BS prefers long term OW

[mizliz]

We will lie if we betray. Because we want it to last and because we know we owe you more and we don't want you to know.

 

We know it won't really last - that it will be found out and we will make our choices and our SO theirs. The lies are temporary, and therefore forgivable.

 

If MPs allowed As, then there would be no need for lies. But as there is a need for As, lies are inevitable.

 

I'm sorry to take your post out of context, but these comments really resonated with me. I will go to sleep with this on my mind. Very provocative and interesting.

[WorldIsYours]

But I fell in love. And that hurt. You can't insure against it, can you?

 

You didn't fall in love, and you hurt your spouse, not you.

 

And you can't decide ahead of time how you will react if it happens. You don't expect it, and then there are kids too.

 

Wrong. You're way off. You can decide and carry out that decision once the offer comes. No one or nothing made cheaters cheat.

 

But I recognise that falling in love is held in small esteem in some quarters.

 

It's not falling in love, and yes cheating is not accepted in many quarters.

[seren]

I think already happened with me and H. We had a within reason understanding.

 

We had both forgiven each other in the past before M.

 

But I fell in love. And that hurt. You can't insure against it, can you?

 

And you can't decide ahead of time how you will react if it happens. You don't expect it, and then there are kids too.

 

It's not about screwing for me. I'm not sure if we can write into the M contract 'you won't fall in love'.

 

But I recognise that falling in love is held in small esteem in some quarters.

 

Hi Wheelwright, re the above. Falling in love should never be held in small esteem, I agree. BUT, if you (general) can hold falling and being in love in high esteem, shouldn't it follow that in an A, the lack of esteem shown for the BS's love for their partner should also be held in high esteem too? or is it that the high esteem in which love should be held only apply to the one who is in the 'in love' seat?

 

I ask, because I believe in being in love, certainly within my marriage. Not all A's are about love, when the OW told me she loved my husband I could and did feel sorry for her as he didn't love her, hadn't told her (straight from the horse's mouth) and I could empathise with her.

 

So I suppose that if love is held in high esteem, then it should be respected by all. If a WS falls in love with the AP, then I cannot understand how they could stay in a marriage? The hidden element of the A is not always to protect the BS, most WS compartmentalise quite easily. It is usually to protect the marriage and to maintain harmony in both camps.

 

If, when two people get married the understanding is that they will be exclusive with each other or have an understanding of what each is accepting of, then surely it is far more honest to discuss when one wants the rules to change? While I agree that love should be held in high esteem I value honesty far more.

[WorldIsYours]

And I am happy I had those experiences.

 

We know.

 

I do not meet people who I want to do that with very often, and there has to be something extra anyway to make me really want to.

 

This sounds like something straight out of an erotica novel. But we know what the extra is.

 

Really if you feel this way, just leave your husband. He shouldn't have to endure another affair from you when some well-hung hottie puts the moves on you and you end up thinking it's love.

 

I think an open R would be wrong in some ways, but maybe.

 

Seriously, leave if you feel this way.

 

I do not want to be owned.

 

Nor do I want to be cheated on. Having a rebellious attitude won't justify putting someone's life at risk.

 

It's not about ownership of a person. It's about respect and to be a mature adult and not cheat because the marriage isn't how they want it to be.

[wheelwright]

We know.

 

Nor do I want to be cheated on. Having a rebellious attitude won't justify putting someone's life at risk.

 

It's not about ownership of a person. It's about respect and to be a mature adult and not cheat because the marriage isn't how they want it to be.

 

Anyway, respect goes a long way.

 

I am not that mature. Because I still like the idea of a rebellious attitude. If that involves kicking against the pricks and saying I care about something you think is wrong.

[wheelwright]

Hi Wheelwright, re the above. Falling in love should never be held in small esteem, I agree. BUT, if you (general) can hold falling and being in love in high esteem, shouldn't it follow that in an A, the lack of esteem shown for the BS's love for their partner should also be held in high esteem too? or is it that the high esteem in which love should be held only apply to the one who is in the 'in love' seat?

 

I ask, because I believe in being in love, certainly within my marriage. Not all A's are about love, when the OW told me she loved my husband I could and did feel sorry for her as he didn't love her, hadn't told her (straight from the horse's mouth) and I could empathise with her.

 

So I suppose that if love is held in high esteem, then it should be respected by all. If a WS falls in love with the AP, then I cannot understand how they could stay in a marriage? The hidden element of the A is not always to protect the BS, most WS compartmentalise quite easily. It is usually to protect the marriage and to maintain harmony in both camps.

