Pursuit

[MissBee]

I agree with Furious...no one is forced into an affair.

 

No matter who pursued or showed interest, both were adults who had a choice about going there or not.

 

The person who is committed elsewhere is especially responsible for protecting their relationship and choosing not to go there, whether or not they are pursued. "Shun the devil and he will flee from you" my mom says....which simply means that, if you don't put yourself in the path of temptation, then you're less likely to succumb.

 

One has to allow themselves to let their guard down and be pursued and wooed for an A to occur. And that is what I think happens....the person being pursued is not forced....they ALLOW this person to woo them overtime....if they did not want to be wooed, they'd shun that person. People do it all the time with people they don't like. So it stands to reason that if you got "worn down" by the pursuer, it was because you didn't shun them and you eventually decided within yourself to succumb.

[trinity1]

I have never been so pursued as I was by Neo. He was completely obsessed by me and still is.

[frozensprouts]

maybe it's just me, but I really do believe that there some cases where a married man/woman may be in a fragile mental state and may act in ways that they otherwise never, ever would, were they not "perused" ( ind you, I don't think this excuses their actions, but I believe it may explain them)

 

I have a few examples in my real life that i know if...

 

my own husband was in a very bad mental state when he cheated. he had been a pallbearer for a good friend who had been killed in Afghanistan by an IED ( roadside bomb), then he found out he was going to be deployed to the same area. He was also going through a rough time dealing with the abuse he'd endured as a child, and two of our children had significant health problems. All of this put together made for a very vulnerable person. ( and before anyone tells me I am looking to excuse his behavior, this was told to me by both our counselor and his psychiatrist). His meeting the person that would go on to be his "other woman" a case of meeting the wrong person at the wrong time

 

another example is the husband of a good friend of mine, who came home wounded from deployment. He also has PTSD ( his best friend was killed next to him in the same rocket attack that injured him). He came home really messed up, but felt that he couldn't burden his wife by talking to her about it. He ended up cheating because he felt guilty and wnated to talk to someone about what happened...a woman she worked with provided that someone, and she really did pursue him. He handled his situation in a bad way, but she found it in her to forgive a situation she couldn't begin to understand

 

my final example is my own dad, who's parents died in a tragic way ( murder/suicide). He was the one that found them a few days later, and he had a breakdown shortly afterwards part of which included a " two or three night stand" with a woman who had pursued him rather vigorously.

 

I realize all these situations are extreme, and not the norm. But I raise them because perhaps things aren't as cut and dried as they would seem. The women involved were all people that the knew the specific situations these men were going through, and that they were vulnerable, yet they started a relationship with them anyway, rather than leave them alone.

 

I expected that there have been women who cheated on their husband's who were also in a very vulnerable place.

 

I will fully agree that in each of these situations, they wayward spouse could have said "no", but perhaps their vulnerability at that point in their life provides a point of understanding as to why they acted as they did.

 

one further question....

 

if one takes a hard line with wayward spouses " they should have said "no" to the affair "and therefore they are responsible for their pain and that of their spouse ( to which I agree, to a point) then should one not also take just as hard a line with other men/women who get hurt by their own choice if they knowingly get involved with a married person? How can their possible vulnerability be seen as a mitigating factor in their choices, but not in anyone else's?

 

my point is that while i do see affairs themselves in a black and white way as "wrong", I think the people involved should be seen in a hundred shades of grey. Most other men/women are not " seductive tramps", rather, they are pretty nice people, who I might very much like were I to know them "in real life". The same is true for the married people who cheat. Most are not "scum", etc., but they are making some bad choices and being pretty cruddy to their spouse.

 

Sorry for being so long winded. I will stop writing now ( and a round of applause because I have stopped is heard by all:laugh:)

[Danie]

As the OP, I never felt the need to assign blame at all. I was simply making statements from what I had seen posted and thought it would make for an interesting discussion. Certainly everyone has their share of responsibiilty... whether they own their part of it of it or not.

