Unapologetic OWs - a threat?

[Rose1977]

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?

 

 

Owoman, I have not been here long enough to know your entire story, but my question to you (which of course you don't have to answer if you don't want to) is similar to Owl's - or the same. How would you feel/respond if your H started an A with an UOW? If this has been adressed before I apoologize, feel free to direct me to the correct thread. I really do not mean any disrespect I am genuinely curious.

[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.

Rose and Owl, you posed questions similar to what I was getting at with this post.

[alexandria35]

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.

 

Excellent Point!

 

Some married friends of mine once shared with me a difficult time in their marriage. The wife had always been a daddy's girl, her and her father adored each other. When he died she fell apart. She became depressed, had panic attacks, and just didn't have anything to contribute to her marriage. She said it took all of her will power just trying to care for her children. For about 18 months she was in a very bad place and the husband told me he didn't know if she loved him anymore and she herself said she didn't know if she loved him either. She got professional help, let time work it's healing powers and fully recovered from the emotional trauma of losing her father. Her husband remained faithful and devoted to her even though it was a very difficutl time for him too. Today they are a happy close knit family. Thankfully the husband didn't decide to fill his wife position with someone new when she wasn't able to make him her first priority.

[OWoman]

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.

 

Of course I did! No way would I parrot some trite rubbish I don't believe in! We wrote our own vows that are meaningful and special to us

[Rose1977]

Rose and Owl, you posed questions similar to what I was getting at with this post.

 

 

Donna I have not had the time to read every post in this thread, my head is spinning a little bit LOL. Another cup of coffee and I think I can get through it all .

[OWoman]

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.

 

Silk - I agree with you entirely! Certainly there are times when one's attention is urgently required elsewhere, and I wasn't suggesting that one foolhardily focus on one's spouse when one is required to provide CPR to the neighbour's child that just fell into your swimming pool, or whatever... but you summed it up nicely. Thank you!

[donnamaybe]

Donna I have not had the time to read every post in this thread, my head is spinning a little bit LOL. Another cup of coffee and I think I can get through it all .

Actually, mine was more of a summarization of a situation and a statement.

 

And, actually, it fits many people on LS. There are many who think it's okay for affairs to take place. I wonder what all of them who are of that mindset would do if THEIR R partner lied to them and snuck around behind THEIR backs.

Edited February 8, 2011 by donnamaybe

[OWoman]

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.

 

Ah - I guess we're different then. IMO, an advertised vacancy is just that, a vacancy - and I would certainly hate to fill a post by default, because better candidates backed off and let me have it. If I get a post, I want it because I was the most appropriate candidate - not because it had been earmarked for me.

 

Labour law in the US is different to elsewhere - hiring and firing here, or back home, is not a simple matter as it is in the US, so the analogy of approaching the manager about replacing someone in an existing position couldn't occur. You could not simply remove someone and replace them - unless they had committed a serious breach as defined by the labour law, such as beating up a colleague. But where someone is on a contract, and that post then becomes permanent, then yes, it is legally possible to appoint someone other than the incumbent - and yes, I have been appointed into such positions before. Perhaps you would not have applied for the post, out of loyalty to the incumbent - but my primary loyalty was (and remains) to myself and my dependents first, and others later. Given a choice between securing a good position with security and benefits, as a single parent with no financial support, I would have been negligent to pass the opportunity by and to continue on badly paid short-term contracts without any benefits, IMO. But I accept that your views, and your values, differ.

[donnamaybe]

There are many who think it's okay for affairs to take place. I wonder what all of them who are of that mindset would do if THEIR R partner lied to them and snuck around behind THEIR backs.

I guess the obvious answer is they would ignore it.

[OWoman]

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?

 

If my H found it necessary to get needs met elsewhere, because they were not being met within the M, I would hope that the M was such that he felt he could discuss it. If he did not feel that he could, then the M clearly wasn't as healthy as I thought, and then his getting his needs met elsewhere without telling me would be part of the consequences I'd have to face of not keeping the M healthy enough.

 

So no, it's not something I'd be "willing to accept" - it would be a severe indictment of me and one that I would have to face, certainly nothing to accept!