 

If, when two people get married the understanding is that they will be exclusive with each other or have an understanding of what each is accepting of, then surely it is far more honest to discuss when one wants the rules to change? While I agree that love should be held in high esteem I value honesty far more.

 

 

I agree with you. But I was in an unusual place where my xMOM's W was put with me for a drunken evening. And during that, before the A, she said she had never loved her H, and certainly didn't love him now.

 

The vehemance and hate made me believe her.

 

I failed to see they were just signs of the love she craved from him.

 

Honesty is not all it seems sometimes.

[WorldIsYours]

Anyway, respect goes a long way.

 

I am not that mature. Because I still like the idea of a rebellious attitude. If that involves kicking against the pricks and saying I care about something you think is wrong.

 

Let me rephrase that. How about selfish attitude?

[WorldIsYours]

I agree with you. But I was in an unusual place where my xMOM's W was put with me for a drunken evening. And during that, before the A, she said she had never loved her H, and certainly didn't love him now.

 

The vehemance and hate made me believe her.

 

I failed to see they were just signs of the love she craved from him.

 

Honesty is not all it seems sometimes.

 

Whether she loved her husband or not, there's no justification for affairs.

[wheelwright]

Whether she loved her husband or not, there's no justification for affairs.

 

Against your 'better' judgement I have to disagree.

[donnamaybe]

Against your 'better' judgement I have to disagree.

There is justification for divorce. Not an affair. I suppose if someone is so PA or cowardly they can't handle their life in a proactive manner, that's all they can muster.

[Owl]

I agree. But I am talking about the post-A stuff in part. And in the end, honesty does usually come out in As.

 

I guess I am mentioning the right to do something for yourself, and tell another person later. Because it won't suit anyone to be told at the time.

 

Like if your friend is wearing a dress that makes her bum look far too big, or small for that matter. You won't tell her till the dinner party is over. Unless you enjoy a certain sado-masochistic frisson.

 

Or you will dress it down - till it's over. It's sensible.

 

Eventually you owe it them, cos you never want them to look bad in that dress again. Once they are wearing the dress, there's no going back.

 

In the case of an A, you feel worse of course because you bought the dress and encouraged them to wear it. It was only after, you decided it was a bad idea.

 

I am fed up with the conversation about lies here. (That's about me not other posters).

 

We will lie if we betray. Because we want it to last and because we know we owe you more and we don't want you to know.

 

We know it won't really last - that it will be found out and we will make our choices and our SO theirs. The lies are temporary, and therefore forgivable.

 

If MPs allowed As, then there would be no need for lies. But as there is a need for As, lies are inevitable.

 

I totally do not follow your thinking.

 

"If MPs allowed As, there would be no need for lies. But as there is a need for As, lies are inevitable."

 

This makes no sense to me. So you're suggesting that married partners should allow/accept affairs, and that because they don't it's their own fault that they're lied to???

 

This is completely contrary to the basic concept of having a relationship with someone...anyone...in the first place.

 

When you married, did you tell your H that you would have an affair on him if/when your feelings about him and your marriage changed? If not...why not? If you did...did he openly accept and agree to those 'terms' of the marriage?

 

I get the idea that people change. I don't get the idea that it somehow becomes the other spouses fault that you choose to lie and cheat on them as a result.

[fooled once]

Agree completely!!!!

 

I am so glad I am not M to someone who plans to pull the plug on our sex life because he deems that sex is only permissible / appropriate / dignified / worth the effort until the age of (whenever). I think that kind of attitude would constitute grounds for D! (or annulment?)

 

Maybe some women yearn to grow cobwebs in their cookiejar but I'm not one of them!

 

Wow. How sad for those spouse who become quadrapeligics. How sad for those marriages where one spouse has alzheimers. How sad for those marriages where physically it is no longer possible to "get it up" How sad for those marriages where they don't use toys on each other.

 

I have inlaws who are 79 and 84. They haven't had sex in 20 years. My FIL is impotent. My MIL would never even think of a toy. But yeah, they should probably just whither up and die because they don't have sex.

 

Exactly where did anyone post that "someone who plans to pull the plug on our sex life because he deems that sex is only permissible / appropriate / dignified / worth the effort until the age of (whenever)." Did I write that or are you being a little over dramatic with a comment I made that sex shouldn't be all a marriage is?

 

So for a woman to stay with a man who has no use of his arms or legs should demand that he lick her so she can get off? Or should she get an automatic pass on fidelity because he is no longer able to satisfy her?

 

You can have that type of marriage. No thanks. I prefer my loving marriage where the marriage isn't built on orgasms.

