"That's my H...go get your own"

[cocorico]

A very interesting article came out in one of our Sunday papers. I can't post it because it would be TMI and point to my exact location. I'll briefly tell you what it says.

 

The question was why do single women have affairs with MMs. It was basically looking at what motivates those that sleep with MMs to do so. What attracts them to these men. It was a rant by a Bs I'm sure. Please bear in mind that I live in Africa and we are different in our views in many ways. so if this comes off as extremist in some ways, please just give it some thought. Below are some points:

 

1. Young women are attracted to men with money and power. What they don't realize is that those men with money and power are generally organized, hardworking and most of all deliberate. They are most likely M with women who support them in their endeavors. By their very nature, most successful men chose a compatible wife early in life.

 

2. Married men tend to be more considerate of women because of practice. They know how to act around a woman -opening car doors, seating them at restaurants, allowing them to walk in the door first, etc. These so called gentlemanly gestures become automatic to married men.

 

3. Married men are sometimes less selfish than single men. They are capable of calling a woman once or twice a day, listening to her talk about her latest acquisition of a designer bag without looking bored, being gracious to her friends when he meets them, etc.

 

4. Most married men are excellent gift givers. They know to start with perfume, them move onto silk scarves, the latest phones, etc. They don't run out of ideas and the gifts given are usually something the woman wants. Single guys are more prone to giving inappropriate gifts.

 

5. Married men know how to handle baby talk and how to speak with young children. They know how to engage kids and therefore can easily seem like "good" catches.

 

6. A few other things were listed such as being able to quickly handle car issues, plumbing, sort out domestic things that women generally don't want to be bothered with. Oh one more thing. Presentation. Married men will dress well and are usually better groomed on a consistent basis than single men.

 

The basic point is that married men are more capable of meeting a woman's needs simply because they've had practice. The idea is really simple. That married man is all the things above because a woman he is married to taught him how to be like that. For example, a married man is more likely to put the toilet seat down when done than a single man.

 

The author ends the article by warning single women to be careful and to acknowledge that what they admire in married men is a direct result of them being...married and conditioned to treat a woman well. She tells them to go find their own "raw product" and groom him into whatever it is they want. That falling for another woman's "finished product" is simply coveting what's not yours and trying to reap where you did not sow!

 

Okay...at first I balked at it. I was thinking "What???" and then I realized that the author is actually making some good points. When I met my H, he had some habits which TBH were off putting. I panel beat him into a much more presentable person. Any woman he dates today will assume that he is all these things because he's particular. But the fact is that it took years living with me for him to develop the ability to be considerate of a woman in many ways.

 

What do you think about this? Please note that I'm not bashing men here. The article was primarily about single womens' fascination with married men. I do believe that women also learn a lot when M. I'm not sure if that necessarily makes them more attractive to single men.

 

 

Goodness I would not be interested in the kind of man described in that article at all! It describes a sugar daddy not a partner! Perhaps some women are shallow enough to be interested in that but if that is what M does to a guy it would put me off M and off MM for life!

 

I would far rather have a real man, a man who did not allow himself to be henpecked into submission but had the strength of character to resist the kind of marital "training" being advocated in the article. I don't want a "project", either my own from scratch or some other woman's completed one. I want a partner whose natural assets and personality I can respect without feeling the need to change. Designer handbags? Opening doors? What is this - 1850??? Give me a nice, liberated, strong man any day, not some wuss tied to his W's apron strings!

Edited May 10, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed profanity

[findingnemo]

Well first of all, I must confess that I leave the toilet seat up.

 

I'll throw out one more twist to this theory and in some respects the article kind of dabbled in this area.

 

Married men can be "safe" because they are married and for some single women, that's more of what they are looking for. I had always heard the wedding ring will attract some women because of this built-in "safety feature" although I have no idea if that's necessarily true.

 

A woman not ready for commitment to anything permanent can get from a married man what she wants (gifts, attention, sex) without all the strings and relationship baggage. And because he's married and is often well into his career, he's typically got the resources. She doesn't have to feel like she's "on the hook" to see him every day. She can still live her single life without all the fuss. But she has access to him whenever she wants.

