Reformed other women

[Fallen Angel]

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. ]

 

That is exactly how I interpreted the discussion as well.

[jennie-jennie]

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. ]

 

Thanks, OWoman, I never heard that terminology before. Thanks for explaining.

[OWoman]

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.

 

To get back to the question, I'd posit that... they don't, really. That those fOW who become "reformed" are reverts, rather than converts. (In the sense that someone who adopts Islam later in life "reverts" to Islam, since one of the tenets of Islam is that we are all born Muslim, but we lose this connection if we do not actively practice, and need to "revert" - which is a different view to Christianity, which assumes we are all born with original sin, and need to "convert" through becoming saved.... Apologies for the o/t religious metaphor, and to anyone who feels I've misrepresented their religion here!)

 

I suspect that rOW have always, deep down, held the view they now profess about As and MMs. But, during their time as OW, they allowed themselves to "forget" or ignore those views, suppressing them while they enjoyed the benefits of the A. When their As ended, they put the pain of the loss down not to the pain and loss of any old "being dumped" experience, but to the fact that they'd acted out of character, that they'd betrayed their morals, that they'd slipped into evil / temptation / off the path of righteousness, and reacted more strongly, with greater revulsion, loathing and self-hatred, which they now project onto current (and unrepentant former) OWs.

 

I don't think, in general, they were in favour of, or even neutral towards, As before their own experience as an OW. I don't think the A has "converted" them in that sense, to a view that they never previously held. I think they merely "reverted" after the detour through the A to a view they held previously to their As, albeit more strongly post-A than pre-A.

[moaningmyrtle]

...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. ]

 

A good explanation of the excluded middle fallacy. But no, I was the one arguing for the viewpoint that just because a person tells a lie to one person (his wife) in relation to one thing (having an affair) does not automatically label him as either a liar or an honest person for that matter.

 

Jennie understood the point I was making.

[OWoman]

Thanks, OWoman, I never heard that terminology before. Thanks for explaining.

 

It's not the usual term, no - but this is a multi-cultural board, and things do get called different things in different places. In the US they call "blinkers" (that you put on cart horses) "blinders" - while, in my country, a "blinder" is a move that you didn't see coming ("he played a real blinder, dumping Jane to go out with Mary!"). They use the term "blinkers" for indicators on cars - what we'd call "flickers". It can get very confusing...

[OWoman]

A good explanation of the excluded middle fallacy. But no, I was the one arguing for the viewpoint that just because a person tells a lie to one person (his wife) in relation to one thing (having an affair) does not automatically label him as either a liar or an honest person for that matter.

 

Jennie understood the point I was making.

 

Yep - I wasn't sure if you were supporting the other argument, or just using it as an illustration (and I was too lazy to read back and check ) hence my disclaimer.

[jennie-jennie]

To get back to the question, I'd posit that... they don't, really. That those fOW who become "reformed" are reverts, rather than converts. (In the sense that someone who adopts Islam later in life "reverts" to Islam, since one of the tenets of Islam is that we are all born Muslim, but we lose this connection if we do not actively practice, and need to "revert" - which is a different view to Christianity, which assumes we are all born with original sin, and need to "convert" through becoming saved.... Apologies for the o/t religious metaphor, and to anyone who feels I've misrepresented their religion here!)

 

I suspect that rOW have always, deep down, held the view they now profess about As and MMs. But, during their time as OW, they allowed themselves to "forget" or ignore those views, suppressing them while they enjoyed the benefits of the A. When their As ended, they put the pain of the loss down not to the pain and loss of any old "being dumped" experience, but to the fact that they'd acted out of character, that they'd betrayed their morals, that they'd slipped into evil / temptation / off the path of righteousness, and reacted more strongly, with greater revulsion, loathing and self-hatred, which they now project onto current (and unrepentant former) OWs.

