Is anyone out there??? *raises a flag*

[JamesM]

I truly believe that if we all could speak freely and honestly about how we feel, even if it becomes volatile, this forum would be more helpful than silencing the "bitterness" because it get uncomfortable.

 

The question is...who is this forum intended to help?

 

OWs and OMs

 

Who is the Infidelity forum intended to help?

 

All individuals who have been betrayed through affairs.

 

If the OWs and OMs use the infidelity forum as a way to "heal," then how can the BSs be helped?

 

And vice versa.

[herenow]

The question is...who is this forum intended to help?

 

OWs and OMs

 

Who is the Infidelity forum intended to help?

 

All individuals who have been betrayed through affairs.

 

If the OWs and OMs use the infidelity forum as a way to "heal," then how can the BSs be helped?

 

And vice versa.

 

What better place to come for answers than the place where the questions are asked? To a BW, the only way to understand the POV of the OW is to hear it from, as they say, the horses mouth.

 

While misery may love company, sometimes it's more helpful for a BW to see the other side rather than commiserate with other BW's. Isn't the same true for the OW's, or is it easer to just pretend the BW pain doesn't exist?

 

As long as the mods allow the BW POV, there will be "bitter" BW's here as part of this forum.

[herenow]

Also, just so happens that more people post in this forum. I came here today with the intent to post about the inauguration yesterday, but there is so much less action on those forums. So, here I am a bitter BW invading the OW/OM forum again.

[OWoman]

So are you saying that the BS"s should temper their emotions so that they don't hurt the feelings of the OW/OM?

 

There are guidelines in place. People of all persuasions should respect those. My very first thread got deleted because a bitchfest of BWs erupted calling me, and other OWs who were not wearing sack cloth and ashes and rolling around tearing our hair out for being such evil women, whores and worse.

 

Is it helpful to ANYONE - OW, BW or passing lurker - for entire threads to be wiped off the face of the planet because people can't temper their pain enough to respect guidelines of conduct THAT THEY EXPLICITLY AGREED TO on signing up to the site? That's the worst kind of hypocrisy then - they expect OWs and OMs to abide by a code of conduct they DIDN'T even sign up to (someone else's wedding contract) because that's "common decency" but then they can't even put their own convictions into action in their own behaviour.

 

So yes, even if James isn't saying it, I am - show some consideration for the pain of the OP in the way you frame your response. Helping them to gain perspective by showing "the other side" or to question their assumptions is one thing; kicking them while they're already bleeding on the ground, telling them you'd love to see them stoned to death and cursing them to hell in a handcart is quite another.

[OWoman]

I truly believe that if we all could speak freely and honestly about how we feel, even if it becomes volatile, this forum would be more helpful than silencing the "bitterness" because it get uncomfortable.

 

And if people focused on the OP and the OP's situation rather than their own pain and assumptions, it would be far more productive.

[herenow]

There are guidelines in place. People of all persuasions should respect those. My very first thread got deleted because a bitchfest of BWs erupted calling me, and other OWs who were not wearing sack cloth and ashes and rolling around tearing our hair out for being such evil women, whores and worse.

 

Is it helpful to ANYONE - OW, BW or passing lurker - for entire threads to be wiped off the face of the planet because people can't temper their pain enough to respect guidelines of conduct THAT THEY EXPLICITLY AGREED TO on signing up to the site? That's the worst kind of hypocrisy then - they expect OWs and OMs to abide by a code of conduct they DIDN'T even sign up to (someone else's wedding contract) because that's "common decency" but then they can't even put their own convictions into action in their own behaviour.

 

So yes, even if James isn't saying it, I am - show some consideration for the pain of the OP in the way you frame your response. Helping them to gain perspective by showing "the other side" or to question their assumptions is one thing; kicking them while they're already bleeding on the ground, telling them you'd love to see them stoned to death and cursing them to hell in a handcart is quite another.

 

 

I do think that the mods are good at monitoring these flaming sessions. I also don't think it happens as much as you are implying it does. I haven't seen it at all recently. Please show me what you are taking about so I can understand. If you can show me an example it would be very helpful to me.

[herenow]

And if people focused on the OP and the OP's situation rather than their own pain and assumptions, it would be far more productive.

 

I agree, and this thread is about BS's who post here, so here I am focused on the OP.

[OWoman]

I do think that the mods are good at monitoring these flaming sessions. I also don't think it happens as much as you are implying it does. I haven't seen it at all recently. Please show me what you are taking about so I can understand. If you can show me an example it would be very helpful to me.

