Unapologetic OWs - a threat?

[seren]

Mr Wondering, you posted this quote which your friend sent you:

 

 

But you will see the BWs' righteous anger surface over and over again. They despise the unapologetic OW most of all. I think it is because they see them as the type of women most likely to give their husband an STD in the end. It seems to me that they who are unapologetic tend to be more self-centered, self-debased, and self-loathing. I think that as a "sub-species" uOW tend to ACT more self-sufficient, intellectual, humorous, commited. Because of that, uOW are despised above all because they are the type of pathetic women weak self-centered, self-debased and self-loathing men DO temporarily "fall in lust" with. They are the type of women whose company is desired by such men much like prostitutes particularly because they capable of such self-delusion that they can convince themselves that such men are not in it just for the sex. They also know that because they are all those things they also tend to be very, um, enthusiastic and experienced, cough, lovers. (A slutty experienced bendy lover that likes being used and debased is much less expensive than a prostitute and BRIEFLY/TEMPORARILY only seemingly more fun than a devoted spouse until it starts itching that is)

As an XBS, I can say wholeheartedly that I certainly do not share these views. I don't despise UOW or any OW, I don't even depise the OW my H had an A with, indifference, maybe, but despise is such a huge word. So are words like slutty. Some of the OW here and elsewhere are led to believe that the MM loves them, I know the OW my H had an A with loved him, even though it wasn't said.

 

To feel threatened by an OW even an UOW would suggest that I fear that my H would have another A, if I thought that, I wouldn't be here 3 and a half years down the line. I despise the A but I don't despise my H or the OW, I despise the pain it caused, I despise the waste of time the A and the aftermath has taken from my life and my marriage. BUT, I certainly don't feel threatened by women who target married men, or those who shout it from the rooftops. TBH, I find it strange that anyone would want to shout out that they are hidden by the person they love, but that is me.

 

The only time someone will make a decision to change their behaviour is when they feel it is right for them, or when they decide they want something more. Until then, no one can make them change.

I have had discussions with many OW on this site, in the main, they are people I like and nothing like the predatory people quoted in your friend's message. Much the same as the descriptions of BS quoted in other messages bear no relation to most of the BS I have met here and elsewhere.

Edited February 8, 2011 by seren
trying to bold ...

[seren]

Mr Wondering, Thank you for clarifying.

[JaneyAmazed]

What "support" was needed for this thread? I'm having a hard time discerning where any "support" was solicited.

 

Nice try at the spin job!

 

Some folks are SO full of themselves there's just no point in any kind of "support."

 

I wondered this too.

[alexandria35]

So, Owl, if a promotion was available in your office, and you very desperately wanted it... but knew that another colleague had also set their heart on it - would you apply? Or would you not want to focus solely on your own wants (the promotion) to the devastation of someone else's emotional (and possibly financial) wellbeing?

 

Another absurd comparison. Everybody knows that when a higher position opens up there is going to be competition. A far cry from the betrayed spouse who has know clue that her position is up for the taking. Which usually it isn't because most cheaters just create a new position for the AP and keep their spouses as well.

[alexandria35]

Well OWoman, I am thinking this question for non-AP's was answered in full. Most are unable to give objective support, meeting the individual where THEY are at.

 

Most of what I have seen in this thread from non-AP's is moral judgement, of which if they were to check out their "own" moral activities, we would all find them definitely NOT above reproach. No one is.

 

Interesting. Almost 2 days ago a new poster here started a thread about how she just found out she is pregnant by MM and she's feels like her life is ruined. Odd how few OW came to her aid to offer support. She's got like 5 replys and half of them weren't even from OW/OM. Strange how the posters here who usually complain about a lack of OW/OM support on this board can't be bothered to offer any support themselves. Guess they find it more fun to bicker over the lack of support rather than actually offer any support.

[LifesontheUp]

I didn't see it, but have heard plenty. So you are saying that one of them basically admitted that they are/were not here for support or discussion, they are/were here to "piss people off"? Maybe then, that's what this thread is about too??

 

Of course this thread is to stir the pot up.

