MM is too persistent, yet cheap

[Touche]

Puddle... :lmao: :lmao:

Very true they are ALL horny for whatever they can get!

 

Let's qualify that. You did mean all cheating MM's and not ALL men, right?

[Island Girl]

He would want me to drive to him (sometimes 2 hours away), but he never bothered to offer to pay for my gas or anything.

 

The MM code: never put out more than is required to attain his own objective.

 

He would never call me to even find out if I made it safe and the only times we really communicated was when he was ready to "get some".

 

Of course he didn't. He "loves" his wife not you. At least that is what he thinks in his head. Truth is he "loves" himself only.

 

This type of interaction with him really depressed me and I felt that I was better off alone because he was not doing anything for me. I even told him once that I could not rely on him to do anything for me, not even if I was to have a flat tire.

 

So you realized he wasn't giving you anything that you ever needed, that you were better off alone.

 

You told him you can't count on him and he obviously offered no argument.

 

So the answer is you move on. But you didn't...?

 

 

He is not able to be there for me in the manner I would like a man to be there for me. Even if we were to see each other every now and again, I would expect him to help me out financially but he has not been forthcoming with that and I have not asked either. He knows and sees that I am struggling. My life is just beginning therefore, I cannot afford alot of the things. My budget is very limited but he does not seem to really look at things in that way.

 

His priority is not taking care of you. It is taking care of himself.

 

He also has a wife that has her hands in things financially. So don't expect a whole lot.

 

He has to offer me more than just occassional sex.

 

Even if we were to see each other every now and again, I would expect him to help me out financially

 

I'll echo another poster's thoughts:

 

Generally someone who is exchanging money or valuables for sex, commonly referred to as a prostitute, negotiates the fee up front and gets paid up front.

 

It seems that this is the relationship you'd prefer.

 

I'd start reading up on negotiating. You're pretty bad at it right now.

[YoMomma]

Let's qualify that. You did mean all cheating MM's and not ALL men, right?

 

Nah... they are all horny for sumthin

 

At least I hope they still are....LOL Its been a while

[Island Girl]

Technically, a mistress is a woman that has an exclusive affair and in return the MM provides financial support.

 

Mistress has multiple definitions. Most not having anything to do with sex, marriage, or money.

 

The definition referred to here reads:

 

MISTRESS: a woman who has a continuing, extramarital sexual relationship with one man, esp. a man who, in return for an exclusive and continuing liaison, provides her with financial support.

 

So a mistress may or may not get financial support.

 

However, prostitute has several definitions MOST having to do with sex in exchange for money.

 

PROSTITUTE:

1.a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.

2.a man who engages in sexual acts for money.

3.a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.

 

 

Interesting, huh?

[Touche]

Nah... they are all horny for sumthin

 

At least I hope they still are....LOL Its been a while

 

Yes, I guess that's true. I'm just lucky that my H is horny for me only! (Well, maybe he's horny for other women too but after 12 years he's never acted on it anyway.)

 

And Island Girl. Thank you for clearing that up about mistresses. I've always thought that the terms OW and "mistress" were interchangeable.

 

As far as the "prostitute" definition...I think we were all quite clear on that one!

[norajane]

What's with all these flat tires that need fixing? Hasn't anyone heard of AAA? $64/yr will get all your flats fixed and batteries jumped that you could possibly need.

[crazy_grl]

I agree with many of the other posters. The things you expect of him are not things you should even expect of a single guy. Learn to support and take care of yourself and you'll be a lot better off. Give this MM the boot and stay far away from married guys in the future.

 

Also, I'm trying to give you the benefit of a doubt, but you sound very shallow and materialistic. You want him to do chores for you and you want money. Is that all you really want from a relationship? If so, I suggest you take the advice to learn to negotiate these things up front.

 

You do sound young, so maybe you take those things as signs of affection and haven't learned to express your real wants and needs.

[movinon05]

What's with all these flat tires that need fixing? Hasn't anyone heard of AAA? $64/yr will get all your flats fixed and batteries jumped that you could possibly need.

