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

[grogster]

He owes her a strong, unequivocal farewell coupled with total, complete no contact, which must last as long as his marriage.

 

That's all, folks.

[whichwayisup]

Yes, you were affected by your wife's affair, but you have never been the MM nor the OM in an extramarital relationship, so you just don't have any personal experience to lean back on when it comes to this.

 

So what? It's still HIS experience, he's allowed to still talk about it from his POV. He has experience by helping others and reading other people's sitautions, on here. That can make a person wise and learn through other people's mistakes.

[Fieldsofgold]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm stating the obvious or raising issues that have long been put to bed, but...

 

I'm assuming the premise of the thread is, "does the MM owe the OW anything when HE HAS ENDED THE A WITH THE OW?" (i.e., he dumped her - whether under duress following a DDay, or simply because he moved on... rather than the OW having dumped him.) In which case, I guess it would be the same as, does the dumper owe the dumpee anything after dumping them?

 

And obviously people will differ on that - some will feel, yes, you owe your former partner "closure", and some kind of respect and confidentiality following the end of a R: you don't go around telling everyone how small their lovehammer was or how it took them three years to become aroused enough for anything to be ale to happen. Others will feel no - all's fair in love and war, and if they didn't want those vids of themselves jerking off while telling you how beautiful you are to make it to YouTube, they should have thought twice about emailing them to you in the first place. Still others will be of the "it depends" persuasion, being governed more by the context, their mood, or the phase of the moon at the time.

 

Does the dumpee owe the dumper anything when a R ends? Not if women's magazines like Cosmo are to be believed - it's almost imperative to slag your x off for the indignity of being dumped... But again, people will have differing views, no doubt shaped by which end of the divide they've most recently (or most often) found themselves on.

 

this was a screamer! Thanks for the laughs!

[Fieldsofgold]

-------------------

 

At the end of an affair MM owes OW complete honesty, decency, sweetness - and in the form of communication..

 

Should OW be the one to end it - it would be the same..

 

I don't agree with this. As the unwitting OW (or OOW, not sure which), I don't owe him a d@mn thing. He keeps trying to tell ms how deeply he really did/does love me, and begging me to at least talk to him.

 

I think his desire for "closure communication" is a way to keep his foot in the door. He thinks if he can talk to me, he can play on the very real love I had for him, and he can manipulate me.

 

I think it is perfectly acceptable to say, "good-bye. Don't call me; I'll call you . . . "

 

I don't owe him a thing, and he doesn't owe me a thing, NOW. when he owed me, was at the beginning - either to tell me he was married and had an OW, or to warn me of the speeding yellow bus!

Edited May 30, 2010 by Fieldsofgold

[Fieldsofgold]

He owes her a strong, unequivocal farewell coupled with total, complete no contact, which must last as long as his marriage.

 

That's all, folks.

 

That's it right there. That's what I was trying to say!

[NoIDidn't]

Guess I see it differently... not surprised.

 

The relationship between OW and MM is their relationship....certainly entitled to respect and common decency.

 

The relationship between MM and BS ... the exact same... their relationship and they are also entitled to respect and common decency.

 

Their relationship is theirs... OW and MM is theirs.

 

Other than that.... the fact that anyone can say " how can you think the MM would be honest" and actually still be with their cheating hustband... just too much!

 

Typical.... MM is not capable of being respectful to the OW... but he sure is hell is going to be NOW to his BS, that is of course after he has actually danced the song once or twice before... now, he will be good.

 

I am in awe that you so many show so little respect for the WS but are still sleeping with them, not settling at all.

 

And yes.... The difference.. he never lied to me, and when the decision to be made was put in front of him. I did not allow fence sitting.... it was up to her if she was ok with it ( and she was... knew he'd "eventually" get out of the "fog".

 

The kicker... I do demand respect, and when he wasn't capable of making the choice... I did it for him. Made the choice for him... she doesn't know that... and he is playing sorry WS now.

 

Again.... not possible, I have already heard it before:rolleyes:

 

Course I am sure if anyone suggested that to her.... she would say impossible... he has done EVERYTHING I asked, I "threatened".... and on and on.

 

Since WS are not capable... why is ANYONE still with them.

 

To TJ my own thread. The bolded, and what follows mostly, is actually quite comical to me. The BS was already with the WS before the A. And since so many As are never discovered, its quite natural that they (the BS) would still be with them. It takes a little more time, and a lot more money, to end a M. An A? Not so much. Just say the word, keep it, and it should be over - and stay over. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

Its JMPO, but I always feel that the attitude that the WS should have no one except the person they cheated with to be very revealing about the maturity of the person holding it.