 

The same OW who claim that there is no support on here, have their own little forum where they post about "pissing people off" on LS.

[LifesontheUp]

Well OWoman, I am thinking this question for non-AP's was answered in full. Most are unable to give objective support, meeting the individual where THEY are at.

 

Most of what I have seen in this thread from non-AP's is moral judgement, of which if they were to check out their "own" moral activities, we would all find them definitely NOT above reproach. No one is.

 

Dear me PIH, you want to look in the mirror when it comes to judgement.

 

Let me see now, to quote you:

 

"The bitter bunch just got a thread closed down from Angelette ...I saw it too late, it was good, would have like to have posted on it....I like Jennies answer to that mess...let's have a big WHATEVER!!!!!!!!"

 

Yep, practise what you preach just doesn't seem to be in some peoples vocabulary.

[OWoman]

Another absurd comparison. Everybody knows that when a higher position opens up there is going to be competition. A far cry from the betrayed spouse who has know clue that her position is up for the taking.

 

If a spouse is so smug and complacent to think that they "own" their spouse and do not have to do anything further ever again to ensure that their spouse remains interested in them... well, I guess they get what's coming to them. Personally, if I ever take my H for granted in that way I would hope life would send me a little reminder - whatever form it takes - before I stand to lose him completely to someone who can be bothered to put in the effort to be the one he'd want to choose.

[anne1707]

If a spouse is so smug and complacent to think that they "own" their spouse and do not have to do anything further ever again to ensure that their spouse remains interested in them... well, I guess they get what's coming to them. Personally, if I ever take my H for granted in that way I would hope life would send me a little reminder - whatever form it takes - before I stand to lose him completely to someone who can be bothered to put in the effort to be the one he'd want to choose.

 

Sorry but your argument is still flawed. Just because a BS does not think their position is up for the taking, it does not mean that they are taking their spouse for granted. That's quite an assumption you are making there.

 

If anybody is taking somebody for granted in the marriage, it is the WS who cheats on their spouse rather than address the problems in the marriage.

[turnstone]

Yes, I'd agree with this. I know of stable OW-MM-BW triads where the OW chooses to be a LT OW and the MM freely admits that he's able to remain in his unhappy M because of the A. It works for all parties concerned.

 

Only when 'works' means to keep all three parties in an emotionally, mentally and often, physically, unhealthy state.

 

Bingo.........everyone knows how distracting an affair is. An affair enables MM to continue on without addressing anything, in fact it just creates more turmoil and confusion, well unless he is one of those who is unapologetic.

JMO......but I think the longer an affair goes on the less likely mm/mw will be to actually change anything. Affair = enabling someone to go on without making a real change in their life.

 

Absolutely.

[donnamaybe]

why participate here?

Ahhh, here we go again where you try to question where and when people should post.

 

who will you all have to fight with as that seems to be the agenda.

Fight with? Funny, that, considering on that OTHER forum, of which you are well aware since you are a participant, that I read a post by a prior LSr who is no longer allowed here say very clearly that she "loves to piss them off" as regards LS members.

 

So, gee. Who's really trying to "pick a fight?"

[donnamaybe]

Another absurd comparison. Everybody knows that when a higher position opens up there is going to be competition. A far cry from the betrayed spouse who has know clue that her position is up for the taking. Which usually it isn't because most cheaters just create a new position for the AP and keep their spouses as well.

OMG, no KIDDING! Ridiculous analogy.

[donnamaybe]

Interesting. Almost 2 days ago a new poster here started a thread about how she just found out she is pregnant by MM and she's feels like her life is ruined. Odd how few OW came to her aid to offer support. She's got like 5 replys and half of them weren't even from OW/OM. Strange how the posters here who usually complain about a lack of OW/OM support on this board can't be bothered to offer any support themselves. Guess they find it more fun to bicker over the lack of support rather than actually offer any support.

I notice this as well in MANY threads where actual help is solicited. Fortunately, someone quickly posted a link to a very similar recent situation, and she will probably find a lot of valuable advice and support there.

