Financial Support to OW

[califnan]

I disagree strongly with this philosophy when it comes to an OW. It means a 3-way share (ignoring the children) between the adults involved. One person's presence is unknown to another in the triangle.

 

Then again the whole thing is "off" and to me demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the 2 APs, so I'm being unrealistic to expect an OW to see it as I do - which is as a form of theft from the BW.

 

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

 

I agree it's a form of theft - and fraud ..

 

If an OW feels it is alright to be financially courted - that is all the more reason why the Wife must be told of the relationship.. The wife deserves to have opportunity to keep talley ..

[GreenEyedLady]

Any financial support is appropriate. Just like the MM cares and provides for his family, he cares and provides for his OW. That is the way it is between two lovers. When you are close enough, those monetary boundaries cease to exist. You share the money just like you share the love.

 

Pride in this context shows distance between the lovers in my opinion.

 

I don't think "pride" is really the appropriate word here.

 

How about self-respect? Self-esteem? Ambition?

 

What you are writing about is entitlement, not love. How different is that than what many OW feel the W feels about her M?

 

The thing here is that it isn't two lovers: there's at least 3. How do you reconcile that?

 

GEL

[jennie-jennie]

I disagree strongly with this philosophy when it comes to an OW. It means a 3-way share (ignoring the children) between the adults involved. One person's presence is unknown to another in the triangle.

 

Then again the whole thing is "off" and to me demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the 2 APs, so I'm being unrealistic to expect an OW to see it as I do - which is as a form of theft from the BW.

 

What you are reacting to is that normal love relationship rules apply to extramarital relationships as well. That is not moral bankruptcy, that is common sense.

[fooled once]

I don't think "pride" is really the appropriate word here.

 

How about self-respect? Self-esteem? Ambition?

 

What you are writing about is entitlement, not love. How different is that than what many OW feel the W feels about her M?

 

The thing here is that it isn't two lovers: there's at least 3. How do you reconcile that?

 

GEL

 

Exactly GEL.

 

Any hypothetical OW who expects the MM to financially support her, IMHO, is lazy, in it for the money and quite frankly, pathetic. Especially if without that financial support, the hypothetical OW can't support herself.

 

I wonder if the wife feels the same way regarding HER HUSBAND financially supporting the mistress, using funds accumulated in HER marriage to the man? I hope when she finds out, she buries him

[bananalaffytaffy]

Any financial support is appropriate. Just like the MM cares and provides for his family, he cares and provides for his OW. That is the way it is between two lovers. When you are close enough, those monetary boundaries cease to exist. You share the money just like you share the love.

 

Pride in this context shows distance between the lovers in my opinion.

I've NEVER had a lover take care of me, nor would I have ever LET a lover take care of me.

 

I take care of myself. I don't let my own husband take care of me.

And I take lots of pride in that!

Edited June 19, 2010 by bananalaffytaffy

[White Flower]

Personally, I still feel the children are more important than a new spouse..

 

SO do I. Even when that spouse is the other parent.

 

 

OK, maybe I should start a new thread. I take issue when people say kids are more important than anyone else in the family and I absolutely LOVE and FIERCELY protect my children.

 

I once took a Bible child-rearing class. It's a popular 18 week course for parents who want to raise their children with harmonious goals in mind. You need not be a Christian to take the class but most students are Christians. Anyway, the focus on the family was that a couple makes a complete family and the children are welcomed guests. I liked the idea because it makes perfect sense. Your kids come into your life sometimes years after you M and leave long before you die. Your M, the original family, is (usually) still intact and complete when they leave. The original family, the couple, was beautifully embellished with children who fly the coup one day. (All concepts came from the Bible, backed by Scripture).

 

When they do fly, and they will, many couples face the Empty Nesters Syndrome which can make or break a M. Oftentimes, the M breaks BECAUSE they put their kids AHEAD of each other, rendering each other null and void because of this overly used statement that kids come first.

