If he's a happily MM, then why is he with me?

[jennie-jennie]

It has everything to with achieving happiness at the expense of another. Love doesn't excuse cheating. You can believe that but it doesn't make it true. The BS would never agree that her H and OW's relationship is excused in the name of love.

 

I did when I was the BS. So there goes your "never".

 

But, for some reason, you seem satisfied to take whatever little is offered you from whatever R you're in. Most people don't stand for that kind of treatment. That's not a fault of theirs merely for being a strong person who won't take crap off of others.

 

You are confusing things again here, Donna. Having the same view on extramarital relationships when I was the BS as when I am the OW does not have anything to do with the quality of my relationships. My moral view remains the same.

 

I am an unapologetic OW, and I had understanding for unapologetic OW when I was the BS. I could see that my SO was a serial cheater, and it looked to me as one of his many compulsions. I requested him to stop and he did eventually. He was a member of AA, and I believe his engagement there helped him with other compulsions as well.

 

Having understanding of the fact that people's actions are more about them than about you takes a load of your shoulders.

[jennie-jennie]

2sunny,

i agree that we are all responsible for the situations we're in. We are the only ones who can change any situation we may find ourselves in, whether it's an a or a bad m or whatever.

 

As for j-j, who are we to criticize?

 

this man makes her happy. she has a choice: Stay with mm, her so, the one who makes her happy and be happy with him (albeit unconventionally)....or.....purposely get rid of mm and purposely be unhappy (this doesn't mean she would be unhappy forever and chances are she would find happiness in her future, but she would definitely be unhappy at least for a while).

 

Hmmm, let me think - any normal human being would choose to be happy over being unhappy. Human beings (unless you're a masochist) choose pleasure over pain. Right?

 

And lets not forget she has clearly stated time and time again, that when the moment comes when she realizes she is unhappy with mm/situation, that's when she's willing to walk away.

 

I see nothing wrong with that.

 

:)

.

[Bitterman24/7]

You hit the nail on the head why many WS do not tell their spouses about their extramarital relationships. They are not ready to choose. This is also why many OW/OM hesitate to tell the BSs. They think matters will only get worse, not better, being that the WS is not ready to choose.

 

Of course matters will only get worse either way. What I meant to say is that WS should obviously stop ****ing their OW/OM if they are willing to tell their BS what they did because they're going to look even dumber than what they already are when they say they're still ****ing the OP. To me its bullshiit to even say how you're going to keeping doing the same damaging behavior because that'll just cause insult to injury. But yea, your right. It is understandable as to why a WS hesitates, but it still isn't right...

Edited August 3, 2010 by Bitterman24/7

[jennie-jennie]

Sorry. That ***** ain't love.

 

The si2ation isn't difficult, either. The solution is simple, though it may not be easy. Have you heard the joke about the rodeo rider and the difference between simple and easy?

 

Si2ations like this are no more difficult than the selfish people in them make them. The right thing 2 have done would have been 2 say something along these lines of part of this quote from M. Scott Peck that I posted some time ago on a similar thread:

 

 

I have had a feeling for a long time now, that active waywards, particularly unrepentant or unapologetic ones, have a screw loose somewhere. See if you can identify it in the quote of M Scott Peck, above. I bet it's in the characterization of romantic love as not love at all. Am I right?

 

...though there may be more than one loose screw, now that I think about it.

 

-ol' 2long

 

The way I look at it (and I too have read books on the subject) is that there are two kinds of love: altruistic love and (for lack of a better word) selfish love.

 

Altruistic love is the most common love. This is the kind of love we have for our children, our parents, our friends, our relatives, and unfortunately also sometimes for our spouse.

 

We don't love our romantic and sexual partner in the same way we love everyone else. We desire them, we desire their bodies, their company, in a way we do not do with anybody else. This is selfish love: I love you because you make me feel good.

 

Selfish love is to be preferred in a relationship between a man and a woman, since if there is only altruistic love there is always the risk of one of them wandering.

