Reformed other women

[White Flower]

THis is the other issue I have with trying to designate only some former OW as "reformed". Posters have disagreed with the way that you and some others see the world, but I've yet to see them tell you you are wrong for it.

 

Is disagreeing with the way you see the world, stating that the way you see the world is incorrect now?

I know this question was not asked of me but if it were I would say yes! It would appear that you are speaking for the speaker and telling her what her thoughts are...if I am interpreting what jennie-jennie was stating correctly.

[NoIDidn't]

I know this question was not asked of me but if it were I would say yes! It would appear that you are speaking for the speaker and telling her what her thoughts are...if I am interpreting what jennie-jennie was stating correctly.

 

But how so? It doesn't make any sense to me. Disagreeing with a person isn't in any way telling them what they think. Its disagreeing. Its saying I don't feel "that" way about it, I feel "this" way about it. Its telling them what *I* think, not telling them what *they* think.

 

What, in telling her that the others didn't tell her she was wrong, that they just disagreed with her view, that's me telling her what HER thoughts were? She is free to her interpretation of their disagreement with her, but an attempt to clarify/explain is a world away from telling someone what their thoughts are.

[GreenEyedLady]

So you count yourself among the reformed other women then?

 

May I ask what you mean with "you can think your MM is different"? In that he will leave his wife? That he is not a liar and a manipulator? That he is a good person? That he is a split self?

 

I certainly think my MM is different from serial cheaters and sex addicts. I do not think he is different from other split selfs.

 

I often find reformed OW's posts hurtful. If they are out to save OW from hurt, why are they being hurtful? I can't see that that is necessary just because you want to support the OW in ending the relationship.

 

I consider myself a woman, period.

 

I mean that a person who thinks that their lover, who is actively lying to someone else is completely truthful with them is in denial. I am not making a value judgment on the character of the person. Just a logical conclusion.

 

I am sure Jennie that you believe your assessment of your lover or you would not remain with him. You seem to love him and cherish your R with him very much.

 

I am not sure what you find hurtful. Perhaps it is someone else's posts are particular viewpoint. I have always said that people need to do what they feel is right for them, but be real about it. Men lie. Single men lie, married men lie and women lie. People in A's are always lying, most often to themselves.

 

If a post that cuts to the chase helps someone see clearly, then it was valuable. I don't think I've ever been merciless to an OW that clearly was in despair. Quite the contrary. We all need a shoulder now and again. However at some point people need to realize their reality. And it's forums like this one that helps people see all perspectives.

 

No one that is sure of what they're doing would be swayed anyway.

 

GEL

[NoIDidn't]

When I post I am usually looking for advice that is consistent with my OP but then, as often is the case here at LS, the thread goes off on a tangent by those who want to stear it in another direction.

 

I don't think this is fair to say. I don't think anyone purposefully attempts to steer a thread in a different direction from the OP. Often they ask questions that lead to the tangential conversation in a thread. Its generally not a deliberate act.

[White Flower]

But how so? It doesn't make any sense to me. Disagreeing with a person isn't in any way telling them what they think. Its disagreeing. Its saying I don't feel "that" way about it, I feel "this" way about it. Its telling them what *I* think, not telling them what *they* think.

 

What, in telling her that the others didn't tell her she was wrong, that they just disagreed with her view, that's me telling her what HER thoughts were? She is free to her interpretation of their disagreement with her, but an attempt to clarify/explain is a world away from telling someone what their thoughts are.

Maybe I misunderstood you when you said,

 

'Is disagreeing with the way you see the world, stating that the way you see the world is incorrect now?'

 

It looked as though you were telling her that she didn't even know what her own view was. Sorry if I was wrong.

[White Flower]

I don't think this is fair to say. I don't think anyone purposefully attempts to steer a thread in a different direction from the OP. Often they ask questions that lead to the tangential conversation in a thread. Its generally not a deliberate act.

