Why MM Stay

[Tomcat33]

Actually I hear this from a lot of men... One of the primary reasons they get married in the first place is the expectation that they'll get laid on a regular basis, without having to exert effort into securing the quarry first.

 

They are bitterly disappointed when they end up without it anyway.

 

yes, I've heard it this way "I didn't really mind not getting it when we were dating/engaged - I figured once we were M I would" - bitterly disappointed , years later they hightail it.......... what a shock

 

 

It's amazing how many people see the act of marriage as the "quicker fixer upper" (just call it Bounty for short LOL if you don't watch northamerican commercials you prob won't get the reference sorry...)

 

Some people see the signs before marriage and think that magically after marriage these problems will disappear when in fact they only get worse, much worse.

[astra77]

 

Essentially, the categories are:

 

 

• Affective commitment refers to people who stay because they WANT to. These are the employees who are choosing to remain with an organisation because it's where they really want to be. In A context, these would be the MMs who remain in the M because that's where their heart is.
  
• Normative commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they OUGHT to. These are the employees who feel beholden to the organisation, who are tied by bonds of loyalty or obligation rather than choosing it because it's where they really want to be. In an A context, these would be the MMs who remain because they feel bound by social obligation, or because they owe it to their Ws or their children to keep the family together. ("Staying for the kids" would fall into this category, as would the MM who doesn't want to be thought a cad for walking out on his 60 year old W to take up with some hot 25 year old.)
  
• Continuance commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they HAVE to. These are employees who feel they have no alternatives - they're unemployable elsewhere or too old to make a change, so they're trapped and unable to move on (or perceive themselves to be.) In a M context, these would be the MMs who worry that they can't afford (financially) to leave the M, or they'd "lose their children", or MM who believe that no other woman (including the OW) would have them if they left.
  

What do others think? Does this work in terms of how you understand MMs' various motivations for staying in the M? Or do you think there are scenarios which simply don't fit into one of these three broad categories?

 

OWoman - you are a very clever cookie !! This works for me totally. I would have to say that my xmm is a combination of both Normative commitment & Continuance commitment - three days before i left, he told me he had been hurt twice before ( by an ex gf and his w) and he didnt want to be hurt again - and he even said that if he left his M that I would not want him - which at that particular time was far from the truth, I did want him.

[Lyssa]

Actually I hear this from a lot of men... One of the primary reasons they get married in the first place is the expectation that they'll get laid on a regular basis, without having to exert effort into securing the quarry first.

 

They are bitterly disappointed when they end up without it anyway.

 

Heard of that too many times!

[Owl]

I think your analogy to a job, and your reasons for 'staying' are a pretty good match, Owoman.

 

It does seem likely that these parallel the MM/MW choices and "categories" as well.

[silktricks]

Actually I hear this from a lot of men... One of the primary reasons they get married in the first place is the expectation that they'll get laid on a regular basis, without having to exert effort into securing the quarry first.

 

They are bitterly disappointed when they end up without it anyway.

 

OB, I'm not being judgemental here, so please don't take this wrong... but why do you allow married men to have this type of conversation with you?

[Lookingforward]

OB, I'm not being judgemental here, so please don't take this wrong... but why do you allow married men to have this type of conversation with you?

 

umm..............you've never "heard men talk" ? Just because they say this stuff in your hearing doesn't mean they're out 'looking'.

 

fwiw your post may not have been meant to be judgemental to OB but it sure came across as an implication..........

[White Flower]

Nice categories, O. To summarize: the ties that bind a MM to the marriage are: Love (Affective commitment), Duty (Normative commitment) and Existential Paralysis or Inertia (Continuance commitment).

 

These grounds cover most reasons men stray but stay. But there are others.

 

Other glue reasons include: the MM is just not that into the OW (the OW is f*ck material, not wife or even serious girl friend material); the MM loves his children and does not want to hurt them by ripping his family apart; he's sitting on top of the world--he has two women who love him.

Hate to admit this, but I believe you have something there grogster. Even when the children are adults.

[Owl]

I agree with Grogster's assessment...I just kind of wrap that up into the "happy with where I'm at" view that Owoman listed at first.