 

 

Sorry, I should have clarified the OP I was refering to is the Other Person (OW/OM) not the original poster of this tread! I'm going to have to keep an eye on how I refer to Other People (OW/OM) and the Original Poster (OP) of a thread.

[Bellechica]

Bella, I know you are married, but can't remember if your AP is married or single. Seems relevant to this thread on who pursues who. If both are married, then it hardly matters who pursues, except maybe to their respective spouses.

 

Both were divorced. The first 1,000 miles away. The second a close "friend" who I trusted as a friend and who's line of work partially deals with helping couples communicate. I was already in a low point in my life and sunk even lower. He is no longer my "friend" and never will be.

[Danie]

I think most woman know what actions will attract men to them. Men respond to signals a woman sends out. So even if the man first approached the woman it could be that he is responding to a non-verbal signal she gave him. I’m not trying to be gender biased here and it’s probably just as true that men know what non-verbal cues to give a woman to let her know he’s interested.

 

What I learned over the years is that there are things I do that will invite a man to speak to me. I really didn’t know I did this until my husband pointed it out to me. This was after his affair (go figure) and may be a factor in our dysfunctional relationship dynamic at the time.

 

Anyway, to me ‘pursing’ someone isn’t as clear cut as who initiated first contact.

[Bellechica]

Both were divorced. The first 1,000 miles away. The second a close "friend" who I trusted as a friend and who's line of work partially deals with helping couples communicate. I was already in a low point in my life and sunk even lower. He is no longer my "friend" and never will be.

 

I have forgiven him though as I think in his own way somehow he thought he was helping me. We are both moving on with our lives and have mutually agreed to NC.

[Owl]

I have never been so pursued as I was by Neo. He was completely obsessed by me and still is.

 

So your experience was different from that of the OP's...because "neo" did go out of his way to pursue an affair relationship with you.

Edited May 15, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed off topic portion of the response

[skylarblue]

I didn’t pursue xMM, but I’d intentionally put myself in his environment in hopes that he would approach me. When he did, we flirted and talked a little, and it was clear that we both were interested in each other. xMM never mentioned he was married, and I didn’t notice his wedding ring until after I’d given him my number. However, it only made him more attractive. I touched his ring/finger and told him that “I like that” meaning that he was a MM (not sure if he understood). Even though his M wasn’t the factor in my initial attraction to him, it was the reason why I continued for most of the A.

 

I never really “targeted” married men in the sense that I was the purser, but I would “target” them meaning I had purposeful thought in “choosing” a MM (either getting him or making him admit he wanted to cheat on his W with me) and I had certain criteria for “candidates”. Sometimes the attraction came first and his M heightened it. Sometimes his M became the attraction. Still, I was not the aggressor, but I was the flirt. Not in any way trying to be rude, but I honestly think most MM are only as faithful as their options particularly when it comes to someone younger and attractive/more attractive than his W. Sorry to say.

 

I think comparable blame is appropriate in most As (when the M is known), but I think the majority (technically all) of the blame belongs to MM. Whether or not he wants to, he has vowed an obligation to be faithful. He has agreed and created a commitment to and expectation of fidelity as did his W. Only two people have entered that agreement and only those two people are responsible and needed to uphold it. Society may feel the OW/OM has a moral obligation as it relates to an A, but the choice is up to her (him where applicable). If the AP feels she has comprised her morals/moral obligation then she will feel some shared responsibility. If she doesn’t have a sense of “moral” obligation then she won’t feel partly to blame. The same logic IMO applies to BW. Those who put the emphasis on OW’s morality/role (only knowing she sleeps with or pursues MM i.e. she’s a low-life) over the obligations of MM/H (who she knows has morals and is a “good” man) will assign more blame to OW (which I think for some is easier to do). I think it is a mistake regardless of how the A happened, and the only focus needed is the acknowledgment that she was the AP, nothing else. Even if she “caused” the A, BW’s focus should be on why H was susceptible or became agreeable to it.

