Unapologetic OWs - a threat?

[OWoman]

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.

 

I would see it as a failure of the R, in which I would certainly have a part. So yes - while I don't claim I would bear responsibility entirely (since he also has agency) I would certainly share the responsibility for allowing the R to get to that state.

[OWoman]

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.

 

 

Yes. As I responded to Owl, I do think that.

[donnamaybe]

Yes. As I responded to Owl, I do think that.

So, therefore, every OW/OM whose MM/MW doesn't leave his/her wife/husband is at fault for not being chosen then.

[OWoman]

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.

 

It's not "not important". It's something I hold a strong political position about, which I've made abundantly clear on this site before.

[OWoman]

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 don't believe any of my As were ever about "seeking to fill an occupied position". I never sought to replace anyone. My previous As explicitly excluded any such possibility, and in my last A, any "replacing" had already happened by the time I sought to do anything about permanency.

 

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.

 

Yep. My view on respect is that it is earned - it is not an inherent right.

[donnamaybe]

That's a convenient viewpoint. Therefore, you can openly disrespect someone you don't know since one cannot possibly earn the respect of a stranger.

[OWoman]

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?

 

I don't recall who said this or in what context, but I don't believe that whoever did claimed it applied to anyone else - and certainly not a whole group of people.

 

Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

[OWoman]

So, therefore, every OW/OM whose MM/MW doesn't leave his/her wife/husband is at fault for not being chosen then.

 

If that is your view, you are welcome to it. It is not mine.

[OWoman]

That's a convenient viewpoint. Therefore, you can openly disrespect someone you don't know since one cannot possibly earn the respect of a stranger.

 

OTC. People do, all the time.

[donnamaybe]

OTC. People do, all the time.

That's a sad world where people just crap on each other merely because they don't know yet if they should treat them nicely. Sure glad I don't live there. Perhaps that explains why a guy I know yelled at a little boy scout on his door step and slammed the door in his face. After all, he didn't know him yet. Fortunately, he lives 50 miles away - must be a far flung suburb of that other world.

[wheelwright]

I don't recall who said this or in what context, but I don't believe that whoever did claimed it applied to anyone else - and certainly not a whole group of people.

 

Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

Sometimes this forum feels like a fight between the righteous and the people searching for what is right.

 

And the latter is a given in a forum wherein people who think and don't actually want to despise others.

 

I am agreeing with OWoman here.

 

Mainly, objections to individual behaviour rest on personal hurt. However it's couched in other terms.

[NoIDidn't]

Sometimes this forum feels like a fight between the righteous and the people searching for what is right.

 

And the latter is a given in a forum wherein people who think and don't actually want to despise others.

 

I am agreeing with OWoman here.

 

Mainly, objections to individual behaviour rest on personal hurt. However it's couched in other terms.

 

I don't agree with the bolded, or OWoman, because not everyone is here posting based on past personal hurt.

 

But I do see where the fighting and moralizing are getting out of hand. And NO ONE is innocent.

 

There was a thread started by an OW today that's already been overrun with posters questioning her every move and statement. Multiple times.

 

I can see how wanting to talk about your own feelings does not always feel easy to do here.

 

But since we can't tell people where to post, I can't exactly ask for a truce and expect it to be followed. A Truce where only OW/OM respond to a thread for the first three pages or so (when it usually goes off-topic anyway).

[OpenBook]

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.

 

This is beautiful, absolutely beautiful - so well said. If only all M's were this way. There would be far fewer MM "advertising for a vacant position"... and no need for anyone to obsess over OWs (present and former) posting on Internet forums. Who would have the time?

[whichwayisup]

Loving each other and prioritising our M is not something we take for granted.

 

Very true. And people should appreciate their spouses more..And family, and friends. It's important to let them know because one day...Well you never know...Things happen that are out of our control (sickness, death) so make the best of what you have in your life each day.

 

This is beautiful, absolutely beautiful - so well said. If only all M's were this way. There would be far fewer MM "advertising for a vacant position"...

 

And MW's too. It's not gender specific..

[LifesontheUp]

This is beautiful, absolutely beautiful - so well said. If only all M's were this way. There would be far fewer MM "advertising for a vacant position"... and no need for anyone to obsess over OWs (present and former) posting on Internet forums. Who would have the time?

 

Who says they are advertising for a vacant position. They could just as easily be advertising for a side piece and never have any intention to replace their SO.