[donnamaybe]

If a spouse is so smug and complacent to think that they "own" their spouse and do not have to do anything further ever again to ensure that their spouse remains interested in them... well, I guess they get what's coming to them. Personally, if I ever take my H for granted in that way I would hope life would send me a little reminder - whatever form it takes - before I stand to lose him completely to someone who can be bothered to put in the effort to be the one he'd want to choose.

Wow. Talk about spinning, spinning, and spinning. That was nowhere NEAR what she said.

 

I just will never understand why certain people NEVER lay any responsibility at the feet of the cheater. Obviously, every single cheater under the sun has a lousy spouse. NOT! I know a few examples IRL of guys who are just a-holes who think the world revolves around them, thus, they cheat because it's all about ME ME ME in their little world.

[OWoman]

Sorry but your argument is still flawed. Just because a BS does not think their position is up for the taking, it does not mean that they are taking their spouse for granted. That's quite an assumption you are making there.

 

Nope - it does. If you accept that your spouse has free will, and has the right to choose who they wish to be with (which seems not to be the case for many of the posters here...), then that goes along with accepting the possibility that at any time you could be replaced in their affections by someone else. People with free will exercise choices every day - I know that every morning when I wake up, I look into my H's love-brimming eyes and make the choice to be with him, to love him and prioritise our R, anew. I know that, equally, one or both of us may wake up one morning and make a different choice. Loving each other and prioritising our M is not something we take for granted. We've both been M before, and both know how toxic Ms can become, and so we choose not to allow that to happen, and we choose to invest in our M and in each other, every day.

 

Were I to assume that my position was "filled" and not available to another, I would be taking my M and my H for granted, and assuming that he wasn't free to choose another to occupy his affection simply because I had a piece of paper from the State. I would be denying the existence of his free will and his agency as a human being, and I would certainly be taking him for granted.

 

Perhaps that is not how you think - but I think our M only has value and validity because it is something we choose actively each day; not because the paper continues to enforce a contract that the parties have long lost interest in and lack the energy to cancel.

[OWoman]

Only when 'works' means to keep all three parties in an emotionally, mentally and often, physically, unhealthy state.

 

Nope - in all of those cases, the parties are very healthy, emotionally, mentally and physically. Please don't make assumptions about people or situations about which you know nothing.

[greengoddess]

Of course this thread is to stir the pot up.

 

The same OW who claim that there is no support on here, have their own little forum where they post about "pissing people off" on LS.

 

Oh no seriously? They are playing that game? Post on their own private forum and then run here stirring trouble? No wonder there has been so many arguments. I am sure they are also TARGETING some posters here. What a sad way to live.

[donnamaybe]

Hmmm.... Now whose relationship was that again where the two people involved promised to be monogomous? And also, in the same relationship, if there was a want to go outside of the marriage and have sex with someone else, there would be discussion first - no lying and sneaking around? Gee - whose relationship WAS that anyway?

 

If one of the people in that relationship suddenly started sneaking around behind the back of the other, would that be okay in that circumstance? I guess, for some, the answer must be yes.

[jthorne]

Were I to assume that my position was "filled" and not available to another, I would be taking my M and my H for granted, and assuming that he wasn't free to choose another to occupy his affection simply because I had a piece of paper from the State. I would be denying the existence of his free will and his agency as a human being, and I would certainly be taking him for granted.

 

Perhaps that is not how you think - but I think our M only has value and validity because it is something we choose actively each day; not because the paper continues to enforce a contract that the parties have long lost interest in and lack the energy to cancel.

I said this on another thread, and I will say it here. If two people of integrity marry, fidelity is a reasonable expectation.

Your quote is more spinning, or you must have taken different vows than I took.

Edited February 8, 2011 by jthorne

[silktricks]

Nope - it does. If you accept that your spouse has free will, and has the right to choose who they wish to be with (which seems not to be the case for many of the posters here...), then that goes along with accepting the possibility that at any time you could be replaced in their affections by someone else. People with free will exercise choices every day - I know that every morning when I wake up, I look into my H's love-brimming eyes and make the choice to be with him, to love him and prioritise our R, anew. I know that, equally, one or both of us may wake up one morning and make a different choice. Loving each other and prioritising our M is not something we take for granted. We've both been M before, and both know how toxic Ms can become, and so we choose not to allow that to happen, and we choose to invest in our M and in each other, every day.