[White Flower]

Its JMPO, but I always feel that the attitude that the WS should have no one except the person they cheated with to be very revealing about the maturity of the person holding it.

I think I know what you're saying here NID, but it is phrased a little awkwardly. Can you rephrase it please?

[NoIDidn't]

I think I know what you're saying here NID, but it is phrased a little awkwardly. Can you rephrase it please?

 

I wish I could phrase it better today. Brain fog. Exhausting week/weekend. Give me a few days.

 

Feel free to tell me your interpretation, though. I'm not trying to insult the poster that implied it.

[White Flower]

To TJ my own thread. The bolded' date=' and what follows mostly, is actually quite comical to me. The BS was [i']already with[/i] the WS before the A. And since so many As are never discovered, its quite natural that they (the BS) would still be with them. It takes a little more time, and a lot more money, to end a M. An A? Not so much. Just say the word, keep it, and it should be over - and stay over. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

Its JMPO, but I always feel that the attitude that the WS should have no one except the person they cheated with to be very revealing about the maturity of the person holding it.

 

I think I know what you're saying here NID, but it is phrased a little awkwardly. Can you rephrase it please?

 

I wish I could phrase it better today. Brain fog. Exhausting week/weekend. Give me a few days.

 

Feel free to tell me your interpretation, though. I'm not trying to insult the poster that implied it.

Ha ha, you were always pretty clever NID.

 

OK, let me break it down: The first paragraph I get totally. He has no contract with the OW so he owes her nothing. Got it. So let's break it down further, during the second statement:

 

The attitude that WS (let's say MM) should have no one but the person they cheated with (let's say OW) to be very revealing about the person holding it.

 

I just can't break it down. I THINK you are trying to say that it is immature to expect the MM to have a mature attitude and total transparency (honesty) about his reasons for ending the A. Or it is unreasonable to expect a man who cheats to be honest about his reasons for ending it. Am I close?

[jwi71]

Yes, you were affected by your wife's affair, but you have never been the MM nor the OM in an extramarital relationship, so you just don't have any personal experience to lean back on when it comes to this.

 

That's akin to telling your cardiac surgeon that he (or she) cannot perform the triple bypass since he (or she) hasn't had the same procedure done TO them.

 

And, quite frankly, its a patently stupid to say.

[White Flower]

That's akin to telling your cardiac surgeon that he (or she) cannot perform the triple bypass since he (or she) hasn't had the same procedure done TO them.

 

And, quite frankly, its a patently stupid to say.

It's not stupid. As the BS you can only assume how and what the WS/OP was thinking but you can't know it since you didn't experience it. All the time we hear from the BS how the SC or the MM thinks and they just can't know; they can only assume.

 

You can study the heart and know how it works; you don't have to be a heart in order to fix a heart. Yet, you cannot ever read somebody's mind; you can make predictions or assumptions but without personal experience you just don't really know what makes them tick unless you've been one or been with one.

[Susmay]

It's not stupid. As the BS you can only assume how and what the WS/OP was thinking but you can't know it since you didn't experience it. All the time we hear from the BS how the SC or the MM thinks and they just can't know; they can only assume.

 

You can study the heart and know how it works; you don't have to be a heart in order to fix a heart. Yet, you cannot ever read somebody's mind; you can make predictions or assumptions but without personal experience you just don't really know what makes them tick unless you've been one or been with one.

 

I don't agree with the logic above which seems to be saying that an OW does know how a MM thinks (and vice versa) yet a BW cannot know. With respect, both the OW and BW have been with the same MM, and neither have actually been one.

 

I agree that neither can really know what the MM is actually thinking. They both have to rely on his actions and words and their own interpretation and assumptions about them.

 

Back on topic though, as I've already said it's preferable that the MM give some sort of reason for ending the A to the OW. It doesn't have to be a more realistic or likely reason than any bloke ending a relationship eg "it's me not you". I don't think it's a debt owed and ultimately if the A has been ended to "work on the marriage" because of a d-day then the first loyalty has to be to the BW.

[White Flower]

I don't agree with the logic above which seems to be saying that an OW does know how a MM thinks (and vice versa) yet a BW cannot know. With respect, both the OW and BW have been with the same MM, and neither have actually been one.

 

I agree that neither can really know what the MM is actually thinking. They both have to rely on his actions and words and their own interpretation and assumptions about them.

 

Back on topic though, as I've already said it's preferable that the MM give some sort of reason for ending the A to the OW. It doesn't have to be a more realistic or likely reason than any bloke ending a relationship eg "it's me not you". I don't think it's a debt owed and ultimately if the A has been ended to "work on the marriage" because of a d-day then the first loyalty has to be to the BW.

