Would you consider this inappropriate treatment?

[LimeBlue]

Like it or not, while many men are willing to cheat, almost all hold their wives in high esteem on the list of priorities.

 

Is this really true?

[Got it]

I have never heard or read where a BS, finding/found out they were a BS concurs that they were held in high esteem in any category including on a list of priorities.

 

That one was news to me.

[underwater2010]

Then what part is making you feel disrespected?

I am guessing it is the fact that his BW is out of town and he did not stay on the phone with her. Instead he had her on hold for 15 minutes then came back said got go love you, instead of spending the time to chat without time restrictions.

[cocorico]

Curious who you're angry with. Him or yourself? If you're going to be the OW you need to not be demanding or expect too much. You are not his primary relationship, so it's unfair to get pissed at him when he takes a call from his wife. Did you expect him to say to his wife; sorry honey I've got Blue963 on hold, so I'll need to call you back? If it happens again just tell him he can call you back, or hang up after a few minutes. Doing otherwise makes you look entirely needy and desperate.

 

Speak for yourself - you may have been happy to accept that kind of role as OW, but many of us did not, and nor is it a structural requirement that an OW must.

 

It was rude. Blue had every right to expect that he would treat her with respect, since he chose to have a R with her despite his constraints (being M). His being M his *his* problem! not hers! and if he needs to keep the BW sweet and unsuspecting, he needs to find a way to do it that does not diss Blue, or face being dumped by Blue for not making the grade.

 

There are plenty of better ways he could have handled it. He did not, Blue felt upset and slighted, and she has every right to feel aggrieved. Plenty of MM do a good deal better than that - it is not inevitable that OW get treated second best.

[cocorico]

Is this really true?

 

Of course not!

 

Unless "holding in high esteem" is code for "spending time, energy, financial resources and emotional investment with someone else that sets their pulse racing and fills their dreams with colour and passion".... In which case I'd be more than happy to pass on the "high esteem"!

[stillafool]

 

I am feeling very disrespected right now. Am I over reacting and how would you feel if this happened to you?

 

.

 

Um, imagine how disrespected his wife would feel if she knew you were waiting on the other line for her husband. I don't think you should feel disrespected because afterall he is a married man and his wife and family come first.

[cocorico]

First off, I didn't know I was the OW for 8 months, so no, I didn't "accept that kind of role as the OW. I was lied to, like most. And again, I'm not talking about you or other who had a wonderful affair and the MM treated you like a queen. Blue's MM is not. He is disrespectful of her, and he has multiple posts stating just that. She wouldn't put up with that behavior from a single man, so my advice is to dump his sorry butt.

 

I agree that no OW should put up from behaviour from a MM that's he would not put up with from a SG. I don't believe anyone, in any kind of R, should put up with disrespect. My point was that t was not inevitable in an A (at least, not for the OW) contrary to what your original post claimed, and so Blue did not have to accept it as a necessary part of her R.

 

If she is unhappy - as she appears to be - with how he treats her, she should renegotiate the ground rules to suit her needs, or if that is not possible, then walk away. He could treat her a lot better - he is choosing not to.

 

And perhaps it's not inevitable that OW get treated as second best, but these boards are certainly full of that truth.

 

There are plenty of stories backing that up, true. There are also several supporting the converse. Most of us who are today with our fMM would not be had they treated us disrespectfully during the A.

 

OW do not have to put up with disrespect. Some may choose to, but it is a choice, not a necessity. Blue is free to demand respect, to insist on it, and to walk if he won't give it to her.

[underwater2010]

I tend to agree with others on this. When you engage in a relationship with someone the a previous/current commitment, you have to decided if what they CAN give is enough for you or not.

 

If you decide the little crumbs are enough then you have no reason to feel disrespected. You signed up for it and that is what you are going to get.

 

Now if down the road you find that crumbs are not enough, you are perfectly right to bring up the issue or leave. End of story.

[underwater2010]

I tend to agree with others on this. When you engage in a relationship with someone the a previous/current commitment, you have to decided if what they CAN give is enough for you or not.

 

If you decide the little crumbs are enough then you have no reason to feel disrespected. You signed up for it and that is what you are going to get.

 

Now if down the road you find that crumbs are not enough, you are perfectly right to bring up the issue or leave. End of story.

