"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

[Spark1111]

There ^^^ is why I said more.

 

It's not my view, Silly Girl, but it is a view that is held. Is it sexist? Yes. Is it fair, probably not.

 

In many circles, women are held to a higher standard, especially where other women and children are concerned. Few will ever hold them blameless. Not happening.

 

Certainly no one introduces themselves as this is my wife. She was my former AP. Have never heard that once, ever. Why? It would be judged, poorly.

 

 

Will it change in my lifetime? Don't think so.

[Silly_Girl]

If a person is trying to insert themselves in "anyone of a number of marriages," I would deem them to be a world - class wannabe homewrecker even if their efforts were all failures.

 

Seriously, wouldn't you?

 

You can say that. Or you could acknowledge the point I made.

[Quiet Storm]

From reading on LS, it seems to me that most (not all) OW feel that affairs are wrong. However, they feel that MM's circumstances, or their intense feelings for MM, justify their participation in an affair. They don't "want" to be in affair, but tolerate it in order to have the man.

 

It seems that many OW go against the standards of society, which are also the standards that they themselves once believed in (affairs & lying are wrong).

 

My belief is that they often find themselves in affairs because of poor boundaries. If someone feels that affairs are wrong, and has boundaries that match that belief, then they would not ever get to the point of developing feelings. They would not ever get to hear or care about MM's unmet needs, they woudn't put themselves in close proximity...and no feelings would develop. If no feelings develop, then they would not be drawn into an affair, a situation that most OW think (or originally thought) was wrong.

 

So OW do not want to be judged and called homewrecker, but most, IMO, do not truly feel that affairs and lying are OK. Affairs are not optimal relationships for most OW, they are tolerable, but not want most OW truly want.

 

We all know that MM should protect his marriage. He should not seek out OW, and should resist OW that seek him out. This is his job to do for his marriage and family.

 

Now imagine a random pre-OW, BEFORE she has feelings for MM. This woman wants to meet someone and have a relationship. She thinks cheating is wrong, and knows that being cheated on would hurt. She thinks trust is important. She doesn't lie and doesn't want to be lied to. She doesn't really think much about OW because she never imagines that she will be one.

 

This woman is pursued by a MM. This MM should be protecting his marriage. This MM should not be acting like a "hound dog". He is 100% wrong.

 

The woman has two options. She can stand by her beliefs that affairs are wrong and choose not to engage with MM. She does this by having boundaries regarding her interations with MM. Having boundaires is not "policing MM's sexuality". It's simply adhering to her own standards. She doesn't think affairs are right, so she is not going to get close or have deep conversations with a married man. She is not responsbile for protecting his marriage, but she is making sure her own actions are in line with her personal beliefs.

 

If the woman allows MM to talk to her, flirt with her, share feelings, then the boundaries will become blurred. Her personal interaction with MM will cause a conflict with her standards and beliefs. She will begin to second guess, make excuses and justify why her beliefs should not apply to this situation. Her desire for MM will begin to override the standards that she once held for herself, and the rest of society. She begins an affair, falls in love with MM. She feels that her reasons for an affair are valid, and expects the rest of society to agree and not judge her.

 

So most affairs do not happen because there are all these OW with no values that think affairs are OK- most affairs happen because of poor boundaries. When your standards and beliefs are not protected by strong boundaries, lines get blurred.

 

It is MM's responsbility to have his OWN BOUNDARIES to protect his marriage. But it is OW's responsibility to have her OWN BOUNDARIES to match her standards and feelings of right & wrong. For her own benefit. Not to police MM. Not to save BW from her cheater husband.

 

Many OW would have spared themselves a world of hurt if they had only stayed true to themselves. And this is where the judgement comes from others....many of us do have boundaries that match our values, and it's hard for us to understand "blurred" lines, or things that "just happen".

 

(this does not apply to women or societies where infidelity is acceptable).

[Got it]

Can you write a post without a straw man?

 

Men chase, women respond to the chase. That is the nature of the beast.

 

Exceptions to the rule exists, but the norm is: The man chases, the female responds.

 

 

Straw man? How did I misrepresent your argument?

[SidLyon]

Well you did ask whether it was just lazy terminology. I happen to think it's a short-cut way of saying something, that happens to be quite appropriate in the circumstances. Although I agree the term "homewrecker" applies also to the WS.

 

In my case the blame for betraying me and our children, breaking his promises and failing to keep his commitments rests squarely with my fWH. On the other hand the OW gets all the blame for inserting herself into my marriage, without my knowledge and for coming into my home to screw my husband (irrespective that she may have felt "invited" - I certainly didn't invite her into my marriage and family home).

 

Sounds like you believe you had a blameless OW when your H cheated. That must have been so painful. I know it would have been very difficult for me had I felt she was blameless except perhaps if she was an unknowing OW.