 

(I also apologize for being long-winded.)

[UpwardForward]

I read on the net a few yrs ago, a marriage counselor's rendition of what is expected in a marriage.

 

The spouses to not have personal communication exchanges with opposite sex - outside the M. Just polite exchanges when two must work together.

 

So I would say that if the M person keeps their boundary, then it would be expected that the OM/OW do the same.

[UpwardForward]

I didn’t pursue xMM, but I’d intentionally put myself in his environment in hopes that he would approach me. When he did, we flirted and talked a little, and it was clear that we both were interested in each other. xMM never mentioned he was married, and I didn’t notice his wedding ring until after I’d given him my number. However, it only made him more attractive. I touched his ring/finger and told him that “I like that” meaning that he was a MM (not sure if he understood). Even though his M wasn’t the factor in my initial attraction to him, it was the reason why I continued for most of the A.

 

I never really “targeted” married men in the sense that I was the purser, but I would “target” them meaning I had purposeful thought in “choosing” a MM (either getting him or making him admit he wanted to cheat on his W with me) and I had certain criteria for “candidates”. Sometimes the attraction came first and his M heightened it. Sometimes his M became the attraction. Still, I was not the aggressor, but I was the flirt. Not in any way trying to be rude, but I honestly think most MM are only as faithful as their options particularly when it comes to someone younger and attractive/more attractive than his W. Sorry to say.

 

 

I can see this. That more of an attraction to a MM, because he's taken/chosen - so he must be better - or gooder ..

 

Also MM appear to be more relaxed and communicative.

[wellwhynot]

So your experience was different from that of the OP's...because "neo" did go out of his way to pursue an affair relationship with you.

 

If you're talking about me (as the original poster...I'm just checking because someone meant OP as other person and I still get confused with all these abbreviations) then I'm not sure it's different?

I also was very much pursued by the man in my life.. which is why I was so surprised to discover the number of stories claiming that the OW was the one doing all the pursuing. I thought it would be interesting to look at the dynamics of the relationships vs who reached out to who.

In my case, He wooed me, courted me really. When we did turn to each other, it was with smiles and open eyes.. I do own my part, but he did make the effort to seek me out. I think most of the time that is the case, they go out of their way to pursue. Just my experience.

[wellwhynot]

I can see this. That more of an attraction to a MM, because he's taken/chosen - so he must be better - or gooder ..

 

Also MM appear to be more relaxed and communicative.

 

I don't see this at all. There's LOTS of married men in the world. I've only ever been interested in one, because it the person I was interested in, not that fact that he was taken. I see THAT as a drawback.

[RickFox]

My xMW pursued me. I noticed her from day one, Im sure she caught me looking but for me it was never more than a passing glance until one day she found out my daughter was best friends with hers and she couldn't wait to invite me and my wife to the birthday party....so she said. She said she just wanted me there and wanted to be near me or get a chance to talk to me. We exchanged pleasantries a few times and then after I got injured at work, we seemed to get a bit closer, texting was a regular thing.....

 

She finally approached and made it known she thought I was "hot" and I told her I thought she was too, and the lunch date we planned was cancelled and as she hopped in my lap, she said "let's have fun with this and see where it goes." I'm not any less guilty than she is, I allowed it to happen, even when she said, "I never thought you were one who would be open to something like this" My dumb response was "Neither did I."

 

Dumbest damn thing I ever did.

[SidLyon]

I'm not sure it's useful to determine who pursues who, the most.

 

What is apparent to me though, is that usually both people strongly pursue "the relationship".

Edited May 16, 2012 by SidLyon

[wellwhynot]

I'm not sure it's useful to determine who pursues who, the most.

 

What is apparent to me though, is that usually both people strongly pursue "the relationship".

