Does the MM "owe" the OW anything when the A is over?

[seren]

No matter how much I feel I should feel (?) differently, I think that FWH not so much owed XOW an explanation, as should have done the decent thing and ended with more than an 'it's over' text. No matter how much I want to believe there was no relationship, there had to have been one for it to be more than a one night stand, no matter how H saw it, no matter how XOW saw it. Fact is, he shared his time, thoughts, body fluids with her and no matter how much I hate, hate this, it happened.

 

It was interesting to me that she called him all the names under the sun and was surprised he was a liar - ironic really. Even so, aside from my anger, disgust and hurt, I could see that this was a person who was hurt, confused and in pain, granted she wasn't in front of me (probably a good thing) but I felt empathy (a whole other thread) for her as another human being. Pity she hadn't shown the same courtesy and empathy for me before beginning the A, but it was what it was.

[NoIDidn't]

I will agree that more is owed than a text message. That's just tacky. And cowardly. Wow.

[Susmay]

OW: Perhaps if you got out more you'd meet a more representative selection of OWs, rather than the bottom-feeders...

 

Originally Posted by turnstone

I don't spend *all* my time on LS, you know.

 

Reddevil: great reply/comeback

 

 

"Wonderful" Turnstone and Red.

[Susmay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OWoman

Perhaps if you got out more you'd meet a more representative selection of OWs, rather than the bottom-feeders you seem to have chosen to be exposed to.

 

I'm really curious about what this is supposed to mean as most Wives don't actually *choose* the OW they end up with' date=' or end up hearing about.[/quote']

 

Well many of us BWs only know about one OW in real life, but get to know others here on LS.

 

I wonder if the the OWs here on LS have reported OWoman as it seems she is saying what she thinks of them. I wouldn't say that about any of the OW I have encountered here on LS.

[Bootsie]

Perhaps if you got out more you'd meet a more representative selection of OWs, rather than the bottom-feeders you seem to have chosen to be exposed to.

 

Good grief OWoman, some of them are even your internet friends and supporters!

 

IME, OWs are high-flyers who choose As because they suit their high-flying lifestyle (having a part-time lover on call for as an when it suits you, with no expectations on his part of anything more, since he has a W to take care of all that other stuff). Their self images do not rest on their Rs, but on those areas of their lives where they choose to invest - their work, their families, their friends, their hobbies. They do not sit around waiting by the phone - they are out having a wonderful time with friends, or the lover of their choice - and should they tire of one, they have a queue of others clamouring to be next, so there's no time for mourning.

 

The problem is they don't self-identify.

 

Sure, I've seen other kinds of OWs too - but just because LS is over-represented by the unhappy kind and under-represented by the happy and having a ball kind, doesn't mean they're not out there. But then, most people would never know they're OW, just that they're high-flyers. Why would they have cause to discuss their sex lives with narrow minded prejudiced types who would just disapprove?

 

More veiled insults.

[turnstone]

Once again Owl sums it up.

 

And to add - although I understand why an OW would think she want an explanation, no explanation in itself speaks volumes.

 

To further clarify my thoughts - the OWomen having affairs with my ex husband were (are?) pretty desperate. They patently had low self-esteem and low self-worth. Not only did they want an explanation of why he had chosen me, but at least one that I know of, proposed that she remain his other woman while he worked on his marriage. Now that's desperate. Although at one time I was disgusted by them, now I am able to separate their actions from their person.

 

I'm pretty sure he chose them to have affairs with largely because of their poor self-image, he liked being in control and what better type of woman to exercise that need over? I wonder if it gave him a kick to *not* explain to them what was going on after d-day? Probably.

[White Flower]

Here's my thoughts.

 

The MM/MW may well think that they "owe" the OW/OM a final meeting to provide closure.

 

But...the vast majority of BS's do NOT share those feelings. In fact, they recognize that 'relationship' as being a pure toxin to their own relationship with their spouse.

 

So the first thing that nearly every BS INSISTS upon is immediate NC.

 

The MM is faced with a choice at that point. Violate that demand for NC (and further hurt and betray his spouse) and provide 'closure' that is 'owed' the OW...or honor the requirement for NC and hurt the OW.

