Being Ok with being an OW

[Journee]

So it is everyone else's responsibility to monitor and control the temptations and actions of others? Don't we start teaching our children as toddlers that "he made me do it" is a poor and worthless excuse?

 

Sorry, as a previous WS, I don't feel that there is any responsibility towards my actions but my own. I own my decisions and I own my stepping out and it was not MM or anyone's responsibility for my actions but my own.

 

And this BS line of some responsibility towards strangers. Where exactly does human nature show much care of strangers? This idea is right up with this secret sisterhood that gets trodded out. Not sure where this Sisterhood is in any other part of my life but I guess we are supposed to unite together to protect our men!

 

And how dare an OW come to an OW/OM forum and look for support. Damn their selfishness and lack of consideration.

 

The cheating spouse is whom makes the affair possible. Period. Without THEM no amount of temptation will matter.

 

 

 

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. You really don't see people caring for perfect strangers? Have a look right here in this forum alone. People from all walks of life and parts in this triad offering support to complete and total strangers. There are so many examples IRL of humans caring for others. Most people have great capacity for empathy. If you have never witnessed great acts of kindness and selflessness then ok ,but to act as if these characteristics do not even exist is a bit far fetched.

 

There are whole lines of study out there devoted to the inner workings of people that lack empathy. It isn't the norm. Most people care for others in some form or fashion.

 

Humans care for others that may be less fortunate or who may just need some help carrying something into an office building. Acts of kindness and selflessness run up and down the spectrum.

 

 

I also don't think that this "sisterhood" (IMO) has anything to do with protecting our men. I think it's more to do with thinking of the pain another woman is being set up for. Kind of like the Golden Rule theory which is a foreign concept anymore. Not wanting to cause undue pain to a person, a fellow human being ,a fellow woman. Again totally foreign concept I can see from my reading the past few months.

 

Got it, you typically are one of my favorite posters. I may be reading this incorrectly and if I am feel free to correct me. I just am not following.

[Pierre]

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. You really don't see people caring for perfect strangers? Have a look right here in this forum alone. People from all walks of life and parts in this triad offering support to complete and total strangers. There are so many examples IRL of humans caring for others. Most people have great capacity for empathy. If you have never witnessed great acts of kindness and selflessness then ok ,but to act as if these characteristics do not even exist is a bit far fetched.

 

There are whole lines of study out there devoted to the inner workings of people that lack empathy. It isn't the norm. Most people care for others in some form or fashion.

 

Humans care for others that may be less fortunate or who may just need some help carrying something into an office building. Acts of kindness and selflessness run up and down the spectrum.

 

 

I also don't think that this "sisterhood" (IMO) has anything to do with protecting our men. I think it's more to do with thinking of the pain another woman is being set up for. Kind of like the Golden Rule theory which is a foreign concept anymore. Not wanting to cause undue pain to a person, a fellow human being ,a fellow woman. Again totally foreign concept I can see from my reading the past few months.

 

Got it, you typically are one of my favorite posters. I may be reading this incorrectly and if I am feel free to correct me. I just am not following.

 

I actually think there is empathy.

 

 

However, for some reason she cannot admit any wrong doing.

[Journee]

I actually think there is empathy.

 

 

However, for some reason she cannot admit any wrong doing.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to direct any comment about lacking empathy to anyone in particular. I was trying to point out that I believe most people show this characteristic in action. That the norm is humans caring.

 

If I somehow worded it to sounds accusatory I am sorry. That was not my intention. Just to display that most people do care about the pain of others. Sometimes to the detriment of themselves.

 

I did not intend to infer that APs or anyone else lack empathy.

[Pierre]

I'm not trying to direct any comment about lacking empathy to anyone in particular. I was trying to point out that I believe most people show this characteristic in action. That the norm is humans caring.

 

If I somehow worded it to sounds accusatory I am sorry. That was not my intention. Just to display that most people do care about the pain of others. Sometimes to the detriment of themselves.

 

I did not intend to infer that APs or anyone else lack empathy.

 

Actually, some have zero empathy. But, that is not the point, I agree.

 

 

I think some people cannot accept any wrong doing because it would devastate them.

[KathyM]

I think people do have a responsibility not to harm others, and not to assist people in harming others. Not to cause destruction to other people's marriages or families. I think it's common decency to care about others and not actively participate in hurting them.