 

The mods largely rely on people having the restraint to hit the "alert" button rather than flaming back - and when things get really heated, few of us can muster that kind of restraint.

 

Agreed, some of the worst offenders have been away for a while, though there have been some recent incidents which have gotten pretty close to the wire (I'm afraid I've had a long day and lack the energy or focus to track them down right now...) But even so, it doesn't take masses of those to have a silencing or damaging effect - for each newbie poster who gets flamed on impact, and disappears never to return, several lurkers change their minds about registering and posting their own stories. For each hardarsed longtimer who stands up to the flaming, dozens of PMs FROM OWs AND NON-HOSTILE BSs ALIKE flood their inboxes in support and encouragement. Much of the valuable exchange happens off-stage - via pm, email or text messaging - because of fear of flaming. This is a pity, as it means it's lost to many others who could benefit.

[herenow]

The mods largely rely on people having the restraint to hit the "alert" button rather than flaming back - and when things get really heated, few of us can muster that kind of restraint.

 

Agreed, some of the worst offenders have been away for a while, though there have been some recent incidents which have gotten pretty close to the wire (I'm afraid I've had a long day and lack the energy or focus to track them down right now...) But even so, it doesn't take masses of those to have a silencing or damaging effect - for each newbie poster who gets flamed on impact, and disappears never to return, several lurkers change their minds about registering and posting their own stories. For each hardarsed longtimer who stands up to the flaming, dozens of PMs FROM OWs AND NON-HOSTILE BSs ALIKE flood their inboxes in support and encouragement. Much of the valuable exchange happens off-stage - via pm, email or text messaging - because of fear of flaming. This is a pity, as it means it's lost to many others who could benefit.

 

I can agree with parts of this. I think the "flaming" comes from both sides and it can't be blamed on just BW. To say that this is a forum only for OW/OM doesn't give the OW the go ahead to flame the BW especially if the OW doesn't want to be flamed herself. If that is the rule, then it should go both ways. But, since both sides are doing it, then it just seems to be the way this forum flows.

 

My third cliche of the day: If you can't take the heat... you know the rest.

 

I know there are forums that are just for OW. I would never go there, not even to read. Why would I? BW are so often told that they don't belong here because of the name of the forum. But there are many BW that do come here and I think there is a value to even the most bitter BW being here. Just like there is a value to the opinion of an OW who dates MM with no regard for the pain an affair can cause and just enjoys the lifestyle. It's all part of the big picture. The more you know the better equipped you are to make the best decisions for yourself. IMO

[OWoman]

I can agree with parts of this. I think the "flaming" comes from both sides and it can't be blamed on just BW. To say that this is a forum only for OW/OM doesn't give the OW the go ahead to flame the BW especially if the OW doesn't want to be flamed herself. If that is the rule, then it should go both ways. But, since both sides are doing it, then it just seems to be the way this forum flows.

 

My third cliche of the day: If you can't take the heat... you know the rest.

 

Sure there's flaming on both sides - but I do think there's a difference (in at least a lot of it). Flaming from OWs is almost always defensive - either directly reactive to a flame or perceived flame, or proactively to ward off an expected flame based on observations of the developing dynamic. Flaming of OWs, OTOH, is often apropos of nothing other than the fact that they're OWs. They're flamed simply for who or what they are - not because of something they've said, or to fend off and oncoming blow - it's simply like walking up to someone you don't know in the street and coshing them on the head because they're wearing a colour you don't like.

 

While both can be understood, the first kind (flaming by OWs) occurs in a context of this forum - things that have been said here, if not on the thread in question then by the same poster elsewhere. The second kind occurs in a context outside of this forum, brought in and superimposed on this forum where the mere fact of being AN OW qualifies one for bashing. Few - if any (I can't recall any offhand, though perhaps there may have been some) - OWs have ever bashed BWs simply for being BWs. I can't recall any OWs posting on the Infidelity forum randomly calling BWs frigid cows or castrating bitches or such simply because their Hs found someone else, but the reverse (BWs name calling OWs simply because their BFs are married to someone else) happens regularly.

 

I'm not referring to troll posts in any of this - those have their own inflammatory dynamic entirely...

[herenow]

Sure there's flaming on both sides - but I do think there's a difference (in at least a lot of it). Flaming from OWs is almost always defensive - either directly reactive to a flame or perceived flame, or proactively to ward off an expected flame based on observations of the developing dynamic. Flaming of OWs, OTOH, is often apropos of nothing other than the fact that they're OWs. They're flamed simply for who or what they are - not because of something they've said, or to fend off and oncoming blow - it's simply like walking up to someone you don't know in the street and coshing them on the head because they're wearing a colour you don't like.

