Financial Support to OW

[Fallen Angel]

So did I, as a woman, when I was part of a family structure where joint decisions were taken as to who would pursue a career, who would not, and how we would manage the care of our child between us, where we should live, how much we wanted to spend on different parts of our life etc etc.

 

I find that to be very different to 2 single (unmarried/uncommitted) people with their own monies and obligations and expecting the man to cough up purely because he is the one of the two that has an appendage.

 

I see no one suggesting that this is the case, no one suggesting that the man is expected to do those things simply by virtue of being a man.

 

It was simply stated that these men desire to do those things. To "provide for the woman that they are "committed to" (in some cases the W and in others the OW). It has been stated simply that allowing them to do that which would make them happy is not shameful, and in fact is a boost to their self-esteem as a man.

[silktricks]

For those of you who love the MM to be giving you things:

 

Would your opinion be the same if the BS made more than her husband? In which case what he is giving most probably came from her...

[White Flower]

Something we agree on. LOL.

 

My H takes much pride in providing for me and our family. It would be a huge blow to him to not be able to do so.

 

(Not a feminist by a long shot)

Yet you are very strong and seem independent in many ways.

[White Flower]

For those of you who love the MM to be giving you things:

 

Would your opinion be the same if the BS made more than her husband? In which case what he is giving most probably came from her...

I'm not sure I could be attracted to a man who couldn't provide for himself and his family, let alone his extra women.

[White Dove]

I'm not sure I could be attracted to a man who couldn't provide for himself and his family, let alone his extra women.

 

Absolutely.

[Fallen Angel]

I'm not sure I could be attracted to a man who couldn't provide for himself and his family, let alone his extra women.

 

I quite agree. I am attracted to a man with a strong work ethic, as I have.

[White Flower]

Absolutely.

That was one of the many reasons I left my exH. I worked way too hard for him and got nothing out of it. Retirement squandered, savings squandered, and my respect for him squandered.

[nadiaj2727]

Does this mean that if the husband pays for a diamond ring for his OW or the hotel and plane tickets for their week away with his charge card, then the wife is equally responsible for paying this debt?

 

Yep. In community property states the message is "know who you're married to and what they're spending your community assets on." Because it's the same as if the husband was a gambling addict... the wife cannot sue him to get her share of the money back just because he gambled it away for his own pleasure/addiction/whatever. (Just like my imaginery husband can't sue me for my shoe addiction. Their money is gone forever.

 

The law in community property states, or at least my state (laws are different state to state and I can only speak of my jurisdiction but the concept behind CP is the same everywhere) is that the wife and husband should manage their money *together* and if one is ignorant of where the money is being spent, well that is their own fault. If they don't like where the money is being spent and can't work it out, the law provides protection in the form of divorce. But the law assumes that while they are married they are of one mind in handling their finances. (Of course there are always caveats... the couple can enter into their own contractual agreements -- pre-nups, post-nups, separation agreements, etc., and then sue the living daylights out of each other for breaching the contract, or, as I mentioned before, once one spouse files for divorce, the rules change and the money is closely watched by the court and any shanenigans like stealthy transfers or expensive vacations for the mistress are punished. I'd imagine this is where some of these crazy case facts are coming from... POST-filing for divorce, not before.)

 

As far as suing the OW instead of the H is concerned, wtf?! From a legal perspective I don't understand these posts calling the OW a thief and a fraud -- it isn't theft to take something that is given to you. I can see how people say half of it is taken from the wife -- but by the HUSBAND, not the OW. The husband who has every right to spend the money as the wife does (see above). If he paid a prostitute the wife could NOT sue the prostitute to get the money back. If he bought 40 Playstations from a Playstation seller who happened to know he was married, the wife could NOT sue the Playstation seller to get the money back. If he took his business partners to play 2 rounds of golf at an expensive golf course every day, the wife could not sue the business partners for accepting the money/ freebies. If he gave connections cash because he wanted them to like him or hire him or whatever, she could not sue the business partners. Etc. etc. etc. Same with the OW. There is no law saying that someone must check with their lover's spouse before they accept any money or dinners or trips etc. from that person. A moral duty... sure, there is a lot of strength to that argument but absolutely no argument for a legal duty. I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous legally.

