tinktronik Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I've seen over and over here on the OW/OM forum that when the MM or MW goes back to the wife and kids that he puts his family first. This puzzles me. In actuality the MM or MW puts themselves first-- their wants-- their desires. This is the thing that drives them both into and out of the affair. They put themselves first. They decide that their happiness is most inportant-- above their spouse-- above their kids. So they have an affair. Then the wife is going to leave and they decide to hang on to their marriage because it is what they want and in most instances later on they have another affair because it satisfies their selfishness. I'm just curious where the idea that the MM or MW puts their wife and kids first comes from... What is the viewpoint that leads to this idea?
Reggie Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I agree. Cheaters seem to operate purely out of self interest. They are deficient in the areas of compassion and empathy, IMO.
2sure Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 The IDEA that a MM/MW puts their spouse and children first comes straight from OM/OW! They are told this by the WS. You will never hear a BS claiming this. WS use this line to justify an affair (My marriage is unhappy, I stay for the kids) , and to explain why they wont leave. Obviously , divorce happens all the time and this is just an excuse. If the marriage was that bad, they would be divorced kids or no. They have to make themselves look like martyrs or victims or the OW/OM would just see them for what they are. They want attention, usually from both. So, the idea and the statement that MM/MW puts their family first is just part of the lie told to OW/OM. No one else believes it.
jj33 Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Exactly right 2sure. After "I couldnt leave my children would never speak to me again" blah blah blah (who asked?) out of nowhere came this "im not willing to change my life" (again who asked...) exit stage left... but at least it was honest.
OWoman Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I've seen over and over here on the OW/OM forum that when the MM or MW goes back to the wife and kids that he puts his family first. This puzzles me. In actuality the MM or MW puts themselves first-- their wants-- their desires. This is the thing that drives them both into and out of the affair. They put themselves first. They decide that their happiness is most inportant-- above their spouse-- above their kids. So they have an affair. Then the wife is going to leave and they decide to hang on to their marriage because it is what they want and in most instances later on they have another affair because it satisfies their selfishness. I'm just curious where the idea that the MM or MW puts their wife and kids first comes from... What is the viewpoint that leads to this idea? I'm probably being foolish, responding to a baiting post, but I really get irritated when anyone posts sweeping assumptions about "ALL <insert category here: MM/MW; OM/OW; BS>. Situations are different, people are different and lumping everyone in a category together and making derogatory statements about them is little different to racism or sexism. It's all based on prejudice. SOME MM/MWs clearly are governed by selfish motives. Others are not selfish, merely weak / cowardly or such ingrained conflict avoiders that leaving - or even saying openly "I'm unhappy in this relationship and I want things to change, or I'll leave" is beyond them. Often, rather than being selfish, these people are pleasers, trying to keep EVERYONE happy even when those drives are contradictory. They go through great angst and unhappiness and are often very out of touch with their own wants and desires, and so not acting in accord with those but with what they PERCEIVE to be the wants and desires of those they're trying to please (spouse, lover, kids, etc). Yet others are genuinely confused and conflicted, unable to take a true reading on how their behaviour affects themselves or others because of contradictory messages about right and wrong, good and bad, etc that they're picking up from others. Their guilt may cause them to spend more time engaging with the kids, for example; the kids respond well to this and they see, "the kids are happy" - despite their "common sense" telling them that the kids ought to be unhappy that they're having an A. I'm sure there are lots of other motivators too. These ones just popped instantly into my head - perhaps because I've just been through a leaving process with a MM who had to learn through counselling to be MORE selfish, that it was OK to have his own wants and needs and not always to have to suppress those or prioritise those of others, and that he deserved happiness as much as the next person - which finally empowered him to leave his unhappy M (and, in the process, free the kids from the unhappiness too). There is no One Size Fits All with As.
NoIDidn't Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 The IDEA that a MM/MW puts their spouse and children first comes straight from OM/OW! They are told this by the WS. You will never hear a BS claiming this. ... So, the idea and the statement that MM/MW puts their family first is just part of the lie told to OW/OM. No one else believes it. I agree with this. Most BSs will say that they couldn't have been putting the family first when they put all of their energy into a relationship that takes away from that family. What I find most interesting though, is that the OPs usually act like this lie and obvious distortion of the truth is looked at as some sort of nobility on the part of MM. "He's staying for his kids" becomes "he's such a great father". "He doesn't want his W and kids to suffer financially right now" becomes "he's such a great provider". His words are quite transparent to those not blinded with the rose-colored glasses.
2sure Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 There is no One Size Fits All with As. OWoman - i couldnt agree more. Affairs, relationships, & marriages are as individual as each of us. But you know, I've been somewhat astonished since coming to LS, to find so many factors in each of these unique scenerios - are identical. Not all, no, of course not. But so very many. I think the phrase "Staying for the kids" is used by many WS ( who choose to stay ) as a blanket term/bottom line and also by those WS looking to enter into an affair as justification of their seeking comfort elsewhere. The frequency of the phrase hides many different circumstances that usually translate to: I'm not leaving OR I'm not the bad guy.