[Distant78]

Who says they are advertising for a vacant position. They could just as easily be advertising for a side piece and never have any intention to replace their SO.

 

It's still "applying for a vacant position.":cool:

[NoIDidn't]

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.

 

This is hilarious. Even the OP says that uOW are self-centered.

 

I have yet to meet a man, married or otherwise, that finds a self-centered woman desirable.

 

LOL.

 

Too, too much.

 

The self-congratulatory nature of the above quote is too over the top to be taken seriously. It caricatures the uOW AND all OW that the uOW deems inferior.

 

Its a shame too. From what I've read on that "other board", even uOW feel used and want to end things sometimes. But they set themselves up over here as this caricature of a person that exists only to be argued with. They set themselves up over here as a person who is afraid to present themselves as what they are because someone might express disagreement.

 

And I get it. I've seen it time and time again, when a non-OP poster comes into a thread and starts in on the questioning of the OP about the intentions of their heart or how they are such a horrible person for what they are doing. It shouldn't happen. And I truly apologize if I've made anyone feel afraid to post. Even though I was under the impression that a uOW has no fear...see the quote....the uOW lives off the fear of others. Thrives off of it, it seems.

 

But if people want to post on another board in protest, I say, have at it. Just leave the silly acronyms used there...there. BBW is clearly used there as "bitter betrayed wife" and such has no place here, even if the MOD doesn't know what it meant when it was first used. You hurt your cause when you claim to be innocent and then show that you aren't so innocent of the mudslinging afterall. ....Again, see the quote. Its bolded.

 

One can't be too surprised at the responses given when things are intentionally posted to provoke.

[woinlove]

 

One can't be too surprised at the responses given when things are intentionally posted to provoke.

 

No, but one can still feign surprise. I used to think OPs that just wanted to point fingers at others, about their posting style or their feelings, motivations, etc., cluttered up this forum. But I've come around and think it might be useful to know there's a fight-thread, when one is so inclined.

[OWoman]

Who says they are advertising for a vacant position. They could just as easily be advertising for a side piece and never have any intention to replace their SO.

 

This does not negate my point that, if both parties prioritised the M, this would not happen. There would be no need for a "side piece" (whatever that is Is it a piece of american furniture, similar to a welsh dresser?) to augment their SO if their M was meeting their needs.

[OWoman]

It's still "applying for a vacant position.":cool:

 

Which is vacant because the M is not being prioritsed by both parties.

[OWoman]

This is hilarious. Even the OP says that uOW are self-centered.

 

I have yet to meet a man, married or otherwise, that finds a self-centered woman desirable.

 

LOL.

 

Too, too much.

 

The self-congratulatory nature of the above quote is too over the top to be taken seriously. It caricatures the uOW AND all OW that the uOW deems inferior.

 

Its a shame too. From what I've read on that "other board", even uOW feel used and want to end things sometimes. But they set themselves up over here as this caricature of a person that exists only to be argued with. They set themselves up over here as a person who is afraid to present themselves as what they are because someone might express disagreement.

 

And I get it. I've seen it time and time again, when a non-OP poster comes into a thread and starts in on the questioning of the OP about the intentions of their heart or how they are such a horrible person for what they are doing. It shouldn't happen. And I truly apologize if I've made anyone feel afraid to post. Even though I was under the impression that a uOW has no fear...see the quote....the uOW lives off the fear of others. Thrives off of it, it seems.

 

But if people want to post on another board in protest, I say, have at it. Just leave the silly acronyms used there...there. BBW is clearly used there as "bitter betrayed wife" and such has no place here, even if the MOD doesn't know what it meant when it was first used. You hurt your cause when you claim to be innocent and then show that you aren't so innocent of the mudslinging afterall. ....Again, see the quote. Its bolded.

 

One can't be too surprised at the responses given when things are intentionally posted to provoke.

 

Interesting how people project their own views of intention, despite what the OP explicitly states intention to be...

 

The thread was a response to a situation which had been noted of certain posters (which I will term the AAB - the anti-affair brigade) falling all over what has been characterised in the OP by the quoted friend as the "CLOW" (the cat lady OW, who self-describes as having no life except to wait in passive suspension for a crumb of attention from her MM, whose posts are filled with self-denigration and self-loathing to the extent of seeming unreal to most other OWs) to offer support and welcome, because the "CLOW" complies with the agenda and the image (yes, call it a caricature if you must) that they fondly ascribe to the OW so as to feel more secure within themselves. And so, the AAB finds it easy to offer support to the CLOW, while they offer hostility to the uOW... apparently, from what has been observed.