And just to clarify....that applies to any relationship whether an affair or not!!!!

[C00kie]

I read some of your previous threads to get some context and I realised you're wondering too much "is this normal?", "what would you do if...?", "is this appropriate?"

 

No, it's not. It's not appropriate in a monogamous relationship BUT in an affair things don't work the same. Of course, they way MM treat us leaves us feeling desperate, wondering and outraged so many times. But what did we expect? He's married. Of course he'd take her call. He should have apologised for making you wait, obviously. He, like many MM, should be a little more sensitive, which they can't be, because a) they're not in our shoes and b) they're selfish.

 

I'm not saying they're all bad people, but they are all selfish to an extent and will never fully realise the impact of their actions on us.

 

Considering the situation, I do think you may be asking too much of this married man. I mean: of course you deserve more, and of course he's not being considerate, but you must understand that sometimes you won't get what you deserve because he's married. It comes with the package.

 

And it's sad. We deserve more. This can all be very humiliating, frustrating, heartbreaking...crazy making.

 

Feel free to private msg me if you want to talk more about this.

 

All the best!

[Got it]

I read some of your previous threads to get some context and I realised you're wondering too much "is this normal?", "what would you do if...?", "is this appropriate?"

 

No, it's not. It's not appropriate in a monogamous relationship BUT in an affair things don't work the same. Of course, they way MM treat us leaves us feeling desperate, wondering and outraged so many times. But what did we expect? He's married. Of course he'd take her call. He should have apologised for making you wait, obviously. He, like many MM, should be a little more sensitive, which they can't be, because a) they're not in our shoes and b) they're selfish.

 

I'm not saying they're all bad people, but they are all selfish to an extent and will never fully realise the impact of their actions on us.

 

Considering the situation, I do think you may be asking too much of this married man. I mean: of course you deserve more, and of course he's not being considerate, but you must understand that sometimes you won't get what you deserve because he's married. It comes with the package.

 

And it's sad. We deserve more. This can all be very humiliating, frustrating, heartbreaking...crazy making.

 

Feel free to private msg me if you want to talk more about this.

 

All the best!

 

Sorry but I think this is a fallacy in your line of logic. Him being married was his baby to rock. Not an allowance for treating me poorly. Sorry but that was a no go for me. I did not tolerate anything close to this nor did he do it. This is just basic poor behavior 101. You (the proverbial you) can allow it because of x, y, or z, or you don't. It's everyone's call but it is most definitely not an if, then statement. If he is married, then he can treat the OW like crap.

[spiderowl]

Trust your feelings. How has he made you feel? Do you want to be treated like that? You can either put up with it, tell him what you think, or leave him. I don't think you can expect the utmost respect from a guy who is capable of cheating and lying.

 

It's likely that there will be a disconnect between the way you'd like to see him and the way he really is. He's not free to be totally yours.

[MissBee]

Sorry but I think this is a fallacy in your line of logic. Him being married was his baby to rock. Not an allowance for treating me poorly. Sorry but that was a no go for me. I did not tolerate anything close to this nor did he do it. This is just basic poor behavior 101. You (the proverbial you) can allow it because of x, y, or z, or you don't. It's everyone's call but it is most definitely not an if, then statement. If he is married, then he can treat the OW like crap.

 

I think there is being treated poorly in the general sense where some things are unacceptable in most interpersonal interactions, platonic or otherwise, then some things which are in a sense poor treatment but suspended or made acceptable in an affair. For example, in most normal circumstances, one would consider it being treated poorly if your boyfriend pretended you weren't his gf to other people, lied about you, downplayed your relationship etc. Or if your boyfriend sleeps with another woman or has to prioritize another woman over you...yet, in an affair, most APs accept this and understand why they do in that context. There are some who say the MP prioritized them over the spouse and they never hid and so on and so forth, yet, for every one person who claims this, 10 more claim the opposite.

 

I think what is probably meant is that some kinds of allowances people make in affairs, which would otherwise be considered poor treatment in normal relationships, are things that come with the affair territory and for many APs, demanding otherwise would lead to the end of the A for them, so they work with it. In this case it is pretty rude to have someone on hold for 15 minutes and then come back and say "well bye", regardless of the relationship; but the larger aspect that he has her on hold so he can speak with his wife is the part that most APs can't get around, and that is, the MP has a spouse and a primary relationship that the A often has to fit around, so sometimes that leads to behaviors on the MP's part that makes the OW/OM feel minimized.