 

Why is it painful to not blame the OW? Painful was seeing the man who wilfully and consistently broke every promise he made me in front of people and in our private moments. Painful was to realize every moment of the months he cheated were a lie and what I had seen as my life was laid waste by someone who was meant to protect me. I didn't care what she did. I cared what he did. That was pain.

 

...

 

Underwater - the post above does not - to me - say that the WS bore more responsibility.

 

I thought it would be a no-brainer and the fact it isn't is of interest to me.

 

Why would it have been painful? She did not cause me pain. The actions of my OH caused me pain. She made a decision for herself, for her reasons. He went against a promise to me, knowing full well it would hurt me.

 

....

 

I thought my posts made it clear that I think the WS and the AP are responsible (aka "to blame") for different things. The WS for the betrayal and all that goes with it, the AP for interfering in someone else's marriage and aiding and abetting the WS. Both these things caused immense pain to me. It is difficult for me to separate out whose actions caused the most pain to me. I realise you don't agree but you did appear to be asking for other opinions.

 

Because I hold this view I consider the actions of the OW in my instance caused me immense pain. I realise you (Silly Girl and SummerBreeze) are saying in your cases this was different (ie when you were BWs, the OW actions did not cause you pain and therefore you had nothing to blame them for).

 

From my perspective if I considered my fWH had been betraying me with a "blameless" OW then that means I would have to completely absolve her of responsibility for her actions in inserting herself into my marriage and home. I wasn't and still am not able to do that. I also realise many OW do consider themselves blameless and would want the BW in their own situation to not "blame" them.

 

To me it's a no-brainer that OW are responsible for their own actions and that many BW will hold them responsible. What's interesting to me is that many OW want to believe that BWs are blaming them for their WH's betrayal, the dishonesty the broken promises and commitments, when as fas as I can see the BW are holding them responsible for their own actions.

Edited April 5, 2013 by SidLyon

[Got it]

OK, this is what you said:

 

 

 

In response this post:

 

 

 

You simply took my statement and made it look bad by saying I support the inequality of men and women. You further state that I said women are ultimately responsible for both sexes sexuality and fidelity.

 

That is not what I said in my post. I simply said that men and women are different when it comes to sex. The men chase and the women respond to the courting. That in itself does not mean I think less of women. That does not mean I promote the inequality of men and women. It is what it is. Men have a penis and testicles whereas women have ovaries and a vagina.

 

 

In fact, when it comes to SEX I believe the women are superior to men. SEX happens only and when the woman decides to have SEX. That in itself is power.

 

But, I forgive you because it is very easy to use straw men in the forum. In fact everybody does it including myself. And If I use a straw man I would hope you call me on it.

 

I never asked for forgiveness nor do I need it. My conscious is clear.

[MissBee]

If a person is trying to insert themselves in "anyone of a number of marriages," I would deem them to be a world - class wannabe homewrecker even if their efforts were all failures.

 

Seriously, wouldn't you?

 

Lol true.

 

If you kept trying to sleep with all these men who turned you down, I still think you're promiscuous. All that happened is that you got rejected, but it doesn't change the fact that you were seeking it out.

 

Just like cheating, if my spouse tried to chat up or have sex with women who turned him down, so he never got to do it...ummm he's STILL a cheater by his behavior and intentions.

[SidLyon]

Lol true.

 

If you kept trying to sleep with all these men who turned you down, I still think you're promiscuous. All that happened is that you got rejected, but it doesn't change the fact that you were seeking it out.

 

Just like cheating, if my spouse tried to chat up or have sex with women who turned him down, so he never got to do it...ummm he's STILL a cheater by his behavior and intentions.

 

Old fashioned as the term "homewrecker" may be it is a very good description for the OW that my fWH had the A with. It was obvious from the e-mails that I saw, that she was "coming on" to my H long before the A started and before he reciprocated. It clearly took him a while to realise what she was doing. However once he did he went for it in a big way (and that's on him of course).

 

As anyone who followed my story knows she was also having an A with another MM, who left his BW (and 4 children) for the OW once she realised that my H wasn't leaving me (the day after the e-mail was sent advising her of this in fact). According to the other BW, the OW pursued the other MM relentlessly; he too reciprocated of course. She finally agreed to be with him once she knew my H wasn't going to leave me.

 

The OW has been, although she is now with the other MM, pursuing yet another MM who by all accounts is not only is aware of what she is up to but has actually been resisting!

 

At the time she started the A with my H (11 years ago now!) she was in the process of ending her previous A, but from what my H tells me he knew there was some overlap there too.

 

"Homewrecker" - very apt and totally appropriate I think, in her case.

[jnel921]

I beleive the modern day term is trick.