 

To challenge the idea, do you consult with your kids as to when you and your H want to make love? Do you consult with your kids as to what kind of car you're going to purchase? As to whether you should put up a patio awning or repair the roof? No, kids to not come first in the M, the couple comes first. But that does not take away from the fact that our children are deeply loved, carefully guided, and fiercely protected in order to help them grow into successful individuals who will one day M and become a complete family with their spouse before they welcome children into their already complete family.

 

 

But that is with regard to original parents. I think when it comes to discipline, especially physical discipline, only the natural parent should handle that part of child-rearing with their own children. Other than that, the newly M couple is still a complete family.

 

ps

MM often says kids come first. He often uses his kids as an excuse that he can't leave his unhappy M. Had he not put them 'first' he wouldn't be so concerned about their happiness over his own. Unfortunately, he found cheating to be a better alternative to making himself truly happy.

[Fallen Angel]

From reading the thread, I believe most people who responded believe paying the OW/Mistress's bills, expensive gifts and just out and out giving them money is not appropriate, considering it is coming out of the marital assets/property. Dinner/lunch isn't considered too inappropriate.

 

I know what it is like to be so broke it isn't funny. After my divorce, during the A, I didn't accept offers to pay my bills, expensive gifts, etc. I was too proud and refused to allow anyone to 'support me'. I cut back, got a higher paying job and did the best I could with what I had.

 

Everyone's pride level is different. For ME - I have pride in the knowledge that what I have, I have worked for, saved for and planned for. Now, I live a very good life, want for nothing and have shown my child what it means to work, plan and save. I am proud that he doesn't look for handouts, doesn't want anyone to buy for HIM.

 

I couldn't take money from the MM -- it just wasn't what I was about.

 

Nor is it what I am about, though it appears people are twisting what I am saying to make it appear so.

 

I, too, have pride. I work my butt off, two jobs, six days a week to provide for myself and my children.

 

I allow my sweetheart to pay my cell phone bill because the truth is, if it was not for him, I would not need a cell phone. It was a luxury that I was planning on cutting out of my budget. He asked me to allow him to pay it instead. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

I see nothing wrong with him helping me through a tight situation, if I get in one. I am still newly divorced (just hit a year) and not only support my children without childsupport or other assistance, but am obligated to pay child-support for the children I pay to raise. So yes, occasionally I get in a tight spot! (For example, I have been very ill, and have been off work all week, a whole weeks wages is a huge loss for me!) We are in a long term loving relationship. We have been intimately involved for more than three years. I seriously doubt, though I am sure people's pride will not allow them to admit it at this point , that there is a woman on this board who after being in a long term committed relationship with a man would not allow him to help her out with a light bill rather than get her (and her children's) lights shut off, or would not accept help on a car payment rather than have her car repossessed.

 

In my opinion any one that would allow that to happen rather than accept the help of their long term partner is either lying, or stupid, or has such severe trust issues and is afraid of appearing to have less "power" in the relationship that they should rethink being with anyone until they complete some serious IC.

 

JMHO.

[califnan]

WF, Mimo and I were discussing remarriages where the OW has become an opportunist and influences the children's father (her new husband) to disinherit them or leaving assets in a living trust for her ..

 

I think this is actually common practice with the later remarriages..

[Fallen Angel]

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

 

You are sweet Mimo.

 

At the beginning years of the divorce I was Made to think this is how things are (by them) - and I was the one out of step.. Somehow I have to believe that much of my story is typical of other divorces because if the H will cheat on the W with the OW, surely he will cheat in other ways as well, such as hiding community assets..

 

And I'm with you in the belief that our own flesh and blood should always be considered as important as a new spouse.. Personally, I still feel the children are more important than a new spouse..

 

I am pretty sure that with a few google searches I can find scripture in that book you so like to beat me with, that shows that the spouse is to be considered above the child. Just saying ...

[bananalaffytaffy]

Nor is it what I am about, though it appears people are twisting what I am saying to make it appear so.

 

I, too, have pride. I work my butt off, two jobs, six days a week to provide for myself and my children.