[OWoman]

Owoman, I have not been here long enough to know your entire story, but my question to you (which of course you don't have to answer if you don't want to) is similar to Owl's - or the same. How would you feel/respond if your H started an A with an UOW? If this has been adressed before I apoologize, feel free to direct me to the correct thread. I really do not mean any disrespect I am genuinely curious.

 

If he said to me, I want to shag <uOW's name> I would reserve the right of veto - but assuming she was someone who passed my criteria, I'd be OK with it. If he simply went and did it without discussing it, I would consider it a vote of no confidence in the state of the M (that he felt unable to discuss it) and would then have to decide, in consultation with him, whether we had a M that either of us wished to reinvent, or whether to bury it and move on.

 

Not sure if that answers your question?

[Rose1977]

If he said to me, I want to shag <uOW's name> I would reserve the right of veto - but assuming she was someone who passed my criteria, I'd be OK with it. If he simply went and did it without discussing it, I would consider it a vote of no confidence in the state of the M (that he felt unable to discuss it) and would then have to decide, in consultation with him, whether we had a M that either of us wished to reinvent, or whether to bury it and move on.

 

Not sure if that answers your question?

 

 

It absolutely does answer my question, and I appreciate your honesty. I think your M differs from "the norm" in that you would be okay with your H being with another woman if you approved of her. I honestly couldn't live that way, but if it works for you, that's all that matters and I am glad you are happy.

[Owl]

If my H found it necessary to get needs met elsewhere, because they were not being met within the M, I would hope that the M was such that he felt he could discuss it. If he did not feel that he could, then the M clearly wasn't as healthy as I thought, and then his getting his needs met elsewhere without telling me would be part of the consequences I'd have to face of not keeping the M healthy enough.

 

So no, it's not something I'd be "willing to accept" - it would be a severe indictment of me and one that I would have to face, certainly nothing to accept!

 

So you would view your H's choice to cheat on you and not tell you about it as a personal failing on your own part? Not as a reflection of him and his own choices?

 

I'm not sure I track with that.

[anne1707]

If he said to me, I want to shag <uOW's name> I would reserve the right of veto - but assuming she was someone who passed my criteria, I'd be OK with it. If he simply went and did it without discussing it, I would consider it a vote of no confidence in the state of the M (that he felt unable to discuss it) and would then have to decide, in consultation with him, whether we had a M that either of us wished to reinvent, or whether to bury it and move on.

 

Not sure if that answers your question?

 

 

But if he went and and had an affair behind your back, does that mean YOU have taken your marriage for granted. Because that is as good as what you implied earlier.

[jthorne]

Of course I did! No way would I parrot some trite rubbish I don't believe in! We wrote our own vows that are meaningful and special to us

Well, that makes sense then. If fidelity wasn't important enough to you to put it in your marriage vows, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of it.

[Owl]

Ah - I guess we're different then. IMO, an advertised vacancy is just that, a vacancy - and I would certainly hate to fill a post by default, because better candidates backed off and let me have it. If I get a post, I want it because I was the most appropriate candidate - not because it had been earmarked for me.

 

Labour law in the US is different to elsewhere - hiring and firing here, or back home, is not a simple matter as it is in the US, so the analogy of approaching the manager about replacing someone in an existing position couldn't occur. You could not simply remove someone and replace them - unless they had committed a serious breach as defined by the labour law, such as beating up a colleague. But where someone is on a contract, and that post then becomes permanent, then yes, it is legally possible to appoint someone other than the incumbent - and yes, I have been appointed into such positions before. Perhaps you would not have applied for the post, out of loyalty to the incumbent - but my primary loyalty was (and remains) to myself and my dependents first, and others later. Given a choice between securing a good position with security and benefits, as a single parent with no financial support, I would have been negligent to pass the opportunity by and to continue on badly paid short-term contracts without any benefits, IMO. But I accept that your views, and your values, differ.

 

It's certainly not that simple to simply "replace" an incumbent in a position here in the U.S. either.

 

But my point with the analogy was that there is a difference between "applying for a vacant position" and attempting to take a position already occupied by another...not so much to discuss labor laws.

 

An OW/OM is not applying for a vacant position. He/she is attempting to take a position (assuming that they're looking for a permanent relationship and not just a ONS) that's currently occupied by another...both contractually and "in spirit". The desire is to see the spouse "ousted" in some fashion and a permanent relationship established with the MM/MW.

