Being the ow multiple times.

[OWoman]

Then it isnt an affair its an open marriage

 

That depends on whether the BS chooses to be informed or not. Our A was not hidden. It was not explicitly brought to her attention (by us) until later - at which stage she chose to disbelieve it, just as she'd disbelieved it earlier when told of it by one of the myriad others who knew.

 

Unless you are a participating 3rd party in an open marriage , we are not talking about "the altar of the sanctity of the institution of Marriage"

at all. We are talking about invading someone elses privacy and life anonymously.

 

That would depend on the circumstances, I'd say. My R with my then-MM was perfectly open. There was nothing anonymous about it - everyone knew us as a couple; if she'd taken the slightest interest in his life at all she'd have known exactly who I was.

 

Nor do I feel I was invading her, or any of my fMMs' BWs' - privacy. She was entirely irrelevant to me and to my R, and to my life. Anything I knew of her was on the public knowledge tree, available to anyone - and that was only because at that stage the R had moved way beyond being an A. In my previous As, I don't think I even knew anything at all about the BWs, apart from knowing that they must exist somewhere in a parallel universe.

 

See, a lot of times...what a person does is not as important to them as the person it is being done to.

 

You'll need to explain this as I've no idea what you're getting at.

[OWoman]

How come you didn't quote this part? Too true?

 

I did mean to get back to it in a separate post, but got distracted by a newer post.

 

But I think we can ALL agree that when someone KNOWS they are doing something that could potentially hurt someone else but they just don't care, they are behaving in a manner that people just plain don't find - well, nice.

 

I don't disagree. We all make choices, all the time, between whose feelings we'll respect and whose we'll flip off, between who we'll make happy and who we'll hurt, because few of the chioces we make mean sunshine and happiness for everybody. Usually there's a win-lose rather than a win-win, and so choices need to be made about who gets to win and who gets to lose.

 

And if others don't agree with the choice, then yes, they'll think we're mean, nasty and awful, while those that do agree will think the opposite. That's life. I learned early on that pleasing everybody was a non-starter, so I've always taken the line that - all other things being equal - it's better to please those who matter most to me, or if it's much of a muchness, to please the greater number rather than the smaller number of people.

[donnamaybe]

But it's actually quite easy to not PURPOSEFULLY hurt others. Going out of our way is different.

[OWoman]

But it's actually quite easy to not PURPOSEFULLY hurt others. Going out of our way is different.

 

Sure. And I doubt you'll find any (or at least, very few if any) OWs who set out purposefully to hurt anyone. OTC, the standard refrain is "I never intended to hurt her".

 

There have been times in my life where I have set out quite deliberately to hurt someone - some incidents on the primary school playground spring to mind, as well as some political activity later on - and I can guarantee that that motivation is VERY different from the "collateral damage" an OW may inflict on a BS through an A.

[pureinheart]

OTOH, uncritically accepting and following social mores indicates a far deeper level of dysfunction - a fear of standing out as "different", a fear of taking risks, an inability to think for oneself and form one's own judgments on matters, and generally being out of touch with one's own needs, desires and preferred modus operandi. Some societies favour - and "breed", through their education systems, etc - sheep, and others favour rebels. It seems that those of us who come from "rebel" societies are looked down as "dysfunctional" by those who come from "sheep" societies, but I can assure you that the reverse holds equally!

 

omg if this isn't denial and an excuse for poor behavior...

 

GG IMO the above statement is not denial, but fact. It's so easy to follow the crowd, the path of least resistance...but, when you break out of the box with your own ideas and opinions...wow, what a release!

[greengoddess]

 

 

That's only so if you know, and accept, that it's wrong. For those of us who do not worship at the altar of the sanctity of the institution of Marriage, and those of us who consider that it, together with other forms of privatisation, are the root of social evil, EMAs are not only not wrong, they are liberating.

 

why did you get married?

[woinlove]

GG IMO the above statement is not denial, but fact. It's so easy to follow the crowd, the path of least resistance...but, when you break out of the box with your own ideas and opinions...wow, what a release!

 

I'd agree if you were talking about open relationships. Open marriage is not following the crowd and it allows one to live a life of integrity and to treat others with kindness. Neither of which affairs allow.

 

I don't see how lacking the integrity and involving oneself by choice in dishonesty and acts likely to hurt others is in any way to be applauded. Sure, people are fallible and subject to following their own self-interests, rather than adhering to the golden rule. So, when people fail, as they often do, help them get back up. But secret affairs where one life partner is deceived should not be applauded for either of the two people who choose this behavior.

