Seeking validation

[Mme. Chaucer]

The OW board doesn't have to be pro-affair, but it's a bit daft to try and make it anti-OW!!!

 

Maybe it's also a bit daft to suggest that people who dare to post here who are categorically opposed to being supportive of anyone who engages in an EMA need to express their views by organizing marches and rallies.

 

I imagine there are some 'terrible' OWs who are WONDERFUL mums, daughters, friends, businesswomen etc. Yes. I find it hard to understand why that's permitted. But I also see the unfairness in an OW board, but not a BS board...

 

Of course there are "OW" who are wonderful moms (though I do question the "wonderful" mothering possible when the woman is actively involved in a deceitful pursuit; it seems that some of that energy must come into the other emotional areas of her life; she is "modeling" behavior for her children), etc. This forum, however, is for the discussion of situations surrounding EMA's, not parenting, friendship, or business.

 

I don't get how come it is so difficult to understand, and to accept, that there is absolutely going to be a contingent of people on this board who CANNOT look at any situation that depends upon deceit to exist in a "supportive" way, no matter how nice the people are who are involved. Just as there are many of you who feel just great about engaging in EMA's and towards others who do. We are all here. Why not get used to it.

 

And who feel fine about expressing their position here, rather than organizing a rally to do so.

[Spark1111]

Oh Owl! Yes... There's the 'lying POS' style posts, and 'you deserve everything you get' type attacks. There's aspersions cast on the entire character of an OW at times, yet I imagine there are some 'terrible' OWs who are WONDERFUL mums, daughters, friends, businesswomen etc. Yes. I find it hard to understand why that's permitted. But I also see the unfairness in an OW board, but not a BS board...

 

Thanks for the sorry, not necessary... but appreciated.

 

Maybe it is a matter of your perspective and/or expectations?

 

Because every epithet and attack leveled at OW/OM, is also leveled at MM and often, BS.

 

Divorce his lying a**, or, he/she is probably still in contact, or see a lawyer before they get your house, or what did you do wrong in the marriage to cause the WS to have an affair?

 

I see no difference in many of the posts on both boards.

[OWoman]

These so-called "discussion" threads support no one, they just perpetuate the derision on the board. (And seem to always be started by one "side.")

 

Given that it's an OW / OM board, it figures that most of the threads will be started by OWs and OMs.

 

However, there are many discussion threads started by non-OWs - or is the poster who started this thread, for example, a closet OW?

 

 

So I have to ask why they are started in the first place. Why the need for the united front? Are they so insecure in their relationships that they need a outwardly cohesive unit? Perhaps they are simply seeking validation from each other?

 

Owl clearly stated that that happened on BOTH sides. So, is the "other side" so insecure that it needs validation, too? Surely if that applies to one side, it must apply to the other as well, given the point of the post you quoted...

 

And why would anyone risk infraction just to satisfy someone else's curiosity?

 

Why would there be any infraction unless it was against the TOS? Come on, JT, surely even you can see that what you're saying is the same thing as the MM who claims that as long as he doesn't tell his BW about the A, his actions aren't hurting her? You're saying that as long as you don't fess up to what you're doing, you're not breaking the TOS... If your accusations are so innocent, why would you have anything to fear from posting them openly, instead of undercover sniping?

[OWoman]

So...who here is making it "anti-OW"? Could you post threads/posts that support your view on this?

 

(I don't honestly expect a response to this...but can you see how being "put on the spot" like that is a tactic designed to set someone up?)

 

I could, if you want it via PM

[OWoman]

Pretty much straightforward if you think about it.

 

I know people don't like reporting...they feel like tattle tales or something.

 

But it's the ONLY 'authorized' method for dealing with these kinds of issues...anything else just sets yourself up for being moderated (take it from someone who has learned this the hard way!).

 

I agree that no one should have to post here and accept personal attacks because of being an OW/OM/BS/whatever.

 

This doesn't mean that they can expect to post without hearing opinions contrary to their own...at least not here on LS. It does mean that if they're attacked something should be done to stop it.

 

Opposite views/opinions/etc... are all allowed under the TOS. As long as it's done respectfully and within the guidelines of the TOS...which does not permit personal attacks. There's a difference between those two things, as I know you're aware.

