Dating someone who was the Long-term OW...

[Lovelybird]

Nice try - but OWoman only gets to fall in love once in her life, and it's happened

I am not that sure, maybe one day you see a married man, and decide he is the real deal, and his wife is a witch, then nothing going to stop you chasing love.

 

But good for jennie-jennie she can trust you, maybe she doesn't consider you charming enough to be a threat

 

If going for a friend's husband is incest, then what is going for other women's husband? That woman is your enemy? You seem have conditional moral code.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Lovelybird

[turnstone]

From research I have read, the "crazy in love" feeling can still be alive and kicking after 25 years in an ordinary relationship. They have seen this on camera images of the brain, activity in these areas after 25 years. Some individuals are that lucky.

 

I don't deny that it can be sustained. Owoman is an example of that from what she's written. Whether its 'lucky' is subjective, there are many men and women who after the initial rush, prefer the state of mind and emotion that usually comes with longevity than the intense, highly charged feelings, of the first stage of a relationship. Either way, if the relationships are healthy and as a consequence they're not hurting anyone else, its all good.

[jennie-jennie]

I am not that sure, maybe one day you see a married man, and decide he is the real deal, and his wife is a witch, then nothing going to stop you chasing love.

But good for jennie-jennie she can trust you, maybe she doesn't consider you charming enough to be a threat

If going for a friend's husband is incest, then what is going for other women's husband? That woman is your enemy? You seem have conditional moral code.

 

This is interesting. I don't go around considering other woman a threat. But I certainly do consider OWoman both charming and intelligent, and I am sure she is beautiful too.

[jennie-jennie]

I don't deny that it can be sustained. Owoman is an example of that from what she's written. Whether its 'lucky' is subjective, there are many men and women who after the initial rush, prefer the state of mind and emotion that usually comes with longevity than the intense, highly charged feelings, of the first stage of a relationship. Either way, if the relationships are healthy and as a consequence they're not hurting anyone else, its all good.

 

I don't see these emotions as being at odds with each other. Although the initial hormonal rush in my case is long gone, just like it went away after a year or so in every long term relationship I have had, I still have intense and lustful feelings as I have had in every relationship for as long as it lasts. I am certain there would be activity in the in-love part of my brain if measured. That is just the way I am and love. This does not exclude longevity and loyal, stable love, on the contrary. I feel blessed that I never stop desiring the men I love.

Edited May 17, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[turnstone]

I don't see these emotions as being at odds with each other. Although the initial hormonal rush in my case is long gone, just like it went away after a year or so in every long term relationship I have had, I still have intense and lustful feelings as I have had in every relationship for as long as it lasts. I am certain there would be activity in the in-love part of my brain if measured. That is just the way I am and love. This does not exclude longevity and loyal, stable love, on the contrary. I feel blessed that I never stop desiring the men I love.

 

There is a huge difference between the initial 'in love' state and continuing desire. You say you still have those hugely intense feelings and you are still engaged in an affair, which just like any affair, is, by its very nature, going to sustain those initial feelings. I can only conclude that you haven't moved past that stage and maybe don't even recognise that sustainable love can and does exist without the intense lust of falling in love. This along with your apparent belief that you must be 'blessed' to still desire the men you 'love' instead of realising its the norm for most people in long term relationships to want to have sex with their partner (despite what one may read on LS) indicates you haven't been exposed to normal, healthy relationships and hence your judgement on what that constitutes will be impaired.

[jennie-jennie]

There is a huge difference between the initial 'in love' state and continuing desire. You say you still have those hugely intense feelings and you are still engaged in an affair, which just like any affair, is, by its very nature, going to sustain those initial feelings. I can only conclude that you haven't moved past that stage and maybe don't even recognise that sustainable love can and does exist without the intense lust of falling in love. This along with your apparent belief that you must be 'blessed' to still desire the men you 'love' instead of realising its the norm for most people in long term relationships to want to have sex with their partner (despite what one may read on LS) indicates you haven't been exposed to normal, healthy relationships and hence your judgement on what that constitutes will be impaired.

 

How do you explain the huge difference between the initial hormonal rush I experienced the first year or so and the continuous desire I feel now then? Which is exactly the way I have functioned in every relationship, be it an affair or not.

 

Since you are so set on telling me that none of my relationships have been normal and healthy, it would be interesting if you would state if you have had any other relationship than the only one we know of.

[OWoman]

I am not that sure, maybe one day you see a married man, and decide he is the real deal, and his wife is a witch, then nothing going to stop you chasing love.

 

OTC - I don't "chase love". I used to go for hot pasionate lust, but I'm getting plenty of that along with everything else now in my M. So the prospect of me chasing anybody, or anything, right now is zero.