[Journee]

I think people do have a responsibility not to harm others, and not to assist people in harming others. Not to cause destruction to other people's marriages or families. I think it's common decency to care about others and not actively participate in hurting them.[/QUOTE]

 

 

This is what I was trying to get at.

 

I believe most people feel this way.

[SweetiePie12]

I think people do have a responsibility not to harm others, and not to assist people in harming others. Not to cause destruction to other people's marriages or families. I think it's common decency to care about others and not actively participate in hurting them.

 

...love makes things happen. I am not understanding why a woman who loves a man (particularly one who is shacked up, not married) is supposed to be concerned for a woman she's never met over the man she loves.

 

To address what I think is the original post (long thread, can't recall): NO, I would not be OK with a "casual" situation. Not after 14 months. If his feelings aren't growing for me and mine aren't growing for him, we've become stagnant, and stagnant water stinks.

[Got it]

I actually think there is empathy.

 

 

However, for some reason she cannot admit any wrong doing.

 

Who is "she"?

[Got it]

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. You really don't see people caring for perfect strangers? Have a look right here in this forum alone. People from all walks of life and parts in this triad offering support to complete and total strangers. There are so many examples IRL of humans caring for others. Most people have great capacity for empathy. If you have never witnessed great acts of kindness and selflessness then ok ,but to act as if these characteristics do not even exist is a bit far fetched.

 

There are whole lines of study out there devoted to the inner workings of people that lack empathy. It isn't the norm. Most people care for others in some form or fashion.

 

Humans care for others that may be less fortunate or who may just need some help carrying something into an office building. Acts of kindness and selflessness run up and down the spectrum.

 

 

I also don't think that this "sisterhood" (IMO) has anything to do with protecting our men. I think it's more to do with thinking of the pain another woman is being set up for. Kind of like the Golden Rule theory which is a foreign concept anymore. Not wanting to cause undue pain to a person, a fellow human being ,a fellow woman. Again totally foreign concept I can see from my reading the past few months.

 

Got it, you typically are one of my favorite posters. I may be reading this incorrectly and if I am feel free to correct me. I just am not following.

 

Journee, I think that people are, by nature, self interested. Yes I do think at times people will look at for others, strangers, but I don't think that people do it all the time. We pick and choose where, why and how we are going to do it. I do not think that people are 100% consistent in how and why they do it. Why do you pay the toll for the car behind you one day but not each and every time?

 

So yes I actually do believe and do follow the Golden Rule. I am not religious, was not raise with religion and this, to me, was the best general policy to follow. Actually why I am against animal testing and a vegetarian. I do not believe that another should die for the sake of my lunch. This makes complete and simple sense to me and sometimes it is odd that others don't follow it as well but obviously that is not the case. Many feel that it is more than acceptable to use animals in whatever manner they feel best suits them, so varies on the spectrum.

 

So I learned early on that what I felt was acceptable behavior and the code of conduct I felt should be followed did/does not mean that it is one that should be found reasonable or expected of others.

 

So I learned early on that I can control myself and my actions. I could decide if someone was going to stay in my life if I was okay with their behavior or if I agreed with their code of conduct/forgave any transgression, or I could control if they existed in my world or not. That is what I can control.

 

While YES it would be LOVELY if people could hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and love their fellow man but this is not reality.

 

So again it comes down to one's span of control and accountability of their lives. It is not reasonable to expect strangers in the world to respect you. It is lovely, like world peace, but until we can stop with the genocides, the ethic cleansings, the destruction of lives over politics I think assuming people will not screw a readily available man/woman is a bit of a stretch.

 

So, for me, do I spend time wishing for a pie in the sky concept or do I face reality and have a game plan for what is realistically possible/reasonable?

 

If you feel the OP is culpable then that is fine. Obviously what I say is not the law nor what I dictate goes. It has not been the custom in my world, in my environment, or with my own viewpoint, that I felt the same as others here.

 

Bottom line, if you have been hurt, then you need to heal in the best way for you. It is about letting go of the toxicity, healing oneself, forgiving what can be, and making sure one's life is a safe and respectful place to be. If one feels that the OP is 1%-100% at fault then rock that. I am not telling you are wrong. I am just saying that I don't see it the same way.

