Question for OW here!

[mark clemson]

3 hours ago, elaine567 said:

I have a feeling you are being triggered here Mark, hence your defensive stance.
You do not like the idea of you being viewed as an "abuser". 

Thanks @JimmyNorth and @spiritedaway2003. Spiritedaway is correct in his assessment. I find error in the (mis)use of the term generally. Much as I find it in the (mis)use of "thug" to describe some people here in the US many of whom are actually quite decent and/or simply struggling to get by as best they can and would object to that as well. A poster called JimmyNorth this and I thought it deserved some response.

Actually, what's triggering me (slightly) are responses like "No." and "Are you being serious here, Mark?" After I bother to post a rational discourse, I'd prefer to not simply have my views dismissed. If there are counter-arguments, then present them. Otherwise admit that your views might not be entirely reasonable/realistic. Hard to do perhaps, but come on - this is just an internet chat room not national TV and we're all anonymous here.

@JimmyNorth hopefully the "threadjack" doesn't bother you. I did have a feeling it might happen. If it bothers you, inform the moderators and they'll probably agree to delete all these posts.  If you're OK with keeping this line of discussion, you may want to say so in a post below, or it's possible they'll delete them for being off topic. (BTW, this is in no way a dig at our Mods, who IMO do a stellar job.)

Thanks all!

[JimmyNorth]

4 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

Thanks @JimmyNorth and @spiritedaway2003. Spiritedaway is correct in his assessment. I find error in the (mis)use of the term generally. Much as I find it in the (mis)use of "thug" to describe some people here in the US many of whom are actually quite decent and/or simply struggling to get by as best they can and would object to that as well. A poster called JimmyNorth this and I thought it deserved some response.

Actually, what's triggering me (slightly) are responses like "No." and "Are you being serious here, Mark?" After I bother to post a rational discourse, I'd prefer to not simply have my views dismissed. If there are counter-arguments, then present them. Otherwise admit that your views might not be entirely reasonable/realistic. Hard to do perhaps, but come on - this is just an internet chat room not national TV and we're all anonymous here.

@JimmyNorth hopefully the "threadjack" doesn't bother you. I did have a feeling it might happen. If it bothers you, inform the moderators and they'll probably agree to delete all these posts.  If you're OK with keeping this line of discussion, you may want to say so in a post below, or it's possible they'll delete them for being off topic. (BTW, this is in no way a dig at our Mods, who IMO do a stellar job.)

Thanks all!

No worries! Threadjack away 😀. Actually I think the mods get upset about it more, but I don’t care on this thread. Hey, I’m one of the cool MM’s here! 

I love watching a thread develop its own life. Its easy for me to redirect the convo anyways if I want to stay on topic. 

On this thread, I basically underscored what I already knew. I was mad that my MISTRESS hooked up with another guy even though I was married and she was begging me for 4 years to be with her exclusively.

So I confirmed that I WAS a typical possessive hypocritical jack**ss that believed what was good for the goose WASNT good for the gander.

I’m fairly lucky that my OW waited that long for me, because I was really looking like the type of MM that does throw lines of bulls**t just to keep a OW on tap. 

[mark clemson]

Thanks + glad you're OK with the T/J. Have a good weekend...

[Amethyst68]

It was my comment that Mark was replying to.

I'm not a BS but my life has been impacted badly by infidelity. I find it interesting that it's posters who have been in affairs that are objecting here to the use of the word abuse in connection with cheating but the BSs are pretty much in agreement about it being correct.

It may be worth looking into their point of view.

[JimmyNorth]

3 hours ago, Amethyst68 said:

It was my comment that Mark was replying to.

I'm not a BS but my life has been impacted badly by infidelity. I find it interesting that it's posters who have been in affairs that are objecting here to the use of the word abuse in connection with cheating but the BSs are pretty much in agreement about it being correct.

It may be worth looking into their point of view.