 

It's pretty much that simple. Not easy...simple.

 

And so the ones that don't give the OW what is 'owed' are simply making the choice to work on their marriage...they're picking their course of action and going forward.

 

The ones that do give that "closure" rarely are looking for closure. From what I've seen, they're nearly always looking for a way to return to the status quo...affair AND marriage. They're setting the stage for this to all happen over again, potentially.

 

So the bottom line is that the MM owes two women...and what he owes to each conflicts with what he owes the other. He's forced with a choice over which one to hurt, and which relationship to work on.

I can't speak for OW who 'rarely look for closure' but I can say that all I wanted was an explanation. When you're told that he will fess up IF there is a D-day then you expect him to fess up. If he doesn't, then he owes you an explanation.

I agree with everything but the bolded, for personal experience reasons.

 

My H was done with the EA, but he had to work with the OW. He had to interact with her on a regular basis because her administrative function was vital to his part of business with the company. He ended up having more personal conversations than I ever wanted him to, but it was her initiating them and using emotional blackmail to get him to speak to her.

 

There was an OW here last year that I immediately bumped heads with because she felt she was "owed" these conversations. She didn't care at all that she was interfering in whatever reconciliation he was attempting with his W. She kept making excuses for why he "owed" her and I called her on it.

 

I don't think the OW is owed an explanation in the least. If he's ended it, following a d-day or without one, she should just accept that. No explanation needed. Regardless of any perceived promises made. If he's breaking up with you, obviously those "promises" are no longer on the table. Attempting to talk about them, or even demand that they be honored, is obviously about getting what one wants and not about honoring his new feelings - wanting it over.

NID I didn't see getting my explanation as interfering with his reconciliation at all. He made a promise to me (and it doesn't matter if he spoke that promise in a church and signed a piece of paper) and I felt he needed to explain why he reneged on it. What you suggest above (in bold) is much easier said than done. In no way whatsoever did I expect that conversation to turn into me wanting, asking, pleading with him to come back to me. No way. After the way he treated me it was up to him to beg, plead, and work his way back into my life. That is beside the point though, I just wanted an answer and I left him alone after I got it.

[White Flower]

Once again Owl sums it up.

 

And to add - although I understand why an OW would think she want an explanation, no explanation in itself speaks volumes.

 

To further clarify my thoughts - the OWomen having affairs with my ex husband were (are?) pretty desperate. They patently had low self-esteem and low self-worth. Not only did they want an explanation of why he had chosen me, but at least one that I know of, proposed that she remain his other woman while he worked on his marriage. Now that's desperate. Although at one time I was disgusted by them, now I am able to separate their actions from their person.

 

I'm pretty sure he chose them to have affairs with largely because of their poor self-image, he liked being in control and what better type of woman to exercise that need over? I wonder if it gave him a kick to *not* explain to them what was going on after d-day? Probably.

Your odd obsession with OW having poor self-esteem has me questioning how easy it was for your H to get away with having so many of them. Perhaps he thinks your superiority overshadows your sense of self-awareness these women actually have in their lives. My guess is the one who wanted to keep the A going actually wanted him as a plaything and not the other way around. She may have felt your H was the one with the low self-esteem and wanted to take advantage of that. Something to consider.

[Susmay]

Your odd obsession with OW having poor self-esteem has me questioning how easy it was for your H to get away with having so many of them. Perhaps he thinks your superiority overshadows your sense of self-awareness these women actually have in their lives. My guess is the one who wanted to keep the A going actually wanted him as a plaything and not the other way around. She may have felt your H was the one with the low self-esteem and wanted to take advantage of that. Something to consider.

 

I'm not obsessed with the OW having poor self-esteem, but now I think on it, your advice "something to consider" could equally be directed at certain OW in terms of their self-esteem.

 

What's more this looks to me like a personal attack by you on Turnstone. Does it violate the TOS do you think?

[White Flower]

I'm not obsessed with the OW having poor self-esteem, but now I think on it, your advice "something to consider" could equally be directed at certain OW in terms of their self-esteem.