 

I allow my sweetheart to pay my cell phone bill because the truth is, if it was not for him, I would not need a cell phone. It was a luxury that I was planning on cutting out of my budget. He asked me to allow him to pay it instead. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

I see nothing wrong with him helping me through a tight situation, if I get in one. I am still newly divorced (just hit a year) and not only support my children without childsupport or other assistance, but am obligated to pay child-support for the children I pay to raise. So yes, occasionally I get in a tight spot! (For example, I have been very ill, and have been off work all week, a whole weeks wages is a huge loss for me!) We are in a long term loving relationship. We have been intimately involved for more than three years. I seriously doubt, though I am sure people's pride will not allow them to admit it at this point , that there is a woman on this board who after being in a long term committed relationship with a man would not allow him to help her out with a light bill rather than get her (and her children's) lights shut off, or would not accept help on a car payment rather than have her car repossessed.

 

In my opinion any one that would allow that to happen rather than accept the help of their long term partner is either lying, or stupid, or has such severe trust issues and is afraid of appearing to have less "power" in the relationship that they should rethink being with anyone until they complete some serious IC.

 

JMHO.

I will not speak for Fooled Once or anyone else on this board, but I do not believe the comments were directed toward you. You have stated that you do not ask for, nor expect your sweetheart to take care of you. I believe your pride would disallow that.

[califnan]

I am pretty sure that with a few google searches I can find scripture in that book you so like to beat me with, that shows that the spouse is to be considered above the child. Just saying ...

 

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

 

Mimo and I were not discussing orig marriages .. We were talking about the latter marriages used by opportunists to gain assets ..

[Fallen Angel]

I will not speak for Fooled Once or anyone else on this board, but I do not believe the comments were directed toward you. You have stated that you do not ask for, nor expect your sweetheart to take care of you. I believe your pride would disallow that.

 

Thank You.

 

I suppose I am reacting to the earlier insinuation in this thread that i am the equivalent of a prostitute. Perhaps it is making me hyper-sensitive to what is being said on this thread. So I will bow out of this thread now.

[jennie-jennie]

I will not speak for Fooled Once or anyone else on this board, but I do not believe the comments were directed toward you. You have stated that you do not ask for, nor expect your sweetheart to take care of you. I believe your pride would disallow that.

 

Now I am puzzled. I do not ask for nor do I expect my MM to take care of me. In fact I take care of myself and my children. I am a single mother. My children's father has long suffered from a gambling addiction. He does not contribute financially to their upbringing.

 

But if and when my MM wants to give me or my children something or provide for me or my children in some way, I gladly accept that loving gesture. He is my man and I love when he cares for me. :love:

 

But perhaps you were not talking about me either? If you were, you have misunderstood my posts.

Edited June 19, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[GreenEyedLady]

But perhaps you were not talking about me either? If you were, you have misunderstood my posts.

 

How about post 173 and 165?

 

Nothing was misunderstood.

 

GEL

[BB07]

Nor is it what I am about, though it appears people are twisting what I am saying to make it appear so.

 

I, too, have pride. I work my butt off, two jobs, six days a week to provide for myself and my children.

 

I allow my sweetheart to pay my cell phone bill because the truth is, if it was not for him, I would not need a cell phone. It was a luxury that I was planning on cutting out of my budget. He asked me to allow him to pay it instead. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

I see nothing wrong with him helping me through a tight situation, if I get in one. I am still newly divorced (just hit a year) and not only support my children without childsupport or other assistance, but am obligated to pay child-support for the children I pay to raise. So yes, occasionally I get in a tight spot! (For example, I have been very ill, and have been off work all week, a whole weeks wages is a huge loss for me!) We are in a long term loving relationship. We have been intimately involved for more than three years. I seriously doubt, though I am sure people's pride will not allow them to admit it at this point , that there is a woman on this board who after being in a long term committed relationship with a man would not allow him to help her out with a light bill rather than get her (and her children's) lights shut off, or would not accept help on a car payment rather than have her car repossessed.