 

Personally-- I think it would be silly for a woman to sue an OW for taking something that the woman's husband FREELY gave her... assuming the OW wasn't extorting him or holding a gun to his head or anything. That is just taking all responsibility off the husband who is supposed to closely guard the family assets. As everyone knows I'm a *reformed* or apologetic or whatever you want to call it fOW and I am not excusing affairs but I also believe that the OW has made no promise to watch over the wife's fiances or handle her money the right way... that is the husband who has made those promises and who is breaking them. I've seen some really silly lawsuits but in a CP state a case involving a wife suing the OW for accepting vacations, dinners, money etc., BEFORE divorce papers have been filed, without any contractual agreement that changes the CP default and barring any special circumstances (which of course there can always be!) would be a sure-fire win from the defense perspective. In my state, at least, it holds no legal ground. (That doesn't mean of course that people won't file them and fight over them and probably even settle them... it just means there is no legal basis for them = very crappy case).

 

OK I'm done with the legal lecturing ha ha.

[AltF4]

My point was simply that the thought that I accept him paying my phone bill seems to have touched more of a nerve in this thread, seems to have gotten more of a "shocked and dismayed" kind of reaction; than the fact that I am in a long term emotional and sexual relationship with him despite his maritial status has ever recieved on any other thread.

 

The difference is shocking to me. That my accepting a few dollars seems to spark more criticism of me than the fact that I am in an affair. It seems telling about the priorities of some is all.

 

 

Granted, I don't have a horse in this race, but here's my take.

 

If my H were to have an A, and I found out that he spent our money on her, I'd have a huge problem. Yes, I'd be absolutely devastated that he chose to take his heart elsewhere. But I work. I get deployed and miss YEARS of my children's lives. That's part of my profession, one that I had intended on giving up so I could be with my children, until the job market went south. The H and I went over the budget and decided that with the mortgage, and the car payments, etc., that it wouldn't be a good time for me to get out and seek civilian employment. So here I am, separated from my children, again.

If I were to find out that he spent that money that we "needed" on some woman's phone bill or car payment, I'd be a little more than pissed.

 

And same thing growing up. My parents, mom and step-father, worked. All. Of. The. Time. I was the primary caretaker for my younger half-siblings. Had either of my parents been taking that money that they worked so hard to get and spending it outside the family, I would lose all respect for them. They could have not worked so much and spent time with us.

 

Don't get me wrong though. I love my husband and would probably collapse into a little mini-ball of depression if he decided to step out on our marriage. And it's not the money. It's the time I've spent away from our family, the time HE's spent away from our family, that it represents.

[anne1707]

For those of you who love the MM to be giving you things:

 

Would your opinion be the same if the BS made more than her husband? In which case what he is giving most probably came from her...

 

I'm not sure I could be attracted to a man who couldn't provide for himself and his family, let alone his extra women.

 

I quite agree. I am attracted to a man with a strong work ethic, as I have.

 

 

:eek: It appeas as if the automatic assumption in the situation Silk has suggested is that the man who earns less than his wife is an idle good for nothing - and this is coming from some stong-minded women.

 

What on earth is wrong with a woman eaning more than her husband purely because of her career/abilities. The H could still have a good job, able to contribute financially and in other ways (just as a wife does in the more stereotypical relationship where the man is classed as the breadwinner) and have a very strong work ethic.

 

Sorry for the t/j - mini-rant over

[Silly_Girl]

:eek: It appeas as if the automatic assumption in the situation silk has suggested is that the man who earns less than his wife is an idle good for nothing - and this is coming from some stong-minded women.

 

What on earth is wrong with a woman eaning more than her husband purely because of her career/abilities. The h could still have a good job, able to contribute financially and in other ways (just as a wife does in the more stereotypical relationship where the man is classed as the breadwinner) and have a very strong work ethic.

 

Sorry for the t/j - mini-rant over

 

hear hear!!

[Hazyhead]

:eek: It appeas as if the automatic assumption in the situation Silk has suggested is that the man who earns less than his wife is an idle good for nothing - and this is coming from some stong-minded women.

 

What on earth is wrong with a woman eaning more than her husband purely because of her career/abilities. The H could still have a good job, able to contribute financially and in other ways (just as a wife does in the more stereotypical relationship where the man is classed as the breadwinner) and have a very strong work ethic.

 

Sorry for the t/j - mini-rant over

 

I agree with this philosophy Anne and I think the whole focus of the thread - what the OW receives is sexist in essence. My xMM offered to pay me out of a problematic financial situation I was having during the A, saying that when we were together we'd share funds anyway (!). But there is no way I'd be able to do that. No way. I may have been struggling at that moment but that was MY financial issue; just like when I am able to buy something for myself it is MY financial issue. I help and provide for myself, and I find it offensive that it is assumed women are provided for. It's one thing to provide for a family and a parent whose job it is to look after the family, but quite another to have a man, who has financial ties elsewhere, to pay your bills when you earn your own money. If I do not have the money, I do not buy it.

