"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

[waterwoman]

My great-great grandmother was the Parisienne mistress of my great-great grandfather. Their children were acknowledged by his wife (reluctantly I guess!) Because there were no children of the marriage. His behaviour was tacitly acceptable amongst wealthy aristocratic men of the day. And maybe women were conditioned to accept it too. The home was parallel to the marital home just without marriage and separated by the Channel. I would say that she was a true 'mistress'. She didn't wreck a home but helped to bolster although I guess that definition of 'home' loses something in translation.

[cocorico]

Married people expect others to have respect for and show respect for a marriage by not crossing boundaries with a married person.

 

We do? Uh.. No, we don't.

 

Some rather naive or delusional MPs might, but as a universal statement, that claim bears no resemblance to reality. I would suspect that most of us MPs expect ourselves and our partners to have and show respect for our Ms, but would not be so daft as to expect random others to have respect for something they neither signed up for nor may even "believe" in. It's a bit like holding a particular political viewpoint, like, say, being a Royalist, and expecting a random stranger from a different cou try to respect your country's monarchy. Nope, sorry, that's just daft! They may respect your right to hold your political views, or engage in the socio-sexual economic R of your choic, but to expect them to respect your particular manifestation of it is naive at best.

 

If it matters to you, respect it and defend it, but don't expect others to do so, because they are not party to it nor bound by it.

 

I certainly have no expectation that random women who may find my H attractive won't hit on him simply because he is M. I expect the defence of our M to come from him, not from them. Why on earth would I engage in a M that was so fragile it required the whole world to protect it, and why on earth would I M a man who could not be expected to defend his own M and required the non-interference of others to do that for him?

[cocorico]

Concubine is a term that has been around for hundreds of years. It refers to a woman who is kept for sexual purposes, i.e., a mistress.

 

Exactly - a kept woman, to whom the man is not M. How many OW are "kept women" these days? I'd guess very few. It's a R defined by the exchange of economics for sex, much like the shorter-term prostitute, or longer-term SAHM.

 

Most OW these days are self-funded, unlike mistresses and concubines who are supported financially by the MM. That small subgroup of OW who are funded by the MM may qualify for the title "mistress", or if they are part of the household, "concubine", but the rest of the OW class do not.

 

It's simply inaccurate to use a descriptor that applies to a small subgroup for an entire group.

[cocorico]

I think once someone's ready to cheat, it's because one of the married partners already wrecked it, long before the new person arrived on the scene.

 

Absolutely!

 

If the M unit was strong, the most magical girly-bits would be powerless against its resilience. And a M unit is only as strong as its weakest link. It's entirely incumbent on the two participants in the M to keep it strong and defended. An outsider cannot wreck a M, only internal vulnerabilities (whether in the R or in one of the participants in that R which undermines the strength of the R) within the M can wreck it.

[TheOW]

Absolutely!

 

If the M unit was strong, the most magical girly-bits would be powerless against its resilience. And a M unit is only as strong as its weakest link. It's entirely incumbent on the two participants in the M to keep it strong and defended. An outsider cannot wreck a M, only internal vulnerabilities (whether in the R or in one of the participants in that R which undermines the strength of the R) within the M can wreck it.

 

 

Correct Coco

 

Fools keep fooling themselves this is incorrect and that their M was perfect/good in every way .... Lies

[Pierre]

Absolutely!

 

If the M unit was strong, the most magical girly-bits would be powerless against its resilience. And a M unit is only as strong as its weakest link. It's entirely incumbent on the two participants in the M to keep it strong and defended. An outsider cannot wreck a M, only internal vulnerabilities (whether in the R or in one of the participants in that R which undermines the strength of the R) within the M can wreck it.

 

CR:

 

For some things you seem as smart as a cookie. For others you are naive or pretend to be naive.

 

Many folks cheat because they are cheaters. The state of the marriage is a moot point for cheaters.

 

Secondly: Regardless of the circumstances cheating requires dishonesty. I am not certain a person can cheat and be honest.

[TheOW]

I've been reading this thread and did not want to say anything because i didn't have anything constructive to add and did not know if it was my place, so to speak, but tow, first of all, its rude to call people fools just because they don't have the same view as you or to say they are incorrect in their assessment of their own experience of living the affair. it wasn't a lie for me, because my marriage was happy/good, i just got much too close/began an inappropriate relationship with someone i had no business having one with. i didn't have boundaries and instead of going to my wife, i went to someone else. i had the issues, not my wife or the marriage and I'm not incorrect or a fool or telling lies about it and i doubt anyone else that posts something that doesn't support what you think is either. i apologize if i come off rude, i try not to post in this section but i just wanted to respond to you because it rubbed me the wrong way. JJ.

