"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

[wisernow]

I am fascinated by the logic in the thread:

 

 

:D:D

 

As I am fascinated with you. Sorry you miss my logic. I refuse to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the OW, just as I'm sure you you would never lay the same blame at the feet of an OM or a MM. I get it.

[Henni]

Okay, based on this reasoning and if the wife isn't in agreement? Let's postulate that she even agrees that the marriage isn't sound or good but she wasn't ready /looking to divorce. What does a "marriage truly being over" mean and who qualifies it?

 

It may not be rocket science but your post is highly subjective, opinionated and based on . . . .

 

I would say that a marriage, or any relationship, is truly over when one of the parties wants it to end and says it's over to the other.

[wisernow]

If the marriage is dead before the arrival of the OW there is no home wrecking. If the OW has collusion with the cheating man before he has made the decision to end the marriage then the OW helped the cheating man end the marriage and she can be called a home wrecker. This is simple logic.

 

Some may say "if not me, someone else". Another variation of "everybody does it"; another ethical fallacy.

 

You may dress up whatever I say, to be high handed and make your point. Feel free. You can keep dismissing my point to make yours. I don't care. Scream it as loud as you need to. I stand by what I said, even if you choose to ignore it, change it, try and push your point. You come off as only wanting to argue for arguments sake. Good on you. I'm sure you'll dismiss me any minute. Doesn't change a thing. I abhor sexist attitudes.

[wisernow]

You said:

 

Sorry you miss my logic. I refuse to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the OW, just as I'm sure you you would never lay the same blame at the feet of an OM or a MM. I get it.

 

I don't disagree with the concept that the cheating man is a home wrecker. But, if MM has an accomplice OW, the OW is also a home wrecker.

 

I get your point.

 

And just because someone is wrecking a marriage does not give me or you the right to join in.[/quote

 

Well, I guess you should have said that, instead of you pitiful attempt at disregarding what I said. Back peddle all you need to. And how the F am I joining in (your words) because I refuse to lay the burden at the feet of the OW? And you want to babble on about flawed logic. Never said that. Again, projection.

[underwater2010]

Because filing for a divorce means, hopefully, first having an agreement with the soon to be ex spouse, about kids, about money, and that takes time.

 

That is beyond true. Yet it still does not make sense to continue in a marriage that is crap and have an affair. If it is that bad a spouse will find a way to make divorce work.

 

Such agreements being reached can be more difficult if another partner is on the scene, because many people get ugly about their spouse's having a new partner, even if they don't want to stay married to them.

 

Which is why it is so much better to divorce someone without having an affair. Exit affairs that are found out just make a divorce more nasty than it has be.

 

And, if there's kids involved they need time to come to terms with the divorce before another person is introduced into their lives.

 

Absolutely agree 100%!!!

 

 

see bolded

[wisernow]

 

Sorry, for not being clear.

 

Than I stand down.

 

My understanding was that you laid the blame at the feet of the OW, giving no place/blame for the MM. If I understood, then I apologize.

[KathyM]

The everybody does it excuse or justification is powerful.

Yes, it's a rationalization that some people like to use. Thing is, no one wants to have their spouse cheat on them, but somehow, when they themselves decide to go down that road, they use the "everyone does it" as a defense mechanism to protect their ego.

[Mme. Chaucer]

That's the point - it WASN'T used as an explanation for why affairs are fine, AT ALL. That's all Pierre's and others projection.

 

I got my impression that it is used that way from reading the posts written by you and the handful of other people here who are pro-affair. Pierre has nothing to do with it. Here is just one of dozens of examples I could share:

 

What about when the man or woman in a bad marriage falls in love with someone else, and begins dissolving their marriage?

 

I have good reading comprehension - and this says to me that if a marriage is bad, then getting involved with someone else is OK.

[Silly_Girl]

It is simple logic.

 

For the final event to occur there needs to be a preceding event to trigger the final outcome.