 

While both can be understood, the first kind (flaming by OWs) occurs in a context of this forum - things that have been said here, if not on the thread in question then by the same poster elsewhere. The second kind occurs in a context outside of this forum, brought in and superimposed on this forum where the mere fact of being AN OW qualifies one for bashing. Few - if any (I can't recall any offhand, though perhaps there may have been some) - OWs have ever bashed BWs simply for being BWs. I can't recall any OWs posting on the Infidelity forum randomly calling BWs frigid cows or castrating bitches or such simply because their Hs found someone else, but the reverse (BWs name calling OWs simply because their BFs are married to someone else) happens regularly.

 

I'm not referring to troll posts in any of this - those have their own inflammatory dynamic entirely...

 

OK, I see your point. I think it depends and which side you are on when defining what is "flaming", so in that case we just may have to agree that this is a very volatile topic and people on both sides can get hurt while posting on this forum.

 

You bring up a god point when you mention trolls. Because I think most of the really hateful stuff from both BW's and OW's are probably in that category.

[IfWishesWereHorses]

Flaming from OWs is almost always defensive - either directly reactive to a flame or perceived flame, or proactively to ward off an expected flame based on observations of the developing dynamic. Flaming of OWs, OTOH, is often apropos of nothing other than the fact that they're OWs. They're flamed simply for who or what they are - not because of something they've said, or to fend off and oncoming blow - it's simply like walking up to someone you don't know in the street and coshing them on the head because they're wearing a colour you don't like.

Well... this is a stretch :lmao:! Come on OW... if there is a perceivable reason to blame your actions on someone else then it's understandable???

 

You're usually more level headed than that. Its wrong in both cases regardless of the perceived developing dynamic. One is responsible for ones own bashing whether it is perceived as defensive or offensive.

 

Thanks for the laugh... I'm going to clean up the coffee off my keyboard now!

[herenow]

Let me give you a couple of examples of what I would consider unprovoked "flaming" of an BW:

 

1 - There are some OW who, no matter what a BW's POV is categorize us as "bitter" and "angry".

 

2 - The are some OW who, whenever a BW posts her POV even in the most respectful way, we are told "No wonder your H needed to find an OW"

 

These comments are standard for a few OW, but they happen quite a bit, as well as other not so nice comments. But, from my POV, it's all part of the forum and I can take it or leave it.

[Mr. Lucky]

That's the worst kind of hypocrisy then - they expect OWs and OMs to abide by a code of conduct they DIDN'T even sign up to (someone else's wedding contract) because that's "common decency" but then they can't even put their own convictions into action in their own behaviour.

Your forgetting that everyone that registers for the forums gets a chance to review and understand the rules when signing up. Most WS and their OW/M forget to give the BS an advance copy of the affair "code of conduct". That's the worst kind of hypocrisy...

 

Mr. Lucky

[OWoman]

Your forgetting that everyone that registers for the forums gets a chance to review and understand the rules when signing up. Most WS and their OW/M forget to give the BS an advance copy of the affair "code of conduct". That's the worst kind of hypocrisy...

 

Huh? An A "code of conduct" is an agreement between the two people involved. No one else is expected to abide by it, so why would it be necessary to give anyone else an "advance copy"? If you're referring to the fact that the A exists at all, well, that would be conduct covered in the realm of the M code of conduct, hence between the MM and the W - nothing at all to do with the agreement between the MM and the OW.

[OWoman]

Flaming from OWs is almost always defensive - either directly reactive to a flame or perceived flame, or proactively to ward off an expected flame based on observations of the developing dynamic. Flaming of OWs, OTOH, is often apropos of nothing other than the fact that they're OWs. They're flamed simply for who or what they are - not because of something they've said, or to fend off and oncoming blow - it's simply like walking up to someone you don't know in the street and coshing them on the head because they're wearing a colour you don't like.

Well... this is a stretch :lmao:! Come on OW... if there is a perceivable reason to blame your actions on someone else then it's understandable???

 

What I meant, IWWH, was that sometimes on OW threads - and you'll have seen this, so should recognise what I'm describing - you'll have a whole bunch of BS postings which rapidly move off topic onto "what do you expect, you're sleeping with someone else's H" and from then on into Truly Nasty Territory. The OP - if she's been around - will recognise this pattern, and will sometimes step in to pre-empt it by posting "well you're a dried up old hag who couldn't give your H what he needed so of course you're going to say that" in an attempt to ward off what she "knows" (i.e. assumes, on the basis of past observation) to be coming next.