 

People do all kinds of things in life that may or may not be useful. Knowledge is always useful and a good idea. Therefore, looking at things and wondering and questioning, trying to determine, may be helpful to someone.

[wellwhynot]

Just not the knowledge of the BS, that would be too inconvenient and not a very good idea, even if it could be helpful for them. The pursuit really isn't that big an issue...it is the action that follow that has the greatest impact.

 

 

I have lots of knowledge of the BS, but I don't think that's what you were trying to imply here.

 

It isn't that it would be inconvenient or not a good idea for her to know, frankly, if she finds out she finds out. It's just his place to tell her, not mine.

 

But that doesn't really have much to do with the conversation. The conversation was about pursuit and I think it IS a big issue. The actions that follow may have a greater impact on the BS, but this thread isn't about the BS. It's about the relationships betwen the OW/OM and their lover.

Edited May 16, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[frozensprouts]

I have lots of knowledge of the BS, but I don't think that's what you were trying to imply here. I think you were just trying to be snide.

 

It isn't that it would be inconvenient or not a good idea for her to know, frankly, if she finds out she finds out. It's just his place to tell her, not mine.

 

But that doesn't really have much to do with the conversation. The conversation was about pursuit and I think it IS a big issue. The actions that follow may have a greater impact on the BS, but this thread isn't about the BS. It's about the relationships betwen the OW/OM and their lover.

 

fair enough...

but if this question re: who pursued who is being asked as it relates o to the other man/woman and the wayward spouse, then how is the question of who pursued who even really relevant? Why does it matter? Does it hold any relevance to the affair relationship itself, or is the question more related to the betrayed spouse ( "he pursued me, not the other way around")...

 

maybe the relevance of who pursued who is relevant in affairs, but not in "regular" romantic relationships. I've been in romantic relationships before, and the question of who pursued who never , ever mattered. Why would it? why would it really matter that much to either the other man/woman or the wayward spouse?

[nofool4u]

I think most woman know what actions will attract men to them. Men respond to signals a woman sends out. So even if the man first approached the woman it could be that he is responding to a non-verbal signal she gave him.

 

Exactly! And someone who gets it. This is also the very reason why "flirting" is not harmless.

[jwi71]

fair enough...

but if this question re: who pursued who is being asked as it relates o to the other man/woman and the wayward spouse, then how is the question of who pursued who even really relevant? Why does it matter? Does it hold any relevance to the affair relationship itself, or is the question more related to the betrayed spouse ( "he pursued me, not the other way around")...

 

maybe the relevance of who pursued who is relevant in affairs, but not in "regular" romantic relationships. I've been in romantic relationships before, and the question of who pursued who never , ever mattered. Why would it? why would it really matter that much to either the other man/woman or the wayward spouse?

 

Of course it matters "who pursued whom".

 

It matters on d-day, when, unsurprisingly, we learn how the AP pursued the WS relentlessly. It matters when the OM/OW's spouse/mother/priest/"respected but in the dark" person learns of the A when, unsurprisingly, the OM/OW was relentlessly pursued by the WS.

 

It's an excuse. A justification conjured by the weak-minded to absolve themselves of guilt/responsibility. A thin attempt to weasel out of his/her role in the A. It's classic deflection and minimization.

 

Does it truly matter? Of course not. Most people are not forced into A's and the few that are - those are felonies (kidnapping, rape, blackmail, etc).

 

An A is a conscious choice by both parties. Who pursued whom more is akin to asking two fighting 7 year olds "who started it".

[Spark1111]

fair enough...

but if this question re: who pursued who is being asked as it relates o to the other man/woman and the wayward spouse, then how is the question of who pursued who even really relevant? Why does it matter? Does it hold any relevance to the affair relationship itself, or is the question more related to the betrayed spouse ( "he pursued me, not the other way around")...

 

maybe the relevance of who pursued who is relevant in affairs, but not in "regular" romantic relationships. I've been in romantic relationships before, and the question of who pursued who never , ever mattered. Why would it? why would ite thy matter that much to either the other man/woman or the wayward spouse?