 

In my opinion any one that would allow that to happen rather than accept the help of their long term partner is either lying, or stupid, or has such severe trust issues and is afraid of appearing to have less "power" in the relationship that they should rethink being with anyone until they complete some serious IC.

 

JMHO.

 

FA.......I get what you are saying, and I understand your struggles and I don't think you are a user. My guess is.......if your MM parked a new BMW in your drive, that you would tell him to take it back.

[GreenEyedLady]

You know what I'm sorry.

 

I was a single parent too.

 

And NO ONE paid anyone of my bills.

 

I got $200 a month for two children for child support.

 

I guess there is a work and pride ethic that certain people follow.

 

I would NEVER expect anyone to pay for me and my kids. And for those that believe that others should: maybe that's the reason you're still waiting. Why should any man believe that he should pay for someone else's kids? If he hasn't left and it's been a long time perhaps the answer isn't as elusive as the fog or he can't make a choice.

 

Maybe he isn't stupid.

 

GEL

[White Dove]

You know what I'm sorry.

 

I was a single parent too.

 

And NO ONE paid anyone of my bills.

 

I got $200 a month for two children for child support.

 

I guess there is a work and pride ethic that certain people follow.

 

I would NEVER expect anyone to pay for me and my kids. And for those that believe that others should: maybe that's the reason you're still waiting. Why should any man believe that he should pay for someone else's kids? If he hasn't left and it's been a long time perhaps the answer isn't as elusive as the fog or he can't make a choice.

 

Maybe he isn't stupid.

 

GEL

 

I've been reading this thread with great interest and I agree with this post. Very well said.

[lolapalooza]

Maybe he isn't stupid.

 

GEL

or maybe he's waiting for them to all turn 18!

[White Flower]

You know what I'm sorry.

 

I was a single parent too.

 

And NO ONE paid anyone of my bills.

 

I got $200 a month for two children for child support.

 

I guess there is a work and pride ethic that certain people follow.

 

I would NEVER expect anyone to pay for me and my kids. And for those that believe that others should: maybe that's the reason you're still waiting. Why should any man believe that he should pay for someone else's kids? If he hasn't left and it's been a long time perhaps the answer isn't as elusive as the fog or he can't make a choice.

 

Maybe he isn't stupid.

 

GEL

 

Or maybe he isn't in love?

 

You make a pretty good point GEL, and I follow the same precepts in my own life.

 

BUT if a man really loves a woman, he should want to take care of her and anyone else she loves such as her children. Of course, I expect this to happen after he Ds and remarries his true love.

[White Dove]

BUT if a man really loves a woman, he should want to take care of her and anyone else she loves such as her children. Of course, I expect this to happen after he Ds and remarries his true love.

 

Agreed. He should want to and do that after the divorce.

[MizFit]

You know what I'm sorry.

 

I was a single parent too.

 

And NO ONE paid anyone of my bills.

 

I got $200 a month for two children for child support.

 

I guess there is a work and pride ethic that certain people follow.

 

I would NEVER expect anyone to pay for me and my kids. And for those that believe that others should: maybe that's the reason you're still waiting. Why should any man believe that he should pay for someone else's kids? If he hasn't left and it's been a long time perhaps the answer isn't as elusive as the fog or he can't make a choice.

 

Maybe he isn't stupid.

 

GEL

 

I spent the first 39 years of my life in the States and that is me to a T...however, having lived in Europe for 10 years and having a fair few friends in a fair few countries I can attest it is a cultural difference. I have a friend here who, as a young woman, was a mistress to an Italian man and he felt it was his duty to completely support her. It is a different mindset here for many people. What is right at home or in England may not be right in France or Switzerland...I don't see how insulting J-J about her life and mindset within a different culture is helping her.

 

Disagree, question, discuss, but please don't insult and degrade how someone with cultural differences is brought up and living their life.

 

A young girl from the streets of NYC may well have different cultural acceptances of premarital sex or drug use than a counterpart from a home steeped in religious beliefs. Just because it isn't the norm where you are doesn't mean it isn't the norm where someone else is.