 

When xMM's wife called me after dday, one of the things she threw at me was that he bought her more than he bought me during the A. Naturally! One of the examples she gave was that he bought her a new phone (she had been using his and you can understand why that would unnerve him) and only loaned me his old one whilst mine was being repaired (he had offered to buy a new one and I had laughed.) It took all of my strength not to say anything in return.

[OWoman]

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

 

Again, this would come down to monies from H and W community assets to pay for OW's pregnancy ..

 

... only IF they were in a situation where there were "community assets" and not the common situation where each had separate finances.

[OWoman]

I see no one suggesting that this is the case, no one suggesting that the man is expected to do those things simply by virtue of being a man.

 

It was simply stated that these men desire to do those things. To "provide for the woman that they are "committed to" (in some cases the W and in others the OW). It has been stated simply that allowing them to do that which would make them happy is not shameful, and in fact is a boost to their self-esteem as a man.

 

I think there is a big difference between needing him to support you - which I imagine might appeal to some men, but would equally scare others off! - and allowing him to spoil you / treat you / help you out if you need it.

 

The former treats him as a wallet / sugar daddy / meal ticket, and the latter as someone more intimate, more equal, more caring. I would be offended if my gifts were refused, by a friend, a lover or anyone I'd taken the time and effort to make the offer to - especially if it was something that mattered, and giving or accepting it was not going to threaten the dynamic of the R.

[CrayonAngel]

MAn..this post makes my head spin...too much going on in one thread!

 

Coming from a neutral pov I think it's wrong because the third party doesn't know they are the third party. Dinner and such..no biggie..but bills? I would be livid and I don't work..I stay at home with our 1 & 5 year old..but the time my H spends away at the office I HATE...but I go about my business because he has to work to make us a living..(I have a WAH job that brings in little to nothing..but something for me to do right now) I would be 5 different kinds of pissed to know he was spending precious time away so he could pay for his mistress' bills!!

 

Another thing, I do NOT spend money on me like I should...to know some other woman was being showered with gifts while I'm at home wiping butt's and trying to schedule in an 8 dollar haircut..I would be livid.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that my H has money (which he doesn't) we make sacrafices together to be where we are..and if he has to hide something like that from me then why bother?

[JustJoe]

Look, after reading this thread, it all comes down to whether or not the relationship would exist WITHOUT the financial "support". My MW was a trophy wife to a very, very, very, rich man. When I found out about him, I refused to let her pay for anything at all. Because I would have felt that it was his money. Now that she is a gainfully employed, tax-payer, she will have to pay her share, and she is mega OK with this. Her self-esteem has risen, she is more confident, much more loving, and absolutely more responsible and honest now, than she ever was. Our relationship is getting better, because she is much more of an independent woman. When money is the basis of a relationship, that relationship is either client/prostitute or master/mistress/slave. Freedom is having your own piece of the rock, that you worked to acquire. She WANTS to be with me, and WANTS to have a life with me, more than she ever wanted money, and she has proven it, and continues to prove it, daily.

[silktricks]

:eek: It appeas as if the automatic assumption in the situation Silk has suggested is that the man who earns less than his wife is an idle good for nothing - and this is coming from some stong-minded women.

 

What on earth is wrong with a woman eaning more than her husband purely because of her career/abilities. The H could still have a good job, able to contribute financially and in other ways (just as a wife does in the more stereotypical relationship where the man is classed as the breadwinner) and have a very strong work ethic.

 

Sorry for the t/j - mini-rant over

 

Thank you for saying this, as the assumption that was made quite bowled me over - and didn't address the question I had asked at all. But it did make me realize that the amount of money the MM makes appears to be a requirement for some people. That wasn't something I had formerly considered.

[donnamaybe]

So a guy who earns less money than his wife doesn't have "a strong work ethic," but an MM who is peniless is to be loved at all costs while enjoying the confines of a cardboard box?

 

It's apparent that there are many contradictions swirling around on this thread.

 

Bottom line, if you are accepting money from a man or woman - money that only HALF belongs to them - without their partner's consent, you are wrong. JMO.

[White Dove]

For myself, seeing that I never got involved with MM -- I would prefer a man that is able to take care of him and his family (that would be included as his W), at the same time I am able to help him out by working myself. I can't see myself as a SAHM (if ever we decide to have kids). I feel that it's important for me to find someone that is able to take care of himself and his family because in the past, I was always the one taking care of my then bfs.

 

That said, I still feel that an OW should not depend on MM to take care of her. I know he should if he loves her but come on, if he really does love OW -- leave and take care of OW legally.

[OWoman]

But it did make me realize that the amount of money the MM makes appears to be a requirement for some people. That wasn't something I had formerly considered.