 

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, just that it's understandable. If a little child lies to get themselves out of trouble, that's not right, but it's understandable why they would do so. Self preservation at play in both situations. I was contrasting it to unprovoked (at least, unprovoked in the context of LS postings, not in the context of the bigger picture of the poster's life) flaming, where the thread is meandering on its way and someone screams in from stage left "whore! slut! AIDS-riddled plague-bearing moral degenerate! Rot in hell! Let me get boulders and stone you!" or whatever, out of (seemingly) nowhere.

[NoIDidn't]

Owoman so much of what you state is the definition of hypocrisy. Not trying to get into a war of words with you, but it is. On the one hand, you want to be allowed to do whatever you want without "common decency". But on the other hand you expect people to show you "common decency" and not do whatever they want.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

And that line about a preemptive flame was hilarious.

[NoIDidn't]

What I meant, IWWH, was that sometimes on OW threads - and you'll have seen this, so should recognise what I'm describing - you'll have a whole bunch of BS postings which rapidly move off topic onto "what do you expect, you're sleeping with someone else's H" and from then on into Truly Nasty Territory. The OP - if she's been around - will recognise this pattern, and will sometimes step in to pre-empt it by posting "well you're a dried up old hag who couldn't give your H what he needed so of course you're going to say that" in an attempt to ward off what she "knows" (i.e. assumes, on the basis of past observation) to be coming next.

 

 

I'm sorry but it is NEVER understandable to call someone a "dried up old hag" no matter what you think they might say to you.

 

Why is stating the obvious so hurtful to OPs (mainly OWs, honestly as OM don't generally insult BHs)? Or are you talking about people that excuse the bashing of some by saying "what do you expect, you're sleeping with someone else's H"? Well, they are - is it hurtful to remind someone of reality?

[OWoman]

Let me give you a couple of examples of what I would consider unprovoked "flaming" of an BW:

 

1 - There are some OW who, no matter what a BW's POV is categorize us as "bitter" and "angry".

 

2 - The are some OW who, whenever a BW posts her POV even in the most respectful way, we are told "No wonder your H needed to find an OW"

 

These comments are standard for a few OW, but they happen quite a bit, as well as other not so nice comments. But, from my POV, it's all part of the forum and I can take it or leave it.

 

I agree that there's far too much "us and themming" in that way. There are SOME BSs who are angry and bitter, but it's far from all of them. There are also other posters who are angry and bitter who are not (as far as we know) BSs. That kind of shorthand is based on prejudice and fails to discriminate between the individual and the category. If someone's post is angry and bitter, fair enough - but too often that's simply used as a descriptor for any old BS, whether or not warranted.

 

"No wonder your H needed to find an OW..." Hmmm. I imagine that's probably what someone thinks will sting a BS the most, aimed at demolishing their self-esteem. A bit, I guess, like being told (in carefully modulated but very patronising tones) that the only reasons OWs are with MM is because we have self-esteem problems and don't yet realise that we're actually worth more. Neither is nice. Both smack of 10 year old playground bitchiness, and both are calculated - whether consciously or not - to inflict maximum damage while defining the poster making the comment as somehow themselves very high above all that. Saying more about the poster's state of healing than about the target, IMO...

[OWoman]

I'm sorry but it is NEVER understandable to call someone a "dried up old hag" no matter what you think they might say to you.

 

understandable = you can understand where it's coming from. not that you have to agree with it.

[NoIDidn't]

understandable = you can understand where it's coming from. not that you have to agree with it.

 

I can't say that I can distinguish between the two.

 

In my book, when you don't discourage poor behavior you are condoning it. And condoning it implies agreement.

 

If this was a race relations forum and we had a couple of people who had been burned by racists and took it out on everyone else, I might understand where it is coming from, but I would still post to discourage it. But, maybe that's just me.

[jasminetea]

It doesn't. But the input in many cases is: 1. Biased 2. Filled with bitterness.

 

And because of that, it appears to be more for the purpose of hurting the OW/OM who is posting rather than for the purpose of helping the OW/OM.

 

You say that like its a bad thing? Seriously, I think it probably can help the BW and that in the long run can benefit the OW situation.

 

Maybe the BS's that come here with fresh wounds aren't here to give advice. Does that mean they shouldn't be here at all? Or, that their display of pain (or bitterness as you call it) isn't a valuable addition to the topic at hand?

I think their posting is helpful, even if it helps allieviate their own feelings as a BS, or at least help them work through it.

 

And if people focused on the OP and the OP's situation rather than their own pain and assumptions, it would be far more productive.