I’ll come in devils advocate here! I’ll go ahead and say if I treat my woman like a queen and she goes behind my back and cheats on me, then yes, I would “feel” abused. But is it actual abuse? It would hurt my heart. 

At the end of the day, Mark is sympathizing with you and any BS who is damaged. Just understand that he is trying to illustrate his logical point of view when it comes to the actual context of the abuse claim.

Everyone here, including OM’s and OW’s that have stole spouses, can agree that it hurts like hell to be cheated on!

[spiritedaway2003]

48 minutes ago, Amethyst68 said:

It was my comment that Mark was replying to.

I'm not a BS but my life has been impacted badly by infidelity. I find it interesting that it's posters who have been in affairs that are objecting here to the use of the word abuse in connection with cheating but the BSs are pretty much in agreement about it being correct.

It may be worth looking into their point of view.

I don't think it makes any difference.  Case in point, Jimmy could say that he felt abused in his marriage situation if we are using the same broad use of definition.  I'm sure many would disagree if all WS start saying that too, and I too would disagree with that usage for the same reasoning.  You can't use the term only when it suits your narrative (not you, general you) but when it happens to someone else, it doesn't apply.  When people confide to others about infidelity, it's "he or she cheated on me" and not "he or she abused me" (with the previously stated caveat that it's not mutually exclusive).

And with all due respect, everyone has a past, for better or for worse. That doesn't mean you don't have a view on things, or that your view is automatically less valid.  Discussion should be dissected and judged on its own merits,  and not on an ad hominem nature. 

I'm sorry if this triggered anyone.  I don't think there's much more I can add, so I will refrain further from this specific "semantics" discussion. 

And @mark clemson, I'm a "her".

 

 

[Starswillshine]

To explain further to my "no" which I just did not have time to get into yesterday. There are many reports of people who were both rape victims and BS, and they have said the trauma is worse from the affair. It felt like a complete violation of my body, and I was also a sexual assault victim as well. My rapist was someone I knew; however, it was not my husband. Someone I loved. Someone who was supposed to protect me. The betrayal of someone you love and have put your entire life in their hands is a different level. 

My physical being felt completely violated. I had to go to a doctor to get tested for STDs while being married. It was humiliating asking the nurse to add that to my visit request. 

You dont see if as abuse because you wouldnt want to be labeled as an abuser. But it was abuse. Period. 

[heartwhole2]

I consider myself a logical person, but I'm not following the logic of first asserting that we all engage in behavior that knowingly causes risk to our family members (do we? I'm actually quite consistent in how I live my life) and therefore this thing that causes risk is mitigated in its . . . badness?

Perhaps what I'm not relating to is that my self-love has not been shaken either by what others have done to me or what I've done that I regret. The fact that I'm a human being who, as long as she breathes, can learn and do better, and who deserves love and respect, is a given. I can offer grace both to myself and to others. But when I have harmed others, my focus must be on them. That's what I owe them. Intentions may matter when it comes to how badly trust is damaged or whether something qualifies as a certain crime, but when it comes to another's pain that resulted from my choices, intentions don't matter. Cognizance of risk doesn't matter for ignorance is no excuse.

If my husband exposes all of us to COVID 19 because he didn't bother to educate himself on how it spreads or what precautions to take, does it make my getting the illness when I have a compromised immune system and a 77 year old mother with COPD whom I take care of any better? Sure, I might die, but at least he didn't knowingly expose me, right? Similarly, when my husband had sex with someone else and thought to use a condom, but didn't research that some diseases can spread through kissing and didn't realize he could be exposing me to HPV, something for which I'm not vaccinated because I was in a life-long monogamous relationship with a fellow virgin, does he get a pass? And frankly, if he were the kind of person arguing about how he agreed that affairs were really bad but only about 80% as bad as I thought they were, would we be reconciled now? His self-love needs to be strong enough to look in the mirror and face what he did and own it. And thankfully, today it is.