 

What's more this looks to me like a personal attack by you on Turnstone. Does it violate the TOS do you think?

I don't believe so. I think it is worth considering that she really has an obsession about OW having low self-esteem.

 

I will be the first to point out my flaws and I've got nearly 5000 posts to prove it. It all goes to the benefit of self-awareness. I think the poster in question should consider a few things before making blanket statements.

[Susmay]

...I will be the first to point out my flaws and I've got nearly 5000 posts to prove it. It all goes to the benefit of self-awareness. ...

 

I sure hope for your sake that all 5000 posts don't prove your flaws!

 

That really would be demonstrating an excessively high degree of self-awareness of faults.

[turnstone]

Your odd obsession with OW having poor self-esteem has me questioning how easy it was for your H to get away with having so many of them. Perhaps he thinks your superiority overshadows your sense of self-awareness these women actually have in their lives. My guess is the one who wanted to keep the A going actually wanted him as a plaything and not the other way around. She may have felt your H was the one with the low self-esteem and wanted to take advantage of that. Something to consider.

 

That's pretty tortuous.

 

First off, posting a few times on an Internet forum that I believe the OW my ex husband was involved with had (have?) poor self-image is hardly obsessing, those posts in question are a tiny minority compared to what else I've posted about.

 

My ex husband (please don't forget the ex, it feels too good ) was able to sustain so many affairs/ONS/etc. for a couple of reasons - my job takes me out of the country for much of the year provided the logistical means. But more importantly the women he was (is?) targeting were a) emotionally unhealthy as demonstrated by their willingness to continue even though he'd made it clear he would never leave me and would always love and want to be with me even after I left him, and very probably b) drawn to his financial status and the apparent power that that gives him.

 

Further, I think he needed women like this as he was unable to exercise control over me, I didn't act as his cheerleader nearly enough for his ego's needs either.

 

So far from these women being independent, resourceful beings, having fun using him a plaything, they had to be the complete opposite otherwise there was no point in him having an affair.

Edited June 9, 2010 by turnstone
Rushing to complete a job

[OWoman]

This:

I don't spend *all* my time on LS, you know.

 

is interesting, given that I wrote:

 

Perhaps if you got out more you'd meet a more representative selection of OWs, rather than the bottom-feeders you seem to have chosen to be exposed to.

 

So your idea of "getting out" is by logging in to LS??? :lmao:

 

So it's true OWs have a far more exciting life than the anti-OW brigade! We actually get out, meet real people IRL, and not just virtual people on online forums! Well, that certainly explains a great deal!!

[OWoman]

I'm really curious about what this is supposed to mean as most Wives don't actually *choose* the OW they end up with' date=' or end up hearing about.[/quote']

 

It's supposed to mean what I stated:

 

Why would they have cause to discuss their sex lives with narrow minded prejudiced types who would just disapprove?

 

That many of the normal, high-achieving people one meets IRL may be OWs, but people who wear their prejudice like an amulet are unlikely ever to find that out, as OWs are not ever likely to share that fact (that they're OW) with someone whose prejudice is so obvious. And so, to the blatantly prejudiced, they well remain a hidden phenomenon, visible only in places like LS where the "unhappy OW" is more likely to be disproportionately represented by nature of the type of forum.

 

Whereas, if one was open minded and non-judgmental, one might learn that one's close friends, colleagues or neighbours - nice, normal grounded people who don't meet the "miserable, low self esteem" stereotype at all - are in fact OW or OM... and that not all OW conform to some silly stereotype.

 

That's all. It's a perfectly easy concept to get one's head around, really.

[Bootsie]

This:

 

Originally Posted by turnstone

I don't spend *all* my time on LS, you know.

 

is interesting, given that I wrote:

 

Originally Posted by OWoman

Perhaps if you got out more you'd meet a more representative selection of OWs, rather than the bottom-feeders you seem to have chosen to be exposed to.

 

So your idea of "getting out" is by logging in to LS??? :lmao:

 

So it's true OWs have a far more exciting life than the anti-OW brigade! We actually get out, meet real people IRL, and not just virtual people on online forums! Well, that certainly explains a great deal!!