Why on earth should the BW do that? Did you focus on her situation when you entered into an affair with her husband? And productive for whom? The OW? Surely the person the BW needs to be focussed on is herself after D day? And she's doing just that by exposing her pain to the OW and/or asking questions. Quite frankly if that makes you feel bad in anyway, maybe you should've thought of that before becoming an OW?

[frannie]

Morality does not have to be part of the discussion.

 

If morality is defined as "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct; A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct", then why wouldn't it be part of the discussion ?

 

Mr. Lucky

 

The morality, or lack of it, in one's actions does not have to be part of a discussion of those actions. For example, if someone attends a group therapy in order to give up smoking, the group could concentrate purely on the positive health aspects of that, rather than discussing whether or not it was morally acceptable to destroy one's own body with tobacco. That would simply cloud the issue, although it might be very interesting to some.

 

In the same way, if people have relationship issues while being involved with a MM, discussion could centre around why that was a negative in the life of the OW, rather than introduce questions of whether it was morally acceptable to a bunch of people on the internet, or even to society in general. Again, it might be interesting, but it may also be entirely irrelevant to the poster, and the outcome.

 

Besides which, yes, as others have said, we don't necessarily share a common morality on these issues. So perhaps the better place to debate them is in the philosophy forum (if there is such a thing).

 

To recap: I don't say morality is irrelevant to individuals engaged in affairs, but it doesn't have to be part of the debate.

[JamesM]

Most WS and their OW/M forget to give the BS an advance copy of the affair "code of conduct". That's the worst kind of hypocrisy...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

As you and I both know, spouses can change rules after marriage. A BS could actually have "decided" to minimize sexual relations for whatever reason or he or she could have decided to put more energy into a career. This change of rules may have been the reason for the affair. So when it comes to a code of conduct, honesty needs to come from both sides.

 

But again, as MM and MW we have a choice on how to handle adversity in our marriages.

 

The morality, or lack of it, in one's actions does not have to be part of a discussion of those actions.

 

Besides which, yes, as others have said, we don't necessarily share a common morality on these issues. So perhaps the better place to debate them is in the philosophy forum (if there is such a thing).

 

To recap: I don't say morality is irrelevant to individuals engaged in affairs, but it doesn't have to be part of the debate.

 

Nothing has to be a part of any discussion, but morality should be a part of a discussion that revolves around a vow and commitment.

 

While I think it should include the right and wrong as based on "Thou shalt not commit adultery," this can be excluded and still morality will be a part of the discussion.

 

Is it wrong to break a vow to another person without his or her knowledge? Is an affair simply about the "health" of someone?

 

Yes, there are many aspects that can be included in a conversation regarding adultery/affairs. IMO it should include how an affair affects family and partners, how it affects the people involved, and how it affects the future of everyone involved...physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Excluding any aspect of one's life simply gives only a partial picture.

[OWoman]

And if people focused on the OP and the OP's situation rather than their own pain and assumptions, it would be far more productive.

 

Why on earth should the BW do that?

 

Because it's part of the agreed code of conduct that ALL members agree to when joining this site, if for no other reason of compassion. BWs are not exempt from paying their taxes or abiding by the laws of the country or any other "rules" simply because their H shagged some other woman - it's not a get out of jail free card.

 

Sticking to topic and focusing on the Original Post and the Original Poster's situation rather than one's own pain and assumptions is what you signed up for by joining. Changing the rules arbitrarily because, shame, one's H took another lover, is simply not going to fly.

 

(As a matter of interest, does your response refer only to threads here on the OM/W forum, or do you believe it's OK for a BW to, say, t/j the thread of someone dying of a terminal disease on the Health forum and bleed all over that and attack the OP there and call them a plague bearer and wish then a painful death, simply because it's a useful part of their own healing experience? )

 

Did you focus on her situation when you entered into an affair with her husband? And productive for whom? The OW? Surely the person the BW needs to be focussed on is herself after D day? And she's doing just that by exposing her pain to the OW and/or asking questions. Quite frankly if that makes you feel bad in anyway, maybe you should've thought of that before becoming an OW?

 

This is so far off topic and such a tired old saw that I'm not even going to bother to respond. Honestly, if this is the depth of discussion you can bring to a general point about respect for members and their situations (which, for the record, includes BSs but I'll attach a special rider to that now and exclude certain imbecilic ones who refuse to return the courtesy) then it's pointless engaging and I'll respond to those others - which include some constructive, mature and emotionally intelligent BSs - whose responses are worth the effort of reading.