 

In the original post, doesn't it state that BS often post that the the AP pursued their spouse?

 

I think what BS feel or don't feel is germane to this thread.

 

I think they pursued a mutual attraction to each other at their workplace that progressed to an emotional affair that then became a physical affair.

 

I think in the care and feeding of that attraction, I grew less important and so did the marriage. A lot of history had to be re-written.

 

 

 

I think posters have stated they were pursued or did the pursuing, one honestly claiming that when she realized he was married, she became even more intrigued.

 

So, obviously many a BS who has a gut reaction after learning many of the facts, cannot be wrong. Sometimes their spouse pursued, sometimes the AP did.

[Summer Breeze]

Of course it matters "who pursued whom".

 

It matters on d-day, when, unsurprisingly, we learn how the AP pursued the WS relentlessly. It matters when the OM/OW's spouse/mother/priest/"respected but in the dark" person learns of the A when, unsurprisingly, the OM/OW was relentlessly pursued by the WS.

 

It's an excuse. A justification conjured by the weak-minded to absolve themselves of guilt/responsibility. A thin attempt to weasel out of his/her role in the A. It's classic deflection and minimization.

 

Does it truly matter? Of course not. Most people are not forced into A's and the few that are - those are felonies (kidnapping, rape, blackmail, etc).

 

An A is a conscious choice by both parties. Who pursued whom more is akin to asking two fighting 7 year olds "who started it".

 

 

I agree with some of what you said but I also have to note that BS both in here and some I've known put huge stock into believing it was the OW/OM who did the pursuing. It mattered to them more than I've seen it matter to anyone else in an A.

 

In all honesty I guess I wasn't pursued and I didn't pursue. We knew each other and it grew after a few years. I think someone hit it right on. At some point we were both pursuing the R. Our last dday she told me she only accepted it because she convinced herself I pursued him. He didn't tell her that. She chose to believe it. That came from her mouth and I didn't refute it. In truth at each dday I walked away as he knew I would and he always initiated contact.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Originally Posted by Mme. Chaucer

I personally have known 2 women who seem to make a project out of getting involved with married men. They'd deny it if you asked them outright, but it's pretty easy to see the pattern from an outside perspective.

 

 

That's very interesting. I've never met even one and I have made friends with others on this and other forums FOR other women. I don't actually think I know anyone that has been involved with more than one married man.

I wonder what kind of demographics are at play when that happens.

 

These 2 women are pretty close friends of mine. #1 is now seriously involved with a man who left his wife to be with her - and she is getting a divorce herself. (Both of those marriages - her THIRD - were in the toilet for a while already.) Right before this, she was messing around with a different married man who happens to be the close friend of the current one.

 

I believe that she wants to keep herself "protected" so she chooses (subconsciously) to flirt with unavailable men. She has awful boundaries, and there is a lot of "partying" involved as well, so the flirting has led to more. She is enchanting, so the men fall for her.

 

This relationship is not going to last, I am certain. I think he believes he's found the love of his life, and she is going to feel trapped and make an escape.

 

#2 recently went through a horrible marriage and divorce. Her ex husband did not respond to her as a sexy & sexual woman AT ALL. She was mostly a mommy. And, he cheated.

 

She talks to me all the time about her escapades. She "doesn't understand" why one married man after another is coming on to her. From my perspective, she is (subconsciously, again) choosing men who are "taken" and then beaming a bunch of attention their way. There is also a big element of "confirmation bias" at play. She wants to "prove" that men are basically dogs. Personally, I know how easy it is to deflect unwanted attention from the "wrong" men, or to encourage it. I think that having a man who is "taken" be attracted to her, and be willing to risk his relationship to have sex with her, is feeding her starved ego in a way that she deeply craves.