We can always compare ourselves to someone else and say, well, look, I'm not as bad as that person. That person is an abuser. But I consider these kinds of comparisons a waste of time. I compare myself to the me I want to be, not to others. And when I fail, I cannot control or dictate how others are impacted by my choices. Remember, abuse is about control . . . controlling a person's reality, controlling access to information, controlling choices. I'm all for consensual relationships among adults. I don't care what people do when they have full agency to consent. But an affair is based on controlling a third party -- controlling their reality and their choices and therefore bypassing their need to consent. And that's simply not OK.

[BaileyB]

When one engages in behavior that is hurtful to another human being and then limits the information, thus limiting that person’s ability to consent or making an informed decision about their lives... that is a pretty obvious abuse of power and an abuse of trust. 
 

Edited April 18, 2020 by BaileyB

[mark clemson]

Some points to address the posts above, and apologies as I don't mean to seem unaware of pain folks may have suffered.

I'm talking about a general label of "abuser" to all cheaters, rather than specific cases.

As pointed out by @spiritedaway2003 "I feel it was abuse" makes abuse a vacuous term. Others may respond with greater or lesser emotional intensity to some of the (extremely difficult, and I'm sorry for that) experiences described above.

Not to sound trite, but being denied sex can feel quite distressing to a male (and to some females) and being denied emotional intimacy can be for both genders. Shall we call it abuse when someone's spouse or BF/GF simply has a different "frequency"/interest level?

If a husband (or wife) likes to cook their meat rare and forgets to thermometer test it (who actually does that anyhow) it's quite possible for the spouse to get a serious illness like salmonella or others with a wide array of negative health effects including ones that can affect a pregnancy*. He should have known better than to risk food poisoning a pregnant wife and I think anyone could reasonably say was negligent. As tragic as an outcome might be, would she label it abuse? Maybe some would, but generally I doubt it, because she's not also angry at him over a betrayal.

If making decisions that are extremely likely to be hurtful while keeping information from people are always abuse, then again it's vacuous. In addition to the things, I've already mentioned like divorce, most corporate layoff decisions are "abusive" by this approach. And what about a decision to give away or put down a pet that a child loves? Shall we call that child abuse? Seems like that trivializes a very very serious issue.

So again, and with respect to people's genuinely painful experiences, there's nothing here that warrants a blanket label of "abuser" for all cheaters, with the criminality that entails.

 

* If you want I can post a link, although I don't think it's necessary.

[heartwhole2]

Mark, all your examples that I can recall have to do with normal things every person does . . . driving over the speed limit (even I do that, lol), cooking meat, your lovely example about accidentally transferring fecal matter. I have every expectation that my husband will do these everyday activities. They're part of life. Having sex with another woman secretly is not a normal activity that everybody engages in. If it were, the cheater would just say, "Oh hey, I'm going to have sex with Karen tonight FYI." They don't because they know it's wrong and they know their partner will object. It's included in standard marriage vows. Are you arguing that everyone should assume their partner who has vowed fidelity might be secretly having sex with someone else? Or are you saying that if risk is a part of reasonable activities, it's OK for risk to be a part of unreasonable activities too? 

I agree that being denied sex and/or emotional intimacy is unhealthy and wrong. Toxic, dysfunctional, and/or unhealthy relationships are often also abusive, but I'm sure we could think of some examples where they're not. It's incumbent upon all of us to be healthy people who have healthy relationships, and to exit relationships which are not healthy. You don't have to put up with your partner not having sex with you; at least you know it's happening. You don't have to put up with your partner having sex with someone else, but you no longer have that agency when they've tricked you into thinking they're not. They are trapping you in an unhealthy relationship by false pretenses and are taking risks on your behalf that you don't know about . . . what are the odds that a person who thinks adultery is a good idea also has a really good handle on what risks are OK for their betrayed spouse to take on?

[pepperbird]

This could be one of those cases where the semantics don't matter. Whether it's labelled abuse or something else, it's still rotten behaviour.