 

I am not an overly emotional person. I tend to try and follow more logic and analysis than emotion. So what makes logical sense to me tends to be my line of thinking (I have been accused many times of being like a dude ). So wishing, hoping, feeling is just not my primary line of being. So for me, knowing what I know about mankind, I don't tend to hold the bar that high. My bar is a bit lower and focused more on humans not killing others out of hate and intolerance. Killing, abusing, and mistreating animals because it satisfies x reason. You know..... pretty basic stuff.

[Got it]

One more point I wanted to make on this and then I am probably going to concede my point and take my toys and go home.

 

In regards to a third party supporting or validating the importance of the marriage vows of another. No. If one of the two partners shows that the vows mean as little as the paper they are written on why should this stranger give two whits about it?

 

Of course this will probably spin back to the circular logic of caring for fellow mankind, and treating everyone with the same level of caring, etc. and then we are back to my above post and rinse and repeat. I am fine and support that others feel differently. But I don't see this viewpoint as a fact and I do argue when it is stated as such. This whole topic is opinion with each person's individualized beliefs and experiences impacting their statements. That is all, nothing more and nothing less.

 

SO! Like I stated above, if you feel differently great! It is like religion and politics and abortion, you ain't gonna convince anyone who doesn't already feel the same way.

[MissBee]

Dating someone with an ex is not the same thing as dating someone who is lying and deceiving another person. Those two things are not even remotely comparable. If I met a guy who lived with his "ex" and he wouldn't tell his "ex" about me, and his "ex" had no idea he was her "ex" then I most certainly would not date him because I have no interest in dating someone who is too cowardly to live their life honestly and truthfully. Same thing with a job promotion. Everyone knows that they are going to have competition when it comes to a promotion and most people go about competing for a promotion in a fair and honest way. I'm sure some people try to lie and cheat their way up the corporate ladder because some people are just like that but their are still lots of people in the world who can be happy and get ahead without sinking to a level of lies and deceit.

 

Yea, I've seen the promotion analogy before and it is ill-suited to affairs.

 

Whatever hurt someone may feel in dating and promotions is intrinsically different from the pain in affairs. People understand that their ex can date a new person, even if it hurts their feelings. People understand that the person they want to date may not want to date them and is free to date another. People understand that promotions are competitive and by nature include more than one person and someone will get it and someone won't. Both these situations are fair game situations where your "heartbreak" is par for the course and you can't complain about being sold a raw deal, because that's what dating is and that's what job competition is. You go in with your eyes wide open in these scenarios....affairs OTOH are blatantly not a fair game situation and the hurt which follows wasn't a case of "it was unavoidable and inadvertent."

 

I think it is silly to use these analogies as essentially you're making an absurd argument, which is along the lines of, we cannot be altruistic or care for others as then we will never get anything we want in life, because what about the date, what about the promotion? If we get it, someone else won't,so clearly, we cannot avoid hurting people, thus affairs, on the AP's part aren't their responsibility if someone else gets hurt, they are just living their life Silly. No one is saying anyone needs to die on a cross like Jesus and be self-sacrificing and so altruistic that you can't live your life and date and get jobs in fear that everything you do may inadvertently hurt someone. But the very fact that for promotions and dating one need not pile up your explanations and rationalizations and argue it ad nauseum, is because it is clear to everyone how that isn't underhanded and unfair.

 

If you go to the Olympics, someone will come in first place and someone last. As an athlete you train to win and every athlete KNOWS this. It is evident you're not going to be like lets all hold hands and cross together or let me run at my worst so you can come in first place lol. The difference with all these examples and affairs is that: one is open and everyone knows they won't get what they want but all have a fair chance. And logically enough, in sports, in promotions etc. there are concepts about cheating involved, and like affairs, what constitutes cheating is breaking certain rules and gaining an unfair advantage, where you get an edge others don't because of actions you, your coaches, trainers, other colleagues etc decide to take, in secret.

