Why is the MM always the bad person?

[Aspasia33]

My MM is not a bad person..he is one of the sweetest people i have ever met, and it always stuns me a bit that hes in love with me.

 

And you didn't touch a nerve, I found your viewpoint amusing in a very young kind of way.

 

The only bed of lies that I lie in are those of my making, which I take full responsibility for. I took exception to your strange claiming of the " truth". If that has been your experience with a MM, I do feel very sorry for you.

 

Oh? I fail to understand what you consider 'ignorant and ill informed' in consideration that I am actually very connected both intimately with this situation and professionally.

 

 

As for immaturity and delusion. The post I made spews volumes of such immaturity and delusion from both parties in the situation described. Doomed? Oh yes, it most certainly was.

 

 

As for your alluded attention to soap dramas, I never watch tripe on the TV...........

 

 

 

 

As the original posting here, the question is why is the married man always the bad person? Obviously if you had read my post in the light in which it was meant to be observed, he is not necessarily the 'only' so called 'bad' person, but of course your views are as valid and legitimate as anyone's including my own.

 

 

If I touched a sensitive nerve regarding your situation that disturbs the comfort of your 'bed of lies' then perhaps you might want to consider those issues yourself.................................

[experiencethedevine]

And a quick question, in your hypothesis, how does OW know his email an phone password? dont you only do that with the ones you absolutely trust?

 

email

 

 

 

 

In this instance. No. Information can be gained without the knowledge or consent of the owner of such content clandestinely if one has the knowledge and tools to invade a person's privacy surreptitiously.

[krazikat]

How about this slant? OW is married, doesn't expect her MM to leave, and has no intentions of leaving her marriage. The MW, MM have respect and love for each other and their spouses, they are in a situation that they dont know how to deal with, and an affair with each other seems the way to get their needs met, whilst still keeping to their original commitments.

 

The MW does not intrude on the MM marriage,or visa versa, there are no days of our lives dramas you paint, that is for children.

 

There are just 2 adults who have made commitments, that dont feel they can leave them easily looking for something to make life bearable.

 

Are you watching to many sitcoms? Your view of affairs is severely skewered, I dont know if you are a BS or a bitter OW. I have been approached by many men in the past wanting just a screw..its the same as any relationship, you pick the players if you have sense, whether they are single or married. And any man or woman that harasses, pursues stalks, has problems. I have had that problem with many single men.

 

I suggest you open your eyes to what is posted here (oh I forget, that's not the rules of LS, BS / BOW rule, and live in the real world)

 

And you are right, the single men that hacked my emails, went though my purse, I became very disillusioned with.

 

Any relationship you need to do that with is doomed. I have been with my MM for 5 years, and saw a pic of his wife a year ago(shes very pretty). as we work together, it would've been easy for me to find out all about her.

I find your comments ignorant and ill informed,very, very immature

 

never mind

Edited December 30, 2013 by krazikat
pointless

[Got it]

Oh? I fail to understand what you consider 'ignorant and ill informed' in consideration that I am actually very connected both intimately with this situation and professionally.

 

 

As for immaturity and delusion. The post I made spews volumes of such immaturity and delusion from both parties in the situation described. Doomed? Oh yes, it most certainly was.

 

 

As for your alluded attention to soap dramas, I never watch tripe on the TV...........

 

 

 

 

As the original posting here, the question is why is the married man always the bad person? Obviously if you had read my post in the light in which it was meant to be observed, he is not necessarily the 'only' so called 'bad' person, but of course your views are as valid and legitimate as anyone's including my own.

 

 

If I touched a sensitive nerve regarding your situation that disturbs the comfort of your 'bed of lies' then perhaps you might want to consider those issues yourself.................................

 

So this was your husband and his OW?

 

I always enjoy when it is the big bad all powerful OW who is able to manipulate the poor MM into staying in affairs when the poor widdle soul is just weak and malleable.

[whatatangledweb]

So this was your husband and his OW?

 

I always enjoy when it is the big bad all powerful OW who is able to manipulate the poor MM into staying in affairs when the poor widdle soul is just weak and malleable.

 

You do know that some MM are blackmailed. My husband was. I know this to be a fact because I read all the emails they wrote to each other. When my husband told me this I told him..if you had the balls to cheat on me then you should have had the balls to tell me then you couldn't have been blackmailed.

 

My husband was the bad guy and so was his OW.

[Got it]

You do know that some MM are blackmailed. My husband was. I know this to be a fact because I read all the emails they wrote to each other. When my husband told me this I told him..if you had the balls to cheat on me then you should have had the balls to tell me then you couldn't have been blackmailed.

