affair while you decide what to do". It is like he hasn't realized a disclosure might mean the end of it for one of us, his wife or me. He is too busy dreading the disclosure to think of what comes after.

 

No, not an open marriage of course.

[moaningmyrtle]

Actually the description is his as I don't know her. And if progress through counseling is any indication he won't be there for long.

 

Err you are the one who chose to pass these on to us as if they are true and you believe them. As far as we are concerned you are the one who called her these names.

 

Just as you are making him responsible for your own name-calling, is it possible that he does exactly the same as you? That is he calls you names to her and then somehow manages to pass on to you that she is calling you names.

 

Frankly I don't "get" the mentality of a man who tells his OW the nasty names his wife has called her, and uses nasty names to describe his wife to the OW. To me it looks like he is deliberately trying to hurt you.

[White Flower]

Sorry, a bit late to this one but I think it's a good question. The crux of the question seems to be is the MM/MW actually throwing the OW/OM under the bus when they don't explicity deny the affair on Dday.

 

Perhaps we might start by asking "what is the bus?". My own view is that the bus is LOADED with every single promise that the MP has given to the AP during the A ...

 

If the MP has promised nothing then there is no bus ...so the question is void.

 

If, on the other hand they have promised the earth - talked down their marriage, claimed to be divorcing, claimed their partner is ok with it, talked with you about getting married, promised they are leaving, discussed children etc etc etc (ad nauseum) WHILST TELLING THEIR WIFE/HUSBAND NOTHING then the bus is LOADED to the MAX

 

In this latter scenario, on DDay there is that one defining moment when the MP sees this bus bearing down on THEM loaded with the CONSEQUENCES of what they've been doing.

 

What they do AT THIS POINT, in my view is the defining part ...

 

If they STAND UP and admit to their MP the affair and stand resolute and unashamed about leaving the marriage then effectively they take the consequences - ie the "bus" hits them (and also, in a way,the BS)

 

If they don't do the above however and instead make the move back to the marriage then they are avoiding the CONSEQUENCES of their promises and in this case that loaded bus misses them and ploughs straight into the AP who has believed in the MP.

 

Whether they deny or not the A is, in my view, irrelevant .. the key thing is whether they stand up and let the bus hit them or whether they let it hit the AP instead.

 

On Dday the bus HAS to hit someone ... whether the MP deliberately throws the AP under the bus or just conveniently steps out of the way at the last second so that it ploughs into the AP is in my view irrelevant ... the AP is under that bus and the MP is not.

 

And here's the thing about that bus ... as I said if the MP was fully honest about their situation then there is NO bus to come at them .. that bus only exists if the MP lied, exagerated, made false promises etc etc.

 

So, jennie, my personal answer to the question would be that if the bus exists then it doesn't matter either way .. if the MM is not taking the hit for their actions then they are putting you in front of that bus they created.

 

Hope this makes sense/adds value

 

Chris

Nice definition.

[White Flower]

Err you are the one who chose to pass these on to us as if they are true and you believe them. As far as we are concerned you are the one who called her these names.

 

Just as you are making him responsible for your own name-calling, is it possible that he does exactly the same as you? That is he calls you names to her and then somehow manages to pass on to you that she is calling you names.

 

Frankly I don't "get" the mentality of a man who tells his OW the nasty names his wife has called her, and uses nasty names to describe his wife to the OW. To me it looks like he is deliberately trying to hurt you.

Come on now MM you are trying too hard.

 

I hardley believe 'small and ignorant' are nasty names, just adjectives used to describe the behavior I find to be that way. And he has never used a nasty name to describe her in my presence except the B word which I would not allow even if he used it jokingly.

[moaningmyrtle]

Come on now MM you are trying too hard.

 

The pot calling the kettle black.

 

I hardley believe 'small and ignorant' are nasty names, just adjectives used to describe the behavior I find to be that way. And he has never used a nasty name to describe her in my presence except the B word which I would not allow even if he used it jokingly.

 

We were talking about your MM telling you the nasty name(s) that his wife called you. Well I think it was a nasty name even if you don't.

 

You seem to consistently misinterpret what I say. I can give examples if you really want but it would definitely be t/jacking.

 

I don't think this exchange between us is very becoming or productive any more.

[OWoman]

I hope I am not threadjacking my own thread here, but is it considered a Dday if the WS decides to confess the affair to the BS? Whether or not it is still ongoing?