We can agree to disagree here. Some don't try to go off on tangents while others do. Either way, threads go off on tangents all the time. I will admit that even I am guilty of it and have to catch myself from time to time. But very often when a question is posted a whole lot of opinions about the question are stated rather than the question being answered by an experienced poster.

[norajane]

When we see an OW post thread after thread about MM, about his wife, about the affair, and she is miserable in all of them and nothing changes except it gets worse, it makes no sense to encourage her to continue the affair.

 

And because many MM often seem to read from the same playbook - they say and do a lot of things, but leaving their wives isn't one of them - of course you end up hearing the same advice from rOW and others: "Don't stay in a relationship where a man is treating you the way this MM is."

 

And the reasons for giving that advice are generally similar because MM behavior is often similar.

 

Sure, every OW's situation is different, and the MM's situation is different. But the pain is so very similar and it comes through loud and clear. Just as in any other thread on LS, whether it be in Dating or Marriage or Infidelity, or Coping, it's not healthy to stay in a relationship/affair/marriage that causes you pain with someone who is causing that pain. rOW or not, the advice will always be the same: unless you are happy and getting what you want TODAY out of a relationship, you either force a change or get out of it. Otherwise, you will always lose. And continue to be hurt.

[jennie-jennie]

Yes it looks like we do agree and I think most opinions here are valid.

 

However ... If tomorrow you post that MM has to go on vacation with his wife because she planned it all behind his back and blah blah blah, if I see the thread I will probably point out to you that it is difficult to plan a vacation for someone else and even more difficult to make someone go when they don't want to. It wouldn't be an attack on you. It would just be me pointing out the inconsistencies in what he says and does.

 

That was an extreme example of me just saying we can agree and disagree on different issues and we can still be friendly to each other.

Agreed!

 

(10 characters necessary)

[jennie-jennie]

Sorry' date=' jennie-jennie, but it was a valid point for this thread. Even you say he said that GEL sounded "reform-ish". When it is a valid point, I will continue to bring it up. I still fail to see where it is a "misinterpretation". It was practically posted with the disdain usually shown here by the "happy" towards the "reformed".[/quote']

 

Apparently you have gone back on what we agreed on earlier then, to let this go.

 

For those who wonder what I posted about my MM in that thread:

 

"So, Gel, you ARE married. Interesting, when I told my MM of your post and your history he goes 'she must be married now'."

 

Anyway, I went back and read in that thread ("He left today") to refresh my memory about it. I found Mino's reply to GEL interesting:

 

"Gel, Am I reading your post wrong lately. I seem to be getting a whole new attitude from you since you have been married. I mean it seems you are now putting ow down in a snobby kind of way. Lets not forget you were the ow too, and you were in this role for some time before you married. Just something that I have been picking up in your post lately, it like you jumped fences and walla... a new Gel"

 

Seems like more people than my MM were picking up reformish vibes.

Edited March 16, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[jennie-jennie]

Now I am really confused. I DO want more than my MM is willing to give, and yet I am happy with what I have.

 

This is considered an inconsistency by some LS posters. I thought from your prior post that you thought so too?

 

It is really tiresome to continuously be told that the way you perceive the world can not be correct. This is my reality, so apparently it is possible!

 

THis is the other issue I have with trying to designate only some former OW as "reformed". Posters have disagreed with the way that you and some others see the world, but I've yet to see them tell you you are wrong for it.

 

Is disagreeing with the way you see the world, stating that the way you see the world is incorrect now?

 

I see I need to clarify myself here. I was not talking about how I perceive the world in general, I was talking about how I perceive my own life and my own relationship. There have been posters lately telling me I must be lying to myself since I claim to be happy and still want more. When people claim I CAN NOT be happy in the situation I am in, then I claim I have the right to say they are incorrect. I KNOW whether or not I am happy.

[jennie-jennie]

I know this question was not asked of me but if it were I would say yes! It would appear that you are speaking for the speaker and telling her what her thoughts are...if I am interpreting what jennie-jennie was stating correctly.