 

My husband was the bad guy and so was his OW.

 

What I know is that "suddenly" blackmail comes up after many ddays and the poor MP just didn't know what to do or how to stop things and so that is why the affair went on for another 5 years.

 

Yes, is there a probability of someone actually being blackmailed? Of course. Do I think that statistically it happens as much as stated or implied. No.

[whatatangledweb]

What I know is that "suddenly" blackmail comes up after many ddays and the poor MP just didn't know what to do or how to stop things and so that is why the affair went on for another 5 years.

 

Yes, is there a probability of someone actually being blackmailed? Of course. Do I think that statistically it happens as much as stated or implied. No.

 

 

I agree with you that it is a much used excuse. The only reason I believed him was I read what she wrote. She was very clear about her blackmail. I had one d-day.

[lilmisscantbewrong]

You do know that some MM are blackmailed. My husband was. I know this to be a fact because I read all the emails they wrote to each other. When my husband told me this I told him..if you had the balls to cheat on me then you should have had the balls to tell me then you couldn't have been blackmailed.

 

My husband was the bad guy and so was his OW.

 

 

What kind of blackmail? This always confuses me. I suppose one could blackmail a person by saying that they are going to tell an employer or something - but it implicates the other person as well. This I don't understand.

 

 

I know when I was in my affair and the first dday had happened and his BS, XMOM and I were the only ones that knew, I was in a horrible, horrible place and I wanted to tell my husband - several times - and I kept getting talked out of it (I know, I know - I could have but I was so weak) by XMOM and his wife. XMOM would absolutely freak out any time I said I would lose it - he would cry and say "I will have to take my family and move away" (another form of blackmail from him to me? Idk.). It was a vicious cycle. Even thought the second and last dday was horrible, there was a little bit of relief in that it was out.

 

 

I don't understand the blackmail part - I really don't.

[whatatangledweb]

What kind of blackmail? This always confuses me. I suppose one could blackmail a person by saying that they are going to tell an employer or something - but it implicates the other person as well. This I don't understand.

 

 

I know when I was in my affair and the first dday had happened and his BS, XMOM and I were the only ones that knew, I was in a horrible, horrible place and I wanted to tell my husband - several times - and I kept getting talked out of it (I know, I know - I could have but I was so weak) by XMOM and his wife. XMOM would absolutely freak out any time I said I would lose it - he would cry and say "I will have to take my family and move away" (another form of blackmail from him to me? Idk.). It was a vicious cycle. Even thought the second and last dday was horrible, there was a little bit of relief in that it was out.

 

 

I don't understand the blackmail part - I really don't.

 

If he wouldn't go see her she would tell him that she was going to tell me. Every time he tried to end it she would tell him he wasn't leaving her that she would tell me. She knew that it was the one thing he did not want to happen. In his warped way of thinking he felt he deserved what she was doing because he cheated. One form of blackmail is threatning to destroy someone on a personal level (telling his wife) if they do not spend time with them, be with them, etc.

 

black·mail noun \ˈblak-ˌmāl\

: the crime of threatening to tell secret information about someone unless the person being threatened gives you money or does what you want

 

Your MOM wasn't blackmailing you as it would not have harmed you. He was using your love for him as a way to protect himself. Playing to your sympathy.

[cocorico]

All,

 

In reading a bunch of threads in The Other Man/Woman, we ofter see a situation where the MM is the bad guy, gutless, creap, lowlife, etc., etc.?

 

 

My MM was not a bad person! nor is he now. He made a series of bad choices to enter, and remain so long, in a toxic R with a toxic BS, but with hard work, personal growth and support from friends and family he overcame that and left that nightmare life behind him. Bad circumstances and decades of abuse don't make a person bad of necessity. If anyone deserves the label of "bad" in his former situation, it is not him.

[Summer Breeze]

So if the om/w becomes upset because their own desires have changed regarding the affair, but the MP has remained the same...how does that make the MP a jerk/creep/liar/jackass when they have not changed?

If you'd read my post it says pretty clearly that if the MM starts lying to keep an OW 'onside' then he's a bad guy. He should state his feelings haven't changed and let it end rather than keep trying to reel her back in.

 

I am just trying to understand your thought process here, because when you say " To expect someone to enter an R and never have any need or want for it to develop is unrealistic. Not the way we're built." I dont understand how that would make MP a bad guy/gal to the ap if they were completely upfront about their expectations/what they could give and if it is in fact the om/w who decided they needed more. Wouldnt that make the om/w the one who potentially mislead the mp into a false sense of comfort? Again, not trying to say that is what you meant, I am simply trying to understand...