 

Only if the BW believes them. Else there is no discovery, no learning, nothing but denial and head-burying-in-the-sand.

[White Flower]

 

I don't think this exchange between us is very becoming or productive any more.

I'm glad you finally agree.

[torranceshipman]

what I find amusing is that an OW/OM will say they were thrown under the bus as if THEY were treated unfairly:o

 

Sure, they may have put themselves in a really stupid position, might have been selfish, etc,etc, but still, that doesn't make it fine for the MM to lie to them, humiliate them and treat them like dogcrap - it's just not nice. It's just human decency at the end of the day (but then I agree - there isn't much of that in an A). But whatever stupid things someone does in an A, being thrown under a bus IS being treated unfairly.

[torranceshipman]

Come on now MM you are trying too hard.

 

I hardley believe 'small and ignorant' are nasty names, just adjectives used to describe the behavior I find to be that way. And he has never used a nasty name to describe her in my presence except the B word which I would not allow even if he used it jokingly.

 

Not sure who called whom 'small and ignorant' but whoever said it - it isn't nice. You couldn't like the person you were saying that to/about, and you'd obviously be trying to belittle them and show them a lack of respect by saying it. Anyone who thinks that it isnt so bad to be called small and ignorant is either very VERY thick skinned, or hasnt got too much self esteem/isnt used to being treated well!

[herenow]

I think some people assume that there is extensive conversation about the OW between the MM and the BW after a d-day. Maybe there is in some cases, but for the couples who really want to save their marriages, the OW becomes insignificant. Just because there is a d-day doesn't necessarily mean that the MM is talking s**t about the OW. The BW may not care to hear it if he did.

 

The OW in my case may have felt like she was "thrown under the bus", but in reality all that happened is the affair came to an end. There was very little discussion about the OW. Actually the most we talked about the OW was when we asked our therapist the best way to get her to stop calling.

 

My H and I spent a lot of time dealing with our individual issues and then the problems in our marriage. None of these things had anything to do with the OW. I didn't feel the need to talk about her in MC, and I didn't want to cloud the real issues with discussions about someone I didn't know and didn't mean anything to me.

 

However, I still felt the need for some understanding of the OW. That is what brought me to LS in the first place. I had no interest in speaking with her, so I found LS and posting here helped me get a glimpse of OW in general. I don't think my H's OW posts on this board, but reading some of the posts here gave me a better understanding about affairs. Leaving my time with my H to be all about us.

 

So, if an affair ends after d-day and the married couple moves forward, has the OW been thrown under the bus? Or, is it just time for her to move forward as well?

[ladydesigner]

So, if an affair ends after d-day and the married couple moves forward, has the OW been thrown under the bus? Or, is it just time for her to move forward as well?

 

Yes that is a very good way of looking at it from either side. All parties should always move forward. I think all parties get hit by the bus, no one comes out of the A at D-Day unscathed.

[moaningmyrtle]

Yes that is a very good way of looking at it from either side. All parties should always move forward. I think all parties get hit by the bus, no one comes out of the A at D-Day unscathed.

 

And ain't that the truth.

[wheelwright]

I have found this thread so interesting - was TUAB myself.

 

I have read and absorbed much comment from MM, WF, JJ and most of all SP who seems to understand best that not one size fits all.

 

I have something to add to one of JJ's questions about whether the minimizing of the A is a necessary component.

 

My A involved 2 marriages, so this perspective is my H's through me.

 

I refused/refuse to minimize the A. I acknowledge the hurt, feel incredible (good word cos I can hardly believe I behaved like that to my H) remorse, but that is one bus that I will not throw my xAP, or rather my x?feelings for him under.

 

And that is what my H most wants me to do. He keeps coming back to the fact that I say the feelings were real and they play a part in what happened. He WANTS me to say the xAP is a little s*** and not worth a second of my/our time. If I could honestly say this to him it was all fog, he would feel so healed.

 

A Perhaps throwing under a bus happens in honesty when the MM/MW desire to love and heal their BS above all else.

 

B And perhaps it happens dishonestly (the minimizing) when the MP is willing to lie to arrive at a good healing for the BS. Or to save their a**. (Often both).

 

I also wonder how B types feel about it after they took this route. I guess they feel it doesn't matter because it's a white lie to the BS, and a decision has been made.