Correct.

 

But how so? It doesn't make any sense to me. Disagreeing with a person isn't in any way telling them what they think. Its disagreeing. Its saying I don't feel "that" way about it, I feel "this" way about it. Its telling them what *I* think, not telling them what *they* think.

 

What, in telling her that the others didn't tell her she was wrong, that they just disagreed with her view, that's me telling her what HER thoughts were? She is free to her interpretation of their disagreement with her, but an attempt to clarify/explain is a world away from telling someone what their thoughts are.

 

NID, you can't disagree with whether I am happy or not. That is a matter of subjective emotion. This is what posters have been disagreeing with me about.

Edited March 16, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[anne1707]

Jennie-Jennie

 

In my opinion (so my perspective which is correct for me), it almost seems as if the reformed OW is an OW who does not view affairs and MM the way you do. Sorry but you seem to be very rigid in your viewpoint and are regularly getting frustrated with others (such as myself, NID, GEL) who may see things differently.

 

The whole point of LS is open debate. The only person who seems to be stating "no, this is the truth" is you. But in reality there is no complete 100% truth. We each have our own view and that does not mean it is wrong just because it is different to yours. We all have differing experiences that contribute to the development of these attitudes.

 

To add: I do actually feel as if the term "reformed" is being used by some in a derogatory manner. What is wrong with someone having had an affair and deciding that they would never do so again because of all the pain and unhappiness it caused with not the greatest chance of the WS leave the BS and marry/have LTR with the OW/OM.

[moaningmyrtle]

I see I need to clarify myself here. I was not talking about how I perceive the world in general, I was talking about how I perceive my own life and my own relationship. There have been posters lately telling me I must be lying to myself since I claim to be happy and still want more. When people claim I CAN NOT be happy in the situation I am in, then I claim I have the right to say they are incorrect. I KNOW whether or not I am happy.

 

Just as a general note not necessarily apropos of the above, I think this forum would be a better place if the ad homs and the straw men were avoided. I understand they can be sometimes hard to resist though.

 

If something is an expression of somebody's opinions or feelings, I agree with you Jennie, that at best people can say they don't share those opinions and wouldn't have those feelings if they are in the same situation.

 

However in an earlier post and it may not have been on this thread, you claimed that your MM telling lies to his wife is not necessarily dishonest (or maybe it was the other way around). For most people, agreeing with you on this point, would require a complete redefinition of the meaning of dishonesty and lies. Some might argue this is a matter of fact rather than interpretation or semantics. Note this is not the same as saying that generally he is a dishonest person in other areas of his life, merely that objectively he is not being honest with a particular person or group of people in one area of this life. You are entitled to hold the belief that this doesn't carry-over to you, or other areas of his life. Other posters may feel differently based on their own experiences. This doesn't make them either wrong or right.

[jennie-jennie]

I mean that a person who thinks that their lover, who is actively lying to someone else is completely truthful with them is in denial. I am not making a value judgment on the character of the person. Just a logical conclusion.

 

...

 

However at some point people need to realize their reality. And it's forums like this one that helps people see all perspectives.

 

So what you are saying is: NO MM is "completely truthful" with their OW, and since I believe that my MM is, I am in denial.

 

Blanket statement.

[jennie-jennie]

Sure, every OW's situation is different, and the MM's situation is different. But the pain is so very similar and it comes through loud and clear. Just as in any other thread on LS, whether it be in Dating or Marriage or Infidelity, or Coping, it's not healthy to stay in a relationship/affair/marriage that causes you pain with someone who is causing that pain. rOW or not, the advice will always be the same: unless you are happy and getting what you want TODAY out of a relationship, you either force a change or get out of it. Otherwise, you will always lose. And continue to be hurt.

 

Not to be forgotten that a change in the OW's mindset and attitude goes a long way in making her happier if she decides to stay in the relationship.