[pureinheart]

I'd agree if you were talking about open relationships. Open marriage is not following the crowd and it allows one to live a life of integrity and to treat others with kindness. Neither of which affairs allow.

 

I don't see how lacking the integrity and involving oneself by choice in dishonesty and acts likely to hurt others is in any way to be applauded. Sure, people are fallible and subject to following their own self-interests, rather than adhering to the golden rule. So, when people fail, as they often do, help them get back up. But secret affairs where one life partner is deceived should not be applauded for either of the two people who choose this behavior.

 

I was referring to post #65, which I felt stood on it's own merit. I do realise that this is the OM/OW forum, although I felt the post spoke of many issues and expanded on people in general following the crowd in many areas.

 

I didn't see where A's were being applauded. Affairs happen, for whatever reason and I am of the opinion that there are much worse things in life than affairs.

 

What I have found is that we all have the capacity to be all of what you mentioned and then some, the only difference is some either hide it better, or have actually achieved a place of of almost perfection.

[Dexter Morgan]

Sure. And I doubt you'll find any (or at least, very few if any) OWs who set out purposefully to hurt anyone.

 

 

i don't think anyone sets out to purposely hurt someone by bedding down their spouse....they simply don't care who they hurt.

[NoIDidn't]

Its not a stretch, or a moral conundrum, or even a cultural thing to know that taking something from someone else is wrong, that to participate in hurting someone else anonymously is terrible, that if your activity must be hidden it shames you, or that doing something we know is wrong but justifying it to make ourselves okay with it...is not a good way treat others or yourself.

 

When a woman does these things, she hurts herself most.

If she cant see that, the only course of action is for her to think she is control of it and empowered by it. Its part of the culture of being vulnerable and/or being a victim .

 

Yep, and its dysfunction to do so with a straight face and say I'm doing nothing wrong to myself or to others.

 

Dysfunction can certainly be cultural, to a degree. But at the end of the day, its plain ole dysfunctional to think that hurting ourselves and justifying it is in any way empowering.

 

And those of us raised in families that exhibit such dysfunction, either as mental illness, personality disorder, or other clearly dysfunctional behavior in parents or other caretakers (narcissistic parents, depressed parents, parents that hate each other) are at high risk for such behavior while denying or refusing to acknowledge it for what it is.

 

Either way, I think its equally bad to harm one's self ignorantly (not knowing that we are doing so) as it is to harm others intentionally. Its not empowering if your behavior only wins you kudos from society's misfits or outcasts. You want people to be able to trust you. And I don't know anyone that trusts a woman that's known for pursuing, or repeatedly accepting the advances of, married men for romantic interests - unless they have abandoned that behavior. Either that or the snickering that goes on behind her back for repeatedly dumping or being dumped by such men - as its obvious someone dumped someone if she's on to the next one.

[NoIDidn't]

GG IMO the above statement is not denial, but fact. It's so easy to follow the crowd, the path of least resistance...but, when you break out of the box with your own ideas and opinions...wow, what a release!

 

Pure, I could see if you were talking about something useful to society. Being the hidden mistress of several married men is far from useful.

 

Plus, being involved in an affair even once isn't breaking out of the box, as adultery (as your Bible defines it) is as old as marriage.

[Fieldsofgold]

GG IMO the above statement is not denial, but fact. It's so easy to follow the crowd, the path of least resistance...but, when you break out of the box with your own ideas and opinions...wow, what a release!

 

I really have to take exception to the bolded. Yes, if you want to try a funky new hairdo, or a career choice that's out of the norm, or some other "independent thinking" that does no harm, ok. But too often, people use that as an excuse to do things that harm others. You know, all those things that aren't flat out illegal, but are clearly wrong. And usually things that are done illegally, well, often those people are "thinkers outside the box" who don't believe in "conforming to the norms of society." In our country we usually call them criminals. Free thinkers could also apply yo people with NPD, or sociopaths. They don't "conform" to societal norms.

 

That same "outside the box liberated thinking" is what religious sects use to "marry" multiple minor children, for example. They were liberating them AND securing a place in heaven for them.

 

Many, many wrongs are done in the name of "liberated thinking." And the people doing them justify it by "not conforming to the norms of society."

 

This thread could turn into a discussion of the virtues and pitfalls of having and conforming to societal norms, but that would be totally off topic, so let's don't.

 

About women who have affairs to hurt other women, I would think this would certainly be a factor in OW who know, or are friends with, the BS.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Fieldsofgold

[OWoman]

why did you get married?