 

I don't think, in general, they were in favour of, or even neutral towards, As before their own experience as an OW. I don't think the A has "converted" them in that sense, to a view that they never previously held. I think they merely "reverted" after the detour through the A to a view they held previously to their As, albeit more strongly post-A than pre-A.

 

Very interesting post, OWoman. Are there any OW out there who recognize themselves in this?

 

It sounds something like my original thought in the OP:

 

My own thinking is that if you are not grounded enough in yourself during the affair, you might have to rethink it all afterwards.

[jennie-jennie]

A good explanation of the excluded middle fallacy. But no, I was the one arguing for the viewpoint that just because a person tells a lie to one person (his wife) in relation to one thing (having an affair) does not automatically label him as either a liar or an honest person for that matter.

 

In which case we were both arguing the same point, yes?

[jennie-jennie]

I suspect that rOW have always, deep down, held the view they now profess about As and MMs. But, during their time as OW, they allowed themselves to "forget" or ignore those views, suppressing them while they enjoyed the benefits of the A. When their As ended, they put the pain of the loss down not to the pain and loss of any old "being dumped" experience, but to the fact that they'd acted out of character, that they'd betrayed their morals, that they'd slipped into evil / temptation / off the path of righteousness, and reacted more strongly, with greater revulsion, loathing and self-hatred, which they now project onto current (and unrepentant former) OWs.

 

I don't think, in general, they were in favour of, or even neutral towards, As before their own experience as an OW. I don't think the A has "converted" them in that sense, to a view that they never previously held. I think they merely "reverted" after the detour through the A to a view they held previously to their As, albeit more strongly post-A than pre-A.

 

The more I think about it, the more sense this makes.

 

Thus an OW who acts against her own values like this would be very adamant about correcting it, ie reaching her end goal, while the road traveled would be of minor importance. Looking at it like that, why would any woman want to remain the OW when the likelihood of ending up with your MM is so small?

Edited March 16, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[White Flower]

The more I think about it, the more sense this makes.

 

Thus an OW who acts against her own values like this would be very adamant about correcting it, ie reaching her end goal, while the road traveled would be of minor importance. Looking at it like that, why would any woman want to remain the OW when the likelihood of ending up with your MM is so small?

And like I have said so many times, if they DID end up with MM they might be singing a different song. They might even post that As are a good thing or at least can be. It appears that, like you said, the goal was to win but they could not enjoy the path whatever the outcome.

 

Its the journey not the destination. If the destination turns out to be beautiful, then you have a bonus.

[White Flower]

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.

For the record, and I have stated many times, I would never be involved in an A again in part because of what you stated above. However, I would still come back and offer support to the OW based on her need to understand what she was dealing with whether in a bad A or a good A because there is a difference which it appears that most rOW cannot see.

[donnamaybe]

why would any woman want to remain the OW when the likelihood of ending up with your MM is so small?

 

So true, which I think is why so many who have suffered through an A and feel they have come out wiser at the end want to share their newfound wisdom, hoping to spare others the depth of pain they suffered (like ripping off a Band Aid - the quicker the better). Some people call that being "holier than thou," however, or perhaps "reformed."

[anne1707]

For the record, and I have stated many times, I would never be involved in an A again in part because of what you stated above. However, I would still come back and offer support to the OW based on her need to understand what she was dealing with whether in a bad A or a good A because there is a difference which it appears that most rOW cannot see.

 

 

I think the advice given can vary depending on the stage of the affair. A blanket "get out of it now" attitude to the OW/OM does not work. Although it is probably the best advice to someone who is considering entering such a relationship or at its immediate start. However once someone is fully in an affair, everything changes. Those of us who have experienced an affair (from whichever point of the triangle) can see when someone (BS, OW, OM, or WS) is hurting or may be being used/lied to and get frustrated for that person and I think that support may then be misinterpreted by some and deemed as critical or "reformed" in attitude.