[jennie-jennie]

What is wrong with someone having had an affair and deciding that they would never do so again because of all the pain and unhappiness it caused with not the greatest chance of the WS leave the BS and marry/have LTR with the OW/OM.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with coming to that conclusion. It is when you try to force that conclusion upon others as "the one and only" true way to look at affairs that it becomes a problem.

[moaningmyrtle]

So what you are saying is: NO MM is "completely truthful" with their OW, and since I believe that my MM is, I am in denial.

 

Blanket statement.

 

But if you take it that GEL was expressing her opinion - and to me it was seemingly her opinion rather than a statement of objectively verifiable "fact" - then you have to conclude that this is merely her belief or feelings about it. You implying that her opinion/feelings are wrong is no better than what you are accusing others of doing.

 

Also as a general rule I think the excluded middle fallacy is over-used on this forum too - just my humble opinion.

[jennie-jennie]

Just as a general note not necessarily apropos of the above, I think this forum would be a better place if the ad homs and the straw men were avoided. I understand they can be sometimes hard to resist though.

If something is an expression of somebody's opinions or feelings, I agree with you Jennie, that at best people can say they don't share those opinions and wouldn't have those feelings if they are in the same situation.

Exactly. Thanks, Myrtle.

However in an earlier post and it may not have been on this thread, you claimed that your MM telling lies to his wife is not necessarily dishonest (or maybe it was the other way around). For most people, agreeing with you on this point, would require a complete redefinition of the meaning of dishonesty and lies. Some might argue this is a matter of fact rather than interpretation or semantics. Note this is not the same as saying that generally he is a dishonest person in other areas of his life, merely that objectively he is not being honest with a particular person or group of people in one area of this life. You are entitled to hold the belief that this doesn't carry-over to you, or other areas of his life. Other posters may feel differently based on their own experiences. This doesn't make them either wrong or right.

 

Myrtle, I don't recognize saying that my MM telling lies to his wife is not dishonest. Of course it is. What I react to generally is when MM get a label of "liar" etc.

 

Of course I agree with the bold part above.

[jennie-jennie]

But if you take it that GEL was expressing her opinion - and to me it was seemingly her opinion rather than a statement of objectively verifiable "fact" - then you have to conclude that this is merely her belief or feelings about it. You implying that her opinion/feelings are wrong is no better than what you are accusing others of doing.

I find this style of posting blanket statements degrading and humiliating. It is not easy to have a peer discussion with someone who is claiming you are in denial and/or lying to yourself.

Also as a general rule I think the excluded middle fallacy is over-used on this forum too - just my humble opinion.

 

Could you elaborate on this? I am not understanding what you are saying.

[moaningmyrtle]

 

I find this style of posting blanket statements degrading and humiliating. It is not easy to have a peer discussion with someone who is claiming you are in denial and/or lying to yourself.

Quote:

Also as a general rule I think the excluded middle fallacy is over-used on this forum too - just my humble opinion.

 

Could you elaborate on this? I am not understanding what you are saying.

 

I understand the difficulty of having a discussion with someone who believes something about you which you either believe or feel to be wrong. But nevertheless it is that person's opinion and they are "allowed" to post their opinion in a "blanket" style. If it is outside the terms of use of the forum then you can ask the mods to intervene but if not - well we have all had to wear people who disagree with us.

 

I have another appointment in less that 3 minutes, so I can't do justice to an explanation of argument techniques. However there are numerous websites devoted to them which probably do a far better job of explaining them than I can. Once different techniques are learned and recognised it can be easier to deal with them.

[jennie-jennie]

I understand the difficulty of having a discussion with someone who believes something about you which you either believe or feel to be wrong. But nevertheless it is that person's opinion and they are "allowed" to post their opinion in a "blanket" style. If it is outside the terms of use of the forum then you can ask the mods to intervene but if not - well we have all had to wear people who disagree with us.