 

I have observed this a number of times so I know there's some truth to it.

 

Of course where this approach goes sour quickly is when the single woman falls for the married guy at which time the original concept completely blows up.

 

It is true, for "pro" OWs that the MM is a safe bet. You can have fun and not worry about commitment. A number of single men like to bed MWs. It's something about the conquest. I'm not sure how they explain it but I've users that said.

 

TBK, you still don't put the toilet seat down? Oh week, maybe it's just me with that pet peeve. Who knows?

[96nole]

FN, i find the article interesting as it gels with what I have read written by evolutionary psychologists.

 

It's sorta similiar along the lines of 'all women want the alpha male.'

 

Well, definitions may vary, but generally it is a man who has proven he can provide successfully for the clan, protect his young AND sustain a long-term relationship with his mate as well.

 

and that would be a MM, no? He has proven it I think.

 

I have single and divorced gfs and they do not care if a propspective partner has been divorced, but they do look for financial stability, considerate treatment, good parenting skills....but heaven forbid he should live with his mother or be jobless!

 

I think they are looking for reassurances of a stable future should they invest in him emotionally.

 

HA!!!!! The bolded part is the kind of guy my ex wife went for. A 40 year old dirtbag that barely works and lives with mommy. After I threw her out for cheating the second time with him, she was living in his bedroom at his mommy's house.

 

Meanwhile, I'm the financially stable, considerate husband with good parenting skills (even though we didn't have kids). So I guess not all women go for that.

[findingnemo]

Goodness I would not be interested in the kind of man described in that article at all! It describes a sugar daddy not a partner! Perhaps some women are shallow enough to be interested in that but if that is what M does to a guy it would put me off M and off MM for life!

 

I would far rather have a real man, a man who did not allow himself to be henpecked into submission but had the strength of character to resist the kind of marital "training" being advocated in the article. I don't want a "project", either my own from scratch or some other woman's completed one. I want a partner whose natural assets and personality I can respect without feeling the need to change. Designer handbags? Opening doors? What is this - 1850??? Give me a nice, liberated, strong man any day, not some wuss tied to his W's apron strings!

 

 

About the sugar daddy aspect, you may have a point.

 

I must say though that I appreciate nice gifts, opening doors, etc. To me it's evidence that a man cares beyond the normal "I love you". I also don't think that such men are whipped. Am I old fashioned? I meet so many unromantic people and I find it sad, TBH.

Edited May 10, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[findingnemo]

HA!!!!! The bolded part is the kind of guy my ex wife went for. A 40 year old dirtbag that barely works and lives with mommy. After I threw her out for cheating the second time with him, she was living in his bedroom at his mommy's house.

 

Meanwhile, I'm the financially stable, considerate husband with good parenting skills (even though we didn't have kids). So I guess not all women go for that.

 

And that just shows you how different these things can be. Here's the kicker. The OM needs to realize that your ex W is partly a product of your input, right? What he got when she was still with you isn't what he's going to get now. For the OM to think that you were the problem is living in total denial. But he will get to see the real her and she will see the real him. Isn't that the fun part? They deserve each other.

[96nole]

About the sugar daddy aspect, you may have a point.

 

I must say though that I appreciate nice gifts, opening doors, etc. To me it's evidence that a man cares beyond the normal "I love you". I also don't think that such men are pussy whipped. Am I old fashioned? I meet so many unromantic people and I find it sad, TBH.

 

My former boss was a sugar daddy and he was also married with 5 kids. His wife was aware of it. He was killed unfortunately by a drunk driver. After the accident I was cleaning his computer and saw all the emails and pictures. He had several "sugar babies" local and in different cities at the same time. Those women were more than happy to have that relationship and didn't want anything more. They were showered with gifts and trips. He gave them a monthly 'allowance'. But they had to be available to him on a moments notice. It was all worked out like a business deal before it started.

[The Blue Knight]

It is true, for "pro" OWs that the MM is a safe bet. You can have fun and not worry about commitment. A number of single men like to bed MWs. It's something about the conquest. I'm not sure how they explain it but I've users that said.