Edited April 6, 2013 by jnel921

[Silly_Girl]

I beleive the modern day term is trick.

 

Is that an American term? It's not something I've seen on this forum.

[cocorico]

 

Certainly no one introduces themselves as this is my wife. She was my former AP. Have never heard that once, ever. Why? It would be judged, poorly.

 

 

Will it change in my lifetime? Don't think so.

 

I suspect that the reason you don't hear people "introducing themselves" thus is because they sense from your attitude that you would take against them for that, and so they withhold that information out of respect to the host to avoid causing a scene. I can imagine that if I was invited to dinner at a colleague's, and encountered <such a person> there I would probably also keep it quiet out of respect toward my colleague.

 

Outside of that kind of situation - why ever not? Not on first introduction, that's simply gauche and TMI, just like you don't discuss your health as you're shaking hands for the first time, or mention which political party you support. But hiding it, not at all. Because we're obviously of different nationalities, my H and I are often asked by new people we meet, how we met. And we tell them. We don't omit that it was an A, or gloss over the fact that shedding his vestigial then-W created some logistical constraints on his side, and we're quite open that it's never been a secret and have no problem with anyone knowing. We've never encountered any judgment or disapproval, only encouragement and happiness at love conquering the obstacles.

Edited April 6, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[cocorico]

Two thoughts. Firstly, how very unfair! Secondly, I have never, ever heard the term 'homewrecker' used in the UK.

 

Agreed.

 

But take it whence it comes. If people's Ms are so fragile they need to make themselves feel better by demonising others, then that's what they'll do, however irrational it is.

 

Frankly, I couldn't care less what some insecure bigot calls me. I wear their disdain with pride - it only shows the distance between us, which reaffirms my position.

[eleanorrigby]

Agreed.

 

But take it whence it comes. If people's Ms are so fragile they need to make themselves feel better by demonising others, then that's what they'll do, however irrational it is.

 

Frankly, I couldn't care less what some insecure bigot calls me. I wear their disdain with pride - it only shows the distance between us, which reaffirms my position.

 

I feel the same way.. but from a different perspective.

[KathyM]

So if people don't like someone that is screwing around with their husband, or trying to, and refer to them as a homewrecker, they are a bigot and how dare they show dislike for such a person. But the person who is actually disrespecting and damaging the marriage and family to the extent that they are actively having an affair with a married person, or trying to, is on an elevated plane that should be respected, and that behavior is not to be disrespected at all, less we should be classified as bigots if we don't respect the affair relationship. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. People can break into my home and steel everything, but I had better not call them a thief or I am scum of the earth.

 

I find it a little strange, that people think it's perfectly OK to steel someone's husband and go after someone's husband, but if someone holds the person accountable for his destructive actions, THAT is a horrible crime. An act of bigotry even. So the action itself is not horrible, but holding someone accountable is what is horrible. That's pretty twisted thinking. Everyone is responsible for his own actions. No more and no less. Everyone is within their rights to dislike destructive actions that are taken against you. And if that means that part of that dislike is to refer to the AP as a homewrecker, which her/his actions is definitely causing or contributing to, then so be it. It's kind of funny that some people think they can do any kind of destructive thing, and they should be held totally blameless, but we had better be fine with their actions, because if we are not, we are bigots for not accepting those actions and holding people accountable who seek or act to do damage to us.

[Mme. Chaucer]

There's no difference in Ow in the past and now, it's just a matter of old fashioned terminology.

 

That is not true. There have always been exceptions, but in the past, in western cultures anyway, the MAN "took" a mistress and "KEPT" her for whatever length of time pleased him, until he was done. And the kept woman was completely aware of it.

 

Yes, some married women did it with men, and in some cases a real relationship and lasting love developed. But this whole concept of finding and maintaining your true love with a married man, and having a lot of other women with a similar situation to offer mutual support, is not historically the normal status for married men who have extramarital dalliances.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Originally Posted by Summer Breeze

It seems pretty clear from this thread the other norm is: A man cheats, it's socially accepted the woman gets the heat.

 

I am speaking only for myself, but if ANY woman, knowing my husband was a married man, tried in ANY way to "insert herself" into our marriage, I would have many, much more salty invectives to hurl her way than "homewrecker," though I'd probably include that one as well. Maybe some objects would be hurled, as well.

 

If my husband went for it, or initiated it? The prognosis for him would be even worse!

 

Frankly, I don't have any respect for women or men who maintain relationships with married people, and I have even less respect for a married person who philanders.

 

Sorry if that comes off as bashing, but it's my own feeling on the matter. Coming from a person who's been on both sides of the scenario.

[Mme. Chaucer]

You can say that. Or you could acknowledge the point I made.

 

I don't dispute that a cheater is a scumbag who deserves bad names. Like "scumbag."