[awkward]

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

 

I wondered about it too. You have stated your views on marriage and that they weren't effected by your affair nor your marriage. The fact that your belief system isn't situational demands respect in itself.

 

However, if we can agree that your views on marriage are quite different from many OW in this forum, while still respecting your views and acknowledging that they are indeed valid, is it really that odd that one would wonder how the OW would feel about marriage/cheating once they married their MM?

 

I am able to completely understand your viewpoint as well as the OW who doesn't want their MM to leave his marriage. I think these viewpoints didn't/won't change. Where I find confusion is with those that want to marry MM, not out of necessity, but out of love.

 

I thought that most of the OW here would not want to be an OW or married to a WH once they married MM. Perhaps my perception of the OW wanting to marry out of love is way off base. If they do in fact want to have fidelity in their marriage, wouldn't they be reformed even if only in their own marriage?

 

Is my perception completely wrong?

[jennie-jennie]

I wondered about it too. You have stated your views on marriage and that they weren't effected by your affair nor your marriage. The fact that your belief system isn't situational demands respect in itself.

 

However, if we can agree that your views on marriage are quite different from many OW in this forum, while still respecting your views and acknowledging that they are indeed valid, is it really that odd that one would wonder how the OW would feel about marriage/cheating once they married their MM?

 

I am able to completely understand your viewpoint as well as the OW who doesn't want their MM to leave his marriage. I think these viewpoints didn't/won't change. Where I find confusion is with those that want to marry MM, not out of necessity, but out of love.

 

I thought that most of the OW here would not want to be an OW or married to a WH once they married MM. Perhaps my perception of the OW wanting to marry out of love is way off base. If they do in fact want to have fidelity in their marriage, wouldn't they be reformed even if only in their own marriage?

Is my perception completely wrong?

 

To me marriage has always been a place where you stay only as long as your spouse is your primary love relationship. You are bound by love, never by vows. Vows can only state an intent, since you can not promise love.

 

If anything, seeing how my MM looks differently on marriage and marriage vows than I do, I am more reluctant to the institution of marriage now. Knowing how bound he feels by vows once made I would most likely not want to marry him unless circumstances demanded it like in OWoman's case.

 

I would only consider marrying my MM in the future if both of us had the understanding of marriage I stated above, and only if he suggested it. It is important to me that he feels free to love me or not, without any bonds tying him down.

 

I want my MM to be faithful to me, both now and in the future. We have an agreement of exclusivity since a year back. Married or not, I want him to be faithful to me as long as I am his primary love interest.

 

I can't see how this would in any way make me reformed. I have the same opinion now as I would have later. And just like OWoman doesn't, I can not see myself supporting OW in a different manner as "married" from what I do today. I always felt that OWoman did not betray her class when she got married.

Edited March 16, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[NoIDidn't]

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

 

I don't recall ever making such an agreement with you.

 

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.

 

Just, wow.

[jennie-jennie]

I don't recall ever making such an agreement with you.

 

I do.

 

(10 characters necessary)

[NoIDidn't]

I do.

 

(10 characters necessary)

 

Considering you were able to find the thread where the post I mention resides, perhaps you can find where I made such an agreement. I do not recall ever agreeing to such as it is often a valid point in other discussions.

 

I find this insistence on removing this from discussion problematic and ironic.

[jennie-jennie]

Considering you were able to find the thread where the post I mention resides, perhaps you can find where I made such an agreement. I do not recall ever agreeing to such as it is often a valid point in other discussions.

 

I find this insistence on removing this from discussion problematic and ironic.

 

Sure, let's discuss it then. What is it you want to say? I will answer if I recall, because it is half a year ago so I am not sure I do.

 

I do remember you for one were interpreting my MM's post in a way he never meant it. I don't remember any longer what your interpretation was. As far as I could see this was not in the original thread. It must have been one of the times you brought it up again. I am sorry but I only remembered which the original thread was, not the subsequent ones.

