Unapologetic OWs - a threat?

[Spark1111]

Spark, not sure if you are referring to the self-identified ones here, or what Blizzard was referring to about wanting to apologize to the specific BS involved? On the self-identified ones, I was just going by what a couple of them described in threads on the topic, some of whom say they are happy staying the OW and some who ended up marrying the former MM. Perhaps you are saying what unapologetic OW means to you?

 

ETA. Okay, just read your earlier post, Spark, and I see that is your definition. Fair enough. It's a good point.

 

Yes, to me the term is completely bogus!

 

It defines someone so happy with the realtionship, that they do not apologize to society.

 

And the believe what the BS doesn't know, doesn't matter, because they cannot be hurt by what they do not know.

 

Which is BS. To me, it is someone trying to CONVINCE themselves that they have nothing to apologize for. Ok, fine.

 

But how does that make them any different than any other OW who lives in the shadows, with a relationship held in secret, with stolen moments of time?

 

It does not! Claiming you ARE, does not make it true!

 

Call him up at home whenever you want to speak with him! Go out publicly in HIS hometown. Now, maybe you are TRULY an unapologetic OW.

 

And if you can't, don't, won't.....you still on some level give a damn what society thinks.

 

And you are JUST like any other OW, IMO.

[2themoon&back]

So, a friend said:

 

 

 

It made a lot of sense to me and helped explain why some noobs here, as well as some "older" posters, tend to draw most of the fire. It's probably easier to respond to someone with compassion when you don't view them as representative of a threat, while those who get what they want - which might include someone else's H - are too terrible to contemplate, and must be silenced and neutralised at all costs.

 

So, I'm putting this out there for OWs and OMs of all stripes - do you feel our degree of "unapologeticness" or otherwise contributed to the degree, and kind, of support you received - from other APs, from BSs past and present and from anyone else?

 

And for non-APs - does the degree to which an AP is "unapologetic" influence the degree to which you feel yourself able to provide support (of the kind sought by the OP, not what you might assume the OP might need)?

 

OW, I guess I would ask first --what is the OW unapologetic for?

 

The whole A, the joy of the A, the pain the A, the choice to have an A???

 

Or is this considered all the same in one. And second Who are they not apologizing too?

 

The world, the BS, the MM, themselves?

 

I would need to know what a person is not apologetic "about" before I could say for sure what I think, IMO.

[jenifer1972]

I don't think these characteristics sound like self confidence. They are characteristics of SOCIOPATHY..

[msbrightside]

I'd love to hear from a MM who has beaten his uOW at her game. All APs, after all, engage in a fantastical and wicked game.

[2themoon&back]

I'd love to hear from a MM who has beaten his uOW at her game. All APs, after all, engage in a fantastical and wicked game.

 

Is that Used OW? or unwanted or ????

[msbrightside]

an uOW is using the MM as much as he is using her.. both are smart enough to know that

[msbrightside]

Is that Used OW? or unwanted or ????

 

 

unapologetic.. def used.. and def wanted

[2themoon&back]

unapologetic.. def used.. and def wanted

 

 

Oh Ok, I was confused by what you said so I just figured I did not know what the u was for either ... thanks sorry it is late.

[tami-chan]

Tami makes some great points!

 

Thanks, I think !

 

 

But I do not equate unapologetic OW with someone who DOES NOT OWN THEIR ACTIONS.

 

Just because you CLAIM TO BE an unapologetic OW, does not make it true!

 

Own your relationship, your actions, your happiness and then you can claim to be an unapologetic OW.

 

As long as you are hiding in the shadows of the marriage, guess what?

 

You are STILL the typical, crumb-eating, mistress.

 

Sorry, I do not know what you mean by this whole paragraph .

 

A person can own his actions by acknowledging that yes, it is against the laws of the church or the state, and I did it knowing it is wrong according to those laws and I am not sorry.

[LifesontheUp]

Since I have not needed any kind of emotional support, I don't think I'm qualified to answer your question on a personal level.

 

But from what I have experienced, at least here on LS, there are those who seem to be.....offended, by my happiness.

As far as silencing and neutralizing - well, my Tell Me What You Love thread was shut down because of threadjacking.

 

It wasn't inflammatory in the least bit.....so maybe it was threatening? Reading about how normal the day-to-day interactions between lovers are?

 

Ok, so I'll be honest here and say that I am not offended by your happiness, I am very sad about your attitude towards others. You come across as selfish, arrogant, egotistical and have no consideration for the consquences of your actions. Its the "me me me" selfishness that I find so sad and repulsive. And to make it clear if you weren't an OW and still had this attitude I would find it repulsive too.