Trialbyfire Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 All I'm going to say is that truly selfish people should be left out of the gene pool. After four generations of this, maybe the gene pool will be washed a little cleaner.
whichwayisup Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I think the phrase "Staying for the kids" is used by many WS ( who choose to stay ) as a blanket term/bottom line and also by those WS looking to enter into an affair as justification of their seeking comfort elsewhere. Does an OW/OM really want to hear "well, I've decided to go back to my wife, I've realized that cheating was a big mistake and going through this pain and heartache has made me realize that I DO love my wife and family, I don't want to lose them.." Or is it easier to hear the standard line "I'm going back because of the kids." Could an OW/OM accept and believe a MM/MW who actually says he/she's going back because of a re-found love for their spouse? My guess is no because people hear what they want to hear, out of frame of minds, emotions and the affair fog. Just my 2 cents, no harm intended..
Author tinktronik Posted January 27, 2009 Author Posted January 27, 2009 I'm probably being foolish, responding to a baiting post Not a baiting post OWoman. I'm not a BS or a OW. This is my "take" on the situation. Thus why i posted it. What is the other side? Or where does this idea come from?
Mino Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I'm probably being foolish, responding to a baiting post, but I really get irritated when anyone posts sweeping assumptions about "ALL <insert category here: MM/MW; OM/OW; BS>. Situations are different, people are different and lumping everyone in a category together and making derogatory statements about them is little different to racism or sexism. It's all based on prejudice. SOME MM/MWs clearly are governed by selfish motives. Others are not selfish, merely weak / cowardly or such ingrained conflict avoiders that leaving - or even saying openly "I'm unhappy in this relationship and I want things to change, or I'll leave" is beyond them. Often, rather than being selfish, these people are pleasers, trying to keep EVERYONE happy even when those drives are contradictory. They go through great angst and unhappiness and are often very out of touch with their own wants and desires, and so not acting in accord with those but with what they PERCEIVE to be the wants and desires of those they're trying to please (spouse, lover, kids, etc). Yet others are genuinely confused and conflicted, unable to take a true reading on how their behaviour affects themselves or others because of contradictory messages about right and wrong, good and bad, etc that they're picking up from others. Their guilt may cause them to spend more time engaging with the kids, for example; the kids respond well to this and they see, "the kids are happy" - despite their "common sense" telling them that the kids ought to be unhappy that they're having an A. I'm sure there are lots of other motivators too. These ones just popped instantly into my head - perhaps because I've just been through a leaving process with a MM who had to learn through counselling to be MORE selfish, that it was OK to have his own wants and needs and not always to have to suppress those or prioritise those of others, and that he deserved happiness as much as the next person - which finally empowered him to leave his unhappy M (and, in the process, free the kids from the unhappiness too). There is no One Size Fits All with As. Thank you Owoman, very very well Put,
Mino Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Does an OW/OM really want to hear "well, I've decided to go back to my wife, I've realized that cheating was a big mistake and going through this pain and heartache has made me realize that I DO love my wife and family, I don't want to lose them.." Or is it easier to hear the standard line "I'm going back because of the kids." Could an OW/OM accept and believe a MM/MW who actually says he/she's going back because of a re-found love for their spouse? My guess is no because people hear what they want to hear, out of frame of minds, emotions and the affair fog. Just my 2 cents, no harm intended.. Actually wwisup, I can say 100% that if my sm went back today, it would ONLY be because of his child. That was the reason he had such a hard time with leaving, and that is the reason of his pain today. The child, And if he were to go back,,, it would only be because of the child... I am 1000000000000% sure of that one.
whichwayisup Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 In your case, that is probably right..But what if that wasn't the case? What if he TRULY decided that he loved his wife and wanted to go back as he just missed her and what they've shared. Wouldn't it be easier for you to handle hearing "Beacuse of my child" than "I want to love my wife again and work things out?" And those who go back and are serious about it, make it work by doing counselling and making the marriage better BECAUSE of the kid(s).
2sure Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 A teacher probably hears "The dog ate my homework" a million times. Once in a while its true.
NoIDidn't Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Actually wwisup, I can say 100% that if my sm went back today, it would ONLY be because of his child. That was the reason he had such a hard time with leaving, and that is the reason of his pain today. The child, And if he were to go back,,, it would only be because of the child... I am 1000000000000% sure of that one. I'm sure you really believe that this would be the only reason, but I don't agree with your assessment. If he went back, it would be for that reason as well as many others. He may still have some residual love for his W, for one. Another thing, he may want to give his marriage a chance for himself to not feel like he failed at it. His family may be pressuring him to reconsider his actions. I mean, there are SOOOO many reasons that people go back. I don't like staying for the kids personally though or going back for them. The spouse deserves a chance to find love elsewhere as well. And staying for the kids (while cheating behind their backs) only gives the cheater the options. What many cheaters are also saying with that "staying for the kids" thing is "I may not want my spouse, but I don't want anyone else to have her either".
whichwayisup Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 What many cheaters are also saying with that "staying for the kids" thing is "I may not want my spouse, but I don't want anyone else to have her either". Hense confusedathome's situation. They've more or less broken up, due to her spouses cheating, and now that confused has started dating and met someone, her ex all of a sudden wants her back and wants to do counselling to fix things...