 

Owl, as you know, Tony has reduced his hours on the board. Sometimes it takes days for him to get around to following up on all the reports - by which time the damage has been done, the flame war spiralled out of control, and the offending posts quoted in full so many times in other posts that then have to be reported in turn (which then only vanish after several more days) so it's a sisyphean struggle. Another poster who has been away from these boards for a while commented in another thread about all the "toxic" posts on here that in former days would not have been allowed to persist... And I'm sure you can see, too, the personal attacks on some threads that remain long after they have been reported.

 

Reporting may be the only AUTHORISED means of responding to toxic posts - but it's not an effective one under current conditions.

[BB07]

Given that it's an OW / OM board, it figures that most of the threads will be started by OWs and OMs.

 

However, there are many discussion threads started by non-OWs - or is the poster who started this thread, for example, a closet OW?

 

I am totally at a loss as to what the point is that you are trying to make with the above??

[OWoman]

I'm genuinely curious what other motivations people come here with? How deeply have people truly considered what motivated them to come here? Do most posters even truly think through why they came, what they're hoping to gain from posting here?

 

I didn't come seeking "support" - I didn't need it. Nor did I come seeking validation - I don't need that, either. And I certainly didn't come to troll.

 

I did come seeking input from others who had been in my situation - I hoped - who may be able to offer a view different or differently nuanced than my own, on a specific aspect related to something that was happening in the environs of my R. Essentially, my then-MM and I were trying to second-guess how his behaviour might be interpreted by his then-W if he did one thing, or the other, given conflicting pressures on him in choosing which way to act.

 

I did not see myself requiring support - I was happy in my R, I wasn't questioning whether I should stay in it or leave it, and I wasn't even having a bad R-Day. But it was the kind of situation that I myself had no experience of, and nothing that had ever arisen in the experience of any of my RL friends, so I thought, hey - and OW board! Surely another OW may have experienced something similar at some stage, and may have some useful insight to share on this... So I posted.

 

And because I'd lurked before posting, to check out whether or not this may be an appropriate place to enquire, I knew that there were some posters who would attack me for being in an A in the first place rather than responding to the question raised in my post - so I sought to fend that off at the outset by setting some parameters, and stating upfront that I was hoping to hear from other OWs who had some similar experience, that I wasn't looking for hating posts from people telling me I would burn in hell, and that I wasn't interested in hearing how he was lying to me because I knew what the situation was. Guess what kind of answers I got...

 

So I'm not sure how you'd classify that?

[OWoman]

I am totally at a loss as to what the point is that you are trying to make with the above??

 

I was responding to the (incorrect) accusation that it is only OWs who start "discussion" threads, and that the purpose of "discussion" threads was to provoke hostility.

 

The example I cited is clearly neither. Hence, the premise of the accusation is wrong.

 

That's all.

[BB07]

I was responding to the (incorrect) accusation that it is only OWs who start "discussion" threads, and that the purpose of "discussion" threads was to provoke hostility.

 

The example I cited is clearly neither. Hence, the premise of the accusation is wrong.

 

That's all.

 

 

I could buy all the above.......but the remark about is this from a closeted OW negates your explanation, IMO.

 

 

It's comments exactly like that.....that get under people's skin and they start reacting from a primary emotional standpoint instead of a logical one. And...........yes comments like that are made by all different walks of life on here and yes I've been guilty from time to time but it still doesn't excuse it.

[Owl]

I didn't come seeking "support" - I didn't need it. Nor did I come seeking validation - I don't need that, either. And I certainly didn't come to troll.