 

 

We know what you meant. :lmao: Nice try though.

[RedDevil66]

It's supposed to mean what I stated:

 

 

 

That many of the normal, high-achieving people one meets IRL may be OWs, but people who wear their prejudice like an amulet are unlikely ever to find that out, as OWs are not ever likely to share that fact (that they're OW) with someone whose prejudice is so obvious. And so, to the blatantly prejudiced, they well remain a hidden phenomenon, visible only in places like LS where the "unhappy OW" is more likely to be disproportionately represented by nature of the type of forum.

 

Whereas, if one was open minded and non-judgmental, one might learn that one's close friends, colleagues or neighbours - nice, normal grounded people who don't meet the "miserable, low self esteem" stereotype at all - are in fact OW or OM... and that not all OW conform to some silly stereotype.

 

That's all. It's a perfectly easy concept to get one's head around, really.

 

Yes, if we are were as smart and cultured like you, it would be so easy to get our heads around.

But wez a bunchz ofz stoopidz and wez just dunt' understands its all

[Bootsie]

Your constant need to belittle people says a great deal about you.

What is this need you have to act like you're better than others?

That is actually a deep psychosis, fyi!

 

I can assure you, ow don't live exciting lives at all. Sitting at home in pain waiting for a MM to leave his wife doesn't sound very exciting.

 

Your life consisted of cheating with married men over and over and over then finally marrying one then coming to a Virtual world to defend yourself and then still come here long after your "catch" to advise others that it's ok to cheat.

Now, tell me again who needs a life?!

 

Well said but it falls on deaf ears and/or provokes an extreme defensive reaction. Usually one that lashes out at anyone who dares to disagree, sometimes at her "own" BW who cannot defend herself, sometimes at BWs generally and occasionally at OWs who are in deep pain. No one is immune apart from the 2 posters who invariably defend and defer to her.

 

I can highly recommend the book "Queen Bees and Wannabees" by Rosalind Wiseman for analysis on why this occurs among groups of girls and women.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Bootsie

[RedDevil66]

Well said but it falls on deaf ears and/or provokes an extreme defensive reaction. Usually one that lashes out at anyone who dares to disagree, sometimes at her "own" BW who cannot defend herself, sometimes at BWs generally and occasionally at OWs who are in deep pain. No one is immune apart from the 2 posters who invariably defend and defer to her.

 

You're new here and already see this......You're right. There are two types of OW, those types and the types who actually have a backbone.

[OWoman]

Originally Posted by OWoman

Perhaps if you got out more you'd meet a more representative selection of OWs, rather than the bottom-feeders you seem to have chosen to be exposed to.

 

Good grief OWoman, some of them are even your internet friends and supporters!

 

Bootsie - I think you misread my post. My point was that people who are so prejudiced that they only see OWs as bottom-feeders, and can't conceive of OWs who are not bottom-feeders, will not be able to recognise that someone who is not a bottom-feeder might be an OW, IRL. I wasn't referring to LS - I was referring to the people IRL that were being dissed as "low self esteem" and otherwise damaged individuals - who were being seen through that lens and thus written off. If the poster who had posted that were to learn that someone s/he otherwise admired was in fact OW or OM, they might reappraise their view that ALL OW were necessarily the losers they painted them as.

 

That's all. It wasn't a diss of anyone here. It wasn't even about anyone here.

 

Originally Posted by OWoman

IME, OWs are high-flyers who choose As because they suit their high-flying lifestyle (having a part-time lover on call for as an when it suits you, with no expectations on his part of anything more, since he has a W to take care of all that other stuff). Their self images do not rest on their Rs, but on those areas of their lives where they choose to invest - their work, their families, their friends, their hobbies. They do not sit around waiting by the phone - they are out having a wonderful time with friends, or the lover of their choice - and should they tire of one, they have a queue of others clamouring to be next, so there's no time for mourning.

 

The problem is they don't self-identify.