 

The thread sought to test that, by asking OWs explicitly whether that mirrored their experience, and by asking others whether they found it easier to support "repentant" (or CLOW) OWs, and many posters responded to the question in a helpful manner.

 

Some of course found it all too threatening and used it as a springboard for the same old same old... and then claimed that that was the intention of the thread, which of course wasn't remotely the intention, had they bothered to read the OP.

 

As to the use of particular phrases in the OP - it was a quote from a friend. I can't pretend to know exactly what her intentions were with every single word, but I would imagine that the phrase "self-centred" wasn't too far off the mark. "self -centred" is different to selfish or egotistical. It means, literally, being centred on oneself, which is psychologically healthy and robust. If one's psychological centre is outside of oneself, one becomes dependent and vulnerable to the whims of others, and lacks the agency and control over one's own life. And yes, being centred on oneself is certainly an attractive trait - a woman that radiates confidence and self-assurance is far more attractive to a psychologically healthy man than one who is clingy, neurotic or a doormat with a personality vacuum. And my personal experience certainly backs that up.

[turnstone]

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.

 

Even if you're not referring to any situation posted about here (of which I know plenty, there's lots of material), its unhealthy in every way for anyone to have a relationship that involves an affair, whichever side of the triangle, as demonstrated by the countless, desperately unhappy individuals who's lives have involved an affair.

 

If an affair appears to be healthy for someone, that individual must be pretty unhealthy to begin with.

[OWoman]

Even if you're not referring to any situation posted about here (of which I know plenty, there's lots of material), its unhealthy in every way for anyone to have a relationship that involves an affair, whichever side of the triangle, as demonstrated by the countless, desperately unhappy individuals who's lives have involved an affair.

 

If an affair appears to be healthy for someone, that individual must be pretty unhealthy to begin with.

 

I was referring to situations I'm well acquainted with IRL, not situations posted about here, about which one necessarily only has partial information.

 

The people I am referring to are perfectly healthy - socially, psychologically and physically - and are highly functioning individuals with successful careers, busy social lives and good family lives.

 

One of the cases was formerly an open M, where the H fell in love with his OW and was instructed by the W to break it off - which he did for a while before resuming secretly. The W is happy once more in the M, since she feels the threat has been removed; the OW and MM are happy because their R continues, part-time (neither wants more - he is happy to remain in his M because of his kids and his career; the OW does not want a FTR because she has her own family demands and her own career and can only fit him in part time) and it works for all three. The H is a judge, the W is doctor and the OW a professor of psychology and practising psychotherapist. The kids are happy and high-achievers, academically, musically and in sport. Their lives, to anyone who looks, are perfect. The A allows them to keep it so.

[frenchiefun]

Even if you're not referring to any situation posted about here (of which I know plenty, there's lots of material), its unhealthy in every way for anyone to have a relationship that involves an affair, whichever side of the triangle, as demonstrated by the countless, desperately unhappy individuals who's lives have involved an affair.

 

If an affair appears to be healthy for someone, that individual must be pretty unhealthy to begin with.

 

You really shouldn't generalise turnstone - as an uOW, the affair I'm in is healthy for both me and my MM - we are both happy with our situation...

[Owl]

Which is vacant because the M is not being prioritsed by both parties.

 

I think this is a key source of disagreement here.

 

The position is "perceived" to be open by the UOW. IMHO, most MM's who have affairs aren't actually looking for the position to be "open" or filled by someone new...they're just looking to enjoy the interviewing process. :D

 

The position isn't "vacant" unless that person is single/unmarried. Affair parnters TYPICALLY are looking to fill what they PERCEIVE as a vacancy, whereas most MM/MS aren't looking to make personnel changes...they're just investigating the hiring pool...checking out the new talent.

 

Again, the real issue here is that this is all done by lies and deceit all aimed to keep the BS in the dark about the situation.

 

The "issue" that people tend to have here with UOW is that they're willing partners in that deception process, whether or not they believe themselves to be. A truly "UOW" knows and understands that...and yet simply doesn't care about the possible consequences of those actions to others that will be eventually impacted by these actions.