 

I did come seeking input from others who had been in my situation - I hoped - who may be able to offer a view different or differently nuanced than my own, on a specific aspect related to something that was happening in the environs of my R. Essentially, my then-MM and I were trying to second-guess how his behaviour might be interpreted by his then-W if he did one thing, or the other, given conflicting pressures on him in choosing which way to act. Seeking understanding of the situation = support

 

I did not see myself requiring support - I was happy in my R, I wasn't questioning whether I should stay in it or leave it, and I wasn't even having a bad R-Day. But it was the kind of situation that I myself had no experience of, and nothing that had ever arisen in the experience of any of my RL friends, so I thought, hey - and OW board! Surely another OW may have experienced something similar at some stage, and may have some useful insight to share on this... So I posted. Seeking out the experiences of others who have been in the same boat = support, or validation, depending on what you intended to do with the information

 

And because I'd lurked before posting, to check out whether or not this may be an appropriate place to enquire, I knew that there were some posters who would attack me for being in an A in the first place rather than responding to the question raised in my post - so I sought to fend that off at the outset by setting some parameters, and stating upfront that I was hoping to hear from other OWs who had some similar experience, that I wasn't looking for hating posts from people telling me I would burn in hell, and that I wasn't interested in hearing how he was lying to me because I knew what the situation was. Guess what kind of answers I got... By outright trying to limit the responses you were getting, you probably had a decent idea that it would garner exactly that kind of responses from the BS's who post here.

 

So I'm not sure how you'd classify that?

 

Elements of all three, in my honest opinion.

 

You were seeking support in the form of gaining additional understanding of your situation by learning from others who had been there.

 

You were seeking validation and solidarity by seeking out those of a similar mindset and attempting to limit dissenting comments and views from responding.

 

By setting those limits...after lurking here a while...you had to have known what reactions you'd get to that, but chose to do so anyway.

 

That's how I'd classify it.

[jthorne]

Giving this some thought...I can also see where some come for "validation". They come here with the intent to interact with others "in the same situation"...and truly hoping to get no more out of it than the feeling that "others are doing it so it makes it (ok/acceptable/less bad/insert concept here)".

stating upfront that I was hoping to hear from other OWs who had some similar experience, that I wasn't looking for hating posts from people telling me I would burn in hell, and that I wasn't interested in hearing how he was lying to me because I knew what the situation was.

It seems to me that when you ask a question on an OPEN support board, seeking one point of view, at the exclusion of others as you have described here, that is validation seeking.

[OWoman]

I could buy all the above.......but the remark about is this from a closeted OW negates your explanation, IMO.

 

why? I was pointing out the invalidity of the claim - that the claim was only valid if the poster of that thread was, in fact, an OW and was known as such to the poster who made the claim and not to the rest of us (in which case the claim would be correct and my assumption that it was false would be erroneous).

 

I'm really struggling to see what's so difficult about understanding this?

[jthorne]

Why would there be any infraction unless it was against the TOS? Come on, JT, surely even you can see that what you're saying is the same thing as the MM who claims that as long as he doesn't tell his BW about the A, his actions aren't hurting her? You're saying that as long as you don't fess up to what you're doing, you're not breaking the TOS... If your accusations are so innocent, why would you have anything to fear from posting them openly, instead of undercover sniping?

I have no idea what you're talking about here, it seems really far reaching. But let's look at an example.

 

Say an OW wants to start a thread about the saying "All's Fair In Love and War." Seems simple enough that she might just ask a simple question whether her fellow members agree or disagree with the saying.

 

But when she adds comments such as

Yet when he does (OK, she wasn't quite as big as a mountain...), <snip>That's fine - he made love with me, I'm quite happy for him to make love to me, too :love:

That add a whole new dimension to the thread. The thread could have stood alone with just the question, but this OW had to throw on the quoted. Why? It was completely unnecessary to discuss the topic.

 

So was it done to stir the pot? If so, to what end? To rally the troops? To tweak the noses of the nay-sayers?

 

All of the above is validative, IMO.

[BB07]

why? I was pointing out the invalidity of the claim - that the claim was only valid if the poster of that thread was, in fact, an OW and was known as such to the poster who made the claim and not to the rest of us (in which case the claim would be correct and my assumption that it was false would be erroneous).

 

I'm really struggling to see what's so difficult about understanding this?

 

I still don't get it and the above did nothing to clarify it.

 

I'll just call it a day.......in the life of LS.

[OWoman]

Elements of all three, in my honest opinion.

 

You were seeking support in the form of gaining additional understanding of your situation by learning from others who had been there.

 

You were seeking validation and solidarity by seeking out those of a similar mindset and attempting to limit dissenting comments and views from responding.