 

I don't think that's quite what was stated. IIRC those who posted on that point were basically saying they didn't want a lame duck who was going to sponge off THEM, the same way that many posters (possibly including them, can't really be bothered to check just now ) were saying that OWs should not (have to) sponge off MMs.

 

As a sister who did it for herself, bringing up kids without any financial support etc, I know how important it is for one's own self-esteem it is not to have to need anyone else, to pay one's own way. As a woman who found herself having to support a H and kids on a part-time struggle wage CONTRARY TO OUR AGREEMENT, I know how frustrating and angering it is to have someone sponging of you when your resources are being stretched to breaking. And, as the happy recipient of love from a man whose love languages include giving gifts, I know how blessed it can be to receive, as well as give.

 

Would I take up with a man who was not independent - financially, emotionally or in any other way? No. I would not settle for a relationship that was not equal. Would I dump my H if he somehow became financially, emotionally or in some other way dependent? No - unless it was freely chosen by him, in renunciation of his responsibilities and duties.

[2sure]

Ive avoided this thread because I was not up to the shyte storm my opinions on the subject usually bring forth. But I guess I am now.

 

As a former (and reformed) OW:

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out, understand, comprehend or justify:

Why a single OW would not insist on MM showing his affection, support, and commitment to the relationship in the only way he tangibly can and in the same ways he shows the same to others in his life whom he also cares for....

 

By making her life easier financially, by adding luxuries to her life via gifts, by making sure she has all the things she would have if she were the main woman in his life. The things she would enjoy if she had not given up having a partner that was exclusively hers.

 

Thats the deal. When you are single OW, when you are not joining incomes with a partner, when you are available on MM limited basis, when you do not have the same securities and privilege he offers his wife...

You are offering him a large piece of yourself and in turn he should offer what he can.

 

I received: Many vacations both with and without MM. An Amex Black with no monthly bill, a sports car, new boobs, my rent paid, my student loans paid off, lots of jewelry and some art. A job.

 

And I am not unique. And I am not a prostitute. The value of the gifts is all relative. If I were a struggling single mother and my MM helped me out with health insurance payments, my cell phone bill, and took me out to dinner...if that was what was within his means...its the same thing.

 

Why single OW should make the sacrifices of a committed partner , without receiving the benefits of being with a committed partner is ...nuts.

[donnamaybe]

Why single OW should make the sacrifices of a committed partner , without receiving the benefits of being with a committed partner is ...nuts.

 

Because when someone involves themself with a person who is contractually committed to sharing their assets with ONE partner and they are NOT that one partner, they get what they get. A half a partner.

 

Why anyone feels an unknowing BS should willingly give up any portion of the family's combined income to some intruder on the marriage is...nuts.

[silktricks]

I don't think that's quite what was stated. IIRC those who posted on that point were basically saying they didn't want a lame duck who was going to sponge off THEM

 

I know what was stated - I also know the post it was stated in response to - by more than one poster. There are many women who make more money than the man they are married to - and that number is growing all the time. It does not mean the man is "sponging" off the wife, anymore than a wife who makes less than her husband is "sponging" off of him - it simply means that she makes more money than he does.

 

For the immediate assumption to be made that the man "does not have a good work ethic" means to me that the amount of money the MM earns has a significant impact on some women - and that interest in money is apparently a component of the level of interest and energy invested.

 

This was a new concept to me, as I hadn't considered that possibility previously. I also find it interesting that no one ever did respond to my original question.

 

If the BS makes more money than the MM, would that in any way change the OW's opinion in regards to accepting money from him?

[someday]

If the MM’s family is not well off then to take any money from him would be to take money from his kids. That’s so not cool. You know kids gotta eat, they kinda like have a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs. Why would the OW, especially if she loves the MM, want to add to his burden?

 

If the MM’s family is well off, then it’s not really taking financially from his family or his kids. Of course, the A itself takes his time and attention from his kids, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

Personally, I couldn’t take money from someone else to cover my own responsibilities. I’m much more interested in non-financial support. Maybe it all boils down to the motive’s of the OW, what’s most important to her?

[2sure]

Why anyone feels an unknowing BS should willingly give up any portion of the family's combined income to some intruder on the marriage is...nuts.

 

Donna, you know that I completely agree with you. Seeing MM in the first place is one of the ultimate wrongs. But accepting support, emotional or financial from him...doesnt make it better or worse on the part of OW. Its all still part of the same foul package.

 

An OW having an affair with a MM has already established that she is willing to be an intruder in someone else's life. If she can justify taking the H on a part time basis, its no stretch to take other benefits as well.