"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

[Furious]

yes, perhaps that is sometimes the case. I think also that a spouse that perpetuates an aggressive, verbally abusive and manipulative role, in front of their children, over many years, is also a homewrecker, even if they wreck the home they married into. Being married doesn't necessarily imply building a 'home'. Many marriages are simply wrecks.

 

True in some cases, but wouldn't that qualify for the two people in the marriage to either fix it or leave it. Cheating is a bandaid, it fixes nothing.

[Henni]

The above has nothing to do with THIS subject matter. I've noticed you keep doing this throughout most of your posts in this thread, for instance bringing up gay people in a prior post, etc, etc. IMO, if someone wants to keep the credibility regarding a PARTICULAR subject they need to stay on that PARTICULAR subject, which you fail to do. I believe it's called strawman logic.

 

I disagree. The question was whether homewrecker is an appropriate terminology for an OW. My point is that homewreckers can be spouses, OW, WS, or whatever, but to call all OW 'homewreckers' is incorrect. How is that off topic?

[Henni]

The above has nothing to do with THIS subject matter. I've noticed you keep doing this throughout most of your posts in this thread, for instance bringing up gay people in a prior post, etc, etc. IMO, if someone wants to keep the credibility regarding a PARTICULAR subject they need to stay on that PARTICULAR subject, which you fail to do. I believe it's called strawman logic.

 

I brought up historical hiding of relationships in another thread, and how not all hidden relationships are 'wrong' by definition, but may be hidden because of societal norms, which change, for example historical gay relationships, relationships which were considered innapropriate due to class systems, race in racist societies, whatever. What you're doing there by bringing it up out of context here is called misrepresentation.

[Henni]

Oh........that's quite funny, that you are accusing me of misrepresentation. :lmao:

 

Thanks for the laugh.

 

You're welcome. You did in fact misrepresent or misunderstand my point about secret relationships not being wrong by definition, IMO. You also avoided responding to: >>My point is that homewreckers can be spouses, OW, WS, or whatever, but to call all OW 'homewreckers' is incorrect. How is that off topic?<< If it is off topic, how?

[Henni]

True in some cases, but wouldn't that qualify for the two people in the marriage to either fix it or leave it. Cheating is a bandaid, it fixes nothing.

 

Yes this is true, sometimes marriages are fixed after an affair, sometimes people have 'exit affairs' which finally give them the push they need to end a bad marriage. It's not a black and white OW are homewreckers / homewreckers assistant's thing.

[Silly_Girl]

That is not the same question you started the thread with........but since you asked, the WS bears the main culpability with assistance from the ow/om.

 

But... it was the question. Because I was stunned as to how the OW could be termed in that way, when there is a complicit WS. Essentially the question was, therefore, about who wrecks the home.

[Henni]

But... it was the question. Because I was stunned as to how the OW could be termed in that way, when there is a complicit WS. Essentially the question was, therefore, about who wrecks the home.

 

Right, that is how I understood your question too. There are many parties who might play the role of homewrecker, not necessarily the OW, but also the WS, or even the BS, depending on the reasons why the marriage is in trouble. Using this term for all OW is discrimination.

[Silly_Girl]

I thought this thread was about a term and whether it fits a person with certain personality traits.

 

No, it wasn't.

[Henni]

I thought this thread was about a term and whether it fits a person with certain personality traits. That's the criteria I think most people use when they apply a specific label t o a person - their behavior. I do anyway.

 

Other Women are not 'a person with certain personality traits'.

[Silly_Girl]

Right, that is how I understood your question too. There are many parties who might play the role of homewrecker, not necessarily the OW, but also the WS, or even the BS, depending on the reasons why the marriage is in trouble. Using this term for all OW is discrimination.

 

That's exactly it.

[Henni]

Apparently you haven't read this entire thread. Not even the last few pages in their entirety. If you had you wouldn't have tried to claim that is what I implied.

 

Originally Posted by Silly_Girl

If the marriage was a sturdy, well-protected fortress, the wrecking ball being 'used' to wreck it would surely bounce off the side and be insignificant....

and you replied:

 

That makes no difference. *Intentions* are what show a person's character, not whether they are good at their bad deeds or not.. If I know someone tries to *do bad*, I don't want them around whether their efforts could possibly be successful or not.