 

The point of this entire thread, though, is whether the term "homewrecker" is appropriate, and IMO a person who consciously tries to insert themselves between married people is the exemplification of the fine word.

 

It's a colorful and descriptive term! "Lazy terminology"? What does that even mean? Language is fun.

 

I think that constantly referring to every woman who's having sex with a married man as "OW" and everybody who's married to a cheater as "BS" is really lazy terminology. Seriously.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Originally Posted by Silly_Girl

I have never, ever heard the term 'homewrecker' used in the UK.

 

Maybe this is a case of selective hearing, then? Here's a link from a publication in the UK that uses it in the headline and liberally throughout the article, for your edification:

 

Tulisa blasted as homewrecker by Stephanie Ward the girlfriend of X Factor judge's date Danny Simpson - 3am & Mirror Online

 

I googled. There are a plethora of other examples as well, if you're interested.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Some OWs feel a bit of shame or guilt whereas other OWs proudly display lack of empathy bordering on antisocial behavior.

 

I do not think that shame and guilt are necessary. But the lack of empathy I see from a handful of posters is chilling.

 

There seems to be no problem with criticizing the marriage or the wife, and a complete denial of ANY contribution to pain and wreckage on their own part.

 

Like, only what is personally affecting them has any validity, when other people are profoundly involved.

 

I have done things that I wanted to do for my own benefit that had negative consequences for other people. Thank goodness I had awareness of that. I still did the things anyway, because what I wanted was more important, to me, than any consequences to anybody else. But the awareness that I was making a destructive choice (ultimately destructive to myself as well) was lurking.

 

I'm not aggrandizing myself. I bet my behavior was worse than that of many I take issue with here. I am just saying that my awareness, no matter how tiny, of the far reaching effects of what I did not only on myself but on other people helped me to develop in a way that I'm happy about.

 

And I find it alarming that this awareness is absent, and eagerness to blame is the norm, among a core group of affair-havers here.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

In respect of my post, it's simple: Taking the moral high ground isn't terribly attractive at the best of times

 

That might be a very telling point of view, SG. I find taking the moral high ground a very attractive trait. I require it in friends and loved ones, and I hope I instilled it in my daughter.

 

I seriously doubt that it's commonly viewed as unattractive to take the moral high ground.

[Silly_Girl]

Originally Posted by Silly_Girl

 

 

Maybe this is a case of selective hearing, then? Here's a link from a publication in the UK that uses it in the headline and liberally throughout the article, for your edification:

 

Tulisa blasted as homewrecker by Stephanie Ward the girlfriend of X Factor judge's date Danny Simpson - 3am & Mirror Online

 

I googled. There are a plethora of other examples as well, if you're interested.

 

If you read down you'll see I was aware of the term but had never been in the presence of someone using it.

[eleanorrigby]

If you read down you'll see I was aware of the term but had never been in the presence of someone using it.

 

I don't think that's unusual. The only time I've ever heard the term used in real life was from the OW in my situations mother. She was trying to assure me that I was mistaken and that her daughter was not a home wrecker, because she (the mom) was a minister and very involved in their church.

[Mrs.Dee]

 

Throughout history women get the chit deal in infidelity, it isn't right, it isn't fair, but that is the way it is. Perhaps someday it will be viewed by society more fairly, more equitable but when it's personal and in your own door I understand why someone is unable to see it that way.

Well luckily we have already arrived at that day where I come from, and it would be concidered very very old fashioned to generally blame the female in an infidelity. ( Like not something someone in my own generation would do)

 

The man has free will, there is no deceit, it is not like he does not understand what he is doing and that it is wrong and making the female more to blame than him would really be the same as saying females are more comptent then men.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Mrs.Dee

[awkward]

When you discuss infidelity with others, do they call the other woman "OW"? What type of terminology have you heard?

[awkward]

Some of the things I read on this forum is really backwards. For instance, the MM is misunderstood or just trying to be happy rather than a liar and a cheat. The OW as someone who doesn't want to hurt anyone and just wants to be happy rather than an interloper in someone's marriage. The BS as the crazy person rather than the victim of the two others.

 

Most people, even cheaters, believe that affairs are wrong. Many people judge both the MM and OW for the affair. Even MM judge OW. Once they "escape" their horrible marriage, they often decide to date somebody else. OW judge OOW.

 

The MM deserves the blame for what he has done. The OW deserves the blame for what she has done. Each one making bad choices that affect many others. Each culpable for their own part.

 

If one is in fact trying to break up a marriage and a home, the term home wrecker seems a correct way to describe it. If this situation was acceptable in society, then people wouldn't be afraid to discuss their love with others. Usually only one or two close friends are told. There is a reason that affairs are hidden, my best guess is because those that hide it know it is wrong.