 

I love you (altruistic love) but I am not in love with you (selfish love).

Edited August 3, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[xxoo]

Because he makes her happy.

 

All of us has our own definitions of happiness. What makes me happy may not make you happy. Chocolate makes some happy while vanilla makes others happy. The world is not so rigid as to say ALL people must be happy with chocolate, there is no other possible way for people to be happy.

 

This man makes J-J happy and she's willing to accept the situation as it is (for now). That's a good enough explanation for me.

 

Not all things that make us happy (in the moment) are healthy and create our happiness (long term). Eating 10,000 calories a day might make me happy now, but it is going to cause me enormous emotional pain in the end.

 

Many, many people choose to give up what makes them happy right now because they recognize that it is destructive (to the AP, to the love object/WS, to the BS, to the children involved). That is true love--loving someone so much you simply can NOT drag them and their family through hell.

[xxoo]

Hmm, "I'm in love with you but I don't love you". Nope, I still can't figure that one out.

I can understand "I'm in LUST with you but I don't love you".

I can understand "I'm in LIKE with you but I don't love you".

Please explain how you can be "in love" with someone and not love them at the same time.

 

Because "in love", while it includes the word love and tremendously appealing feelings, does not always actually involve love. It can just be feelings--and once that rush fades, the formerly "in love" person realizes there is no love. Affairs can artificially extend the feelings of "in love" (fog). How many fWS's report a reality of "what the heck what I thinking?" regarding being "in love" with their affair partner once the affair is over?

Edited August 3, 2010 by xxoo

[jennie-jennie]

Not all things that make us happy (in the moment) are healthy and create our happiness (long term). Eating 10,000 calories a day might make me happy now, but it is going to cause me enormous emotional pain in the end.

 

In my case being with my MM is a healthy choice. Many of my old wounds have been healed through my relationship with him. I wish LS posters would respect my choice to be with him.

Many, many people choose to give up what makes them happy right now because they recognize that it is destructive (to the AP, to the love object/WS, to the BS, to the children involved). That is true love--loving someone so much you simply can NOT drag them and their family through hell.

What you are describing is altruistic love. True love can be either altruistic or selfish, depending on the type of relationship in question.

 

Interestingly enough, I believe for many WS it is exactly the fact that they altruistically love their wife and their children which keeps them married, although they now have selfish love for a new partner. They are trying to do the least amount of harm to those they love. They are trying to not drag their family through hell.

[2long]

Hmm, "I'm in love with you but I don't love you". Nope, I still can't figure that one out.

I can understand "I'm in LUST with you but I don't love you".

I can understand "I'm in LIKE with you but I don't love you".

Please explain how you can be "in love" with someone and not love them at the same time.

 

This should be easy 2 understand. Lets start with the more common "I love you, but I'm not in love with you". What does the "I love you" part mean? Love is an action verb in that statement. A conscious choice. What does the "but I'm not in love with you" part mean? In love is a feeling, not a choice. It "just happens" and it can be overwhelming. But it isn't planned and it isn't thought out. So, when a wayward says "I love you, but I'm not in love with you", what are they saying? And why does that make perfect sense?

 

Likewise, though it isn't said between affairees because it might piss in the cereal bowl, "I'm in love with you but I don't love you" means that they are gaga over their feelings, but the choice 2 love responsibly isn't there (whether they profess their love for one another or not), because if they were truly loving they would not cheat.

 

It really is that simple.

 

 

No, Love isn't evil.

 

As for affairs being evil - well, it depends on who you ask, doesn't it? I'm sure to the BS who finds out, it is "evil". To the BS who has no clue, it's not.

 

I didn't find out for 11 years. Affairs have always been nothing more lofty than cruel self-indulgences. Of course, I even2ally found out on my own. That enabled me 2 put the previous years of mediocrity in perspective.

 

And for the two parties involved in an affair? It may be the height of happiness, the "missing piece" of the puzzle, the "bright spot" of their day. So they would not call it evil.