 

Looking at all this, I don't think the minimizing counts as throwing the AP under a bus, except in the WS's mind.

 

It's the cutting off at DDay (after explicit or implicit promises) which is the real McCoy. And because the xAP doesn't know what is in WS's mind, it is one of those situations which seldom reaches closure for the dumped AP. I think this adds to the characterization - the dissonance between the xAPs words, the shared feelings during the A, the behaviour at DDAY, and the not really knowing why. People with closure tend to get over the bus more easily. Or sometimes the WS comes back with bandages.

[Dexter Morgan]

And rightfully so. If promises were made and didn't take place then they certainly were treated unfairly.

 

Only if they didn't know the MM/MW wasn't married in the first place.

 

Otherwise, you are talking about promises from a man or woman that is cheating on their spouse, and the OW/OM is a willing participant. So being "thrown under the bus" is kind of silly when they are helping someone cheat on their spouse in the first place.

[Dexter Morgan]

The bus is the pain and the driver is the liar who runs over the people he/she 'loves' in order to spare themselves/get what they want.

 

but if you knew the married party was married when you entered an affair with them, then you should have already knew they were liars. A cheater is a liar by default.

[Dexter Morgan]

Sure, they may have put themselves in a really stupid position, might have been selfish, etc,etc, but still, that doesn't make it fine for the MM to lie to them

 

again, the very fact that they are cheating on their spouse with OW/OM makes them a liar already.

 

And it sure seemed ok with OW/OM that they were lying to their spouse and cheating as long as they got what they wanted initially.

 

 

humiliate them and treat them like dogcrap - it's just not nice. It's just human decency at the end of the day

 

kind of like the human decency to sleep with someone elses spouse?

 

point is, one looks awful silly sleeping with someone elses spouse, then cries "he/she threw me under the bus".

 

 

But whatever stupid things someone does in an A, being thrown under a bus IS being treated unfairly.

 

I don't think so. They knew the MM/MW was married....they didn't care...long as they got "theirs".

 

Now if the MM/MW lied about their marital status and the OW/OM didn't know they were married, then its a different story.

 

but to those that knew right up front, I find the complaint very hypocritical

[White Flower]

Only if they didn't know the MM/MW wasn't married in the first place.

 

Otherwise, you are talking about promises from a man or woman that is cheating on their spouse, and the OW/OM is a willing participant. So being "thrown under the bus" is kind of silly when they are helping someone cheat on their spouse in the first place.

I suppose that makes good sense unless you have known and seen MM actually come through on their promises and leave the W on D-day as promised. Once you have that experience then you know it is possible and it isn't so silly or hypocrytical.

 

Do all MM lie at some point during the A? Sure. Do all MM intend on day one to be forever a liar? Not so sure.

[White Flower]

Not sure who called whom 'small and ignorant' but whoever said it - it isn't nice. You couldn't like the person you were saying that to/about, and you'd obviously be trying to belittle them and show them a lack of respect by saying it. Anyone who thinks that it isnt so bad to be called small and ignorant is either very VERY thick skinned, or hasnt got too much self esteem/isnt used to being treated well!

It really has nothing to do with liking or disliking someone. Ignorant behavior is ignorant behavior and I call them like I see them. It could very well be belittling them but is it disrespectful if it is the truth? What I said was somebody's certain behavior was small and ignorant because she tried to belittle someone herself without having even known that person which is a very premature action (and quite ignorant). I stand by that.

[moaningmyrtle]

My H like many MM has heaps of good qualities. He's kind, highly intelligent, loving, cares deeply for his family, spends enjoyable times with his children, supervises their homework and music activities, participates in their numerous sports (they are sports mad like many Aussies) and he holds down a highly paid professional job (as do I, just in case you might thinks I just see him as a money tree). He doesn't take drugs or even drink alcohol, coffee or smoke anything. He never raises his voice and he has never physically hurt or threatened anyone.

 

The down side of him (at least until d-day) is that he was often cold, uncommunicative, unaffectionate and unresponsive to me. I wrongly attributed all this to his natural shyness, reserve and modesty.

 

At d-day I discovered the passionate e-mails he had written to the OW; including that he loved her and the extensive deception of me over many years.

 

This was the most destructive and painful thing that had ever happened to me in my life - worse even than the emotional abuse of me by my mother who has paranoid schizophrenia, and spent many of my teenage years accusing me and my father of unspeakable things.