[pepperbird]

OP,

How are you doing?

[JimmyNorth]

4 hours ago, pepperbird said:

OP,

How are you doing?

I’m doing beautiful. I’m enjoying the convo. A nice debate is always healthy. I think we should always keep an open mind to ALL sides and have a healthy debate from all points of view.

This could help WS’s, BS’s, OW and OM take a peak at the inner ways of thinking of each side.

[mark clemson]

On 4/18/2020 at 3:57 PM, heartwhole2 said:

Mark, all your examples that I can recall have to do with normal things every person does . . . driving over the speed limit (even I do that, lol), cooking meat, your lovely example about accidentally transferring fecal matter. I have every expectation that my husband will do these everyday activities. They're part of life.

Ok, BUT that doesn't make them right, or make it right for us (yes, I do many of these things too at least once in a while, for example speeding) to cavalierly take risks with other people's health and safety. Even though it's not right, we don't label people "abuser" over it. I think that's mostly because it wouldn't really make sense/fit the label.

If you want a less "normal" example, take a guy who marries a recovering gambling addict. They both earn decent money, are both affectionate, and have big life plans together.  She relapses and secretly starts gambling. This goes on for a few years, and eventually she spends 20% or so of their joint savings, at which point she's discovered.

Hubby is royally pissed and feels betrayed. He's been living a lie, because "their" plan to retire 15 years early with a good lifestyle is now shot. Depending on personality, he might want to divorce.

Would you label her an "abuser" for those years she deceived the H? Some people might. A lawyer might argue she committed "financial abuse" or similar in a divorce. But that's a pretty specific idea and something for courts to decide. No doubt there's variance of the definition in the world's hundreds of jurisdictions (and probably some where the concept doesn't exist at all).  In common speaking I don't think most people would label her "abuser", particularly if she was affectionate and outwardly "loving" during that time. She made bad decisions (to start gambling again) and kept damaging secrets. But she didn't abuse him the way we regularly think about it.

[preraph]

You don't have a leg to stand on.  4 years is longer than you should have to wait for even an unmarried man, much less a married one.  She should be dating other guys, and I hope she is.  

[pepperbird]

29 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

Ok, BUT that doesn't make them right, or make it right for us (yes, I do many of these things too at least once in a while, for example speeding) to cavalierly take risks with other people's health and safety. Even though it's not right, we don't label people "abuser" over it. I think that's mostly because it wouldn't really make sense/fit the label.

If you want a less "normal" example, take a guy who marries a recovering gambling addict. They both earn decent money, are both affectionate, and have big life plans together.  She relapses and secretly starts gambling. This goes on for a few years, and eventually she spends 20% or so of their joint savings, at which point she's discovered.

Hubby is royally pissed and feels betrayed. He's been living a lie, because "their" plan to retire 15 years early with a good lifestyle is now shot. Depending on personality, he might want to divorce.

Would you label her an "abuser" for those years she deceived the H? Some people might. A lawyer might argue she committed "financial abuse" or similar in a divorce. But that's a pretty specific idea and something for courts to decide. No doubt there's variance of the definition in the world's hundreds of jurisdictions (and probably some where the concept doesn't exist at all).  In common speaking I don't think most people would label her "abuser", particularly if she was affectionate and outwardly "loving" during that time. She made bad decisions (to start gambling again) and kept damaging secrets. But she didn't abuse him the way we regularly think about it.

I've been with a physically abusive partner. It got so bad I had to go to the police and hide in another city from him.
Even with all the bruises and a broken bone, my husband's affair was even worse, and I consider it far more abusive. An abuse of trust, an abuse of finances, emotional abuse.

I don;t know why the affair was worse to me,. t could be because I trusted him so much. With the other guy, after the first coupe of times being hit, I realized that's just who he was. I expected nothing better. With my husband, it was very different. IUt was really ahrd for hm to reconcile the way he hurt me with the way he wants himself to be.