[cocorico]

I think there is being treated poorly in the general sense where some things are unacceptable in most interpersonal interactions, platonic or otherwise, then some things which are in a sense poor treatment but suspended or made acceptable in an affair. For example, in most normal circumstances, one would consider it being treated poorly if your boyfriend pretended you weren't his gf to other people, lied about you, downplayed your relationship etc. Or if your boyfriend sleeps with another woman or has to prioritize another woman over you...yet, in an affair, most APs accept this and understand why they do in that context. There are some who say the MP prioritized them over the spouse and they never hid and so on and so forth, yet, for every one person who claims this, 10 more claim the opposite.

 

I think it comes down to a personal sense of boundaries. If only 9% of OW insist on being treated with respect in an A, I'd guess that that same 9% insisted on being treated with respect in all their other Rs, and that he alleged 91% who were prepared to put up with being treated badly in an A had also allowed themselves to be treated badly in other Rs. A person who is assertive in Rs and who demands, and receives, respect, is unlikely to suspend that aspect of their R style simply because, oh dear, poor little MM is married and so I'm obliged to become a doormat.

 

I think it's a fallacy that an A necessitates being treated poorly, and I think people who try to normalise that doo oW a great disservice, since it essentially sends the message that you can't have a R with the man you love unless you're willing to be treated abysmally. That empowers no one (not even the MM - it simply dehumanises them) and traps the OW into believing her only options are to leave the a - which many are not yet willing, or ready, to do - or to continue to accept poor treatment.

 

Or it may simply be rationalisation, since they themselves were unable to negotiate a health R when they were an OW, so they prefer to believe it is almost unobtainable? Dunno, but neither view is healthy, IMO. It's akin to telling an abused woman that she has to put up with it or divorce and remain I married thereafter, since spousal abuse is a necessary part of M. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Every woman, no matter what label attached to her R, deserves to be treated with love and respect.

[cocorico]

Sorry but I think this is a fallacy in your line of logic. Him being married was his baby to rock. Not an allowance for treating me poorly. Sorry but that was a no go for me. I did not tolerate anything close to this nor did he do it. This is just basic poor behavior 101. You (the proverbial you) can allow it because of x, y, or z, or you don't. It's everyone's call but it is most definitely not an if, then statement. If he is married, then he can treat the OW like crap.

 

Exactly!

 

Choosing to love a MM does not mean choosing to be a doormat anymore than choosing to date, to marry, or to cohabit does.

[Got it]

I think there is being treated poorly in the general sense where some things are unacceptable in most interpersonal interactions, platonic or otherwise, then some things which are in a sense poor treatment but suspended or made acceptable in an affair. For example, in most normal circumstances, one would consider it being treated poorly if your boyfriend pretended you weren't his gf to other people, lied about you, downplayed your relationship etc. Or if your boyfriend sleeps with another woman or has to prioritize another woman over you...yet, in an affair, most APs accept this and understand why they do in that context. There are some who say the MP prioritized them over the spouse and they never hid and so on and so forth, yet, for every one person who claims this, 10 more claim the opposite.

 

I think what is probably meant is that some kinds of allowances people make in affairs, which would otherwise be considered poor treatment in normal relationships, are things that come with the affair territory and for many APs, demanding otherwise would lead to the end of the A for them, so they work with it. In this case it is pretty rude to have someone on hold for 15 minutes and then come back and say "well bye", regardless of the relationship; but the larger aspect that he has her on hold so he can speak with his wife is the part that most APs can't get around, and that is, the MP has a spouse and a primary relationship that the A often has to fit around, so sometimes that leads to behaviors on the MP's part that makes the OW/OM feel minimized.

 

I understand that. What I am saying is that the assumption that one needs to do what you state above (in bold) is a logical fallacy. Just like with any relationship, you ask for one thing, the other party can comply or counter. There is no if/then statement that makes it true across the board.

 

We may make allowances in relationships for good and bad reasons but it is because we are choosing to make said allowance. There is nothing saying it is a carte blanche need to do so/that it is based on facts.