[jennie-jennie]

I thought that most of the OW here would not want to be an OW or married to a WH once they married MM. Perhaps my perception of the OW wanting to marry out of love is way off base. If they do in fact want to have fidelity in their marriage, wouldn't they be reformed even if only in their own marriage?

 

NID, I believe in fact what my MM was pointing out was that some OW might change their minds, become reformed, once they get their MM, because now they have something to lose, and they know what other women are capable of.

[NoIDidn't]

Sure, let's discuss it then. What is it you want to say? I will answer if I recall, because it is half a year ago so I am not sure I do.

 

I do remember you for one were interpreting my MM's post in a way he never meant it. I don't remember any longer what your interpretation was. As far as I could see this was not in the original thread. It must have been one of the times you brought it up again. I am sorry but I only remembered which the original thread was, not the subsequent ones.

 

Thanks for the name of that thread, btw (He Left Today). I went back and read it in its entirety and it was a good read. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

I'll pass on discussing that post. Enjoy your evening.

[GreenEyedLady]

Thanks for the name of that thread, btw (He Left Today). I went back and read it in its entirety and it was a good read. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

I'll pass on discussing that post. Enjoy your evening.

 

NID thanks for the clue...I'm pasting my reply to Mino's post here. Still true:

 

I don't put down people. I try to get people to really see. To see what they want and to see the reality.

 

How is that putting anyone down?

 

I didn't call anyone something rude.

 

I simply broke it down.

 

What have I always said?

 

Look at what he does, not at what he says.

 

You can draw your own conclusions.

 

I was an Other Woman but I didn't aspire to be a mistress. In fact I am disgusted with the term. I was never anyone's soft place to fall. I was a partner, never a mistress.

 

I don't believe in wallowing, I don't believe in compulsion. We make choices because we get something out of them. To make an excuse, whether it's the kids, finances, history, it's just an excuse to keep from taking responsibility. When you take that excuse as law, you enable.

 

I don't know anyone who could have went through the role I have played and the subsequent consequences (both good and not so good) and not learned something. I have learned so much about myself, about men, relationships and society in general it has made me a different GEL.

 

But I am the same in my empathy, compassion and championing for women. I want women empowered to achieve their goals, not settle. If AR were here and saying she's happy, then I wouldn't say a word. She's getting what she needs.

 

But she's not saying that, is she?

 

Maybe you pick up certain vibes because you're convicted. There's a reason it speaks to your heart.

 

GEL

 

GEL

[NoIDidn't]

NID thanks for the clue...

 

Hey, hey now before someone think we are excluding others from this discussion and report us when that is not at all what happened.

 

It was only a clue for MYSELF. That thread holds many truths and observations that I don't want to forget and wish to continue. Not just that one post. I really do appreciate that she named that thread as I didn't remember the name of it and didn't feel like searching for it.

[GreenEyedLady]

Hey, hey now before someone think we are excluding others from this discussion and report us when that is not at all what happened.

 

It was only a clue for MYSELF. That thread holds many truths and observations that I don't want to forget and wish to continue. Not just that one post. I really do appreciate that she named that thread as I didn't remember the name of it and didn't feel like searching for it.

 

I didn't see her name it, I just read your last post and searched.

 

I actually searched usernames and that's how I found my reply. And really my reply stands for this thread as well.

 

I am GEL. Neither reformed or non-reformed. I grow and learn and evolve.

 

I am me and only me.

 

GEL

[jennie-jennie]

I thought that most of the OW here would not want to be an OW or married to a WH once they married MM. Perhaps my perception of the OW wanting to marry out of love is way off base. If they do in fact want to have fidelity in their marriage, wouldn't they be reformed even if only in their own marriage?

 

NID, I believe in fact what my MM was pointing out was that some OW might change their minds, become reformed, once they get their MM, because now they have something to lose, and they know what other women are capable of.

 

This might hold true even when the exOW marries another man.