[White Flower]

I agree with Grogster's assessment...I just kind of wrap that up into the "happy with where I'm at" view that Owoman listed at first.

Yes, and OWoman came up with a good thread. Good work OW.

 

One more thought. The costs outweigh the benefits in most MMs analysis.*

[Lookingforward]

Yes, and OWoman came up with a good thread. Good work OW.

 

One more thought. The costs outweigh the benefits in most MMs analysis.*

 

I still prefer my "bottom line, most men are wussies" take on it

[grogster]

Hate to admit this, but I believe you have something there grogster. Even when the children are adults.

 

My children's welfare was a huge factor for me. I pretty much raised my son and daughter while my wife globetrotted (that's not a knock on her, she was doing her job).

 

Thus when I separated, I moved very close by so that the kids had two households. Now they just go back and forth.

 

While I certainly understand men who leave their wives, I'll never understand men who desert the family and move far, far away.

[Kamikaze]

I still prefer my "bottom line, most men are wussies" take on it

 

I agree! If these men had Ba*** they would move on. I knew my MM was a wussie but I always believed he would do what was good for him! Did he every prove me wrong.

[Owl]

I'd modify it that "most MM involved in affairs are...". I think it comes with the same type of character that would allow them to cheat in the first place.

 

But that's just me.

[OpenBook]

OB, I'm not being judgemental here, so please don't take this wrong... but why do you allow married men to have this type of conversation with you?

 

What an odd question! But okay, I'll answer it. They usually aren't directing it at me. It's joked about, usually in a group of 2 or more men, and they're just shooting the breeze, talking about all kinds of "guy" things, making each other laugh. I also tend to read everything I can get my hands on (men or not). It's a common theme almost everywhere I go that's talking about married men.

 

In short, I'm living in the real world.

 

And there's no way I can discern your actual intention in asking me this question. But you can judge me all you want. No skin off my nose.

[herenow]

Don't forget that when a MM stays married, he stays married to the other person in the marriage, his wife. All the reasons that you give for the MM staying could also apply to why the BW stays. She has a say in the outcome of their marriage as well. A MM can't make that decision alone.

 

So, if you believe that the reasons in this post are valid for a MM to stay married, wouldn't they also be justifiable reasons for the BW to stay as well? So I guess there should be no more wondering why a BW would stay with her H after an affair. After all, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander! Or, in this case, I think that it would be the other way around.

[OpenBook]

So, if you believe that the reasons in this post are valid for a MM to stay married, wouldn't they also be justifiable reasons for the BW to stay as well? So I guess there should be no more wondering why a BW would stay with her H after an affair. After all, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander! Or, in this case, I think that it would be the other way around.

 

Huh?? Maybe I missed something, but "valid" and "justifiable" is a bit of a moot point here. The argument is that these are the reasons why employees and MP's actually stay with their "organizations" - not whether the choice to stay has merit, or is right or wrong. Regardless, it's still a mystery to me how a BS could continue to live her life betrothed to someone who has demonstrated so clearly and compellingly their cruelty and indifference to the state of their marital union. I could never willingly choose that kind of life. But I'm not in the BS's shoes (thank God!!).

[Tomcat33]

OB, I'm not being judgemental here, so please don't take this wrong... but why do you allow married men to have this type of conversation with you?

 

 

yes this is and odd question. I am really curious what is behind this question?

 

I interpret it as person should not engage in these types of conversations with married men because then that would mean you are crossing a line?

 

Now what would you do if you were in a group scenario and men were talking like this how could you not "allow" them to talk of what they want to talk about? (I guess I have a problem with this "allow" word as if you can control what another person will and will not say. But fine you could say "well you could get up and remove yourself from the conversation, that's how"

 

But what if you are genuinely interested and curious to know what these men are saying, you should not allow it because you are breaking some moral code?

 

Again it seems like the same mentality that calls an outsider a homewrecker when the only one wrecking the home is the person who should not be going OUSTIDE the home to find people. So it sounds like you are blaming OB for "making" these married men talk about their marriages in a bad way!?!?

 

I may have gone way too deep and be completely off base here but that is what I read when I see that question, your line of thinking behind it Silk seems like it could be around what I just mentioned.