 

Were I to assume that my position was "filled" and not available to another, I would be taking my M and my H for granted, and assuming that he wasn't free to choose another to occupy his affection simply because I had a piece of paper from the State. I would be denying the existence of his free will and his agency as a human being, and I would certainly be taking him for granted.

 

Perhaps that is not how you think - but I think our M only has value and validity because it is something we choose actively each day; not because the paper continues to enforce a contract that the parties have long lost interest in and lack the energy to cancel.

 

I like this, and am in absolute agreement that the way to keep a marriage strong and healthy is to not take your spouse for granted and actively choose to be married.

 

The only thing I'd like to point out - which is not a disagreement - is that sometimes stuff happens in life that is out of our control. Sometimes people get sick, sometimes accidents happen, sometimes financial crisis occur, sometimes your spouse cannot be your immediate priority - unfortunate though that is. In those circumstances you hope that your spouse will be behind you, and stick with you. I believe though, that if up to when that "stuff" happened, if you both have shown that your priority is your spouse and your marriage that the marriage has a better chance of surviving the intermediate catastrophe - whatever it may be.

[Owl]

So, Owl, if a promotion was available in your office, and you very desperately wanted it... but knew that another colleague had also set their heart on it - would you apply? Or would you not want to focus solely on your own wants (the promotion) to the devastation of someone else's emotional (and possibly financial) wellbeing?

 

Owoman...if there was a promotion available in my office, and another person had their heart set on it...I would let them know that I was also putting in for it.

 

If that promotion had already been "promised" them...I would not apply for the position.

 

And this isn't just a garbage response...I've actually been in this position a few times in my career. When I've seen postings for jobs I've been interested in, I've contacted the hiring manager and discussed their "intent" for the job, and have not applied for it if they already had a candidate lined up for the position.

 

But the breakdown of your analogy here is that there isn't an "opening" when it comes to cheating. Promises were already made...that "position" isn't open.

 

A more accurate analogy would be to compare it to a position that's already filled, and someone going up to that hiring manager and telling them that they can do a better job, he should fire the person who's in the position and hire them in their place. And this is something I won't/don't do either. I don't have a desire to "get ahead" by intentionally and purposefully doing so at someone else's expense.

[donnamaybe]

A more accurate analogy would be to compare it to a position that's already filled, and someone going up to that hiring manager and telling them that they can do a better job, he should fire the person who's in the position and hire them in their place. And this is something I won't/don't do either. I don't have a desire to "get ahead" by intentionally and purposefully doing so at someone else's expense.

Right on the money, Owl, and I would like to further add that the person looking to insinuate themselves into said position would do it in a sneaky, underhanded way - behind the back of the person already in that position. That is, if we're comparing it to an affair situation.

[Rose1977]

Nope - it does. If you accept that your spouse has free will, and has the right to choose who they wish to be with (which seems not to be the case for many of the posters here...), then that goes along with accepting the possibility that at any time you could be replaced in their affections by someone else. People with free will exercise choices every day - I know that every morning when I wake up, I look into my H's love-brimming eyes and make the choice to be with him, to love him and prioritise our R, anew. I know that, equally, one or both of us may wake up one morning and make a different choice. Loving each other and prioritising our M is not something we take for granted. We've both been M before, and both know how toxic Ms can become, and so we choose not to allow that to happen, and we choose to invest in our M and in each other, every day.

 

Were I to assume that my position was "filled" and not available to another, I would be taking my M and my H for granted, and assuming that he wasn't free to choose another to occupy his affection simply because I had a piece of paper from the State. I would be denying the existence of his free will and his agency as a human being, and I would certainly be taking him for granted.

 

Perhaps that is not how you think - but I think our M only has value and validity because it is something we choose actively each day; not because the paper continues to enforce a contract that the parties have long lost interest in and lack the energy to cancel.