 

So erm....I have read every single one of the posts on this thread at least once, and I was saying 'so, you think all OW's *intentions* are to *do bad*?' because, you argued that homewrecker was an appropriate term for OW.

[eleanorrigby]

But, you see, anyone can do that. It's not classy, but it happens. The question is about whether the OW being the 'homewrecker' (as opposed to the WS) is appropriate.

 

Well. I already cast my vote on whether the term is appropriate. To me it's is.

I was responding that time to whether it's lazy terminology.

To me, it's not.

[wisernow]

In my experience, I've never heard anyone but an OW termed a homewhrecker. Not an OM or a WS. I'm not saying this term always fits, but it just is. Its no different than a promiscuous woman being labeled a slut or a whore. Men seem to get the free pass on that sort of labeling. As a fOW, I'm sure the BS may have labeled me as such, I don't know, nor does it matter to me. It's been that way since the dawn of time. But, if you don't like the labels, it's probably smart to avoid the behaviors, or grow a thick skin, and press on.

[Silly_Girl]

Okay. I went back and read the OP. Seems this is about a person no one - and I mean NO ONE - in this thread even knows. Homewrecker may or may not apply to her. It does apply to some people, however.

 

It's about whether the person a spouse chooses to cheat with should be the person labelled with the derogatory terms, such as 'homewrecker'. Or whether it should be the WS. Or no one.

[eleanorrigby]

If the marriage was a sturdy, well-protected fortress, the wrecking ball being 'used' to wreck it would surely bounce off the side and be insignificant....

 

OK... so what if I change my metaphor to thermite or kryptonite or 1.21 gigawatts of pure destruction?

[Henni]

OK... so what if I change my metaphor to thermite or kryptonite or 1.21 gigawatts of pure destruction?

 

I think then you assume that potential OW have far more power than they actually do to destroy a healthy marriage.

[eleanorrigby]

I think then you assume that potential OW have far more power than they actually do to destroy a healthy marriage.

 

In the hands of a MM an OW is a WMD against the marriage.

[wisernow]

Spouses can most certainly wreck homes, but it's not likely they will be coined home wreckers. More likely, divorcees.

[eleanorrigby]

No thanks, but is your point here to belittle the idea that each relationship is different and that spouses can wreck homes too?

 

No my point was that in general I'm fine with calling OW home wreckers. I might rescind that term for individuals that I don't think merit it because of the circumstances. (OW that didn't know they were OW, open marriages, ones that realize affairs are bullish*t and get out before helping cause more damage, etc)

 

 

And yes, of course spouses can wreck marriages. I've said that already.

[Henni]

Spouses can most certainly wreck homes, but it's not likely they will be coined home wreckers. More likely, divorcees.

 

Yes, very true, if they do divorce. Some might be called abusive wives / husbands too, but not homewreckers.

[Henni]

No my point was that in general I'm fine with calling OW home wreckers. I might rescind that term for individuals that I don't think merit it because of the circumstances. (OW that didn't know they were OW, open marriages, ones that realize affairs are bullish*t and get out before helping cause more damage, etc)

 

 

And yes, of course spouses can wreck marriages. I've said that already.

 

What about the case where a WS realises the marriage was bullsh*t and get out on an exit affair?

[wisernow]

Yes, very true, if they do divorce. Some might be called abusive wives / husbands too, but not homewreckers.

 

Or, poor, put upon victims. Last I checked, all are free to divorce.

[Henni]

lol you are really hung up and pressed about the term home wrecker arn't you?

 

It's the topic of this thread - i.e., that's what this poster wanted to discuss....? I'm not hung up on it any more than any other over simplified, discriminatory terminology people use to generalise and abuse others. I can think of many such terms I hate far more.

[eleanorrigby]

What about the case where a WS realises the marriage was bullsh*t and get out on an exit affair?

 

What are you asking me? What will I call him?

Probably a motherf*cking, cocksucking, *********, piece of sh*t.

 

On one of my good days.

 

Don't worry. The WS is always going to get more descriptive, colorful terms then the OW. Trust.

[Henni]

Or, poor, put upon victims. Last I checked, all are free to divorce.

 

Yes definitely true, they are all free to divorce and many should and will, point was just about the discriminatory terminology for the OW, which several posters seem to blindly accept as appropriate in the general case, as per the example in the OP.