[mark clemson]

@pepperbird  Ok but, with respect for what you've been through, there are many others out there who might assess the "pain" levels for the two situations very differently. As you note, you had a deeper emotional bond with your husband than with the first guy, which I'd guess is a big part of it. A woman with less of an emotional bond to her H, or simply a different outlook on life, might feel less distress.

I'm not sure how your husband treated you during the affair, but speaking generally if a person's outwardly treating another person reasonably well, even while keeping a big secret from them, we normally don't call them an "abuser".

Not sure if this truly factors into the logical argument, but you were able to reconcile with your husband, despite the pain, whereas with the first man that wasn't possible.

[pepperbird]

1 hour ago, mark clemson said:

@pepperbird  Ok but, with respect for what you've been through, there are many others out there who might assess the "pain" levels for the two situations very differently. As you note, you had a deeper emotional bond with your husband than with the first guy, which I'd guess is a big part of it. A woman with less of an emotional bond to her H, or simply a different outlook on life, might feel less distress.

I'm not sure how your husband treated you during the affair, but speaking generally if a person's outwardly treating another person reasonably well, even while keeping a big secret from them, we normally don't call them an "abuser".

Not sure if this truly factors into the logical argument, but you were able to reconcile with your husband, despite the pain, whereas with the first man that wasn't possible.

It was very dark. He was losing himself for a long time before that. I didn't know what it was. he didn't know what it was. We'd never really seen combat PTSD close up before. He'd wake up screaming and crying, and after a while, he started sleeping in the floor, but he wouldn't say why. .   I'd find him in the bathroom, staring at his reflection and muttering about how we'd be better off without him. I would ask him what was wrong, and he'd always say "nothing". It was like the steady guy I knew was gone.
Truth is, he was.

[pepperbird]

1 hour ago, mark clemson said:

@pepperbird  Ok but, with respect for what you've been through, there are many others out there who might assess the "pain" levels for the two situations very differently. As you note, you had a deeper emotional bond with your husband than with the first guy, which I'd guess is a big part of it. A woman with less of an emotional bond to her H, or simply a different outlook on life, might feel less distress.

I'm not sure how your husband treated you during the affair, but speaking generally if a person's outwardly treating another person reasonably well, even while keeping a big secret from them, we normally don't call them an "abuser".

Not sure if this truly factors into the logical argument, but you were able to reconcile with your husband, despite the pain, whereas with the first man that wasn't possible.

I was able to reconcile with my husband, but it took years of therapy, rebuilding trust and hard work on his part.

[heartwhole2]

For those who love logic this website is very incisive.

"The Protection Defense" - Infidelity Help Group

https://www.infidelityhelpgroup.com/2012/12/20/protection-defense/

"I see no moral distinction between a cheater lying about an affair to hornswoggle their spouse into living a false reality, and slipping someone a roofie. In both situations it denies someone the ability to make their own informed choices.

Infidelity diminishes. It removes the faithful spouse’s prerogative to be informed of, consent to, or veto, changes in their relationship. It abstracts their part in their partner’s life, and it jettisons their understanding of what their partnership represented.

It’s neither too complicated nor too onerous to at least respect your spouse’s freedom and ability to make their own choice based in reality, instead of robbing them of it by your omissions, minimizations, or outright lies.

A cheater clinging to the Protection Defense is actually making a very clear statement: I am willing to harm you, but I am unwilling to face the results of that harm."

Edited April 20, 2020 by heartwhole2
quoted excerpt was too long

[MilaVaneela]

First of all thank you @JimmyNorth for your kind words in your reply to me (can’t find the post now but I know it was there 😅) Yes, I did my best to hold my marriage together and in the end, loving my xH or “nicing” him wasn’t enough. 

My last thoughts on the abuse thing: My xH was also physically abusive and I think the STI I contracted due to his infidelity and the resulting miscarriage  were the worst thing I experienced from him by far. 