OWoman Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 A teacher probably hears "The dog ate my homework" a million times. Once in a while its true. ha ha that actually happened to me once - we had to dissect a crab for biology. It smelled awful so I left it outside. Needless to say I didn't have much homework to hand in... (ok, end of t/j)
OWoman Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Not a baiting post OWoman. I'm not a BS or a OW. This is my "take" on the situation. Thus why i posted it. What is the other side? Or where does this idea come from? Sometimes it's a line, fed to keep the OW "happy" because those MMs are embarrassed to admit they'd been less than honest about how "awful" things were at home; they'd look foolish returning to something they swore was so bad that they needed the OW to save them from it. Sometimes it comes from a OW's rationalisation - whether or not the MM has told her outright things were awful at home, she's guessed they must be, because why else would a decent man take up with someone else - and he must be decent, because she wouldn't take up with just any old someone, would she? Sometimes it comes from popular mythology - he's gone back, but because of NC there's no conversation to establish exactly WHY, so she's guessing it's because of those darn kids that he was saying just the other day he missed so much... because that's why all MM go back, isn't it? But sometimes it's from observed reality. Sometimes the MM really does go back for the kids. I remember when I was a kid, one of the kids in another class was off school for ages. I heard that she'd drunk bleach, because her father had left her mother for an OW, and she figured it was the only way to get him to come home (after she'd begged and pleaded over the phone, to no avail). It worked. But she was messed up for good, and had to be moved out of the school - so I never did hear how that story ended. But I'll bet that the OW, like so many others, had to lump it and deal with the fact that he was going back "for the kids".
Mino Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Well we are going to have to agree to disagree. I know 10000000000% that it would be ONLY for the child. In other cases, it very well may be true. But not in our case. Again every situation IS different...
Mino Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 actually I also have a friend whose husband was married and they had a adoptive son. When he left( there was no O/w) he divorced her. The child became very very ill. The doctors told him, w was not capable to take care of child alone, she had mental issues. Doctor said the child needs him too. This man went back for the child. He actually stayed until the child graduated. The next day, he got in his car and drove off. Never returning to his home. This man is passed over now, but he is an example of someone that went home ONLY because of the child...
Reggie Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 Thank you Owoman, very very well Put, The details may be different. But, there are some consistent things, the dishonesty, the selfishness come to mind.
NoIDidn't Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 I remember when I was a kid, one of the kids in another class was off school for ages. I heard that she'd drunk bleach, because her father had left her mother for an OW, and she figured it was the only way to get him to come home (after she'd begged and pleaded over the phone, to no avail). It worked. But she was messed up for good, and had to be moved out of the school - so I never did hear how that story ended. But I'll bet that the OW, like so many others, had to lump it and deal with the fact that he was going back "for the kids". So the girl attempted suicide and the only thing you think the OW presumably thought is he went back "for the kids"? Wow...just, wow. A suicide attempt reduced to going back "for the kids". A broken family reduced to "going back for the kids". Wow.
OWoman Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 So the girl attempted suicide and the only thing you think the OW presumably thought is he went back "for the kids"? Wow...just, wow. A suicide attempt reduced to going back "for the kids". A broken family reduced to "going back for the kids". Wow. I didn't say "the only thing" but you seem to have difficulty understanding the point of my post, and explaining it would be both off-topic and not of general interest, so I'm not going to go into that here. If you're REALLY intersted you can PM me, otherwise if you're just trying to pick a fight I'm afraid you'll have to play alone.
NoIDidn't Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 I didn't say "the only thing" but you seem to have difficulty understanding the point of my post, and explaining it would be both off-topic and not of general interest, so I'm not going to go into that here. If you're REALLY intersted you can PM me, otherwise if you're just trying to pick a fight I'm afraid you'll have to play alone. No, you are always welcome to PM me if you are interested in giving more information. You may not have said "the only thing" but you did say she had to "lump it up". That made her, and you, sound very cold and hard hearted towards this little girls' plight. I'm not interested in picking a fight. I already said what I thought about it.
OWoman Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 You may not have said "the only thing" but you did say she had to "lump it up". That made her' date=' and you, sound very cold and hard hearted towards this little girls' plight.[/quote'] I can't possibly represent the OW in that case here with any degree of accuracy - I was a small child, I didn't know her or the parents of the girl, and I knew the girl only by sight as she was a few years older than me. I was merely projecting that - given the question I was asked of "where does the perception that MM go back "for the kids" come from - that this would have been a case in point. The MM did go back "for the kids". And the OW would have had to deal with that. And yes, that would lead to her thinking / assuming / arguing BASED ON HER OWN LIVED EXPERIENCE that MMs return to Ms they're done with, for the kids. Is it really that hard a point to understand?
Recommended Posts