 

I was more or less referring to myself and my own situation, I was a fool for so long believing I was happy in my M which in my view I would never have strayed if I was completely satisfied with it. May it be an issue with me or my H the marriage was not happy enough because I did look elsewhere.

 

So I stand by what I said.

[Pierre]

Correct Coco

 

Fools keep fooling themselves this is incorrect and that their M was perfect/good in every way .... Lies

 

TOW:

 

For most women choosing men old enough to be the father will not lead to a perfect relationship.

[TheOW]

TOW:

 

For most women choosing men old enough to be the father will not lead to a perfect relationship.

 

Never said it would did I ? Already stated numerous times a "real" relationship with him would not survive long the age difference was too large and we are at different stages of life. I still have deep emotional feelings for him though. Plus the sex was good

[TheOW]

Same goes for my xMM he always stated he was happy in his marriage and couldn't understand why he would cheat. After a long conversation he realised he resented his wife after a fall out they had years ago. We both agreed there would have been a time neither of us would have strayed from our marriages as we were blissfully happy with them.

[TheOW]

At the cognitive level you know old men are not good for you, but at an emotional level you go for them. That is why you need IC.

 

Furthermore, if you had sex with a man your age and if you had a true connection the sex would be better. I don't care how much Viagra your guy tales, he is still an old dude.

 

I admire many things about you, but I believe you need IC to resolve why you think it is a good idea to go for old men.

 

Ha ha yeah I've learned my lesson there Pierre you see they just aren't as flexible ....

 

But if Johnny Depp was to come along I may have to break my vows to stay away from the bad old men

[TheOW]

Fair enough, your phrasing by using plurals like "fools" and "their" threw me off as it seemed you were referring to multiple and not yourself.

 

JJ if you haven't been reading my posts you probably don't realise that I am crap at expressing what I mean, I always cause arguments because it looks like I'm saying or implying something I'm not. 3 years of college and 4 years at Uni and I'm still thick ... And no Pierre I wasn't sleeping with the lecturer, he was young

[TheOW]

XMM was the one withholding sex from his W she tried and tried I'm not sure if he had erectile problems with her or just wasn't interested. He couldn't get physical with her because of his resentment. She didn't have an A I'm not quite sure what happened but I think it was a rough patch in their M, she thought everything was ok and so did he until he started to cheat.

[TheOW]

Pierre Pierre Pierre your talking **** again.

 

I didn't just take his word for it, she screamed it at the top of her lungs at me, so that's her word also.

 

I believe him when he says he wouldn't have cheated before their bust up a few years ago, he may be a cheater but he didn't lie to me. I agree because there was a time also in my marriage I would never have contemplated cheating ever. There are many couples who have been married for decades and wouldn't cheat with a younger person because they are happy and content with what they have, they are fully satisfied every need is met.

 

He loves her and is willing to work with her, he has to much to lose if they did divorce and he does want to spend the rest of his life with her, I don't like it but I knew where I stood from the beginning.

Edited April 3, 2013 by TheOW

[TheOW]

His kids are 9, 14 and 19

[Pierre]

His kids are 9, 14 and 19

 

Ouch!

 

That is the worst case scenario. All three are old enough to understand. At least you have little ones that cannot understand these adult issues.

 

Surprisingly, the older kids take it much worse. So I assume this was very bad for the 19 year old.

 

This is the other lesson of EMRs. It is a devastating blow for the older children whereas babies don't know enough. I hope everything works out.

[cocorico]

 

Many folks cheat because they are cheaters. The state of the marriage is a moot point for cheaters.

 

Please pay attention. I already covered that possibility:

 

 

If the M unit was strong, the most magical girly-bits would be powerless against its resilience. And a M unit is only as strong as its weakest link. It's entirely incumbent on the two participants in the M to keep it strong and defended. An outsider cannot wreck a M, only internal vulnerabilities (whether in the R or in one of the participants in that R which undermines the strength of the R) within the M can wreck it.

 

 

Secondly: Regardless of the circumstances cheating requires dishonesty. I am not certain a person can cheat and be honest.

 

I have no idea what that refers to, and I'm not even sure what it means.

[cocorico]

I'll say it again.:

 

Cheating requires dishonesty.

 

Which relates to my post, that you quoted, how?

[Finally Settled]

I am responsible for wrecking my home. My exwife and I spent years not addressing issues that came up in our marriage, and our apathy enveloped us. One day I became the weak link that Cocorico referred to and turned away from my marriage.