Susmay I think we pretty much agree actually. I DO think that the OW and BW can interpret similar things with regard to MM. However, I see all the time where a BH will assume things about MM all the time and they just can't know. In fact, sometimes I think the BW knows even more than the OW because she's lived with him for so long. Conversely, if he's never been able to really open up with his W, but can with the OW there are more advantages on her side in this case. It's all relevant I suppose.

[jwi71]

It's not stupid. As the BS you can only assume how and what the WS/OP was thinking but you can't know it since you didn't experience it. All the time we hear from the BS how the SC or the MM thinks and they just can't know; they can only assume.

 

Interesting.

I, as a BS, offer NO insight at all into anyone other than a BS because I don't have experience to fall back upon. Which strong insinuates there is a common thread of experiences that ONLY a BS knows, that ONLY a WS knows...that ONLY the OP knows. From an experiential persepctive, yes. Yet I find the notion one less of TERRITORIAL LABELS and more along the lines of HUMAN INTERACTION.

 

And with this thinking we have completely destroyed the entire MC industry. Because I imagine there are very few PhD's who have been both WS and BS in order to accurately counsel EACH party (because only a BS can counsel a BS and a WS can only help a WS and so on).

Edited June 1, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[bittersweet memories]

It's not stupid. As the BS you can only assume how and what the WS/OP was thinking but you can't know it since you didn't experience it. All the time we hear from the BS how the SC or the MM thinks and they just can't know; they can only assume.

 

You can study the heart and know how it works; you don't have to be a heart in order to fix a heart. Yet, you cannot ever read somebody's mind; you can make predictions or assumptions but without personal experience you just don't really know what makes them tick unless you've been one or been with one.

 

 

That's total Bullcrap...OW/OM can also assume. Nobody knows what we all are thinking we can only assume.. that applies to everyone.

[bittersweet memories]

I don't agree with the logic above which seems to be saying that an OW does know how a MM thinks (and vice versa) yet a BW cannot know. With respect, both the OW and BW have been with the same MM, and neither have actually been one.

 

I agree that neither can really know what the MM is actually thinking. They both have to rely on his actions and words and their own interpretation and assumptions about them.

 

Back on topic though, as I've already said it's preferable that the MM give some sort of reason for ending the A to the OW. It doesn't have to be a more realistic or likely reason than any bloke ending a relationship eg "it's me not you". I don't think it's a debt owed and ultimately if the A has been ended to "work on the marriage" because of a d-day then the first loyalty has to be to the BW.

 

I agree with the bolded statement...especially rely on there actions more than anything.

[bittersweet memories]

Susmay I think we pretty much agree actually. I DO think that the OW and BW can interpret similar things with regard to MM. However, I see all the time where a BH will assume things about MM all the time and they just can't know. In fact, sometimes I think the BW knows even more than the OW because she's lived with him for so long. Conversely, if he's never been able to really open up with his W, but can with the OW there are more advantages on her side in this case. It's all relevant I suppose.

 

 

Oh please!! To say if he's never really opend up to his wife is ridiculous! Never? really? never? If that makes you feel better to think that.. go ahead think it.. Silly!!

[jennie-jennie]

That's akin to telling your cardiac surgeon that he (or she) cannot perform the triple bypass since he (or she) hasn't had the same procedure done TO them.

 

And, quite frankly, its a patently stupid to say.

 

I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly.

 

Once you found out about the affair there had to have been a Dday. Which means that you have no experience of being in an affair pre-Dday. You know how it feels to suspect one, but you do not know how it feels to be in one.

 

So you have no experience of being in an extramarital relationship, neither pre-Dday nor post-Dday, and how much or how little that compares to being in any other relationship, because you have never had an extramarital relationship.

 

As the BS, you can look at it from afar, just like the parent whose child is still alive and well can look at the pain of the parent whose child just died, but you just don't know how it feels. You can only imagine, not know.

 

Or, to use your example, like the cardiac surgeon who knows a lot about heart infarctions, but until he has one himself, has never really experienced how it feels to have one.

Edited June 1, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[White Flower]

Oh please!! To say if he's never really opend up to his wife is ridiculous! Never? really? never? If that makes you feel better to think that.. go ahead think it.. Silly!!

You can believe what you want BM. I am absolutely sure there are some OW who know their MM better while I am also absolutely sure there are some BW who know their H better. Like I said, everything is relative.

[OWoman]

You can believe what you want BM. I am absolutely sure there are some OW who know their MM better while I am also absolutely sure there are some BW who know their H better. Like I said, everything is relative.

 

I have seen so many LTMs where the spouses BOTH get completely complacent about each other, ASSUMING they know the other inside out... completely blinded to the changes that their spouse has gone through more recently, they cling unconsciously to some fixed point in the past where they really KNEW their spouse, assuming that to be the unchanging truth. Sometimes history is not a blessing, but a curse.