 

Interestingly, friend #2 is very disapproving of the behavior of friend #1. #2 has only had sex with one married man so far, but she has flirtations with more. She tells them things like, "Well, get back to me after your divorce" and continues flirting. #1 gets full out involved.

 

Both of these women (along with a large group of other people) were at my home last summer for an event and I observed them BOTH flirting madly with the judge of the event, who is a married guy from far away with probably NO experience of this kind of onslaught. They didn't want to have any kind of a relationship or sex with him, they were just enjoying getting him all off balance. They were texting him nonstop and friend # 1 sat on his lap (drinking was involved, as usual). The texting continues to this day.

 

As for demographics - both are "middle class" college graduates in their 40's. Attractive. All involved have disposable income and time to participate in an arcane hobby / sport that requires a lot of commitment and being together with a core group of people at competitions.

 

Frankly (yes, I am an old stick in the mud) I am horrified by the behavior of these friends of mine. Certainly, it doesn't say much for the men who are so easily swayed by drunken texting and lap sitting, or whatever, but they really are not my concern and my women friends are. I wish they would respect commitments made between other people that don't concern them, and steer clear - especially in our own tight knit group of co-competitors. It makes me lose respect for them.

[wellwhynot]

Of course it matters "who pursued whom".

 

It matters on d-day, when, unsurprisingly, we learn how the AP pursued the WS relentlessly. It matters when the OM/OW's spouse/mother/priest/"respected but in the dark" person learns of the A when, unsurprisingly, the OM/OW was relentlessly pursued by the WS.

 

It's an excuse. A justification conjured by the weak-minded to absolve themselves of guilt/responsibility. A thin attempt to weasel out of his/her role in the A. It's classic deflection and minimization.

 

Does it truly matter? Of course not. Most people are not forced into A's and the few that are - those are felonies (kidnapping, rape, blackmail, etc).

 

An A is a conscious choice by both parties. Who pursued whom more is akin to asking two fighting 7 year olds "who started it".

 

I own my pieces of this. I always have. Deflecting the blame away from the one who took the vows with you could equally be called weak minded. .

 

Would it make you feel better if I said, of course your spouse didn't want to stray? of course it had NOTHING to do with you or any failure within the marriage? That married men/women are relentlessly pursued by packs of magical witches who cast spells of enchantment over them and they never, ever, ever would have betrayed you otherwise? That they were thinking of you when they were on romantic dates with their lovers, that they weren't thinking of her/him while they were sleeping with you?

 

Why not. There ya go, there's your fairy tale. It's all lies of course. Ya'll are so convinced we do nothing but lie, I thought for a change I'd tell some.

Edited May 16, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[jwi71]

I agree with some of what you said but I also have to note that BS both in here and some I've known put huge stock into believing it was the OW/OM who did the pursuing. It mattered to them more than I've seen it matter to anyone else in an A.

 

Look, we are referencing brighterwashing here as the latest incarnation of this.

And, to me, it's like trying to figure out who is to blame MORE for a spouse eating a donut: the person eating it or the person offering it. Doesn't matter. It was offered and accepted - two sides of the same coin and one is no worse than the other.

 

I'm not sure I can make reference to the BS perspective here. I guess if I get a PM from Stephanie/Wiiliam I was wrong . The BS engages in this behavior for some of the same reasons the other two nitwits do: deflection and minimalization. If the Bzs can external the threat to the M they typically do. It's easier to fight an external threat than face an internal betrayal. So the BS focuses outside (the OW/OM) because it APPEARS to be easier. It isn't and this rug sweeping doesn't truly solve things.

 

In all honesty I guess I wasn't pursued and I didn't pursue. We knew each other and it grew after a few years. I think someone hit it right on. At some point we were both pursuing the R. Our last dday she told me she only accepted it because she convinced herself I pursued him. He didn't tell her that. She chose to believe it. That came from her mouth and I didn't refute it. In truth at each dday I walked away as he knew I would and he always initiated contact.

 

Totally agree. At some point, the A becomes a mutual goal.