Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 Then she is asking for more drama and she knows it. If she truly wanted him OUT of her life in everyway, out of their so called "sick sick" marriage and life, then she can delete her name off his list. You make it sound like a game now, making my point exactly of WHY LF isn't going to delete him. When exactly did I say I "wanted him OUT of my life" ? It was never my decision - I didn't get a vote.
Tomcat33 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Frankly, if I were her, I'd be worrying more about who else (new) he may be talking to rather than someone with whom he's maintained the NC he promised her he would. I was thinking the EXACT same thing but didn't want to jump to conclusions but glad you said it.
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 wow!!!!!!! Owl, she didn't give a damn about me and the situation I was left to face...so why should I have any for her now ?
whichwayisup Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 I may be mixing up your sitution about the wanting out of his life and sick sick marriage with someone else's. Sorry about the LF.
Owl Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 OK...got it. Its not that its over and you don't want him back. Your angry she ended up with him. You want him back. This is how you hurt her, and give it a chance to happen. Got it. Its not a power struggle game...its straight up jealousy and anger. Much easier to understand from that perspective.
Tomcat33 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 OK...got it. Its not that its over and you don't want him back. Your angry she ended up with him. You want him back. This is how you hurt her, and give it a chance to happen. Got it. Its not a power struggle game...its straight up jealousy and anger. Much easier to understand from that perspective. Yeah, pretty much the same thing that made you fight for the woman you love that back stabbed you. Same thing. Only unlike you she is not thinking of killing the W she just doesn't want to remove the friend request on some networking site.
Owl Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 LOL...dont get your timeframes mixed up, TC...when you get whiskers bent that tends to happen. I THOUGHT about it...not THINKING about it. Oh...and you raise a good point...I'm not angry about the whole thing for one simple but major point...I DID win her back, and DID recover my marriage quite nicely. Good distinction point to make. Thanks.
OWoman Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Actually she can by deleting him. What is the point of her NOT deleting him? SO he can delete her? That's just a stupid game, like if you want me out of your life, you're going to have to delete me, otherwise we stay as friends on the reunion site. She KNOWS it's bothering his wife, yet she is choosing not to delete herself off MM's list. Why? OK, my take on it is this: LF did a search, like trillions of people do everyday on the Net, only this left footprints and as a consequence she got friended by her xsMM. xsMM's W goes after LF instead of after xsMM. LF ignores (aside from asking for input here). Why is it now suddenly incumbent on LF to take action on this, rather than returning the agency where it belongs - with xsMM (who friended her) or with his W, who is clearly threatened by it? If I put on a play in the town hall about how the great snake created the world, but somewhere in the town lives a little boy who's scared of snakes, who sees the promotional posters on the high street, and his mother complains and wants me not to put on the play because her boy is scared of snakes - is it reasonable to expect me to can the play? Or for the mother just not to take the boy, and not to walk him past the posters on the high street knowing they'll disturb him? LF is not the custodian of their (recovered or otherwise) M. They are. She's not a nanny state who's obliged to make sure that all conditions are so safe and non-threatening that they're encased in cottonwool against all outside threats. Her unfriending xsMM is not only seizing agency from where it belongs - inside the M - but is also signalling that she cares one way or another whether xsMM is visibly connected (via the site) to her or not - ie, that she's still invested. Being truly over him would leave her equanimitous, not caring one way or another, and certainly not meddling. If it matters that much to the W, she should take it up with her H. That he continues to be listed as LF's friend shows that either she can't / won't do that, or that her H is defying her wishes. Either way, it's a marital power dynamic that has nothing to do with LF and everything to do with the players in the M. (And so what if LF enjoys some amusement watching from the sidelines - that doesn't make her a bad person. Merely one with a sense of humour.)
Owl Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Its a moot point, Owoman. LF has made it clear that she's not going to change it because she views it as a fine game to play with the wife...and she's made it clear that she's NOT given up on a chance to be with MM. Given that...it makes WWIU's observations about removing him from her page moot...its now clear.