 

Hey, not to TJ here, but I found out they will only make 4 calls per car a year.

[stillhere]

What's with all these flat tires that need fixing? Hasn't anyone heard of AAA? $64/yr will get all your flats fixed and batteries jumped that you could possibly need.

 

 

Hey, i know how to fix my own flat, but when weather conditions aren't the best, i'd rather have someone else do it!!

 

That's when i'll call a friend or wait for some hottie to stop!! I have a few guy friends who will fix my flat (if MM can't), all it takes is one phone call!

[Touche]

Hey, i know how to fix my own flat, but when weather conditions aren't the best, i'd rather have someone else do it!!

 

That's when i'll call a friend or wait for some hottie to stop!! I have a few guy friends who will fix my flat (if MM can't), all it takes is one phone call!

 

I don't think NJ was talking about fixing your own flat tire. All it takes is one phone to AAA! Sure beats relying on a friend or waiting for some "hottie" to stop. That's just too risky for MY blood.

 

There's a LOT to be said for learning how to be independent.

[puddleofmud]

Said hottie should not only be available to fix the flat but should make pancakes in the morning!!!

[Touche]

Hey, not to TJ here, but I found out they will only make 4 calls per car a year.

 

Well that's still four more than a MM would make!

[stillhere]

Said hottie should not only be available to fix the flat but should make pancakes in the morning!!!

 

 

I agree POM!! And it wouldn't hurt if he made the pancakes in his buff hottie-ness!!

 

Hell, i want a backrub to go with the pancakes as well!

[frannie]

Well to be honest, that wasn't the word I was thinking of.

 

But anyway...mistress, OW, isn't it all the same thing?

 

The word you were thinking of is something else again.

 

And no, OW, mistress, and the word you were thinking of are very definitely three different types of relationship. Being an OW in fact is in no way connected with financial arrangements (though of course being a W usually is). So let's not get really cheap.

[Touche]

The word you were thinking of is something else again.

 

And no, OW, mistress, and the word you were thinking of are very definitely three different types of relationship. Being an OW in fact is in no way connected with financial arrangements (though of course being a W usually is). So let's not get really cheap.

 

Thanks for the laugh! Uhm...I'm not the one getting "really cheap." I, and others, have pointed out what this is really all about.

 

As far as terminology...OW/mistress is the same in my eyes. Even the definition quoted says as much. As far as the "other" definition...some OW's/mistresses DO fit into that category but not ALL.

 

So you really can't say with such certainty that "being an OW in fact is in NO way connected with financial arrangements" because sometimes it IS.

 

And guess what? Sometimes a WIFE is as well.

 

We're just calling a spade a spade here.

[herenow]

I always find it interesting when an OW believes that the MM is responsible for anything. A MM is supposed to be responsible to his wife and family and he hasn't lived up to that challenge. What makes an OW think that the same man would act responsible in an affair?

 

However, with this poster, it's obvious that she feels that she should be compensated for her service. I agree with all the others here that say she should just give him a rate card. The probable truth is, if he had to give nextel anything financially or any other way, he would just find someone else to do the job for free. Or, I guess this OW can do what many others have done before her and threaten to tell the wife. But there is another term for that: "blackmail".

 

Married men are married period. They don't have the freedom to do whatever they want when ever they want because the choose to stay in the marriage.

[frannie]

Thanks for the laugh! Uhm...I'm not the one getting "really cheap." I, and others, have pointed out what this is really all about.

 

As far as terminology...OW/mistress is the same in my eyes. Even the definition quoted says as much. As far as the "other" definition...some OW's/mistresses DO fit into that category but not ALL.

 

So you really can't say with such certainty that "being an OW in fact is in NO way connected with financial arrangements" because sometimes it IS.

 

And guess what? Sometimes a WIFE is as well.

 

We're just calling a spade a spade here.