 

Since I have answered this so many times previously, I'm going to assume that it's not a serious question but meant to provoke. If I'm wrong, and you are genuinely interested, feel free to look it up on any one of the myriad other threads on which I've addressed that question.

 

Its not empowering if your behavior only wins you kudos from society's misfits or outcasts. You want people to be able to trust you. And I don't know anyone that trusts a woman that's known for pursuing' date=' or repeatedly accepting the advances of, married men for romantic interests - unless they have abandoned that behavior. Either that or the snickering that goes on behind her back for repeatedly dumping or being dumped by such men - as its obvious someone dumped someone if she's on to the next one.[/quote']

 

I'm guessing that you're classifying anyone who considers such behaviour to be empowering as necessarily a "misfit" or an "outcast", simply on that basis alone - irrespective of their own behaviour, their own role in society, their views on other matters? In which case you'd need to classify a pretty huge segment of society as "misfits" and "outcasts" - among my friends are judges, public prosecutors and other legal professionals, academics across a host of disciplines, school teachers, surgeons, physicians, psychologists and social workers, engineers, community development workers, counsellors, nuns, priests, pastors, imams and rabbis, dentists and nature conservationists, among others. None of those are typically regarded as "misfits" or "outcasts" - though I'm willing to concede that artists, lawyers, politicians, musicians and writers might be - and I'm sure they'd be bemused to hear that they'd been labelled as such on the basis of supporting me in my personal choices.

 

And, for the record - snickering behind my back? What kind of world do you live in? I've always lived a very compartmentalised life with my private life being just that - private - so until my H and I decided we wanted to be together long-term, my romantic life was a complete mystery to most people. I'm not known for parading my trophies around nor carving notches on my bedpost - and none of my past lovers has a clue about the identity of any others, which is as it should be IMO. Nice try, but no cigar

[greengoddess]

you went on and on that marriage is the root of social evil. the next logical question wool be then why did you get married. it was certainly not provoking. it was a logical question. why would someone get married who thinks marriage is evil. sorry I don't follow each poster and their whole life story nor search around for it. I think it is a fair enough question. why would you take insult toit and find it provoking?

[NoIDidn't]

I'm guessing that you're classifying anyone who considers such behaviour to be empowering as necessarily a "misfit" or an "outcast", simply on that basis alone - irrespective of their own behaviour, their own role in society, their views on other matters? In which case you'd need to classify a pretty huge segment of society as "misfits" and "outcasts" - among my friends are judges, public prosecutors and other legal professionals, academics across a host of disciplines, school teachers, surgeons, physicians, psychologists and social workers, engineers, community development workers, counsellors, nuns, priests, pastors, imams and rabbis, dentists and nature conservationists, among others. None of those are typically regarded as "misfits" or "outcasts" - though I'm willing to concede that artists, lawyers, politicians, musicians and writers might be - and I'm sure they'd be bemused to hear that they'd been labelled as such on the basis of supporting me in my personal choices.

 

And, for the record - snickering behind my back? What kind of world do you live in? I've always lived a very compartmentalised life with my private life being just that - private - so until my H and I decided we wanted to be together long-term, my romantic life was a complete mystery to most people. I'm not known for parading my trophies around nor carving notches on my bedpost - and none of my past lovers has a clue about the identity of any others, which is as it should be IMO. Nice try, but no cigar

 

Interesting. I make a basic statement and its taken personally. Sure, people are free to be perverse in their private life, but I'm sure these people you mention don't want anyone to know of their secret vices. It does affect the way that people perceive them. Like you have said here, "[your] romantic life was a complete mystery to most (emphasis mine) people. People generally don't want folks to know about behaviors that they feel they will be judged on by larger society. Quite frankly, if they felt it should be acceptable to behave in such ways, for example - for people to know they've been an OW multiple times, they'd not go to ANY lengths to hide/conceal it.

 

For the record, my posts have not addressed any poster in particular as they have been general. But your posts continue to address me personally as if you have any inkling of who I am and what it is that I do. As usual its indicative of the kind of thing that passes as dialog here where one claims that they are being attacked but they are the ones doing the attacking. I've been subtly accused of uncritically following the crowd. Been asked cynically what world I live in. And I've said NOTHING against or towards you personally. I gently request that you refrain from such towards me as it does not lend anything other than combativeness to your posts.

 

I apologize to the OP for addressing this, but felt it needed to be as its nearly impossible for a thread not to turn into a shouting match when posters take mean-spirited potshots that are not warranted.