 

I truly hope that you have no children around all this as god knows what they may grow up thinking

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm getting the idea that the "unapologetic" get a huge ego boost out of thinking that they're threatening.

[Stung]

I'm getting the idea that the "unapologetic" get a huge ego boost out of thinking that they're threatening.

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[pureinheart]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

No, not even close.

[Snowflower]

So, a friend said:

 

 

 

It made a lot of sense to me and helped explain why some noobs here, as well as some "older" posters, tend to draw most of the fire. It's probably easier to respond to someone with compassion when you don't view them as representative of a threat, while those who get what they want - which might include someone else's H - are too terrible to contemplate, and must be silenced and neutralised at all costs.

 

 

RE: the bolded...

 

I haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if I am repeating someone...but this statement sure makes me think that some AP consider the MP a possession of sorts, a prize to be won. This is interesting to me because it is usually the AP that claims that the BS considers marriage and the spouse as some kind of "ownership." Clearly, it isn't only some BS who think this.

 

Now, I'll go read the thread. But, a threat? nah!

[donnamaybe]

Wow, your man is well-equipped, eh.

At the risk of TJ, um, YOWZA!

 

...he's really smart too...

[donnamaybe]

If they were not such a threat why would we have laws against adultery? infidelity? Let's not even talk about the history of vicious punishment meted out for breaking these laws!

Good point, but it only takes a handful of people to enact a law. That doesn't make all of us feel threatened. I feel merely disdain.

 

Well, that is, of course, if they want to touch him first -I kid. 'Am happy for you that you are secure in your relationship, though.

Oh, several have tried, much to their disappointment.

 

And thanks for the well wishes. That's very kind of you.

[donnamaybe]

I'm getting the idea that the "unapologetic" get a huge ego boost out of thinking that they're threatening.

THEY don't think it. They just want OTHERS to think it for said ego boost. But here's the thing. If they REALLY thought they were threatening to a marriage, they wouldn't help hide the A from the BS. They are actually threatened by the BS because, upon D day, they know they'd be history. Otherwise why hide the A?

[greengoddess]

THEY don't think it. They just want OTHERS to think it for said ego boost. But here's the thing. If they REALLY thought they were threatening to a marriage, they wouldn't help hide the A from the BS. They are actually threatened by the BS because, upon D day, they know they'd be history. Otherwise why hide the A?

 

Very good point!

[tami-chan]

Good point, but it only takes a handful of people to enact a law. That doesn't make all of us feel threatened. I feel merely disdain.

 

Of course, not "all"-don't be silly-<sigh> What is with this people when they lose an argument, they start saying .."but, but, but not "all", "not everybody"-obviously .

 

Oh, several have tried, much to their disappointment.

 

I did this too --->..no, more like this ----> when I read the above.

 

And thanks for the well wishes. That's very kind of you.

 

You're welcome!

[donnamaybe]

Of course, not "all"-don't be silly-<sigh> What is with this people when they lose an argument, they start saying .."but, but, but not "all", "not everybody"-obviously .

Why, oh why does this have to be a win-lose thing? I'm not trying to "win" anything. Just explaining my personal viewpoint.

 

Do you feel like you have to be a victor for some reason? That's rough, because when a person feels they always have to win something, they'll often be disappointed.

[herenow]

Why, oh why does this have to be a win-lose thing? I'm not trying to "win" anything. Just explaining my personal viewpoint.

 

Do you feel like you have to be a victor for some reason? That's rough, because when a person feels they always have to win something, they'll often be disappointed.

 

What is there to win?

 

This isn't a "support" thread It's obviously a thread that is meant to start a "conversation". I always though that conversations encourage different POV's.

 

Unless of course the person who started conversation has ulterior motives. Since I don't know that person IRL, I have no way of telling what she is expecting to get from this thread, so all I can do is have my opinion.

 

IMO, no the OW is not a threat. I already explained my opinion in a previous post, so I will just leave it at that.

[donnamaybe]

What is there to win?

 

This isn't a "support" thread It's obviously a thread that is meant to start a "conversation". I always though that conversations encourage different POV's.

Yeah, that was what I thought too.

[moloko]

For "unapologetic" OW/OM to be a threat to me, they would have to be a part of my life.

 

I don't make it a habit of surrounding myself with them, therefore they aren't a threat. they can be "unapologetic" elsewhere. I won't stick around to be witness to it.