 

As to the original intent of this thread, the term 'homewrecker'. I agree that it is an antiquated wording that is as ineffective in today's world as concubine.

[cocorico]

Ah, yes!

 

It relates to your post which was written as a response to Quiet Storm. It relates to your response and not to your personal situation. I don't consider you an OW. Furthermore, I don't think you are capable of surviving as an OW that waits in the shadows. You would have a difficult time lying.

 

Since I can see no posts of mine on this thread which quote Quiet Storm I can only conclude that you were confused yet again. No worries!

[cocorico]

I am responsible for wrecking my home. My exwife and I spent years not addressing issues that came up in our marriage, and our apathy enveloped us. One day I became the weak link that Cocorico referred to and turned away from my marriage.

 

As to the original intent of this thread, the term 'homewrecker'. I agree that it is an antiquated wording that is as ineffective in today's world as concubine.

 

Your self-awareness and clarity is breathtakingly refreshing

[KathyM]

We do? Uh.. No, we don't.

 

Some rather naive or delusional MPs might, but as a universal statement, that claim bears no resemblance to reality. I would suspect that most of us MPs expect ourselves and our partners to have and show respect for our Ms, but would not be so daft as to expect random others to have respect for something they neither signed up for nor may even "believe" in. It's a bit like holding a particular political viewpoint, like, say, being a Royalist, and expecting a random stranger from a different cou try to respect your country's monarchy. Nope, sorry, that's just daft! They may respect your right to hold your political views, or engage in the socio-sexual economic R of your choic, but to expect them to respect your particular manifestation of it is naive at best.

 

If it matters to you, respect it and defend it, but don't expect others to do so, because they are not party to it nor bound by it.

 

I certainly have no expectation that random women who may find my H attractive won't hit on him simply because he is M. I expect the defence of our M to come from him, not from them. Why on earth would I engage in a M that was so fragile it required the whole world to protect it, and why on earth would I M a man who could not be expected to defend his own M and required the non-interference of others to do that for him?

I know YOU don't think marriage should be respected, or so you say, by others. But you are the exception, my dear. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't expect their marital bonds to be respected by others. I do expect my husband and myself to respect our marital boundaries, but I also expect others to respect and not violate our marital boundaries. I know some outsiders will try to cross boundaries in my marriage, and some have, i.e., blatantly hitting on my husband knowing full well that he is married, and they continue the pursuit despite his boundary setting. Fortunately, my husband is pretty good when it comes to enforcing the boundaries that other women try to cross with him. People do expect others to respect their boundaries, both marital, personal, residential, all kinds of boundaries people have in place to protect themselves and their loved ones. I expect people to respect those boundaries that I have set for myself and my marriage. Fortunately, most people do respect them. Unfortunately, some do not.

[cocorico]

I know YOU don't think marriage should be respected, or so you say, by others. But you are the exception, my dear. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't expect their marital bonds to be respected by others. I do expect my husband and myself to respect our marital boundaries, but I also expect others to respect and not violate our marital boundaries. I know some outsiders will try to cross boundaries in my marriage, and some have, i.e., blatantly hitting on my husband knowing full well that he is married, and they continue the pursuit despite his boundary setting. Fortunately, my husband is pretty good when it comes to enforcing the boundaries that other women try to cross with him. People do expect others to respect their boundaries, both marital, personal, residential, all kinds of boundaries people have in place to protect themselves and their loved ones. I expect people to respect those boundaries that I have set for myself and my marriage. Fortunately, most people do respect them. Unfortunately, some do not.

 

Perhaps the difference is that I grew up in a highly diverse, multi-cultural society where it was arrogant to assume that others valued what you valued and naive to expect others to treat you according to your priorities rather than their own.

 

Or perhaps it's a function of my profession and those I choose to surround myself with, that people are mindful of cultural, ethical and moral differences between groups and individuals, and don't automatically assume that others are, or ought to be, like they are.

 

Either way, I'm cool with it. I certainly would not hold a random stranger responsible should any weakness in my M lead to infidelity. It's our M, and our responsibility to nurture and defend it - not everyone else's.

[cocorico]

You responded to another poster that said the same thing as Quiet Storm.

 

I responded to the faulty assumption that all M people expect everyone else to be looking out for their Ms, rather than accepting that responsibility themselves.

[cocorico]

I would love to be corrected.

 

LFH, shall I loan you my whips and leathers? I'm sure they'd go well with your gingham lingerie...