 

No, you're calling an OW a mistress, and they are often very different things. Going back to your first question, no, OW don't regularly ask for money or financial support from the man they're involved in. That is a mistress. Nothing necessarily wrong with being a mistress (at least everyone knows where they stand), but an OW in a love relationship is... in a love relationship. Not doing it for the money.

 

Doing it for the money is a whole different situation, as you well know. That's commerce, not love (or even lust).

[herenow]

No, you're calling an OW a mistress, and they are often very different things. Going back to your first question, no, OW don't regularly ask for money or financial support from the man they're involved in. That is a mistress. Nothing necessarily wrong with being a mistress (at least everyone knows where they stand), but an OW in a love relationship is... in a love relationship. Not doing it for the money.

 

Doing it for the money is a whole different situation, as you well know. That's commerce, not love (or even lust).

 

The problem with nextel is that she hasn't made it clear to the MM that she wants to be a mistress. There is no talk of any kind of feelings that she has for the MM or vice versa, she admits that all he wants is sex. So, I agree, she should just ask him to pay her. At least that way, as frannie says, everyone will know where they stand. I still think he will just get someone who will service him for free.

[crazy_grl]

No, you're calling an OW a mistress, and they are often very different things. Going back to your first question, no, OW don't regularly ask for money or financial support from the man they're involved in. That is a mistress. Nothing necessarily wrong with being a mistress (at least everyone knows where they stand), but an OW in a love relationship is... in a love relationship. Not doing it for the money.

 

Doing it for the money is a whole different situation, as you well know. That's commerce, not love (or even lust).

 

Frannie, as Touche already said, the definition of mistress is the same as for an OW. The definition was already posted by Island Girl earlier. I checked a couple different dictionary sites, and they all said the same thing (except some which didn't mention money at all). Merriam Webster defines mistress as "a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship".

 

You may not like people referring to an OW as a mistress, because you feel it has a negative connotation. Maybe in time the definition will evolve to only describe OW who are financially compensated, but right now, that is the definition and anyone referring to an OW as a mistress is technically correct.

 

Also, where'd the OP go?

[herenow]

You may not like people referring to an OW as a mistress, because you feel it has a negative connotation. Maybe in time the definition will evolve to only describe OW who are financially compensated, but right now, that is the definition and anyone referring to an OW as a mistress is technically correct.

 

I don't think calling an OW a mistress makes what the OW is doing any more or less wrong. The fact is, having an affair is wrong no matter what you call the people involved. It doesn't matter if there is compensation or not, it's still wrong. I think the word affair has a negative connotation. If OW are so concerned with being seen in a negative light, stop sleeping with married men and you won't have that problem.

[nextel]

this was the place were women in situations of being the OW or mistress come and talk about things and not have to be bashed about "its wrong to be with a married man". Yes it is not right, but the fact is that....this has been happening for years. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but this particular forum is for "The Other Man/Woman.

 

Some people have stated that if I dont give him "some" then he will probably go and get it elsewhere for free. MAYBE, but I don't think so. His wife has not joined him yet; if getting some, somewhere else was an option for him, he would not be blowing up my phone in the manner that he has been doing. Now, in 3/4 months, things can change but right now, he does not really have that kinda option.

 

He is constantly telling me that he trusts me with his life. That might be because I have not told his wife, or because he has no disease.

 

Either way, it does not matter. I was venting about a situation and I have decided that I will let him know how I feel about starting a sexual affair. I decided that I was going to be open and honest and just tell him how I felt inside my heart. He might not like the fact that I wont be sleeping with him, but the truth is that.....there is nothing in it for me.

 

I dont want a sexual relationship. As a woman, sex is not that hard to get. I want something meaningful.

[stillhere]

I understand your frustrations nextel, but what most of us are trying to tell you is that you aren't going to get what you are looking for from this MM.

 

If he loved you or cared about you, you wouldn't have to discuss this with him. You wouldn't have to push for him to check up on you after you left to see if you arrived home safely. You wouldn't have to ask for money or whatever else you want. (I'm not saying he should be supporting you financially.........)