He and I obviously did not reconcile (he received a diagnosis of APD near the end of our marriage but sadly, as is common with cluster B disorders, he would not follow through with behavioral therapy of any kind because he truly did not feel that he needed it). I do consider his infidelity, especially because it had such disastrous consequences, to be on par with the physical and verbal abuse I had to deal with. Maybe it’s a case of YMMV, but I feel that to dismiss all instances completely has an underlying tone of “oh it’s not that bad when your partner cheats on you and hey it’s probably your fault anyway”. Perhaps I’m projecting a bit. 
 

[S2B]

On 12/9/2019 at 10:11 PM, JimmyNorth said:

 

Yes, I’m basically live with her now and contribute any way she needs me too. I don’t have any issues helping. I treat us as a REAL couple now!

So how much of the mortgage/rent do you pay? Half?

do you pay for at least half of all the household expenses? Food, utilities?

[JimmyNorth]

52 minutes ago, S2B said:

So how much of the mortgage/rent do you pay? Half?

do you pay for at least half of all the household expenses? Food, utilities?

Yes, we both pay bills and food together.

[heartwhole2]

1 hour ago, MilaVaneela said:

First of all thank you @JimmyNorth for your kind words in your reply to me (can’t find the post now but I know it was there 😅) Yes, I did my best to hold my marriage together and in the end, loving my xH or “nicing” him wasn’t enough. 

My last thoughts on the abuse thing: My xH was also physically abusive and I think the STI I contracted due to his infidelity and the resulting miscarriage  were the worst thing I experienced from him by far. 

He and I obviously did not reconcile (he received a diagnosis of APD near the end of our marriage but sadly, as is common with cluster B disorders, he would not follow through with behavioral therapy of any kind because he truly did not feel that he needed it). I do consider his infidelity, especially because it had such disastrous consequences, to be on par with the physical and verbal abuse I had to deal with. Maybe it’s a case of YMMV, but I feel that to dismiss all instances completely has an underlying tone of “oh it’s not that bad when your partner cheats on you and hey it’s probably your fault anyway”. Perhaps I’m projecting a bit. 
 

Thank you for sharing your story. I'm so sorry you experienced that.

I'm with you. I can't wrap my head around the idea that abuse is OK as long as you're not sure it's going to result in harm. Or substitute "taking away your partner's right to choose and their ability to ascertain what is real about their own life and risking their health" for abuse if you must. These things are OK as long as you kinda thought no harm, no foul? Is that really what we're arguing? Taking away someone's autonomy and right to consent is OK as long as harm (as judged by harmer) is not 100% guaranteed? It's only abusive if you for sure get a disease and have a miscarriage? Otherwise, it was just some entirely separate and compartmentalized occurrence that had nothing to do with you?

The whole point of affairs is that at least one person is being denied the right to consent. Otherwise they'd be called open relationships. Built into their premise is abuse. I'm glad people have such respect for the word abuse that they can't fathom that they could ever perpetrate it. I wish they'd have as much respect for human agency.

There was a time when I drank more alcohol than I realized (I was young and did not know that martinis are basically pure alcohol) and became belligerent, told my husband I hated him, and locked him out of the house. I could make all sorts of excuses about how I didn't know what I was doing, wasn't in control of my faculties, could have done far worse, etc. But who cares? It doesn't change what I did or who is responsible for it. It doesn't change my husband's right to a relationship where he is not misused and abused. It doesn't change my responsibility to own it and address the weaknesses that led to it happening. 

I can handle the fact that in one dark "perfect storm" moment I was an abuser. I am human. I have a capacity for great cruelty and a capacity for great compassion. It's up to me to nurture the qualities I want to have. It takes courage to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you chose to be a person who harms another. It's easier to minimize and rationalize, but that's how you started an affair in the first place. It may be a temporary fix for a shaky ego, but you shortchange yourself if you can't say, "What I did to you was not OK." When you really, truly understand that, you won't look someone who has been harmed in the face and argue with them about diction.