[seren]

So, a friend said:

 

 

 

It made a lot of sense to me and helped explain why some noobs here, as well as some "older" posters, tend to draw most of the fire. It's probably easier to respond to someone with compassion when you don't view them as representative of a threat, while those who get what they want - which might include someone else's H - are too terrible to contemplate, and must be silenced and neutralised at all costs.

 

I don't recall reading too many posts where the AP has 'got' someone else's H or W. In the main, the AP are those who are either in an A either waiting for the boot to drop and deal with whatever follows, or are out of an A and are either hurting, confused, angry or loking for support. I can only recall a handful who have gone on to have long term relationships, and some have married the XOM. What does that make them then? Unapologetic but now happily married XOW? and I wonder how their view of someone being unapologetic would fair if their relationship was intruded upon by an A? would they then think it was OK because they had become settled, emptied the litter tray or trusted the one they loved?I hope that none are silenced or neutralised at all costs, after all this is just an internet board and doesn't really impact very much upon real life

 

So, I'm putting this out there for OWs and OMs of all stripes - do you feel our degree of "unapologeticness" or otherwise contributed to the degree, and kind, of support you received - from other APs, from BSs past and present and from anyone else?

 

I do think that some of the more 'gloating' type posts by the unapologetic recieve less support, BS's who have 'gloated' about their happiness also get slated if they write how good their marriage is. Difference being, this is done after an A, when all are in the know so no deceit ongoing. I don't recall people being derogatory about OW/OM who have gone on to have long term A's when they are discussing their current relationships. But I am not in that situation so I may have missed something here.

 

And for non-APs - does the degree to which an AP is "unapologetic" influence the degree to which you feel yourself able to provide support (of the kind sought by the OP, not what you might assume the OP might need)?

 

Well I am an unapologetic BS, so it would be naive of me to to not suppose that some people are happy to be labelled as an unapologetic AP. Personally, I wouldn't take such great pride in being unapologetic about enabling the hurt of another without their knowledge. I would find it very difficult to be non judgemental about someone who was Ra Ra ing it from the rooftops about how happy they were while a BS was kept in the dark. It isn't a trait I would want on my CV. But I understood JJ when she stated her position, even if I didn't agree with it, her tenacity was quite frankly admirable.

 

As for the friend comment that AP are more (insert whatever) than the BS. I find this condescending and arrogant. It makes an enormous assumption and stereotype against BS. Personally as an XBS and a very unapolgetic reconciled wife, I have never emptied a litter tray, other than deal with the crap of the A, I am not and never have been a frumpy, not care, lie back and think of England lover, nor am I uninformed or not able to have a conversation other than about kids, cabbages or whatever. I take umbrage with the notion that BS are cheated because they have let themselves go or have no imagination in the bedroom - imagine how crap that would be for an unapologetic AP if the WS went back to that after D Day. I wouldn't be unapologetic then I would be taking a long hard look at myself and thinking what was wrong with me? and therein lies the crux of it, it isn't about the AP it is about the WS. The AP nor the BS should be comparing what was missing or 'less than' about themselves - it really isn't a competition or game. More that the WS should be looking and asking, how could I do this to two people under the guise of love or like.

 

The reason I support here is not to belittle the OW/OM nor to jump on posters who are in an A and are unapologetic. I think there are enough OW/OM sites that Ra Ra A's and back pat. Lets not stereotype anyone. I tend to ignore certain posters as I know that their posts are not so much about their happiness at being with someone, but about how they are unapologetic about the hurt another is experiencing and not owning their role or even giving a damn. If the BS is portrayed as a fool I ask myself, was I a fool to feel for the hurt of the OW in my H's A, that I could empathise with her pain and try to get him to make the ending less painful for her? Much to think about for me.

[kuma]

So, a friend said:

Quote:

But you will see the BBWs' fears surface over and over again.They fear unapologetic OW most of all. I think it is because they see us as the type of women most likely to "get the MM" in the end. It seems to me that we who are unapologetic tend to be more self-centered, self-assured, self-confident. I think that as a "species" uOW tend to be more self-sufficient, intellectual, humourous, commited. Because of that, uOW are feared above all because we are the type of women men DO "fall in love" with. We are the type of women whose company is desired by men. They know that with women like that men usually are not in it just for the sex, though they also know that bcause we are all those things we also tend to be great lovers. (A confident lover always is much more fun than an insecure lover.)

 

They do not really fear women who stay at home all day cleaning the litter-box while waiting for the MM to call. She is no real threat to them.

 

LOL! Your friend is certainly humorous.

 

I don't see them as a threat at all. IMO, most men don't fall in love with self-centered/arrogant women.