 

Of course they wouldn't, because they're swept up in it and not thinking rationally (like your repeating the statement above, essentially a "what they don't know won't hurt them" kind of statement).

 

-ol' 2long

[jennie-jennie]

Because "in love", while it includes the word love and tremendously appealing feelings, does not always actually involve love. It can just be feelings--and once that rush fades, the formerly "in love" person realizes there is no love. Affairs can artificially extend the feelings of "in love" (fog). How many fWS's report a reality of "what the heck what I thinking?" regarding being "in love" with their affair partner once the affair is over?

 

It takes a year before any "in love" feelings can be classified as "love" feelings. In the start of any relationship you tend to see your loved one with rose-colored glasses, and until a year has passed you can not really be sure it is not just infatuation.

 

In any relationship you tend to only really realize the value of the other when you stand to lose them. This explains the "What the heck what I thinking?". Many WS discover at the risk of losing their spouses their true value. This has more to do with the value of the spouse, than any diminished value of the OW/OM.

 

The fact that an affair is an affair burdens the extramarital relationship. It leads to much stress and tension between the affair partners, to many arguments and discussions. This wears on the feelings of love they hold for each other, rather than adding to them. We see this described every now and then on LS: how the AP's love has been worn down until they leave the MP, and the MP stands there wondering what happened.

[jennie-jennie]

This should be easy 2 understand. Lets start with the more common "I love you, but I'm not in love with you". What does the "I love you" part mean? Love is an action verb in that statement. A conscious choice. What does the "but I'm not in love with you" part mean? In love is a feeling, not a choice. It "just happens" and it can be overwhelming. But it isn't planned and it isn't thought out. So, when a wayward says "I love you, but I'm not in love with you", what are they saying? And why does that make perfect sense?

 

Likewise, though it isn't said between affairees because it might piss in the cereal bowl, "I'm in love with you but I don't love you" means that they are gaga over their feelings, but the choice 2 love responsibly isn't there (whether they profess their love for one another or not), because if they were truly loving they would not cheat.

 

It really is that simple.

 

It is as simple as the fact that you can love two people altruistically (love), but only one selfishly (in love). So the cheating says more about the WS loving his spouse altruistically only, than whether or not he is just in love with his AP (selfish love) or loves her/him altruistically as well.

[xxoo]

What you are describing is altruistic love. True love can be either altruistic or selfish, depending on the type of relationship in question.

 

Interestingly enough, I believe for many WS it is exactly the fact that they altruistically love their wife and their children which keeps them married, although they now have selfish love for a new partner. They are trying to do the least amount of harm to those they love. They are trying to not drag their family through hell.

 

It isn't just the BS and the family getting drug through hell. It is also the cheating individual and the AP. AND, of course, the WS IS dragging the family through hell (action), even while claiming not to want to do so (words).

 

This delineation between selfish and altruistic love speaks to 2long's quote about "I'm in love with you, but I don't love you". The WS who engage in an affair without ending the marriage and fully commiting to the new love is saying "you make me feel good, but I don't love you". Not enough, anyway.

 

Does selfish love preclude altruistic love? Does the WS have no altruistic love for the AP? What good is one without the other?

[xxoo]

It is as simple as the fact that you can love two people altruistically (love), but only one selfishly (in love).

 

I don't agree with this at all. People can be in love with more than one person.

[2long]

It takes a year before any "in love" feelings can be classified as "love" feelings. In the start of any relationship you tend to see your loved one with rose-colored glasses, and until a year has passed you can not really be sure it is not just infatuation.

 

You're still looking for love in your feelings, as Peck described. Feelings of love don't "morph" in2 real love. They're replaced by it. In the case of love between a couple not complicating their lives unnecessarily by secretly involving a third party, the feelings can continue, or maybe come and go over the years while the decision 2 behave lovingly 2ward one another (the commitment 2 love one another) continues 2 grow over a lifetime. Affairees may be able 2 extend the feeling of being in love for a while, so long as they're not found out. But that's far from a loving way 2 behave.