 

Not to people that they can see are narrow-minded or prejudiced, no. But in "safe", non-judgmental environments they may well. I know of a great many friends, colleagues and others who are / were OW / OM or WS - because where I work, and the people I hang with, there is no stigma attached to that.

 

Originally Posted by OWoman Sure, I've seen other kinds of OWs too - but just because LS is over-represented by the unhappy kind and under-represented by the happy and having a ball kind, doesn't mean they're not out there. But then, most people would never know they're OW, just that they're high-flyers. Why would they have cause to discuss their sex lives with narrow minded prejudiced types who would just disapprove?

 

More veiled insults.

 

Again, it wasn't meant as such. It wasn't a diss of anyone on LS. I've come across OW who were bottom-feeders - just as I've come across BWs, WWs, MWs and all kinds of others who were bottom-feeders. They exist. But so do all kinds of other OWs, which the poster was choosing to remain ignorant of in their dismissal of ALL OWs as bottom-feeders. I was making the point that many of the happy, successful OWs would be invisible to the naked eye - you wouldn't know them to be OWs unless you knew them well enough, and prejudice would certainly prevent that happening - and that you wouldn't get a true sense of the broad spectrum of representativity of OWs here on LS because most of the OWs who post here are posting because they are somehow unhappy with their situation. And, because you'd mainly see unhappy OW here, that might lead you to believe that most OWs were unhappy, if this was your only exposure to OWs. It wasn't meant as a diss - just pointing out that prejudices blind you to what's out there IRL, and that the small sample you might come across somewhere like LS where people do self-identify is by its nature likely to be a skewed sample (of unhappy bs happy, in this case; not of "bottom-feeders" or any other such. TBH with the partial information most people post here - for very good reason - it would be impossible to make that kind of judgment call.)

 

I hope that's clearer...

[OWoman]

We know what you meant. :lmao: Nice try though.

 

I know what i meant. And if you read what I wrote, you'd see that your misreading was just that - a misreading.

 

Willful rather than accident, methinks...

[OWoman]

Your constant need to belittle people says a great deal about you.

What is this need you have to act like you're better than others?

That is actually a deep psychosis, fyi!

 

I can assure you, ow don't live exciting lives at all. Sitting at home in pain waiting for a MM to leave his wife doesn't sound very exciting.

 

Your life consisted of cheating with married men over and over and over then finally marrying one then coming to a Virtual world to defend yourself and then still come here long after your "catch" to advise others that it's ok to cheat.

Now, tell me again who needs a life?!

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never sat at home waiting for a MM to leave his W. I was far too busy with a full, demanding, exciting career; bringing up successful, happy, well-adjusted kids; having a wonderful social life with great friends; travelling to exciting new places and meeting wonderful people and learning new things; changing the world and fighting ceaselessly against injustice; enjoying the environment, connecting with nature, taking my body to its limits; writing, creating new knowledge, painting, photographing, designing, teaching, facilitating, managing; designing policy, monitoring, reviewing, evaluating, researching, publishing, presenting. Sharing, loving, living. I have no need to defend myself. I have a wonderful, fulfilling life shared with amazing people - I'm happy. If you want to project your own issues onto that, hey, do whatever you need to try to find your own happiness. It's no skin off my nose.

[seren]

OWoman, hope you don't mind a T/J question. You are now married to the XMM, from the posts I have read about your relationship, very happily so and it seems he had an awful life when married. You are one of the few OW I have read online who's relationship has worked out the way in which it did. You seem to identify (on LS) as OW, yet are now a MW. I am interested in how long an OW identifies as such. Not implying that you (general) have to suddenly adopt W status, but I wondered if your H were to have an A whether it would alter your opinion any.

 

To add, IME, high achievers (I was one for most of my professional life, my IQ is 147) are rarely content to share and generally expect to be numero uno. I cannot imagine any of my friends being content to want to be in a relationship, only to have to wait for a man to sit on the fence while making decisions that affect their lives when it suited them. Those who had flings or one night stands with men who were married, very quickly ended them or told said man to come back when he was available. Interesting that we have differing opinions on this. Speaking for myself, I couldn't and would't be comfortable watching the man I cared for leave my bed to go to another's, I have far too much respect for myself and other people's feelings do do this, but that's me and don't expect everyone to hold to this view.