 

By setting those limits...after lurking here a while...you had to have known what reactions you'd get to that, but chose to do so anyway.

 

That's how I'd classify it.

 

OK Owl, I'm going to give more details:

 

The issue was: My H had told his then-W that he planned on leaving her. She then booked a family holiday to an exotic destination. He told her he did not want to go. She rallied the kids. They did not want to go with her alone - they had been on a family holiday abroad before, where she had gotten drunk and abusive in a very public way, humiliating the kids and terrifying them. They wanted him there. They wanted the holiday - it was to a really "cool" place that would be the envy of their schoolmates. They begged him to go. He was torn - if he went, would he be giving her false hope that he wasn't going to leave, after all? If he didn't, was he being selfish and denying the kids a good holiday?

 

My take on it was - going would be seen symbolically by her as a victory; not only would it give her false hope, it would also set the stage for further bullying. And going would not guarantee the kids a decent holiday, even if they had separate rooms. (There were also other issues - he was very busy at work at the time - which she knew, but booked the holiday anyway, knowing he couldn't really afford the time off.) He was programmed to put others ahead of himself, and felt that if he was about to leave anyway, could he deny his kids one last holiday (since he anticipated financial straits post-D) in a cool place? (And perhaps, on some level, he felt that if he was paying for it, he ought to get the benefit? Dunno. His subsequent behaviour would lead me to think not, but at the time that thought probably did cross my mind.)

 

So I was interested in what others thought - if they'd been in similar situations, how had that panned out? Had it created false hope and expectation? Had it led to vicious fighting and fall-out and made the atmosphere even worse at home? What were the risks, and were there any potential benefits I wasn't seeing? He was asking for my advice, and I didn't feel qualified to give any... So I asked for input.

 

I don't see how you classify that as seeking support. I saw it as seeking information.

 

Nor was there any validation involved IMO - I didn't want anyone telling me I was justified in feeling as I felt, or that they could relate to my situation, or that I wanted everyone to be "of one voice". I was actively seeking out variety, or I'd have just insisted on my own gut response rather than wanting more input.

 

And I certainly didn't see it as trolling - I was trying to avoid that!! I had hoped that by eliminating the need for that at the outset, those posters wouldn't waste their own time by posting there! If I wanted to troll, I wouldn't have posted anything about my situation and would instead have posted nasty comments on others' threads in response to their nasty comments.

 

Not sure if that changes your classification or not...

[Owl]

Thanks for the clarification, Owoman.

 

In all honesty...my "classification" or just how I view the reasons behind why you posted what really doesn't make a whit of difference to anyone here, I'm sure.

 

My 'opinion' is just that...and as such matters very little to anyone but myself I'm sure.

[NoIDidn't]

So I was interested in what others thought - if they'd been in similar situations, how had that panned out? Had it created false hope and expectation? Had it led to vicious fighting and fall-out and made the atmosphere even worse at home? What were the risks, and were there any potential benefits I wasn't seeing? He was asking for my advice, and I didn't feel qualified to give any... So I asked for input.

 

The above kind of input is considered "support" in most quarters. Maybe not the crutch type support, but support in knowing what might come next and being prepared to handle it.

 

Nor was there any validation involved IMO - I didn't want anyone telling me I was justified in feeling as I felt, or that they could relate to my situation, or that I wanted everyone to be "of one voice". I was actively seeking out variety, or I'd have just insisted on my own gut response rather than wanting more input.

 

And I certainly didn't see it as trolling - I was trying to avoid that!! I had hoped that by eliminating the need for that at the outset, those posters wouldn't waste their own time by posting there! If I wanted to troll, I wouldn't have posted anything about my situation and would instead have posted nasty comments on others' threads in response to their nasty comments.

 

The first explanation to OWL was that you told what kind of information you wanted and from whom you wanted it. But this post directly contradicts that in that it says that you didn't want those things and that you actively sought out support. Its either one or the other.

 

The first explanation would draw the ire of many posters because it sought to tell them who could and couldn't post in response to your questions - which no one has the power to demand that here, even if they are the OP of the thread.