 

In any relationship you tend to only really realize the value of the other when you stand to lose them. This explains the "What the heck what I thinking?". Many WS discover at the risk of losing their spouses their true value. This has more to do with the value of the spouse, than any diminished value of the OW/OM.

 

Ac2ally, the "what the heck was I thinking" has everything 2 do with the WS and the OP, and nothing 2 do with the betrayed spouse (who, while all this has been going on, quite likely has been undergoing massive personal growth on their own. See if this "new" BS even gives a carp about the WS' realizations at this point).

 

The fact that an affair is an affair burdens the extramarital relationship. It leads to much stress and tension between the affair partners, to many arguments and discussions. This wears on the feelings of love they hold for each other, rather than adding to them. We see this described every now and then on LS: how the AP's love has been worn down until they leave the MP, and the MP stands there wondering what happened.

 

Ended that way, maybe the WS will learn something, but the AP likely won't.

 

-ol' 2long

[jennie-jennie]

I don't agree with this at all. People can be in love with more than one person.

 

Sociologist Francesco Alberoni has very interesting thoughts on love in his book Falling in Love and Loving. It is available to read online for free:

http://www.alberoni.it/pdf/Falling-in-love-and-loving.pdf

 

Chapter 7 (page 72) is interesting reading about whether or not you can be in love with more than one person at a time:

 

"Whoever proclaims to 'have fallen in love with them both' has in reality not yet fallen in love: he or she is still in the preparatory stage." The preparatory stage where he/she is open for the possibility of falling in love, but has not as yet chosen a single love object.

[xxoo]

Sociologist Francesco Alberoni has very interesting thoughts on love in his book Falling in Love and Loving. It is available to read online for free:

www.alberoni.it/pdf/Falling-in-love-and-loving.pdf

 

Chapter 7 (page 72) is interesting reading about whether or not you can be in love with more than one person at a time:

 

"Whoever proclaims to 'have fallen in love with them both' has in reality not yet fallen in love: he or she is still in the preparatory stage." The preparatory stage where he/she is open for the possibility of falling in love, but has not as yet chosen a single love object.

 

And then there are poly folk who live in love with more than one person for decades.

 

There are also schools of sociological thought that challenge the existence of pure altruism at all.

 

But what I don't understand about the altruistic/selfish love is--why doesn't the altruistic love for the AP keep the WS from starting the affair? How can the MP (married partner) do that to a person they truly love--involve them in an ongoing, secret affair with no positive resolution in sight? It seems cruels and, yes, selfish.

[jennie-jennie]

You're still looking for love in your feelings, as Peck described. Feelings of love don't "morph" in2 real love. They're replaced by it. In the case of love between a couple not complicating their lives unnecessarily by secretly involving a third party, the feelings can continue, or maybe come and go over the years while the decision 2 behave lovingly 2ward one another (the commitment 2 love one another) continues 2 grow over a lifetime. Affairees may be able 2 extend the feeling of being in love for a while, so long as they're not found out. But that's far from a loving way 2 behave.

 

Of course I am still looking for love in my feelings. It is a partner I want, not a friend.

 

I love my SOs both altruistically and selfishly while in a relationship with them. I have the capability to continue to be in love for decades with the man I love. Once I have moved on and the relationship has ended the altruistic love remains, but the in-love feelings are gone. I'm not sure I could even make love to a man I only loved altruistically. I have never done that.

 

Ended that way, maybe the WS will learn something, but the AP likely won't.

 

The AP will have learnt that love is not all. That there exists men/women who although they truly love another will stay married. Because of this experience he/she is likely to keep away from MPs in the future.

[BB07]

In my case being with my MM is a healthy choice. Many of my old wounds have been healed through my relationship with him. I wish LS posters would respect my choice to be with him.

 

What you are describing is altruistic love. True love can be either altruistic or selfish, depending on the type of relationship in question.