Tomcat33 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 LOL...dont get your timeframes mixed up, TC...when you get whiskers bent that tends to happen. I THOUGHT about it...not THINKING about it. Oh...and you raise a good point...I'm not angry about the whole thing for one simple but major point...I DID win her back, and DID recover my marriage quite nicely. Good distinction point to make. Thanks. The time frames are irrelevant I was comparing facts. Anger Jealousy Need to win a love back All direct parallels in both cases. Yours and hers
serial muse Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 OK, my take on it is this: LF did a search, like trillions of people do everyday on the Net, only this left footprints and as a consequence she got friended by her xsMM. xsMM's W goes after LF instead of after xsMM. LF ignores (aside from asking for input here). Why is it now suddenly incumbent on LF to take action on this, rather than returning the agency where it belongs - with xsMM (who friended her) or with his W, who is clearly threatened by it? If I put on a play in the town hall about how the great snake created the world, but somewhere in the town lives a little boy who's scared of snakes, who sees the promotional posters on the high street, and his mother complains and wants me not to put on the play because her boy is scared of snakes - is it reasonable to expect me to can the play? Or for the mother just not to take the boy, and not to walk him past the posters on the high street knowing they'll disturb him? LF is not the custodian of their (recovered or otherwise) M. They are. She's not a nanny state who's obliged to make sure that all conditions are so safe and non-threatening that they're encased in cottonwool against all outside threats. Her unfriending xsMM is not only seizing agency from where it belongs - inside the M - but is also signalling that she cares one way or another whether xsMM is visibly connected (via the site) to her or not - ie, that she's still invested. Being truly over him would leave her equanimitous, not caring one way or another, and certainly not meddling. If it matters that much to the W, she should take it up with her H. That he continues to be listed as LF's friend shows that either she can't / won't do that, or that her H is defying her wishes. Either way, it's a marital power dynamic that has nothing to do with LF and everything to do with the players in the M. (And so what if LF enjoys some amusement watching from the sidelines - that doesn't make her a bad person. Merely one with a sense of humour.) I hesitate to even comment on this, since from the much-further-away sidelines over here it looks to me like nobody in this scenario - including LF - is innocent of ulterior and not-so-pure motives. In an ideal world, perhaps, LF wouldn't have bothered to search, but even if she did she would have said, oops, sorry and walked away instead of getting annoyed when she got busted; MM wouldn't for the love of God have friended her (jesus what is wrong with him???); and W wouldn't have bothered to say anything when she got the message that she had been searched, believing wholeheartedly that everything's okay in her marriage now. Tra la. Well, that didn't happen. Nobody behaved well. But that aside, I just want to ask why we're assuming the wife didn't give her husband crap, too, over his "friending" of LF? I only ask because as well all know (or should by now), just because a BS is saying angry stuff to an OM/OW doesn't mean s/he isn't giving the WS even worse crap. Yes?
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 heeeeeeeeeeeerrreeeee we go! LF pokes SD (now shush you)
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 For the record she didn't msge me "why are you searching me" she said "what are you doing searching me on the net" as if I didn't have a right to do whatever I damned well please..........I don't answer to her for what I do.
stampdaddy Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 LF pokes SD (now shush you) I need a good "pokin'"
serial muse Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 For the record she didn't msge me "why are you searching me" she said "what are you doing searching me on the net" as if I didn't have a right to do whatever I damned well please..........I don't answer to her for what I do. LF I'm not saying she's a saint (she was a cheater too, right?) but c'mon, that's just semantics. Yeah she was pissed at you, she was probably sixteen times more pissed at her husband. You don't have to answer to anybody for what you do, but that doesn't make it any less of a fair point to say that she's not accountable to you, either, so why get so mad??