[blue963]

exactly my point! thank you

[Eclypse]

It just seems to me a bit rich to be upset about this, especially coming from someone who is willingly taking part in an affair and actively making a fool of this mans wife. On a scale of disrespectfulness these are light years apart. If you wanted a man for yourself the solution is quite simple... find an unmarried man?

 

About the actual waiting and abruptness, maybe he had to go somewhere quickly or something came up. Although I'd consider it rude if he didn't bother to explain it at least briefly.

[MissBee]

I understand that. What I am saying is that the assumption that one needs to do what you state above (in bold) is a logical fallacy. Just like with any relationship, you ask for one thing, the other party can comply or counter. There is no if/then statement that makes it true across the board.

 

We may make allowances in relationships for good and bad reasons but it is because we are choosing to make said allowance. There is nothing saying it is a carte blanche need to do so/that it is based on facts.

 

I'm not following...

 

Is your argument that technically no one needs to do anything? I don't believe that Cookie was suggesting one needs to do anything, as in very literal terms that's understood that you don't. I didn't read it as an argument about needing to do anything; rather, that people get into an affair for whatever reason, and then are sometimes upset by the constrains that are inherent in their situation and act surprised that say sometimes the MM is gonna be with his wife or need to talk to her or what have you. My reading was that it was an argument about expectations being discordant with reality and already having chosen the situation acting surprised at the constrains you've signed up for.Some people do graduate to realizing they don't need to put up with it, but certainly there is a WANT to be with the person which usually overrides all else and makes allowances easy to make at the time, and usually most go through a rollercoaster where they want to be with the person, stuff like this happens, they pull away and ask for more, get it for a while or don't get it, but still stay in the A because their desire to have the person in their life is a bigger one than the reality that they don't "need" to be in the situation/accept certain things. Which goes back to my poor treatment differentiation. There is poor treatment in the big obvious sense and then allowing stuff grudgingly that you don't prefer, but see as a means to an end, which I think lots of OW/OM do even though they don't "need" to.

 

If people were as rational as you're suggesting, then none of this would even be a discussion lol. It seems more like a discussion of what people "ought to" do versus how people in fact act and go about living these relationships and making choices about them.

[MissBee]

I think it comes down to a personal sense of boundaries. If only 9% of OW insist on being treated with respect in an A, I'd guess that that same 9% insisted on being treated with respect in all their other Rs, and that he alleged 91% who were prepared to put up with being treated badly in an A had also allowed themselves to be treated badly in other Rs. A person who is assertive in Rs and who demands, and receives, respect, is unlikely to suspend that aspect of their R style simply because, oh dear, poor little MM is married and so I'm obliged to become a doormat.

 

I think it's a fallacy that an A necessitates being treated poorly, and I think people who try to normalise that doo oW a great disservice, since it essentially sends the message that you can't have a R with the man you love unless you're willing to be treated abysmally. That empowers no one (not even the MM - it simply dehumanises them) and traps the OW into believing her only options are to leave the a - which many are not yet willing, or ready, to do - or to continue to accept poor treatment.

 

Or it may simply be rationalisation, since they themselves were unable to negotiate a health R when they were an OW, so they prefer to believe it is almost unobtainable? Dunno, but neither view is healthy, IMO. It's akin to telling an abused woman that she has to put up with it or divorce and remain I married thereafter, since spousal abuse is a necessary part of M. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Every woman, no matter what label attached to her R, deserves to be treated with love and respect.

 

Some relationships, based on power differentials and other imbalances will be inherently unhealthy. I think the majority of As are unhealthy because of the obvious imbalances, secrecy, conflicts of conscience and other things. You may feel differently, but I think the general understanding of As, even from the standpoint of professionals is that most times the nature of it isn't conducive to sustainability and health, esp longterm, and it is not a case of an OW/OM not knowing how to "do it right", which is a not so subtle way of blaming or shaming people who experience As as problematic to their well being.

 

I can't agree with your conflation of all kinds of relationships with As as one and the same. We will always disagree on that. As I haven't experienced, seen or read from any reputable sources stuff which backs up your viewpoint that an A is simply an ordinary relationship...it seems even silly to argue that. But I accept we will never agree here, and just have to understand each other's arguments in light of our respective perspectives...which will no doubt lead to different conclusions.