They're not a bad guy/gal to the AP if they've been straight with them and continue to be. As I said in my first post and just above - it's if one party has changes in their feelings and the other starts lying about theirs to keep them onside.

 

Also, isnt the mp lying to their bs to keep them invested? Ow knows better than anyone else the mp capacity to lie to their partner to keep them attached...if the ap is wanting a relationship with an honest person, then why have a relationship with a proven dishonest person and then cry foul when they are...surprise....dishonest?

So if an MP lies to her she isn't allowed to be hurt or upset? She's possibly moved from something casual to something with feelings and he's feeding her every lie under the sun and she isn't allowed to be upset cause he has a track record of lying? She has no right to think of him as a bad guy? So if a BS reconciles and gets cheated on again then they have no right to be upset? They know the WSs capacity to lie even better than an OW as they've often been believing it all for months or years. I hope you know I am saying that as a comparison. I do not believe that for a minute.

 

We all want to trust the people we care for and we don't want to think we could be duped so easily. If they have drawn us into something by lying then anyone has a right to think of them as a bad guy.

 

10 characters

[Arieswoman]

Experience the divine,

In the scenario you described on post 97# the MM is responsible. He is the one who took the marriage vows and has to duty to be faithful his wife.

 

The OW - who sounds like a real bunny-boiler BTW - owes nothing to anyone. She is single and can behave just as she likes, being answerable to no-one except her own conscience.

 

Just my 6 penneth.

[LornaFE]

the married man is the bad person, because

- he lies to you about being single to get you

- if you find out he has a wife, he lies about wanting to divorce anyway trying to keep you

- he never intended to tell his betrayed spouse

- he wants to keep both women

- after breakup he still texts you on NYE telling you how much he misses you instead of leaving you in peace

[OldRover]

the married man is the bad person, because

- he lies to you about being single to get you

- if you find out he has a wife, he lies about wanting to divorce anyway trying to keep you

- he never intended to tell his betrayed spouse

- he wants to keep both women

- after breakup he still texts you on NYE telling you how much he misses you instead of leaving you in peace

 

Lorna,

 

Would agree, but not always the case....

[Aspasia33]

Maybe the MM is just trying to deal with things as best as he knows how?

 

Which at the end of the day, is what we all do. Should have and could haves are great in hindsight, not so easy when your in the middle of it.

[OldRover]

Maybe the MM is just trying to deal with things as best as he knows how?

 

Which at the end of the day, is what we all do. Should have and could haves are great in hindsight, not so easy when your in the middle of it.

 

Agreed, there's no reason not to do the best as we see fit for our situation. However, could argue not to hurt others if avoidable. One can still deal with it if right in the middle.... but, yes, not easy.....

[OldRover]

Not sure how anyone can argue the point that a MM AND the OW, while in an affair, are doing a bad thing (but are not necessarily bad people).

 

Who can really say that being in an affair, overall is a good thing?

 

WasOther,

 

Well, it depends on the situation. There's sure some motivation for an affair, and there's some people that are very satisfied with theirs... and some that develop into a long term relationship.

[Aspasia33]

My affair is a good thing...we love each other, have developed a deep and abiding friendship, have discovered depths neither of realized we were capable of..it is definitely regarded as a LTR by us even if we never leave our spouses (which is not on the cards)

 

If we break up tomorrow, I will treasure the last 5 years, and if i never speak to him ever again , just knowing he walks this earth comforts me.

 

An affair is not a bad thing, it is a revolt against the ridiculous and limiting rules on love that have happened in the last 200 years.

 

 

Not sure how anyone can argue the point that a MM AND the OW, while in an affair, are doing a bad thing (but are not necessarily bad people).

 

Who can really say that being in an affair, overall is a good thing?

WasOther,

 

Well, it depends on the situation. There's sure some motivation for an affair, and there's some people that are very satisfied with theirs... and some that develop into a long term relationship.

Edited January 15, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Fixed quote

[cocorico]

Not sure how anyone can argue the point that a MM AND the OW, while in an affair, are doing a bad thing (but are not necessarily bad people).

 

Who can really say that being in an affair, overall is a good thing?

 

Someone who, like me, holds a utilitarian view of ethics, and believes that "the greatest good for the greatest number" determines the best course of action.