 

The second explanation doesn't make much sense considering the first explanation. By "eliminating" the need for ????that??? and assuming that posters wouldn't post on your threads, it seems you had high expectations of others actually doing what you said. And it didn't work out that way.

 

I've seen other new posters attempt the same with the same results. Maybe that's why some of the responses were annoying because they thought they could eliminated the chances of people posting that they didn't want to hear from simply by telling them not to post. But that actually violated the TOS because many infractions are handed out for not encouraging free expression and open discussion.

 

Assuming the above is true, I think this is the reason so many OPs appear to post for validation and get angry when they don't get it. They come here with the mindset that they can direct things the way that want it. They see "OW/OM" forum and assume its a private forum and are angered and disappointed that this forum is not private and the owners seem to want it that way.

[SidLyon]

There seems to be a lot of talk on the forum that if a poster is not seeking support, or being disparaging about those involved in affairs, then their discussion threads should be considered to be 'seeking validation'.

 

Because I don't understand which posts are being referred to, or WHY it's being said, I am genuinely interested in posters showing me. I may not agree as to the reasoning, but at the moment I literally have no clue as to why it's being said.

 

And it would be lovely if responses weren't typical smart-ass one-liners; I'm looking to engage sincerely and widen my horizons here. This isn't a mickey-take. Links to posts, and quotes, would be appreciated.

 

I can't assist with any links to posts or direct quotes, but I'm positive I've seen them.

 

Sometimes IMO posters are not just seeking validation for affairs and cheating generally, but in a more subtle way seeking validation that an affair was justified in their particular case. This is usually done by bashing/trashing the BS or the marriage.

 

Other times validation is sought for the feelings of hurt an OW/M is feeling and in these instances it is the MM/W who is often bashed/trashed.

 

On the Infidelity forum, hurt BSs can sometimes seek validation by getting the OW/M bashed/trashed. Some posters automatically bash/trash the WS and this is yet another means of giving validation.

 

Sometimes this backfires because the OW for example, does not want her MM trashed, or the reconciling BW does not want her WH bashed. When this happens, the OP sometimes gets upset and defensive; and I can think of a current thread where this is happening right now. An OP was complaining that the comments/posts have gone in the wrong direction from what s/he hoped.

 

If, as others have suggested already, posters refrained from bashing/trashing people who are not on the forum (typically the MMs and BSs of OW; and the WHs and OWs of BWs - I hope this makes sense) then this might remove one source of "seeking validation".

Edited March 30, 2011 by SidLyon

[mizliz]

I am happy to inform that this forum has been awesome.

 

I have taken good and bad, and I respect those who have respectively told me to "wake the **** up".

 

They have done so without disrespect. And, I aim to be as helpful.

[Jane Deaux]

validation

 

val·i·date

 

   [val-i-deyt] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -dat·ed, -dat·ing. 1. to make valid; substantiate; confirm: Time validated our suspicions.

 

2. to give legal force to; legalize.

 

3. to give official sanction, confirmation, or approval to, as elected officials, election procedures, documents, etc.: to validate a passport.

 

 

Origin:

1640–50; < Medieval Latin validātus (past participle of validāre to make valid), equivalent to valid- ( see valid) + -ātus -ate1

—Synonyms

1. authenticate, verify, prove.

 

—Antonyms

1. disprove.

 

 

WHICH LEADS TO:

 

val·id

 

   [val-id] Show IPA

–adjective 1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.

 

2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.

 

3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.

 

4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.

 

5. Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

 

6. Archaic . robust; well; healthy.

 

Origin:

1565–75; < Latin validus strong, equivalent to val ( ēre ) to be strong + -idus -id4

 

 

Yes, I love to copy and paste definitions. Just so we are all clear on exactly what "validation" really means. Seems to me sometimes, different understandings of words can cause conflict.

 

And I stand by my first post. I wasn't seeking validation. Only support and advice. I didn't and still do not need anyone to tell me it's right, wrong, sound, just, ect., or to agree with me for doing it. I just wanted advice and still do.

 

But I do see posts and threads started with the hopes of getting validation. Someone to tell them that they are not making a mistake. Or that the choice is fine and plenty of people do it. But not the majority I don't think. I could be wrong. I could be biased. But so could we all be.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Jane Deaux