 

Another way of looking at this:

 

Cheating man + OW = divorce

Cheating man + (no OW) = no divorce

 

Conclusion: OW = home wrecker

 

 

I find that pretty lazy. You could insert an alcohol addiction, or a gambling problem, or an obsession with gaming, or over-eating not exercising and getting fat and lethargic, or depression, or being married to the job and not being home to parent/be a partner.

 

You could put all sorts of things in place of the OW that could/would wreck a marriage, and you would blame the spouse for their actions/choices not <insert other factor here>. So why blame an affair partner? I'm starting to feel like it's some deep-rooted emotional or psychological need as opposed to a rational conclusion, because I just can't see the logic...

Edited April 8, 2013 by Silly_Girl

[Got it]

If the OW influences the decision making she is a home wrecker.

 

 

 

 

It means that the OW had an affair with a man that was not planning a divorce and as a result of the affair the cheating man is getting a divorce.

 

For the OW not to be a home wrecker the marriage needs to be over before she appears on the scene.

 

I cannot state this in more simple terms. What part are you missing?

 

So based on this and your above post there is NO way for the OW not to be a homewrecker as you argue that the one party needs to be moved out and divorcing.

 

So that REALLY runs counter to some of your other posts.

[Got it]

It is simple logic.

 

For the final event to occur there needs to be a preceding event to trigger the final outcome.

 

Another way of looking at this:

 

Cheating man + OW = divorce

Cheating man + (no OW) = no divorce

 

Conclusion: OW = home wrecker

 

In this scenario:

 

Cheating man +(no OW) = divorce

 

Conclusion: OW is not a home wrecker

 

So if there is an OW then she is a homewrecker. Which is COMPLETELY opposite to what you have stated before. OMG you are making NO SENSE.

[Got it]

I think the H of CR was in a truly dead marriage that had ended. She simply showed up at the right time. Funny how you ignored the rest of the post.

 

As I said if the marriage is truly over then the OW is not a home wrecker.

 

IF the cheating man is staying married then the OW is wrecking the marriage.

 

It is not rocket science.

 

I seriously doubt CR had a secret relationship on the side where she was in the shadow,

 

So CR was the OW but you are saying she wasn't a home wrecker. But based on your above logic, if the divorce isn't already in process and the other person has moved out then she would in fact be a homewrecker.

[Got it]

And if you are ATTEMPTING to argue that in your scenario that whether or not there is an OW doesn't make a difference in the "getting a divorce" then I go BACK to my argument from yesterday and ask how do you qualify that, who decides it and who has to be in agreement.

 

Pierre, you tell me I can't argue or understand simple logic. Are you George Bush by chance? Cuz I am having the same level of head scratching.

[Got it]

No, it's over when there the divorce is official, that is what people who are in affairs seem to not understand. You don't just get to say, I don't feel like being married anymore therefor I'm not.

 

So any dating/sex during separation but before the divorce is final would constitute cheating? Even in states that mandate separation periods of a year (and NC who is attempting to push through a 2 year separation period)?

[Got it]

But you understand that most states and most people do not view it as such?

 

How does this betray the other person? If the two sides are separated, living separated and in agreement to divorce, just waiting on the paperwork to be able to be filed and approved, how is it an affair?

 

I think, then, this perimeter of what constitutes an affair is much more broad reaching than what most people believe. This would also greatly increase the number of affairs even by the BS as many do start to date prior to the official divorce.

 

Most states consider it at the time the separation agreement is filed and living in separate households (or some states allow just for the separation agreement) where any sex with another party does not constitute cheating/infidelity.

[Decorative]

I consider it cheating. If I were single I would NEVER get involved with a man who was still married in any sense what so ever. I don't care if he was legal separated and living on his own for ten years. Not divorced, to me, equals still married.

 

If I was in the process of getting divorced the last thing in the world I would do is immediately jump into a new relationship.

 

This is exactly how I see it.

 

For myself, and for the benefit of anyone I would potentially date.