 

IME, most high achieving women have to fight tooth and nail to break through the glass ceiling and get status based on their merits. I cannot recall one being content to be OW in the long term. As for people who aren't high achievers and haven't got high IQ's or have less influential positions - we are all just cogs in a wheel, one is dependent on the other, I hate the term bottom feeders, everyone has merit, everyone has the same aspirations for happiness, the right to truth and trust. Probably why I also think the OW/OM has the right to an ending explanation and the BS the right to expect more from the person who says that they love them and with whom they share a life.

 

Teaching, facilitating, managing; designing policy, monitoring, reviewing, evaluating, researching, publishing, presenting. Sounds very like the position I held.

Edited June 9, 2010 by seren
Comment

[Bootsie]

OWoman, hope you don't mind a T/J question. You are now married to the XMM, from the posts I have read about your relationship, very happily so and it seems he had an awful life when married. You are one of the few OW I have read online who's relationship has worked out the way in which it did. You seem to identify (on LS) as OW, yet are now a MW. I am interested in how long an OW identifies as such. Not implying that you (general) have to suddenly adopt W status, but I wondered if your H were to have an A whether it would alter your opinion any.

 

To add, IME, high achievers (I was one for most of my professional life, my IQ is 147) are rarely content to share and generally expect to be numero uno. I cannot imagine any of my friends being content to want to be in a relationship, only to have to wait for a man to sit on the fence while making decisions that affect their lives when it suited them. Those who had flings or one night stands with men who were married, very quickly ended them or told said man to come back when he was available. Interesting that we have differing opinions on this. Speaking for myself, I couldn't and would't be comfortable watching the man I cared for leave my bed to go to another's, I have far too much respect for myself and other people's feelings do do this, but that's me and don't expect everyone to hold to this view.

 

IME, most high achieving women have to fight tooth and nail to break through the glass ceiling and get status based on their merits. I cannot recall one being content to be OW in the long term. As for people who aren't high achievers and haven't got high IQ's or have less influential positions - we are all just cogs in a wheel, one is dependent on the other, I hate the term bottom feeders, everyone has merit, everyone has the same aspirations for happiness, the right to truth and trust. Probably why I also think the OW/OM has the right to an ending explanation and the BS the right to expect more from the person who says that they love them and with whom they share a life.

 

Teaching, facilitating, managing; designing policy, monitoring, reviewing, evaluating, researching, publishing, presenting. Sounds very like the position I held.

 

Oh you are a better (wo)man than me Seren. And I do admire your posting style (and content too).

[OWoman]

OWoman, hope you don't mind a T/J question. You are now married to the XMM, from the posts I have read about your relationship, very happily so and it seems he had an awful life when married. You are one of the few OW I have read online who's relationship has worked out the way in which it did. You seem to identify (on LS) as OW, yet are now a MW. I am interested in how long an OW identifies as such. Not implying that you (general) have to suddenly adopt W status, but I wondered if your H were to have an A whether it would alter your opinion any.

 

I can't speak for "an OW", only for myself - but to me, I'm just me. I'm not ashamed of having been an OW, and I don't rule out (as some OWs do) any possibility of being an OW in the future. I'm happily M, and I certainly don't plan on any As - but I'm realistic enough to know that, should things not work out with my M, I may well return to the kind of lifestyle that suited me and that I felt most comfortable before. I'm not someone who wants to be M for M's sake, and nor do I get any particular buzz from the fact of it being a monogamous LTR. All I know is that I love my H very much, and that I don't want any other men right now. He's all I want and need, and as long as that is the case, I am happy being boringly M.

 

That said, my politics and values don't change with my circumstances. I'm still an anarchist, despite having voted in the recent election. I'm still opposed to capitalism, despite holding a job in a capitalist economy. I'm still opposed to the institution of M, seeing it as fundamentally oppressive and exploitative and mentally unhealthy. And so, my views do still chime most with those marginal to, outside of or opposed to M. I don't identify with the views of typical MWs because I am not a typical MW, I guess.