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 I need a good "pokin'" ROFL - (don't we all) but I'm hushing now before I get in trouble
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 LF I'm not saying she's a saint (she was a cheater too, right?) but c'mon, that's just semantics. Yeah she was pissed at you, she was probably sixteen times more pissed at her husband. You don't have to answer to anybody for what you do, but that doesn't make it any less of a fair point to say that she's not accountable to you, either, so why get so mad?? Actually I wasn't mad at all until I posted it here LOL Maybe now I'm miffed due to other influences - not sure.
Owl Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Actually I wasn't mad at all until I posted it here LOL Maybe now I'm miffed due to other influences - not sure. Being forced to actually consider your actions and the reasons behind them sometimes causes that.
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 Being forced to actually consider your actions and the reasons behind them sometimes causes that. Oh please....... I haven't done anything "wrong" in this whole damn scenario - consider my actions? the only contact I've had with her H since the whole NC thing was a communication she'd have been happy with I'd think - to tell him that after a year had passed, not to think that I would be here as a life raft when his leaky ship sank and that I wouldn't communicate with him again. Even at first when we had to have LC because of circumstances - I never railed or begged or pleaded for him to reconsider - I never did drivebys etc etc (she's damned lucky I'm a nice person and not the psycho OW from hell actually - so is he for that matter)
Owl Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 I can see that...you never did any of that. But when push comes to shove...you want to maintain one petty little thing to spite his wife and hope he comes back, rather than take a very simple little step to resolve the whole issue. Its little...agreed. But its speaks volumes.
serial muse Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Actually I wasn't mad at all until I posted it here LOL Maybe now I'm miffed due to other influences - not sure. True; I reread your OP and you didn't sound angry at that point (but you did sound a bit defensive and annoyed with her). I know that's a common reaction to feeling accused (and it sounds like she did accuse you) but on the other hand, if you look at it from her point of view she certainly had reason to be unhappy about it and yes, the plain fact is it would look suspicious. I mean, you know you didn't do anything wrong and have been in NC all this time but to be honest with you, that's just not how it'd look from the outside. I'm sure she's giving her husband an earful about that very topic as we speak. So I'd say you might as well acknowledge that it's gonna look weird to her, and that's unfortunate but then let it go and chalk it up to experience. Despite what OWoman said, I don't see that there's much reason to really be angry with the wife or enjoy her discomfort, except that you feel like you've been virtuous and trustworthy with the NC and she's not acknowledging that (and it's always annoying when people don't acknowledge or even misinterpret the good stuff). But, sigh, that's life. And it definitely sounds like you're better off out of the situation, regardless. So yay, you!
Author Lookingforward Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 I can see that...you never did any of that. But when push comes to shove...you want to maintain one petty little thing to spite his wife and hope he comes back, rather than take a very simple little step to resolve the whole issue. Its little...agreed. But its speaks volumes. No, I don't think this would cause him to "come back". He went back to his M to do what he saw as "the right thing" by his kids. If anything causes him to leave again it will be staring down the barrel of another 20 years with her once the kids are no longer there............... Owl, I really don't see the point since this thread of either answering her or deleting him - this way she has no idea whether I even read the msge. For all I know she sent that off and never thought anymore about it. fwiw - I think I'm entitled to a small petty thing after what was done to me - entitled to a small frisson of pleasure that she may feel not quite so secure
Owl Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 LF, this is an honest question...and not based out of anger or anything else. What, specifically, did she do TO YOU? Given her likely opinion of your relationship with her H, I'd imagine she was probably pretty hateful in her communications with you, and insulting. What else?
GPFan Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 there WAS no "friendship request" - I'm guessing that this site it was on assumes that if you're searching you're okay with being added by the searchee. I never said I wanted "them to leave me alone" or even that it was bothering me - simply asked for input on whether I should respond to her msge. As for playing games, why the hell not - I'm entitled to a little amusement at her expense, considering. wow!!!!!!! Double wow!! This goes beyond the realm of teenage foolishness and game-playing into the realm of wishing harm and discomfort upon another. I, too, wonder what it was she did to you Lookingforward. I am sorry you find yourself in this place.
Recommended Posts