 

This MM is unwilling to attach himself to you emotionally. Which is probably best for you, it will be easier to walk away. I suggest you do just that, walk away from him.

 

There is too much heartache for those of us who have MM that are in love with us. We have a hard time walking away. You have it somewhat easy right now. Find someone single who you can settle down with. I think that's what you are looking for and chances are pretty low that a MM will give you what you want.

[frannie]

Frannie, as Touche already said, the definition of mistress is the same as for an OW. The definition was already posted by Island Girl earlier. I checked a couple different dictionary sites, and they all said the same thing (except some which didn't mention money at all). Merriam Webster defines mistress as "a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship".

 

You may not like people referring to an OW as a mistress, because you feel it has a negative connotation. Maybe in time the definition will evolve to only describe OW who are financially compensated, but right now, that is the definition and anyone referring to an OW as a mistress is technically correct.

 

Also, where'd the OP go?

 

If you search for 'online dictionary' and use the first one that comes up (oh the lengths we have to go to to avoid mentioning sites outright!) you will find this definition:

 

7.a woman who has a continuing, extramarital sexual relationship with one man, esp. a man who, in return for an exclusive and continuing liaison, provides her with financial support.

 

I notice M-W has chopped off the second part of this definition, and I assume this is because the definition of 'mistress' is changing... I'm wondering if it's not because this arrangement is becoming less and less frequent with single women able to support themselves.. .heh.

 

Definitions aside, the suggestion from some on the thread has been that being in a relationship with a man who is married in some way means that cash or presents or whatever will be exchanged. As if it were in some way comparable to a (true) mistress situation, or even a prostitute (as has been commented on other threads on here in the past).

 

The fact is, that it's just a plain old (amoral to some, me included) relationship between two people. No cash involved necessarily or at least no more than in any other boyfriend-girlfriend situation. Anyone who 'gets that mixed up' or in some way believes that an OW generally accepts gifts because of the man being married is mistaken. That is my point, and definitions don't change that.

 

Lastly, you said that perhaps I felt being associated with the situation of a mistress upset me in some way. It doesn't. In fact I posted an interesting article a few weeks ago written by a woman who was a mistress, outlining how to do it successfully. I thought it was a great article! And my comment at the time was that it was far better for a woman to enter into a well-defined and limited (no love!) relationship with a married man than it was to get mixed up in love and 'will he leave' which just confuses everyone and leads to pain and unhappiness.

 

But, to be clear, that's a different proposition entirely to being involved with someone for love and/or sex.

 

Hope that clears up my meaning.

[frannie]

this was the place were women in situations of being the OW or mistress come and talk about things and not have to be bashed about "its wrong to be with a married man". Yes it is not right, but the fact is that....this has been happening for years. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but this particular forum is for "The Other Man/Woman.

 

Hello again nextel. This is, for better or worse (heh ) an open forum and the moderation is such that comments about the morality of doing what you and I are doing are allowed.

 

Usual advice: Take what is useful to you and ignore the useless moralising. I hope some of the responses on your thread have been helpful and that you'll keep posting.

 

And apologies for my thread/jack.

[Blue Phoenix]

--"this was the place were women in situations of being the OW or mistress come and talk about things and not have to be bashed about "its wrong to be with a married man". Yes it is not right, but the fact is that....this has been happening for years. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but this particular forum is for "The Other Man/Woman"-- I have looked at most of the posts here including my own. And I'm sorry but no ones realy "bashed you" All we have said is that your not going to get the level of commitment that you seam to crave from a marryed man nothing wrong with saying that. Also we have commented on how it seams odd you expect money from men you are in a relashionship with again nothing wrong in saying that. Yes this is the OW/OM section of the bords but every one has the right to add to the conversation as long as there not being abusive. And I just dont see that happening all I see is people arnt telling you exactly what you care to hear seams people quite often take that as attacks tho oh well what can you do cant make every one happy I suppose..