 

 

I had an affair, because I was already in too deep and I wanted to be in it. Plain and simple. He was the one who made the vows, true. However, I did not have to participate in the affair and make myself complicit. I wanted to...but I didn't have to. Me opting out wouldn't be going to an absurd level of altruism, it would be me making that choice not to help him be a cheater. I could have said "If you wanna cheat...go ahead...but it's not gonna be with me." No over the top levels of altruism needed and no monitoring of another's life needed. People are all free to do as they wish and I don't monitor anyone...however, I am always free to decide if someone is doing something I don't like or I know is by it's nature hurtful, to not be a party to it. So because of that, any excuse that "Well if MM doesn't care why should I?" is exactly the same as "He/she made me do it" or "Everyone was doing it so I did too." Have an affair if you want I say...but don't be obtuse, don't act like you don't understand what's at stake and the repercussions and where your responsibility is. Don't do it then be like a wide-eyed doe or indignant that you did nothing wrong and how dare others expect you to choose not to be a party in wrongdoing.

Edited July 8, 2013 by MissBee

[Morgoth]

To the OP, my OW is prefectly happy being the OW going on year 5 now. Here is why at high level:

 

- Doesn't want a man to control her.

- Doesn't have time for a full time partner.

- Not interested in marriage after 2 failures.

- We are culturally compatiable.

- Sex is great.

- We have a blast together.

 

I could go on. We have "feelings" for each other but both know what the limitations are, but we focus on what we can do, rather than what we can't do. If she needs something more I can't give her or wants the real deal all she has to do is say so and I would step aside, or if I am ever done she would do likewise. I feel very fortunate to have her for as long as she wants to be here and I do what I can to take care of all her needs. That being said, I would never ever marry her (or any woman), even if I divorce my wife, because I would never want to Fu@k up such a great relationship by shackling us to misery in matrimony.

 

 

Good luck to you.

[Pierre]

Got it: Yours is a medley of ethical fallacies:

 

Journee, I think that people are, by nature, self interested.

 

The everybody does it excuse.

The Golden Rationalization!!!!!!!!

 

 

and do follow the Golden Rule. I am not religious, was not raise with religion and this, to me, was the best general policy to follow. Actually why I am against animal testing and a vegetarian. I do not believe that another should die for the sake of my lunch.

 

The King's Pass: I am ethical in other aspects of life.

 

 

So I learned early on that what I felt was acceptable behavior and the code of conduct I felt should be followed did/does not mean that it is one that should be found reasonable or expected of others.

 

The Consistency Obsession: Not willing to bend the the self imposed code of ethics. A true fallacy and a dangerous one.

 

but until we can stop with the genocides, the ethic cleansings, the destruction of lives over politics I think assuming people will not screw a readily available man/woman is a bit of a stretch.

 

The Comparative Virtue Excuse: "There are worse things." If "Everybody does it" is the Golden Rationalization, this is the bottom of the barrel.

 

I tend to try and follow more logic and analysis than emotion. So what makes logical sense to me tends to be my line of thinking (I have been accused many times of being like a dude

 

Woody's Excuse: "The heart wants what the heart wants"

This was Woody Allen's famous "explanation" for courting, bedding, and ultimately marrying Mia Farrow's adopted daughter, as Allen was living with Farrow and essentially functioning as his soon-to-be lover's adoptive father.

 

I don't tend to hold the bar that high. My bar is a bit lower and focused more on humans not killing others out of hate and intolerance. Killing, abusing, and mistreating animals because it satisfies x reason. You know..... pretty basic stuff.

 

"If it isn't illegal, it's ethical."

 

Ethics Fallacies, Myths, Distortions and Rationalizations

 

 

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KathyM]

...love makes things happen. I am not understanding why a woman who loves a man (particularly one who is shacked up, not married) is supposed to be concerned for a woman she's never met over the man she loves.

 

To address what I think is the original post (long thread, can't recall): NO, I would not be OK with a "casual" situation. Not after 14 months. If his feelings aren't growing for me and mine aren't growing for him, we've become stagnant, and stagnant water stinks.

So love trumps all, and if the man you loved asked you to assist him in robbing the old woman down the street, you would comply because you loved him? Where is your conscience? Why do you allow your MM to talk you into something that harms his wife and family?

[jlola]

...love makes things happen. I am not understanding why a woman who loves a man (particularly one who is shacked up, not married) is supposed to be concerned for a woman she's never met over the man she loves.

.

 

How did you fall in love with a MM or one who is "shacked up"? You fed that relationship, that is how. Love does not just happen.

 

So why feed a relationship with a man you know is married? Because you think it is ok. Worse yet, one who is shacked up. What is his excuse for not being with you?