 

Would it change if my H had an A? Well, aside from the fact that our track records would suggest I would be far more likely than he to step outside of the M, I find it hard to imagine the future in that kind of "everything stays the same apart from this one factor" way. I would imagine that, for either of us to have an A, things would have changed in our R so that we were out of touch enough not to know instantly - and not to tell the other pre-emptively - and that we wouldn't be shagging like rabbits several times a day to allow our bodies the stamina for an A!! So, if our R was like that, and we'd slid into some kind of complacency - my response would be to see the A as a wake-up call, either to save the M (if it was worth saving at that point, to both of us) or as a sign that it was over, thanks, good while it lasted, nice knowing you... moving on. Unless the OW had some kind of pre-existing R with me, I wouldn't have issues with her - she'd be a consequence, rather than a cause, of something else that needed addressing. I don't have issues with sexual non-exclusivity - for me, the issue would be that my H had not discussed wanting to shag someone else with me before acting on it, so the issue would be with his not feeling he could speak to be about it rather than with his wanting to do (or having done) it. But this is all guessing. I've never been a BS, I can't imagine what it might be like.

 

To add, IME, high achievers (I was one for most of my professional life, my IQ is 147) are rarely content to share and generally expect to be numero uno. I cannot imagine any of my friends being content to want to be in a relationship, only to have to wait for a man to sit on the fence while making decisions that affect their lives when it suited them. Those who had flings or one night stands with men who were married, very quickly ended them or told said man to come back when he was available. Interesting that we have differing opinions on this. Speaking for myself, I couldn't and would't be comfortable watching the man I cared for leave my bed to go to another's, I have far too much respect for myself and other people's feelings do do this, but that's me and don't expect everyone to hold to this view.

 

IME, most high achieving women have to fight tooth and nail to break through the glass ceiling and get status based on their merits. I cannot recall one being content to be OW in the long term. As for people who aren't high achievers and haven't got high IQ's or have less influential positions - we are all just cogs in a wheel, one is dependent on the other, I hate the term bottom feeders, everyone has merit, everyone has the same aspirations for happiness, the right to truth and trust. Probably why I also think the OW/OM has the right to an ending explanation and the BS the right to expect more from the person who says that they love them and with whom they share a life.

 

I guess it's a case of different strokes for different folks - and basic different values. The OW who sits around waiting for a MM is basically monogamous, sexually exclusive and focused on him and him alone. I was never like that and wasn't really thinking about women who might be, rather more of women like myself and colleagues and friends who have one, or more, MM/s who fit into a tiny slice of an otherwise really full life - and don't want any more than that. They are not women who want a full-time R, nor a full-time man, and don't want the kind of demands and expectations that that would bring - given all the other conflicting demands of career, family, social life, etc. They just want the fun bits as and when suits them - there's no waiting around, ever - the MM jumps when they want him, not the other way around. Personally, I would never put up with any kind of R where I had so little control!

 

The "bottom feeders" thing was meant more as an orientation comment rather than a judgment on anyone's class position or opportunities. One can be an achiever, IMO, and hold down part-time jobs at McDonalds, so long as you're in control of your life, making your own decisions and meeting your own life goals - whatever those are. The "bottom feeders" I was thinking of are those women who have either given up on making their lives work and are looking for someone to save them from themselves (appealing to a MM's Knight in Shining Armour facet) or are those kind of "Jerry Springer" drama queens who thrive on the melodrama and being the centre of attention... which is probably just another dimension of the same thing. I guess it amounts to a refusal to take ownership / responsibility for one's own life, whether through a sense of entitlement or a sense of innate brokenness because they prefer not to have to do all the hard work themselves.

 

Teaching, facilitating, managing; designing policy, monitoring, reviewing, evaluating, researching, publishing, presenting. Sounds very like the position I held.

 

I'm not in your job, am I?

[Dexter Morgan]

Yes, I think so. 2 people, in a relationship... just because he's married doesn't mean he is automatically absolved from the responsibilities of that relationship. It is still, when all's said and done, a relationship.

 

Do you believe the OW owes the wife decency?