 

TBK, you still don't put the toilet seat down? Oh week, maybe it's just me with that pet peeve. Who knows?

 

The reason many guys get off on that idea is the "stud effect" . . . they believe that they are satisfying the married woman's desperate sexual needs which can't be met by the "lame" husband thereby leaving them feeling like they are sexually superior.

 

Obviously, there may be far more going on in the married woman's head than simply that alone, but for the single man, that's apparently enormous bragging material.

 

So does my leaving the toilet seat up mean that if they do indeed develop cloning ability, you no longer want a copy of me?

[Ninja'sHusband]

I disagree with a lot of that article. I think single men will probably go to more trouble to do things right. I especially don't think my STBXW's MM ever gave gifts, that would have been way suspicious. MM do have more experience, true, but we're also more burned out ^^ Maybe the burned out part doesn't matter since they've found a new "love"....

[William]

As the topic is about an article and invites general discussion about it and apparently not about a specific infidelity issue relating to the thread starter, the thread has been moved to general relationship discussion. Continue on-topic discussion of the article.

[Stephanie]

Thread closed for review.

 

ETA: This thread has been reviewed and freed of all off topic discussion. Several off topic posts have been removed since William's redirect above. I will reopen this thread with the final instructions that all responses are to be directed at discussion of the article points listed in the opening post. There will be no more warnings issued, only infractions for every off topic response from this point forward.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Stephanie

[woinlove]

This article focusses on MM and traits he may have by being married, but leaves out the biggest one of all, simply, he is married. A few posters on the OW forum have made it clear that they prefer married men because they are married. There could be a variety of reasons, they don't want a full-time R, they like the focus on romance and not day-to-day stuff, they like the risk (whether directly or indirectly - the fact that MM is taking a risk to be with them), they like the competition with the W (whether they know her or not).

 

I think the risk and competition factors can play a role in making a MM attractive to an OW.

 

For example, if one visits other sites which discuss open marriages, you will encounter the complaint that men feel they have to sometimes pretend they are keeping the "affair" secret from their W. The "OW" doesn't mind the fact he is married, but does mind the fact that there won't be a betrayed wife. Why? I really don't know.

 

 

Possiblities include reducing the risk factor, reducing the competition factor, or maybe they think it reduces the chances of the M ultimately ending. I'm not sure what it is, but I think it is an interesting phenomena. The article in the OP leaves out all the reasons that are more directly related to him betraying a W and focusses on him having changed through marriage. I think in some affairs, what is left out of this article is more important than the points they discuss.

Edited May 10, 2012 by woinlove

[findingnemo]

Yes, WIL. My first reaction to the article was that it was biased. It kind of ignores all sorts of realities and focuses on the principle idea that OWs are attracted to MMs simply because they have certain advantages that she believes come from being married.

 

There are definitely OWs who are attracted to MMs simply because they are M. The whys vary.

 

I wonder though....what really are the reasons why anybody would date a MM that don't include a prior R and therefore lingering feelings or love at first sight? If it isn't to gain something like gifts and a higher standard of outings (posh restaurants) what is it? Can a person who is commitment phobic decide to get into something as drama inducing as an A just because they are sure it won't develop in to a full blown R? Why not have ONS' or FWBs instead? It's really confusing...

[spiderowl]

I don't know about women coaching the men who are married but I do think that some men who are married are so much better at relating to women and maybe that's how they ended up married where other guys didn't. I've been trying online dating and I've chatted to lots of guys. There are quite a few younger guys who have never been married and it's not hard to see why. Quite often they just don't seem to have the sensitivity that's necessary. They put sex at the top of their list and treat women accordingly so, naturally, any woman wanting a relationship will avoid a guy that just pursues sex.

 

I think there are many single/divorced guys who have problems with meeting a woman. Some have the following issues: they don't smell nice; they talk about technology/gadgets/special interest all the time and don't realise women are not joining in; they are crude and exclude women that way; they are not polite or gentlemanly; or, they have some sort of serious personality problem, like rampant jealousy, anger problems, addictions.

 

Married guys aren't perfect at all, but they are usually better at talking to women and being considerate. These things matter.