 

So, in our case, the A resulted in massive amounts of good for some people (him, me, his kids), moderate amounts of good for some others (his family, friends, colleagues) and smaller amounts of good for others (neighbours, service providers, etc).

 

Only a single person suffered any "harm", and since she was terminally unhappy beforehand, the actual amount is probably quite small - and, either way, would come nowhere near to offsetting the massive amounts of good generated by the A.

 

So yes, I would say that, overall, our A was a good thing.

[woinlove]

All,

 

In reading a bunch of threads in The Other Man/Woman, we ofter see a situation where the MM is the bad guy, gutless, creap, lowlife, etc., etc.?

 

We often hear the OW complaining about not wanting a part time man, or sharing with the BS, and issues about ending things because of the faults of the MM. Where is the blame for the OW?

 

However, not really looking to place blame anywhere, but to have this kind of relationship, BOTH parties certainly know what they are getting into. With this kind of relationship, there's bound to be some hard times. The only thing I could strongly argue for, is to be honest with each other. Spell out what you expect out of the relationship and where it's going. I could argue that the MM should let the OW know what his M is like and why he even decided to have a relationship in the first place. And likewise, the OW should let the MM know why he is her choice. If the MM is heading for a divorce, deal with it and perhaps goals and timelines should be set. If the MM is not heading for a divorce, there should still be an understanding of what each wants and needs are in this relationship.

 

And, in a lot of cases, we really don't know the "whole" story on either side. There's circumstances that make things the way they are.

 

We live with our choices and make choices based on what we feel is best. Live with it.

 

I'd emphasize the bolded above. Most people don't like being dishonest and are happier when they are honest and open with those they chose to share an important part of their life with. If at each point in time they give a high priority to honesty and respect, for themselves and for others, some pain (for themselves and others) may be avoided.

 

As to OW blaming the MM when they knew he was married, much of this is done out of hurt and pain. Most will come to a more balanced view of their own role after the pain subsides.

[Snipercatt]

An affair is not a bad thing, it is a revolt against the ridiculous and limiting rules on love that have happened in the last 200 years.

 

 

Aspasia, the comment that affairs are a revolt against 200 years of rules limiting love is ridiculous. Affairs have been documented for thousands of years.

 

It isn't a revolt. If you don't like the rule then you shouldn't sign up for it in the first place. If you don't like the rules of love that you made a commitment to then renegotiate the rule with the person to whom you made the commitment.

[woinlove]

Aspasia, the comment that affairs are a revolt against 200 years of rules limiting love is ridiculous. Affairs have been documented for thousands of years.

 

It isn't a revolt. If you don't like the rule then you shouldn't sign up for it in the first place. If you don't like the rules of love that you made a commitment to then renegotiate the rule with the person to whom you made the commitment.

 

Agree.

 

Aspasia, no one can force another to be deceitful or disloyal. I take it you disagree with the opening post about being honest with others, right?

 

But to suggest that such dishonesty is a 200 yr old revolt against rules limiting love ignores the power and control each of us has over our own lives and choices. My H and I discussed at length what we wanted regarding monogamy, honesty, loyalty before we married and we continue to discuss these. There is no reason to be controlled by 200 year old rules particularly in matters of love. Live the life you want and when you do, take credit (and responsibility) for it and don't pin in on others - even those long dead.

[Sub]

Yes, if you're trying to revolt against "limitations on love", why enter into a monogamous relationship with someone, whether it's in any way binding or not? If you want to protest the war, don't sign up for the Army.

[Aspasia33]

I don't agree with war, think it's the most stupid thing around . And I do work with the military.

What I meant by my post, is that romantic monogamous love has only been " enforced" in marriage fairly recently.

In the past it was understood that you didn't marry for love.

I also do agree with honesty, but people change from what they often originally signed up for.

 

 

Yes, if you're trying to revolt against "limitations on love", why enter into a monogamous relationship with someone, whether it's in any way binding or not? If you want to protest the war, don't sign up for the Army.

Edited January 16, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Discussion of forum dynamics redacted

[cocorico]

Utilitarianism is just another justification for causing harm to people while still being able to consider oneself a righteous and ethical person.

 

Since you appear not to understand what utilitarian ethics are, here is an explanation:

 

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Classic utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."

Source: Wikipedia; emphasis added.

 

Unless you consider Jesus of Nazareth someone who caused harm to others while still considering himself a righteous person, I'd say your understanding was rather wide of the mark.

 

To return to topic, unless the A caused more harm than good on balance, neither the MM nor the OW should be considered "bad people", according to utilitarian ethics.