 

So at d-day I discovered just what it was that my H was willing to do, to people he loved, and it was with an almost horrified fascination that I then watched him "throw the OW under the bus". I saw exactly what he was doing and why. There was some limited contact with her for a short while as he tried to "let her down lightly" (his words). I saw that after hurting me so badly he then basically contributed to the disintegration of a newly widowed woman to whom he had poured out his love.

 

People ask OW why they want to be with a man who they know is manipulating/deceiving his wife; and people ask BW how they can stay with a man who has treated them so badly and then sometimes treated the OW badly too (ie throwing under the bus).

 

The answer to that is very complicated and therefore not easy to put into words on a message board. It is not necessarily a reflection of low self esteem, or low self respect of either woman but perhaps a reflection on their willingness to trust (again) the person that they know is capable of such a gross betrayal or trust.

[awkward]

It seems to me that both the OW and the BS get thrown under the bus. The MM minimizes the marriage to the OW and minimizes the affair to the BS. If the WS didn't minimize the marriage then how could he expect the OW to continue the affair? If the WS didn't minimize the affair then how could he expect the BS to stay in the marriage?

 

but if you knew the married party was married when you entered an affair with them, then you should have already knew they were liars. A cheater is a liar by default.

 

The OW knows the MM is a liar/cheater but usually believes that is due to the BS and not a character flaw in the WS. It isn't until after d-day that many realize that the WS did to them what he did to his BS. There is real pain because they believed the WS wouldn't do that to them. It's the belief that their affair is the exception that gives them hope.

 

The common denominator is the bus driver/liar/cheater. The BS and the OW both want to believe in him. They think the problem is each other. They both wonder how the other could be with a man who is in love with someone else believing it is them that he truly loves.

 

IMO it is what he does that tells what he wants. If he wants to be married he stays with his wife, if he wants to be with the AP he leaves the marriage, and if he wants both he stays in the marriage and in the affair.

 

I could be wrong but this is what I've seen since I've been posting here.

[OWoman]

So, if an affair ends after d-day and the married couple moves forward, has the OW been thrown under the bus? Or, is it just time for her to move forward as well?

 

On a similar note - if the M ends after DDay, has the BW been thrown under a bus? Or the MM? Or does it depend on how it was done and who said what?

[donnamaybe]

It seems to me that both the OW and the BS get thrown under the bus. The MM minimizes the marriage to the OW and minimizes the affair to the BS. If the WS didn't minimize the marriage then how could he expect the OW to continue the affair? If the WS didn't minimize the affair then how could he expect the BS to stay in the marriage?

 

However, the MM/MW minmizes the marriage to hoodwink one woman/man into becoming his/her "extra." If the MM/MW minimizes the A, it is in the process of dumping the OW/OM and keeping the one they choose to be their ONLY one. Of course, sometimes you have a serial cheater on your hands, in which case they'll probably just resume with a different OW/OM once the dust has settled and until the BS figures out their game.

[Spark1111]

Let's not forget how many WSs are thrown under the bus by the BS upon DDAy!

 

Divorce court bears this out, as does kicking the Ws's Azz to the curb, as does separating for a great length of time, as does refusing all attempts to reconcile, at least initially, for months after discovery of the affair, until the BS sorts out if they EVEN WANT to imagine a future with a lying, cheating spouse.

 

How the WS depicts this to their AP? Who really knows.

[Spark1111]

And please give some of us BSs some credit: It matters less who the affair was with, as it does the lies and deception necessary to carry it out.

 

If after DDAY, my WS tried to minimize the affair or AP after the proof I had gathered, it just would have reinforced what a sorry, lying sack of bull crap he truly was.

 

It would have hurt, not hindered, his attempts to reconcile.

[OWoman]

If the MM/MW minimizes the A, it is in the process of dumping the OW/OM and keeping the one they choose to be their ONLY one.

 

 

Sometimes. Other times it's to convince the BS that the A is over - while it's just gone underground for a while until it's safe to return to business as usual.

 

Personally, I don't get why a MM would minimise either R. If the A really meant nothing, was it worth risking the M? And, if the M really means so little, why stay in it? I think minimising either R just makes the MM out to have dubious judgment and little agency. That might be fine for some, but I'm done with nappy changing and bottom wiping. I prefer my men grown up.