 

GEL...I'm not pointing that all at you-it just happens that your post nicely sums up what many fiercely independent women will feel so I quoted that...sorry rant over!

[lolapalooza]

So I guess a European woman should aspire to be a mistress so someone can take care of her...

Sheesh. It's still a choice to take money. It's not like it's a cultural requirement.

I guess if all the cool kids are doing it, I should too?

Sorry, not buying it.

Edited June 19, 2010 by lolapalooza

[MizFit]

So I guess a European woman should aspire to be a mistress so someone can take care of her...

Sheesh. It's still a choice to take money. It's not like it's a cultural requirement.

 

It's a choice for a family to arrange a marriage for the daughters in their family...

 

It's a choice for a citizen in the States to carry a gun...

 

It's a choice for someone to have an abortion...

 

It's a choice for someone to hunt an animal and kill it...

 

It's a choice for someone to shun a neighbor or family member because they haven't lived their religion to the letter of the law...

 

These are all choices, agreed. What you are not acknowledging that all of these choices are made because of where someone lives and the mores they are given. Just because you weren't brought up in it and live it does not mean it doesn't exist and isn't as much a part of their lives as your independence.

[MizFit]

So I guess a European woman should aspire to be a mistress so someone can take care of her...

Sheesh. It's still a choice to take money. It's not like it's a cultural requirement.

I guess if all the cool kids are doing it, I should too?

Sorry, not buying it.

 

 

Obviously you made a change from your original post so I didn't respond fully...

 

It doesn't really matter if you buy it...it's not like your opinion is going to change a thing over here. I am so against abortion I make Dr Laura look liberal, but I live in a culture where it is perfectly acceptable and I'm sometimes looked at as a bit of a freak for not understanding it and seeing it like everyone else does. It is the way it is and even though I don't understand or accept the action, I respect the fact this is just something different to what I was raised with.

 

As far as the cool kids...I think that's a bit odd. Most of us buy too much for our kids and over extend and have had our parents say to us that we shouldn't go to those lengths. We do it anyway...why, because we are victims (or participants) in our own culture...we have a culture of wanting everything now and especially when it comes to our kids. If you live in a hut in the desert in Africa how can you accept or understand that?

[OWoman]

Many years back, a friend gave me a car.

 

I had been without a car for several years, and used to walk with my kids to the station each morning (an hour's walk either way) and take them to school by train, before continuing on to work by train and on foot. We were mugged one night walking back in the dark, and although we fought our (armed) attackers off, it did hamper our movements from then on as we thought twice about putting ourselves in potentially risky situations after that.

 

Then one night my friend phoned me up. His brother had recently emigrated and had left him his car - a newer, glitzier model than my friend's - and he offered me his old car. As a gift.

 

After much negotiation, we agreed that I could have the car on an extended loan (I did not want to accept it as a gift) which would be reviewed if either of our circumstances changed. I drove the car for many years before, in turn, passing it on to another friend (with the original friend's permission).

 

The car made an enormous difference to our lives. It enabled my kids to attend the high school of their choice (far from public transport) and it allowed us to get to places and events we'd otherwise have missed. It gave us three hours of "extra" time in our days, every day, that would otherwise have been spent travelling. But mostly, it gave us back a sense of independence, a sense of potency, and a sense of control. Our quality of life was so much better, because of the car.

 

My friend owed us nothing. But, as a friend, he saw first hand the impact not having a car had on our lives, particularly after the mugging. He suddenly found himself in a position to help - and knew what a difference he could make. He was angered and frustrated at my initial refusal, and relieved at my acceptance of the negotiated terms. He did it for himself, as well as for us. Accepting the offer didn't change our R, but refusing it would have.

 

Friends do that kind of thing for each other. I, similarly, gave a friend the deposit she needed on a place to stay when she left her (abusive) H. When she was able to pay it back, I told her to pass that on to someone else who needed it, instead - the same way I passed the car on, in turn. Friends do that all the time. Why should it be different if an OW accepts help from a MM? Surely, before all else, they're friends?