 

Sex is a PART of marriage but I wouldn't accept that sexual intimacy merely 'won't be there one day'. How terribly sad. Communication is a PART of marriage and I'd expect that to carry on too. And the friendship. And the laughs.

 

In fact if you build a marriage on any single aspect then I'd say the outlook isn't good. But I certainly wouldn't enter a R expecting the sex to stop. Hell no!

 

See my response above. Guess you also will not understand if the MM you are having an affair with ever had a physical ailment where he couldn't perform or where he had no desire to perform.

 

And for you - who said anything about going into a relationship expecting the sex to stop? And if you haven't planned on being with your MM for life, then you probably haven't thought of all the things that could happen. If you became completely unable to have sex, I guess you better make sure your mouth still works.

 

I've never heard of men shrivelling up. At what age is it supposed to happen? I know couples in their 90s who still have active sex lives.

 

Well, I know of several couples in their 80's and 90's who don't have sex. Shocking isn't it. And guess what, they are still happy, in love and together. I know it is amazing that since the sex stopped they are still together.

 

I find it enlightening to see some of the responses here. I feel pity for those that don't get that no one knows what the future holds and they are so wound up about making sure they have an orgasm. Orgasm or not, I have a solid marriage where sex isn't what our relationship focus's on.

 

Maybe that is the difference between married people and those who live by affairs? Maybe they don't have the self confidence needed to know that God forbid, when those parts STOP working, that they won't have anything to fall back on? Maybe because sex is so intertwined with affairs and it is the focal point - IMHO - of affairs, that without that, because there is nothing else to fall back on, people will move on or realize they don't even know or like the person they have been with for xx amount of time? Sex doesn't rule my life or my marriage. It is a part of it, but not the focal point or the central part of it. I am glad I like and love my husband that should he ever have an issue in that area (and I can assure you, that is not the case at this point in time ) that it won't make me love him less nor would I expect him to service me with a tongue or a toy. And visa versa for him should there come a point in time where sex isn't happening with me.

 

To each their own. I will gladly keep what I have over an orgasm every day of my life.

[wheelwright]

I totally do not follow your thinking.

 

"If MPs allowed As, there would be no need for lies. But as there is a need for As, lies are inevitable."

 

This makes no sense to me. So you're suggesting that married partners should allow/accept affairs, and that because they don't it's their own fault that they're lied to???

 

This is completely contrary to the basic concept of having a relationship with someone...anyone...in the first place.

 

When you married, did you tell your H that you would have an affair on him if/when your feelings about him and your marriage changed? If not...why not? If you did...did he openly accept and agree to those 'terms' of the marriage?

 

I get the idea that people change. I don't get the idea that it somehow becomes the other spouses fault that you choose to lie and cheat on them as a result.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I do think we should allow for it.

 

I am not big on saying it's someone's fault - that's the way I address life and I have admitted here recently that I am possibly like that because I am not right.

 

But I don't want to blame people who are searching for love.

 

And that includes those who make mistaken forays. And realise it.

 

It just seems so natural to me, and the people who feel bad about it don't seem so. They seem contained.

 

I don't mind if I am in some way fundamentally wrong. But I am yet to hear am argument which persuades me I am.

 

Because there is a freedom in love and a grace.

 

It doesn't have much to do with infidelity, except where circumstances count.

Edited March 19, 2011 by wheelwright

[WorldIsYours]

Against your 'better' judgement I have to disagree.

 

Disagree if you want, but the fact remains there is no excuse for affairs.

[WorldIsYours]

I didn't say that.

 

I do think we should allow for it.

 

So you did say it, really. So you're suggesting that there be open marriages? That's a whole different ballgame. One that's as bad as infidelity.

 

But I don't want to blame people who are searching for love.

 

People who participate in infidelity are not searching for love.

 

It just seems so natural to me, and the people who feel bad about it don't seem so. They seem contained.

 

It's not natural. That's just being unremorseful and 304-ish. And cheaters need to feel bad about it so that hopefully they'll change (but many don't).

 

Because there is a freedom in love and a grace.

 

There is freedom in love and grace, but not in infidelity.

 

It doesn't have much to do with infidelity, except where circumstances count.

 

You're right. Love has nothing to do with cheating. They're two different entities. They're like water and oil. They don't mix.

[mizliz]

There is justification for divorce. Not an affair. I suppose if someone is so PA or cowardly they can't handle their life in a proactive manner, that's all they can muster.

 

There was a time when I would have argued this to the death. I am more inclined to align myself with this, now. Good point.