 

Big difference from attempting to "fill a vacant position" such as when two single people meet and choose to form a relationship.

 

I'd like to take a short tangent, and it might help explain my "viewpoint".

 

If I had to sum up all of what my parents tried to teach me as a kid into one word, I could do so. My brothers and sisters and I have all talked about this, and we all came up with the same word, independent of each other.

 

That word was..."respect".

 

We were taught to respect the world around us. Appreciate it, live in it, love it, and leave it as good or better than when we found it.

 

We were taught to respect the people we encounter in our lives the same way, in the same fashion.

 

We were taught to try to "respect" others, to consider what we do, and how we impact other people and the world around us. Always to be aware of how what we do changes things...and try to make those changes as positive as we could.

 

There was a lot of Native American influence in how I was raised, although we never considered it as such.

 

But perhaps that might explain how I could "walk away" from an apparent opportunity that someone else would see and use.

 

Hopefully that "respect" also comes across in how I post here as well...most times at least.

 

But hopefully too that can help you see where I came from, and why I respond the way I do.

[donnamaybe]

So you would view your H's choice to cheat on you and not tell you about it as a personal failing on your own part? Not as a reflection of him and his own choices?

 

I'm not sure I track with that.

And this is, for me as well, the part I just don't buy in these cheating circumstances. Just say you want out. Not that hard for someone with integrity.

[jthorne]

And this is, for me as well, the part I just don't buy in these cheating circumstances. Just say you want out. Not that hard for someone with integrity.

Well, but you must remember, this was discussed previously. The uOW's agreed that there were different definitions of integrity. The definition they agreed with was the one that said integrity was doing whatever was good for them. Explains a bit, doesn't it?

[donnamaybe]

Well, but you must remember, this was discussed previously. The uOW's agreed that there were different definitions of integrity. The definition they agreed with was the one that said integrity was doing whatever was good for them. Explains a bit, doesn't it?

So it's a good thing to have a partner who lies?

[jthorne]

So it's a good thing to have a partner who lies?

*shrug* I wasn't the one who agreed with that definition.

 

Maybe they are all lying to themselves, so it's all ok??

[donnamaybe]

*shrug* I wasn't the one who agreed with that definition.

 

Maybe they are all lying to themselves, so it's all ok??

*shrug* Who knows? I've always had a difficult time trying to understand certain mindsets.

[donnamaybe]

ah, so when things cool down, and the daily trials of marriage and parenting test things, its the BS being "smug" and "complacent"??

 

My x-wife became a mother. From that point on thats what she was, a mother, not a wife. I tried to keep the fires stoked, but she would always claim she was tired.

 

So I learned to do without, and without cheating. Then she ended up being the cheater.

 

So I guess I was "smug" and "complacent". go figure.

Rationalization, my friend. Get used to it here.

[jthorne]

*shrug* Who knows? I've always had a difficult time trying to understand certain mindsets.

There's been talk on here and other forums about what the fascination with the OW Board is, and uOW's in particular. Your quote illustrates it. People are often interested in the things they don't understand. Someone else likened it to a trainwreck or an ingrown hair- like being oddly repulsed and fascinated at the same time.

 

But not threatened.

(BTW, I still can't figure out exactly what the threat is. A couple of us have asked, and it still never gets addressed. )

Edited February 8, 2011 by jthorne

[donnamaybe]

There's been talk on here and other forums about what the fascination with the OW Board is, and uOW's in particular. Your quote illustrates it. People are often interested in the things they don't understand. Someone else likened it to a trainwreck or an ingrown hair- like being oddly repulsed and fascinated at the same time.

 

But not threatened.

(BTW, I still can't figure out exactly what the threat is. A couple of us have asked, and it still never gets addressed. )

I can see what you're saying. Like when my sweety and I watch that show Snapped on the Oxygen channel. I'd never be involved in the behaviors the women on that show display (ish!), and of course those behaviors are not a comparison to affairs (just wanted to add that before anyone takes issue ), but the whole thing is fascinating nonetheless.

[Mimolicious]

Hey, there is this great swingers site....