 

 

If "love" really makes things happen, why can't the cheating spouse and affair person get together in real life . Make reality happen instead of "teenage fantasy".

 

"True love make things happen". " Lust looks for excuses".

[KathyM]

What we have here is known as the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and some of the posters here are proving it. The theory provides that if two cognitions are in conflict with each other, it causes discomfort enough to make the person change one of the cognitions. If a person enters into an affair with a married person, they normally feel guilt for the harm they are doing. Guilt is the discomfort. They have/had the cognition that they themselves are a good person. They also have the cognition that they want the affair. The opposing/conflicting cognitions produces discomfort, which compels them to have to change one of the cognitions so that both are in compliance with each other. Therefore, they have to either think of themselves as a bad/harmful person in order to have the affair, or they have to think that affairs are not bad/not harmful/or not their fault. Most people, in order to maintain self esteem, do not want to think of themselves as harmful to others, so they choose to change their cognitions about affairs to it being not harmful or not their fault, therefore you have the rationalizations that we sometimes hear on LS, such as "I am actually improving his marriage," or "I am not the one betraying someone."

 

Or, in order to relieve the cognitive dissonance, they stop themselves from having the affair or discontinue the affair.

Edited July 8, 2013 by KathyM

[Got it]

Kathy, interesting. Thanks.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Got it

[SweetiePie12]

and if the man you loved asked you to assist him in robbing the old woman down the street

 

We're lovers, not fighters, LOL. I would never love someone with such a vile inclination.

 

your MM

 

I'm not dating a married man.

[SweetiePie12]

How did you fall in love with a MM or one who is "shacked up"? You fed that relationship, that is how.

 

No way, he's the only one in the world I ever tried not to crush on, let alone love. He pursued.

[KathyM]

We're lovers, not fighters, LOL. I would never love someone with such a vile inclination.

Vile, yes. Why do you see steeling as vile, but cheating as not vile? My point was that your CM is talking you into doing something that greatly harms someone else. Why do you let this happen?

 

 

I'm not dating a married man.

Yes, I should have said CM (a man who is cheating on a SO).

[SweetiePie12]

Vile, yes. Why do you see steeling as vile, but cheating as not vile?

 

"Stealing". And I'm not cheating. He is. He owns that. That's his business.

 

My point was that your CM is talking you into doing something that greatly harms someone else.

 

Well, I suppose he has his reasons for treating her the way he does. I am concerned solely by his relationship with me.

[KathyM]

"Stealing". And I'm not cheating. He is. He owns that. That's his business.

You are assisting him in betraying his SO. Your behavior is doing great harm to his SO. To say that this is all on him is a rationalization meant to relieve your cognitive dissonance.

 

 

Well, I suppose he has his reasons for treating her the way he does. I am concerned solely by his relationship with me.

I think you should ask yourself how you would feel if you were exclusive with someone you loved and were committed to, and some other woman had a sexual thing going on with your man behind your back.

[SweetiePie12]

You are assisting him in betraying his SO.

 

No, I am assisting him in his happiness.

[jlola]

Why is he not assisting himself in his own happiness by leaving a situation that makes him unhappy?playing savior is not what a love relationship is about. Obviously domething is keeping him still with her and hesitant of sacrifice to b with u.

[Pierre]

What we have here is known as the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and some of the posters here are proving it. The theory provides that if two cognitions are in conflict with each other, it causes discomfort enough to make the person change one of the cognitions. If a person enters into an affair with a married person, they normally feel guilt for the harm they are doing. Guilt is the discomfort. They have/had the cognition that they themselves are a good person. They also have the cognition that they want the affair. The opposing/conflicting cognitions produces discomfort, which compels them to have to change one of the cognitions so that both are in compliance with each other. Therefore, they have to either think of themselves as a bad/harmful person in order to have the affair, or they have to think that affairs are not bad/not harmful/or not their fault. Most people, in order to maintain self esteem, do not want to think of themselves as harmful to others, so they choose to change their cognitions about affairs to it being not harmful or not their fault, therefore you have the rationalizations that we sometimes hear on LS, such as "I am actually improving his marriage," or "I am not the one betraying someone."

 

Or, in order to relieve the cognitive dissonance, they stop themselves from having the affair or discontinue the affair.

 

Another ethical fallacy. Thanks for posting this one.