[Decorative]

No, it's over when there the divorce is official, that is what people who are in affairs seem to not understand. You don't just get to say, I don't feel like being married anymore therefor I'm not.

 

Exactly.

 

Marriage is a contract- on a basic level, in addition to other levels.

 

You cannot just end a business contract by saying " all done".

[ComingInHot]

Got It,

What is the Separation for and Why set a time period on it?

 

It is my understanding that separation is for the M couple to step back, spend time Alone to gain perspective as to whether they want to Really go through w/D or not. This would allow for the "homewreckers" (trying to stay on topic ) to also separate so as not to add interference/distraction to such a difficult and life changing event such as D.

 

Am I way off base here? I've Never read or heard what Separation is really all about so I am sincerely asking*

[Silly_Girl]

And now "the everybody does it" excuse includes inanimate objects.

 

Yes, alcohol addiction, gambling. depression can wreck a marriage as efficiently as an OW. So what?

 

This is a festival of ethical fallacies.

 

My point is that the spouse making those choices that impact the M, bears the responsibility. We don't point fingers elsewhere in other scenarios, only this one.

[Silly_Girl]

Of course, the cheating spouse is wrecking the marriage. But, the cheater is wrecking the marriage with a Little Help From Her Friend THE OW.

 

Exactly. The 'help' could come from anywhere. The 'wrecking' is courtesy of the spouse.

[Got it]

Got It,

What is the Separation for and Why set a time period on it?

 

It is my understanding that separation is for the M couple to step back, spend time Alone to gain perspective as to whether they want to Really go through w/D or not. This would allow for the "homewreckers" (trying to stay on topic ) to also separate so as not to add interference/distraction to such a difficult and life changing event such as D.

 

Am I way off base here? I've Never read or heard what Separation is really all about so I am sincerely asking*

 

Many states, including the one I am in requires a year of separation prior to dissolving the marriage. So regardless of where the couple may be they have to take that time period. Yes you could use it as a time period to ponder but many are past that point by the time they file the separation agreement and are waiting because it is required. Some states allow an in house separation (which we are seeing more of due to the economy).

 

I would be interested to see the stats on how many divorces are stopped during the state mandated waiting period compared to the number of divorces filed.

 

Just a side note, most dating sites allow "separated" as a status, EHarmony is one of the few that does not allow anyone outside of divorced/widowed. (It are more religious dating sites that have this difference).

 

Going back to the homewrecker idea, if both parties are in agreement that they are done how can another person be a homewrecker? Just like in an open marriage, how would the third party be a homewrecker if both parties are informed and in agreement. This current stance seems to run counter to most discussions on affairs as it was the understanding that the BS was in fact a BS. But if they were in the know then it wasn't an affair. So then there is no homewrecker

 

If both parties are separated, moving in independent directions, and in agreement to divorce what home is there to wreck?

[Got it]

Nothing.

 

Home wrecking applies to marriages where there is basically cake eating.

 

Pierre, this was obviously not geared to you.

[Decorative]

My point is that the spouse making those choices that impact the M, bears the responsibility. We don't point fingers elsewhere in other scenarios, only this one.

 

Please list other scenarios where a third party impacts a marriage like infidelity does.

 

I will be more than happy to apportion blame in those scenarios, too.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Decorative]

Mine, so there is one for you.

 

Mine.

 

Our legal separation/ part of the waiting period was rescinded.

 

I would never in a million years have dated during separation. Ever.

[Decorative]

Yes it is how I view it, which is all that matters in my life. I also don't believe that most people think it is okay to start a new relationship before ending a current one.

 

I also wouldn't consider that I must be in another relationship to prove that I have moved on. I think that is the mindset of people who have affairs. That they must have another relationship to immediately be in before they even begin to end the one they are currently in.

 

Word.

 

I do not believe healthy people jump from relationship to relationship. Even in the fabled "exit" affairs- I do not find it to be a good choice.