[herenow]

Huh?? Maybe I missed something, but "valid" and "justifiable" is a bit of a moot point here. The argument is that these are the reasons why employees and MP's actually stay with their "organizations" - not whether the choice to stay has merit, or is right or wrong. Regardless, it's still a mystery to me how a BS could continue to live her life betrothed to someone who has demonstrated so clearly and compellingly their cruelty and indifference to the state of their marital union. I could never willingly choose that kind of life. But I'm not in the BS's shoes (thank God!!).

 

I said, if someone believes these reasons to be valid, then it should apply to all parties involved.

 

Also, IMO, if a person believes that a man who cheats is not to be trusted, then how is it that he is suddenly trust worthy when he is not speaking to his wife?

 

If the OW is able to trust the MM that has been so cruel and indifferent to his wife, they why is it so hard to believe that the wife in time can rebuild trust in that very same man?

[Tomcat33]

So, if you believe that the reasons in this post are valid for a MM to stay married, wouldn't they also be justifiable reasons for the BW to stay as well? So I guess there should be no more wondering why a BW would stay with her H after an affair. After all, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander! Or, in this case, I think that it would be the other way around.

 

 

That's a very interesting point you just made because we have debated this on here many times. So if the BS can also stay for the reasons noted in the original post made by OW, then it is possible that some BSs don't really feel like they are in love with their mates either, but they would rather stay with them for comfort than to let go of the whole picture.

 

So isn't that really selfish on both parts? Here is one person who can start a new life if they want to and they have found someone they are romantically interested in but the BS will hold them back fully knowing that they don't really love them but that they would rather keep the household together and keep the comfort rather than seeing their mate form a new rel with someone else.

 

I suppose that's understandable in purely greedy sense since no one wants to see a person that breaks up with them progress before they do themselves, it is human nature I suppose...

but in the true sense of love isn't that what loving a person means? letting them go to be happy even if it means their happiness won't be by your side?

 

Isn't that what most OPs do when they let go of their MP to allow them to figure out what the MP really wants? In a sense it almost seems like the OP sometimes loves in a less selfish manner...because if a BS and the WS can keep the marriage together for material reasons then where is the love in that? And isn't the WS also selfish in not giving their partner a chance to find someone who can really love them as they deserve?

[herenow]

That's a very interesting point you just made because we have debated this on here many times. So if the BS can also stay for the reasons noted in the original post made by OW, then it is possible that some BSs don't really feel like they are in love with their mates either, but they would rather stay with them for comfort than to let go of the whole picture.

 

So isn't that really selfish on both parts? Here is one person who can start a new life if they want to and they have found someone they are romantically interested in but the BS will hold them back fully knowing that they don't really love them but that they would rather keep the household together and keep the comfort rather than seeing their mate form a new rel with someone else.

 

I suppose that's understandable in purely greedy sense since no one wants to see a person that breaks up with them progress before they do themselves, it is human nature I suppose...

but in the true sense of love isn't that what loving a person means? letting them go to be happy even if it means their happiness won't be by your side?

 

Isn't that what most OPs do when they let go of their MP to allow them to figure out what the MP really wants? In a sense it almost seems like the OP sometimes loves in a less selfish manner...because if a BS and the WS can keep the marriage together for material reasons then where is the love in that? And isn't the WS also selfish in not giving their partner a chance to find someone who can really love them as they deserve?

 

I can see what you're saying, but I had a totally different scenario in mind. I'm just turning the tables and pointing out that there may be BW's who stay for the kids, financial reasons, etc. and the MM is the one that wants to hold the marriage together.

 

I do agree that to stay with someone you don't love is selfish and robs the other person of finding true love and happiness. But, I'm looking beyond what I believe to have this discussion.

[herenow]

 

So isn't that really selfish on both parts? Here is one person who can start a new life if they want to and they have found someone they are romantically interested in but the BS will hold them back fully knowing that they don't really love them but that they would rather keep the household together and keep the comfort rather than seeing their mate form a new rel with someone else.

 

Also, I don't believe that anyone can hold someone back in a marriage they don't want to be in. For the most part, married people are adults who can make their own decisions.