 

I am kind of confused by the above and may be reading it wrong, but are you saying that you would understand if your H one day decided to excercise his free will and fill your spot with another? How would you know if he woke up one morning NOT choosing you if he didn't talk about it? I personally think a huge part of M is the security of knowing you are with someone through thick and thin and that if they are unhappy they will talk to you about it instead of saying, "I'm going to excercise my free will today and choose another". I don't understand why someone would get married if they don't have the right to assume that their position is "filled". I do believe that comes along with wedding vows.

 

I am not denying the fact that M is some of the hardest work you will ever do in your life, and that you need to let each other know that you would still choose each other again (assuming that is true), but I couldn't be in a marriage where I was considered taking things for granted by assuming my position was filled. I feel when two people commit to M, they do have the right to assume their position is filled.

 

Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying or maybe we just have very diifferent opinions of what security in a M entails.

[Owl]

I am kind of confused by the above and may be reading it wrong, but are you saying that you would understand if your H one day decided to excercise his free will and fill your spot with another? How would you know if he woke up one morning NOT choosing you if he didn't talk about it? I personally think a huge part of M is the security of knowing you are with someone through thick and thin and that if they are unhappy they will talk to you about it instead of saying, "I'm going to excercise my free will today and choose another". I don't understand why someone would get married if they don't have the right to assume that their position is "filled". I do believe that comes along with wedding vows.

 

I am not denying the fact that M is some of the hardest work you will ever do in your life, and that you need to let each other know that you would still choose each other again (assuming that is true), but I couldn't be in a marriage where I was considered taking things for granted by assuming my position was filled. I feel when two people commit to M, they do have the right to assume their position is filled.

 

Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying or maybe we just have very diifferent opinions of what security in a M entails.

 

Precisely my question as well.

 

An affair is when one spouse cheats on the other...behind their back. Lies by omission if not by actual face to face deceit.

 

If you're comfortable with that from an outside perspective...are you ok with being on the receiving end of the same treatment if your H were to decide he was no longer in love with you.

 

Would you be comfortable with him going outside of your relationship to have needs filled by someone else...without your knowledge, and without indicating to you that this is what was going on? And continuing to have you meet what needs you can...again, without letting you know about what's going on outside of your relationship?

 

If you're not "apologetic" for having participated in that scenario from the outside with him...does this imply you're willing to accept it within your own marriage now?

[PhoenixRise]

Nope - it does. If you accept that your spouse has free will, and has the right to choose who they wish to be with (which seems not to be the case for many of the posters here...), then that goes along with accepting the possibility that at any time you could be replaced in their affections by someone else. People with free will exercise choices every day - I know that every morning when I wake up, I look into my H's love-brimming eyes and make the choice to be with him, to love him and prioritise our R, anew. I know that, equally, one or both of us may wake up one morning and make a different choice. Loving each other and prioritising our M is not something we take for granted. We've both been M before, and both know how toxic Ms can become, and so we choose not to allow that to happen, and we choose to invest in our M and in each other, every day.

 

Were I to assume that my position was "filled" and not available to another, I would be taking my M and my H for granted, and assuming that he wasn't free to choose another to occupy his affection simply because I had a piece of paper from the State. I would be denying the existence of his free will and his agency as a human being, and I would certainly be taking him for granted.

 

Perhaps that is not how you think - but I think our M only has value and validity because it is something we choose actively each day; not because the paper continues to enforce a contract that the parties have long lost interest in and lack the energy to cancel.

 

It is not so much that one might assume their position was filled and not available to another. It is simply an erroneous belief in the integrity of your spouse.

 

Of course people are free to love where they chose. Of course people are free to marry or divorce as they chose.

 

But if either spouse wakes up one day and decides to make the choice NOT to love the other spouse or not to be in the marriage or not to honor the previously agreed on parameters of the relationship then the spouse making that choice should have the guts to say so.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with a piece of paper. It has everything to do with the expectation that a person will exercise integrity along with their free will.