 

Your argument to me comes off like blaming abuse victims for not knowing how to behave well enough so the abuser would't abuse them instead of realizing the situation in itself was unhealthy and this person has a problem so your good behavior or lack thereof makes no difference as it is not about you.

 

The average A where one is a secret, has to share, has to pretend, lie, wait etc. is not a healthy situation for the average person and most people don't want to be in an A forever because of this. For those who feel comfort in such environments or say their A was nothing like that, then you have lived a very different experience than most, so be grateful. But, I find it dismissive and just plain snide to suggest that women and men who experience discomfort from being in the average secret affair where the person they "love" hides them or they can't plan a future etc is somehow defective for not knowing how to manage this bizarre situation well instead of saying, actually, you're a normal person, the fact this bothers you and makes you feel undermined that you're a secret is NORMAL and it's the situation that isn't healthy not you, for not being comfortable with it. Many of these people experience no such feelings in other relationships, so it is often clear that it is the affair dynamic itself which leads to certain feelings/discomfort etc.

Edited November 1, 2013 by MissBee

[Got it]

I'm not following...

 

Is your argument that technically no one needs to do anything? I don't believe that Cookie was suggesting one needs to do anything, as in very literal terms that's understood that you don't. I didn't read it as an argument about needing to do anything; rather, that people get into an affair for whatever reason, and then are sometimes upset by the constrains that are inherent in their situation and act surprised that say sometimes the MM is gonna be with his wife or need to talk to her or what have you. My reading was that it was an argument about expectations being discordant with reality and already having chosen the situation acting surprised at the constrains you've signed up for.Some people do graduate to realizing they don't need to put up with it, but certainly there is a WANT to be with the person which usually overrides all else and makes allowances easy to make at the time, and usually most go through a rollercoaster where they want to be with the person, stuff like this happens, they pull away and ask for more, get it for a while or don't get it, but still stay in the A because their desire to have the person in their life is a bigger one than the reality that they don't "need" to be in the situation/accept certain things. Which goes back to my poor treatment differentiation. There is poor treatment in the big obvious sense and then allowing stuff grudgingly that you don't prefer, but see as a means to an end, which I think lots of OW/OM do even though they don't "need" to.

 

If people were as rational as you're suggesting, then none of this would even be a discussion lol. It seems more like a discussion of what people "ought to" do versus how people in fact act and go about living these relationships and making choices about them.

 

That no one needs to ACCEPT anything on sheer assumptions. That because one person is married there is an assumption that they are going to do a lot less. That because you are an OW you have to expect little/crumbs.

 

I call bull on this. I had no idea the "script" that OWs were supposed to follow so I just assumed that I would get the same thing I would get as a regular girlfriend with a few minor compromises. I didn't see that him being married was my baby to rock and that I would need to bend over backwards to fit into his life. In fact just the opposite, this was his issue to work around and my expectations were not going to change, he was just going to need to put more energy in, etc. It wasn't my issue to deal with it was his.

[Got it]

I see you said this about GotIt's post, but I don't think you're anything like her, and her previous affair was nothing like yours. I seriously doubt GotIt would have stayed in a situation where her MM (at the time) put her on hold for 15 minutes to chat it up with his wife, then dismiss her. She would not, based on all I've read about her. You, on the other hand will and do. So, if you plan to stay in this affair, you either need to accept his tacky behavior, realizing that this will be your norm, or, put your foot down and tell him to knock it off.

 

But I suspect, you won't because you know when push comes to shove, if you make waves or demands, he's outta there.

 

I do hope you'll make a decision for your happiness, cause I bet you're worth it.

 

Now this is true. I would not accept this and I would make this ABUNDANTLY clear to him.

 

I could not control him and I could not control his reaction to my expectations so I knew that we could come to a crossroads and he may not concede. This is the gamble you take so you do have to make sure "its a hill you want to die on".

 

But that hill, for me, was doing anything that subjugated myself, my importance, and my self worth. He was not the be all and end all prize. My life would go on without him. I loved him, I wanted him, but I would not sacrifice me in the process. If he loved me, compromising would be easy on both of our sides. But if not, then this was not a man who was going to do everything he told me he would do in the very beginning.

 

So it really depends on what the premise of the relationship is but ignore the words and look at the actions. Is he is treating you the way you want to be treated? Are YOU treating YOU the way you want to be treated? And if the answer is no, what are you going to do about it?