[OpenBook]

If the OW is able to trust the MM that has been so cruel and indifferent to his wife, they why is it so hard to believe that the wife in time can rebuild trust in that very same man?

 

Because the OW and the wife are two different people. And they have different relationships with the guy. Sometimes it just comes down to a bad combination between two people, not necessarily because of some "character flaw" in one or both.

 

But when a person chooses to stay with someone who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt their cruelty and indifference toward that person, they're crazy to stay with them. JMO.

[herenow]

Because the OW and the wife are two different people. And they have different relationships with the guy. Sometimes it just comes down to a bad combination between two people, not necessarily because of some "character flaw" in one or both.

 

But when a person chooses to stay with someone who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt their cruelty and indifference toward that person, they're crazy to stay with them. JMO.

 

Again, I don't think you can have it both ways. If a person is capable of being cruel enough for one person to be crazy to stay with, that person is the same person no matter who they are with.

 

If he was such a great guy, why didn't he do the right thing and leave his marriage and give his wife the ability to find her own true love? Maybe because his choices to have an affair have nothing to do with the BW or the OW and everything to do with his "character flaw". And if he is able to overcome that "character flaw" for the OW, it makes sense that he can do it with his wife as well. Especially if, when give the choice, he stays married to his wife.

[herenow]

Because the OW and the wife are two different people. And they have different relationships with the guy. Sometimes it just comes down to a bad combination between two people, not necessarily because of some "character flaw" in one or both.

 

But when a person chooses to stay with someone who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt their cruelty and indifference toward that person, they're crazy to stay with them. JMO.

 

Personally, I think it's cruel to the OW for a MM to tell her he loves her and then go home to his wife and keep the OW a secret. Cruel to the BW and cruel to the OW.

[Tomcat33]

Because the OW and the wife are two different people. And they have different relationships with the guy. Sometimes it just comes down to a bad combination between two people, not necessarily because of some "character flaw" in one or both.

 

But when a person chooses to stay with someone who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt their cruelty and indifference toward that person, they're crazy to stay with them. JMO.

 

Yes, I see it like that too. Though I have evolved in my way of thinking and now that I can look at the big picture I am not so certain it does boil down just to dynamics between one relationship, I think there has to be a certain tendency on the cheater's part for avoidance. I see that trait in my ex and I saw it in him professionally and I wonder if that is why he fell into the situation that he did in his marriage and I don't really know what kind of rel they had but given what he has told me and what I have heard from those close to him it seems there was a fair amount of avoidance on both parts. And I am SO not abour avoidance, as most of you have witnesse here LOL, so I am not sure how our dynamic would work even if one person doesn't avoid I still can't make him not avoid our rel if choses to so that has definitely been eye opener for me.

 

Granted he has been working through that in therapy and I do still feel strongly about the fact that once a cheater not always a cheater but I still do see a certain tendency for a person to commit the same mistake once they are forgiven, call me jaded but I see it as some twisted unspoken sense that a cheater has that if they were forgiven once they can possibly get away with it again. Again this could be my lack of experience in forgiveness when it comes to cheating, since I was cheated on once and chose not to forgive maybe in a different stage in a cheater's life and with the will on his/her part to make their relationship work that tendency could be overruled, I dunnow I am really on the fence on that one.

 

Personally, I think it's cruel to the OW for a MM to tell her he loves her and then go home to his wife and keep the OW a secret. Cruel to the BW and cruel to the OW.

 

Yes cruelty all around that's for sure. But the way I understand it and after having had many gruelling conversations with my ex as to why he said and did what he did if he knew he had to back home even if it was for one last time, it appears he was under the impression he was giving his all in terms of expression of love to us and that I was not able to see that, not able to see where his "real" love was. I have a real hard time with that prehaps I will never be able to see it and perhaps that is why I am incapable of also forgiving a partner who would cheat on me.

I don't do forgiveness when it comes to betrayal of trust well, and this is why I have been so torn about giving him a second chance, I feel almost as if I would be forgiving what a BS forgives when they accept a cheater back.

 

No offence to anyone this is MY issue, not passing any judgement on anyone's choices (want to make that crystal clear)