 

Interestingly enough, I believe for many WS it is exactly the fact that they altruistically love their wife and their children which keeps them married, although they now have selfish love for a new partner. They are trying to do the least amount of harm to those they love. They are trying to not drag their family through hell.

 

But.........how can they not be dragging everyone, family, friends, and most often the affair partner through the worst hell imaginable by the simple act of having the affair.

Affairs are very hurtful.....to all involved to one degree of another, don't you agree? I see that you have come to a place in your affair that the pleasure outweighs the pain, but you can't deny how hurtful it would be to the others that he is professing he is trying to protect, right?

[Spark1111]

Whether altruistic, selfish, romantic or not.....

 

I do not believe love, in its truest definition, is NOT suppose to hurt other's.

 

Everything else is smoke and mirrors, IMHO.

[jennie-jennie]

And then there are poly folk who live in love with more than one person for decades.

 

There are also schools of sociological thought that challenge the existence of pure altruism at all.

 

But what I don't understand about the altruistic/selfish love is--why doesn't the altruistic love for the AP keep the WS from starting the affair? How can the MP (married partner) do that to a person they truly love--involve them in an ongoing, secret affair with no positive resolution in sight? It seems cruels and, yes, selfish.

 

Selfish (romantic) love is a drive and thus supersedes any altruistic feelings. This is the reason why the WS has an affair to begin with although he/she still loves his spouse altruistically.

[silktricks]

No, not two bad people. Just two people who can not figure out a better way to deal with a difficult situation.

 

The Dday did not change the fact that the MP was neither ready to end the affair nor the marriage, so both continue.

 

As I said, I have read many posts of OW in this situation, and they are posts of women in love, good women, ordinary women, just women in love with a MM.

 

I will disagree with you. They are posts of women in love, ordinary women, but while having a love affair with a married person they are not IMO "good" women. Good isn't selfish. Good doesn't knowingly take part in actions that are hurtful to another. Not good. Not necessarily a bad person, but not good, either.

[jennie-jennie]

Has anybody noticed that the last 70 posts have had nothing to do with the OP?

 

Yes, I was thinking maybe we ought to start a new thread...

[jennie-jennie]

But.........how can they not be dragging everyone, family, friends, and most often the affair partner through the worst hell imaginable by the simple act of having the affair.

Affairs are very hurtful.....to all involved to one degree of another, don't you agree? I see that you have come to a place in your affair that the pleasure outweighs the pain, but you can't deny how hurtful it would be to the others that he is professing he is trying to protect, right?

 

I don't see it as hurtful to others that a WS professes he is trying to protect his family. It is what he believes. I don't agree with the thought process however. I would never do what my MM is doing. But then again, I am not him.

[jennie-jennie]

Whether altruistic, selfish, romantic or not.....

 

I do not believe love, in its truest definition, is NOT suppose to hurt other's.

 

Everything else is smoke and mirrors, IMHO.

 

No, it is not supposed to hurt others, but sometimes it does.

[xxoo]

Selfish (romantic) love is a drive and thus supersedes any altruistic feelings. This is the reason why the WS has an affair to begin with although he/she still loves his spouse altruistically.

 

Supercedes altruistic feelings (which I interpret as care, concern) for the AP?

 

Sounds more like use than love.

 

This entire concept of selfish love is a challenge for me. Selfish love is an oxymoron. Love isn't selfish.

[jennie-jennie]

Supercedes altruistic feelings (which I interpret as care, concern) for the AP?

 

Sounds more like use than love.

 

This entire concept of selfish love is a challenge for me. Selfish love is an oxymoron. Love isn't selfish.

 

Maybe selfish love is a bad term to use. I couldn't come up with a better one. Anthropologist Helen Fisher uses the term romantic love. Perhaps that is better? Although in some way I like the term selfish because it tells that we love the person who makes us feel good. This is the one we choose as a partner.

 

Read Alberoni's book. I would be very interested in your thoughts afterwards. He talks a lot about altruistic versus "selfish" love.