 

And thus my opinion that posters with that style of posting are "reformed".

[moaningmyrtle]

And thus my opinion that posters with that style of posting are "reformed".

 

But but... anyone can post in a "blanket" style - it doesn't make them a reformed *anything* unless you are saying they have reformed from posting in a non-blanket style. People who hold strong opinions are not automatically reformed from something else. Even OW who hold strong opinions and post in a blanket style are not automatically rOW (as you have defined them).

 

I can only say that the way I see it (and I'm not any sort of OW - current, former or reformed); you are becoming upset because people do not see things the way you do and they are forming judgments about you with which you don't agree. I understand this is upsetting for you, but it doesn't make either you or them either right or wrong.

[OWoman]

I' date=' too, wonder if after a former OW marries her former MM, does that make her a ROW?[/quote']

 

What an odd thing to wonder when the evidence that it doesn't - me - is right in front of you.

 

(Or have I been rendered invisible again ? Damn, I really ought to stop hanging out with that Harry Potter dude!)

[jennie-jennie]

But but... anyone can post in a "blanket" style - it doesn't make them a reformed *anything* unless you are saying they have reformed from posting in a non-blanket style. People who hold strong opinions are not automatically reformed from something else. Even OW who hold strong opinions and post in a blanket style are not automatically rOW (as you have defined them).

True, and I have not been a member of LS long enough to know whether what Mino stated in the post I quoted above is true, that GEL has changed her style of posting when she became married. Perhaps her opinions were always the same. She did not know her MM was married for quite some time, so she is not the typical OW who knows what she is entering.

I can only say that the way I see it (and I'm not any sort of OW - current, former or reformed); you are becoming upset because people do not see things the way you do and they are forming judgments about you with which you don't agree. I understand this is upsetting for you, but it doesn't make either you or them either right or wrong.

 

We can agree to disagree here. Some don't try to go off on tangents while others do. Either way, threads go off on tangents all the time. I will admit that even I am guilty of it and have to catch myself from time to time. But very often when a question is posted a whole lot of opinions about the question are stated rather than the question being answered by an experienced poster.

 

I will have to agree with White Flower here. I feel like the discussion is now going around in circles. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions, I never claimed the opposite, rather the contrary. (As long as it is not about my subjective reality.) White Flower states clearly the issue I have with rOW:

 

And I think that is the crux of this thread, isn't it? That rOWs seem to not support as much as try to convince you to end the A because 'all As are bad'?

 

Again, my original question is what makes these rOW change their minds about affairs and MM so drastically? I understand that not everyone agrees with whether or not this subgroup exists, but I don't think anyone can deny that there are many OW who radically change their minds about affairs and the characters of MM in general.

Edited March 16, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[OWoman]

Could you elaborate on this? I am not understanding what you are saying.

 

The "excluded middle fallacy" is another name for a false dichotomy - rendering the world as either black or white, and ignoring all the shades of grey in between .... such as saying a MM must either be wholly good or wholly evil, he couldn't possibly have any good in him if he's done something as heinous as have an A.

 

I think Myrtle's point was that this claim - that there are shades of grey that are being overlooked - is used too often on this forum, that some people see shades of grey where there really is only black and white. I'm guessing here, but from the context it would seem that she took issue with your point about your MM not being a liar simply because he's less than fully honest with his W. My reading is:

 

Jen: It's not black and white - a MM can inhabit shades of grey between being 100% honest, and being a dirty cheatin' liar. His lack of honesty in one context does not make HIM a liar, simply a man capable of selective dis/honesty as determined by context.

 

Myrtle: Someone who lies - in whatever context - is a liar. It is not possible to lie without being a liar. Ergo, he lies (to his W), thus - he is a liar, even if he is 100% honest in every other aspect of his life. [i'm not claiming Myrtle supports that view - she may well, IDK; certainly some other posters do - but that she's proposing it as an alternative to the view of their being shades of grey on this matter. ]