 

But good for jennie-jennie she can trust you, maybe she doesn't consider you charming enough to be a threat

 

Even assuming I would find her SO attractive enough to want to hit on him (which I very much doubt, as he meets at least one of my "people I don't have sex with" criteria), I seriously doubt I'd be a threat to Jen! As she's already stated, she is exclusive, and would insist on that within her R. Her SO would then be obliged to decide - either a part-time, short-lived rumble with me (which was all I was ever offering to any MM - to be one of several meaningless diversions in my life), risking what he had with Jen, or the full-time, full-on R he had with her. I've no doubt what he would choose.

 

If going for a friend's husband is incest, then what is going for other women's husband? That woman is your enemy? You seem have conditional moral code.

 

I've already explained that position before. I put people in boxes when I meet them. I consider friends to be "the family you choose", so my feelings about friends are completely platonic, by definition.

 

Random people that I meet that do not come with labels already attached to them can be put in whatever box circumstances / hormones / relevant factors suggest. For some, "being M" would automatically qualify a guy for the "friends" box rather than the "potential meat" box. I don't sanctify M, so that condition does not apply to me.

[OWoman]

Yes, and it would seem you employ a different tactic for keeping that feeling alive. The fact you feel.............. how did you put it? Cheated? If you don't have sex at least two? Three? Four? Times a day would certainly demonstrate this.

 

I "employ a different tactic", do I? First time I've ever heard finding your H sexy and desirable described as a "tactic", but there you go. Having a strong libido and being in touch with your body is obviously something devious and threatening to some people, rather than the natural expression of abiding love and desire between two people who value each other, and their R, very deeply.

 

Again, the fact you have to have sex multiple times a day demonstrates that the 'crazy in love' is alive and kicking.

 

So, in your opinion, only "love" that involves deprioritising lovemaking and losing interest in one's spouse physically, or losing tough with one's own body and it's desires, can be "mature"? Do you not rather mean, "middle aged", in which case I'll happily agree that my love for my H is not that?

 

Or perhaps it's the fact that we prioritise time with each other, that we keep ourselves attractive to each other and that we create the spaces to facilitate the physical, as well as the emotional, intellectual and social aspects of our love, that looms as an indictment to those who don't similarly prioritise that, and who allow the minutiae of daily routine to suppress their connection to each other, leading to the need to neutralise the threat by the classic method of dissing sex as bad, dirty, perverse...?

[jennie-jennie]

There is a huge difference between the initial 'in love' state and continuing desire. You say you still have those hugely intense feelings and you are still engaged in an affair, which just like any affair, is, by its very nature, going to sustain those initial feelings. I can only conclude that you haven't moved past that stage and maybe don't even recognise that sustainable love can and does exist without the intense lust of falling in love. This along with your apparent belief that you must be 'blessed' to still desire the men you 'love' instead of realising its the norm for most people in long term relationships to want to have sex with their partner (despite what one may read on LS) indicates you haven't been exposed to normal, healthy relationships and hence your judgement on what that constitutes will be impaired.

 

You need to recognize the difference between the initial hormonal rush in a relationship and having a "strong libido and being in touch with your body" as OWoman expresses it. Many OW do have a strong libido, which I think is by many misinterpreted as "any affair, is, by its very nature, going to sustain those initial feelings". As I have stated repeatedly before, the initial feelings are gone in my case. What is left is my strong libido and my love for my MM.

[jennie-jennie]

Even assuming I would find her SO attractive enough to want to hit on him (which I very much doubt, as he meets at least one of my "people I don't have sex with" criteria), I seriously doubt I'd be a threat to Jen! As she's already stated, she is exclusive, and would insist on that within her R. Her SO would then be obliged to decide - either a part-time, short-lived rumble with me (which was all I was ever offering to any MM - to be one of several meaningless diversions in my life), risking what he had with Jen, or the full-time, full-on R he had with her. I've no doubt what he would choose.

 

Hey, what is wrong with my MM?

[OWoman]

Hey, what is wrong with my MM?

 

Ah - you obviously missed the bit where I said I don't go for people of nationalities whose foreign policy I have issues with I know that might seem like an irrational prejudice, but IME pillow talk tends to get heated in ways that are distracting rather than erotic...

 

Different strokes for different folks, I guess

[OWoman]

There is a huge difference between the initial 'in love' state and continuing desire. You say you still have those hugely intense feelings and you are still engaged in an affair, which just like any affair, is, by its very nature, going to sustain those initial feelings.

 

TS I'm not sure how many As you've had, but I can tell you from my own experience (having had several) that that's simply not the case. In an A, as in any other R, intense feelings of desire can wane over time, or attraction can be sustained - it depends on the people and the R between them.

 

I've had As where the initial rush wore off and what was left was, well, nothing spectacular, others where the initial rush persisted, and still others where there was no "initial rush", just a kind of matter-of-fact expression of slow burning lust and desire, sustained over time.