 

In my H's case, because he had been but a callow youth when she ensnared him, he was forever fixed in her mind as this rather naive, artless boy who needed to be told everything - a position she pretty much kept him in by vritue of the nature of the R. She had no sense of how he'd developed outside of the M - professionally, socially, intellectually, etc. She had absolutely no idea of his interests (or assumed he had none) or even his taste in music, and her narcissism led to her genuine incapacity to conceive of him holding opinions or perspectives which may have differed from hers.

 

It also depends on the dymanics of the R. I remember once, at a social function, speaking to a little old man and asking him about his political views. His wife interjected, telling me "what he thought", but once she got distracted I started asking him in more detail and what emerged was a very different picture. She caught the last bit of what he was saying and looked genuinely surprised - it wasn't at all what she'd imagined, and she quizzed him on whether he really believed what he was telling me. They'd simply never discussed politics before because she'd considered that, like sex and religion, it wasn't something that was discussed.

[White Flower]

I have seen so many LTMs where the spouses BOTH get completely complacent about each other, ASSUMING they know the other inside out... completely blinded to the changes that their spouse has gone through more recently, they cling unconsciously to some fixed point in the past where they really KNEW their spouse, assuming that to be the unchanging truth. Sometimes history is not a blessing, but a curse.

Absolutely spot on.

 

People change...and spouses need to keep up with each other if the M is going to work.

[NoIDidn't]

There is nothing wrong with people changing during their marriages, or even of one being a little surprised at the changes. The problems come when the changes aren't appreciate or compatible with the M.

 

I've enjoyed watching my H change over the years, especially the good and positive changes. And I am frequently surprised with some of the changes, when I find out about them. Its not like I'm with him all day long, or he shares his every possible thought with me right away. And same thing for him. He's usually quite shocked with some of the things that I've revealed to him over the years.

 

I've done what the older lady did once or twice. I'll likely do it again, not knowing that maybe my H changed his stance. She might have felt that she had the gist of what he felt, and he gave you the more detailed version of it (not saying that's what happened here, its just what has happened with us/me in my M) as she couldn't possibly have known all of his thoughts on the matter.

 

Interesting off/on topic discussion here.

[Owl]

I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly.

 

Once you found out about the affair there had to have been a Dday. Which means that you have no experience of being in an affair pre-Dday. You know how it feels to suspect one, but you do not know how it feels to be in one.

 

So you have no experience of being in an extramarital relationship, neither pre-Dday nor post-Dday, and how much or how little that compares to being in any other relationship, because you have never had an extramarital relationship.

 

As the BS, you can look at it from afar, just like the parent whose child is still alive and well can look at the pain of the parent whose child just died, but you just don't know how it feels. You can only imagine, not know.

 

Or, to use your example, like the cardiac surgeon who knows a lot about heart infarctions, but until he has one himself, has never really experienced how it feels to have one.

 

I'd have to say that just because you've had a cardiac infarction, that doesn't mean you know how to treat it, nor does it mean that you would automatically recognize it in others and be able to help them fix it either.

 

The cardiac surgeon might not have "felt" it, but was trained to recognize it, and deal with it.

 

As a former BS, I'd say that I didn't "experience" what my wife went through pre d-day.

 

But I saw the symptoms of it. Discussed it at length with her afterwards, in a time when she was quite willing to discuss it regardless of what she thought the emotional impact to me might be. I replayed what I saw, what I went through over and over in my head for MONTHS afterwards, trying to figure out what I should have seen, what I should have done differently. Looked at the whole thing in-depth, trying to get her perspective (and OM's too, for that matter) so that I could truly make sense out of this period of sheer hell that I went through.

 

I garauntee that I've given it a hell of a lot more thought than most WS's do. Spent a lot more time trying to learn the why's and how's than the majority of WS's and OP's do.

 

And you know what...while I've never had a cardiac infarction, I've learned enough to know I sure don't WANT one either!

 

Just saying...don't be so quick to assume that someone "can't understand'...you don't always know enough about that other person to be able to judge that.

[jennie-jennie]

And you know what...while I've never had a cardiac infarction, I've learned enough to know I sure don't WANT one either!

 

It is not the affair one wants, it is the relationship. Just like it is not the triple bypass surgery one wants but the beating heart.

[whichwayisup]

It is not the affair one wants, it is the relationship. Just like it is not the triple bypass surgery one wants but the beating heart.

 

But it's STILL an affair, not the primary relationship. When a MM or MW cheats on their spouse with an OW/OM, it's an affair. You can say it isn't maybe to you it isn't as it's your life, he's your life.. But your MM has another life with his wife.