 

Not every A, every R or every individual fits some undergrad textbook description of what "ought to" happen. Those patterns are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[White Flower]

 

Maybe a better truth: we choose who we do NOT fall in love with. I'm married, very happily, and in love. I could probably fall in love with a new person if I stopped nurturing this relationship and started nurturing another--but why would I do that?

 

On the other side, if I were single, I could probably fall in love with a committed man, if I responded to his advances and nurtured the relationship. But why would I do that?

 

If we wish a relationship to grow, we water it. No water, it dies.

You wouldn't do that because you're already in love. Most people who stay M but find an OP are no longer in love with their spouse, sadly.

 

One more thing...

 

I sometimes wonder if those who believe that it is likely and common to fall in love with a new partner, have ever really loved.

If you've loved at least once, you recognize it when it comes around again.

 

The only thing I don't understand it loving two people at once but I don't want to get off subject.

[White Flower]

the response to the OP and what prompted it. At least lovingagain is honest about her affair.

And we all come here to LS, an anonymous site, and be dishonest about our affair? I don't think so.

[White Flower]

This is interesting. I don't go around considering other woman a threat. But I certainly do consider OWoman both charming and intelligent, and I am sure she is beautiful too.

 

Other women are not a threat to our Rs because a man cannot be stolen. Men do the chasing folks, at least that is the norm.

[bittersweet memories]

Other women are not a threat to our Rs because a man cannot be stolen. Men do the chasing folks, at least that is the norm.

 

 

Girl, this is 2010!! Woman chase, like men chase.. I see it all the time.

[White Flower]

Yes, and it would seem you employ a different tactic for keeping that feeling alive. The fact you feel.............. how did you put it? Cheated? If you don't have sex at least two? Three? Four? Times a day would certainly demonstrate this.

 

 

 

Again, the fact you have to have sex multiple times a day demonstrates that the 'crazy in love' is alive and kicking.

 

My exH and I had sex almost every day before we separated. The sex was the last thing to go, long after the in love feelings died. Those in love feelings became the more enduring love you talk about which had absolutely nothing and perhaps even everything (depending on how you look at it) with the frequency of the sex that we had. Even though there was enduring love, there was no intimacy.

 

You have the misconception that a healthy libido determines the love in any given R but you are wrong. The love can certainly influence the libido but I don't believe the opposite it true.

 

So while I had a lot more sex with my ex it was without intimacy even though there was a strong intent to love. I have (or had) less sex with MM but it rocked my world due the the intimacy we shared. Love which includes intimacy is the deepest love known to man.

[White Flower]

Girl, this is 2010!! Woman chase, like men chase.. I see it all the time.

OK, lol, I'll give you that BM but men only like those girls for one thing only. When it comes to love men are the ones that do the chasing. They don't just let any woman into their hearts.

[turnstone]

I can't be arsed anymore. I don't know why I bothered in the first place when its always been blatantly apparent that OW only read what they want.

[White Flower]

I can't be arsed anymore. I don't know why I bothered in the first place when its always been blatantly apparent that OW only read what they want.

Why is it considered that we want something? Why is it not considered that we actually know a few things, have gained experience on our own, read books, and have degrees? What a blanket statement.

[reboot]

I can't be arsed anymore. I don't know why I bothered in the first place when its always been blatantly apparent that OW EVERYONE only read what they want.

 

Fixed your post.

[White Flower]

Fixed your post.

For a fBH your vision has not been slanted in any way whatsoever. I applaud you reebs.

[White Flower]

WF- Was your swept away thread deleted? I ask here since it seemed to be the catalyst for this thread.

Yes it was. I did not request it nor did I see any inflamed posts on it. Most posters were VERY helpful in fact. I was going to have MM read it after I ended it so he could find all explanation there but now it is gone.

 

It was conveyed to me that many were upset by the thread but that nobody requested it be deleted. It was also suggested that I start a new one and word it very carefully, whatever that means; I can't ask because 'it won't be discussed any further'. But I would like to know how I can be more sensitive than I already am. The only time I come across strong is when I have to defend myself such as on this thread. I think I was pretty sweet on the other one.

 

Thanks for asking jthorne. And thanks for your support.

[rewe4reel]

LS deleted your ENTIRE thread?

 

LOL, how could that possibly make any sense.

 

Deleting an entire thread?

 

What subject matter is verboten, must be edited out of existence????

[OWoman]

LS deleted your ENTIRE thread?

 

LOL, how could that possibly make any sense.

 

Deleting an entire thread?

 

What subject matter is verboten, must be edited out of existence????

 

there was a bs who started a thread here attacking wf's thread who got upset when that thread got canned but not wf's one. that may have had something to do with it?