2sure Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 At the time I was OW, I thought I was taking control of a hopeless situation (my life) ....but in retrospect, it was a very dark & lonely period - which is often what makes OW vulnerable to relationships with MM... whether they acknowledge it or not.
NoIDidn't Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Wow 2sure, you make it sound like a game show. Make sure you get your cash and prizes before you leave . Although I guess on some Karmic level any MP that cheats on their spouse deserves to be played in the way you describe. It's just ironic that the OW/M forum is so full of discussions about feelings and "soulmates" and you make it sound so calculated. Makes one wonder.... Mr. Lucky But sometimes the MP is being just that....calculating. While my guy wasn't yet married, he offered me the job of being his mistress. He was serious. Seriously making a poor attempt at grooming me. I don't agree with affairs, but I agree with 2sure. You know he isn't leaving, so you might as well get all you can out of the deal. I'm not saying blackmail him with exposure. I'm just saying take those trips and gifts offered. My ex didn't know how to play the game well enough when he were seeing each other. He tried to make demands before offering the goodies. Unless he thought that *he* was somehow the best goody of all.
Lizzie60 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 The first time I became an OW, I was very young. .15.. he was married, one child, 26... I fell head over heels for him.. he was extremely good looking.. charming.. the whole nine yards.. Our A lasted 11 years.. then she left him.. and he moved with me.. we spent another 18 years together... (total of 29 yrs)... When I left my 2nd ex.. I was 50.. (he was 38).. I was spoiled rotten... we spent 5 years together. Then at work I met this very young guy.. he said he was separated... our A lasted for a few months.. then he said he was going back since she was expecting their 2nd child... I dumped him.. but he was very consitent..and a few months later.. started to nag me, call me.. etc.. I would see him at work from time to time.. I've done 'wild' things with him.. it was insane... Anyway.. from then on... I chose MMs cause they are unavailable.. and I don't want anyone full time.. I want to be spoiled rotten by them.. I like the attention, the sex, etc... but most of all.. I like my freedom.. that's why I choose to be an OW.. it's that simple.
wildsoul Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 It's just ironic that the OW/M forum is so full of discussions about feelings and "soulmates" and you make it sound so calculated. Makes one wonder.... Mr. Lucky There's nothing "ironic" about it. You're trying to over-simplify it, Mr. Lucky (or engage in a bout of OP bashing, trying to shame them, as you frequently like to do.) Different people have different motivations: Some are in it for love.Some are in it for sex.Some are in it for the cash and prizes. And that holds true for both the MP and the OP. Sometimes those two people are motivated by the same things, and other times differently. 2sure is talking about the classic "mistress" scenario, where both of them are more pragmatic and love isn't part of the deal. In this forum, however, you've got more OP that are love motivated. We're the ones that are more inclined to need support and seek out a place like LS. Few and far between are the happy OP's (Lizzie comes to mind, as well as OWoman in her day) who want that classic mistress role.
Lizzie60 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 There's nothing "ironic" about it. You're trying to over-simplify it, Mr. Lucky (or engage in a bout of OP bashing, trying to shame them, as you frequently like to do.) Different people have different motivations: Some are in it for love.Some are in it for sex.Some are in it for the cash and prizes.And that holds true for both the MP and the OP. Sometimes those two people are motivated by the same things, and other times differently. 2sure is talking about the classic "mistress" scenario, where both of them are more pragmatic and love isn't part of the deal. In this forum, however, you've got more OP that are love motivated. We're the ones that are more inclined to need support and seek out a place like LS. Few and far between are the happy OP's (Lizzie comes to mind, as well as OWoman in her day) who want that classic mistress role. Very well said.. we each have our own motivations... I like the mistress scenario.. Do you know why we're called mistress? Because we love being between the mister and the mattress..
2sure Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Sure, sure, I sound calculated...but look: MM(s) said he loved / cared for me. Certainly, I cared for him - but knew it wasn't going anywhere. In HIS fantasy, he was all a woman could need right? Well, in a relationship partners take care of each other. He cared about me, he cared about his wife. He wanted BOTH. His wife has a house, a car, vacations, jewelry etc. It seemed to me that if he cared about me, when he could not be with me - taking care of me in other ways was showing me he cared. It wasn't like a "business proposition". I'm sure some of things were an inconvenience to him on occasion... But he liked taking care of some things for me. He was married , his time was limited - what nicer way to show me cares? When the OW isn't cared for other than sex , affection & pillow talk.... THAT sounds colder. Wham, bam, call you next time I can get away?? Love? Cheap talk. Not for me.
Mr. Lucky Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 There's nothing "ironic" about it. You're trying to over-simplify it, Mr. Lucky (or engage in a bout of OP bashing, trying to shame them, as you frequently like to do.) I haven't responded to the OP (perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?), simply to a comment that 2sure had made. And I was more curious about it than anything else. She didn't seem to take offense to it, so I'm wondering why you would? Mr. Lucky
wildsoul Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 I haven't responded to the OP (perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?), simply to a comment that 2sure had made. And I was more curious about it than anything else. She didn't seem to take offense to it, so I'm wondering why you would? Mr. Lucky I read sarcasm into your post. Pardon me if I misinterpreted your tone. The rest of my answer was in response to your comment, "...about feelings and "soulmates" and you make it sound so calculated. Makes one wonder...." Just pointing out that there are different motivations involved, no one size fits all. Moreover, wanted to add that the OW/M here are mostly (not all) but mostly the type of people seeking love. That's why the whole damn mess hurts so much.
Mr. Lucky Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Just pointing out that there are different motivations involved, no one size fits all. Moreover, wanted to add that the OW/M here are mostly (not all) but mostly the type of people seeking love. That's why the whole damn mess hurts so much. Maybe we're saying the same thing and perhaps you better than I. I agree that most of the OW/M are indeed seeking love and was simply struck by the contrast between that and 2sure's admittedly more calculated approach. Although I still question the thought process behind seeking love from someone who, at least on paper, is commited to love someone else. Seems counter-productive at even the most basic level... Mr. Lucky
OWoman Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Although I still question the thought process behind seeking love from someone who, at least on paper, is commited to love someone else. Seems counter-productive at even the most basic level... Little girls are typically raised on a diet of Romance. The fairytales of being swept away by a prince on a white stallion take hold and everyone wants to believe that their True Love will be of that grand, archetypal romantic kind. So, when they find their "soulmate", they expect hin to move mountains to be with them - to hack through 100years of briar growth and climb the tower and slay the wicked witch (his BW?) so that they can live happily ever after. Sure, it may be completely unrealistic in many cases, but there are always enough cases around (like mine) where it does work out like that, which keeps hope alive in others that, just maybe, they may be one of the lucky ones too. I doubt very much that many - if any - of the loveseaking OWs set out to fall in love with a MM. But, having done so, they chose to act on it because of the romantic fantasies they'd been programmed with since little. The same way so many men - my H included - grew up thinking their role was to be the white knight and rescue damsels in distress!
OWoman Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Few and far between are the happy OP's (Lizzie comes to mind, as well as OWoman in her day) who want that classic mistress role. I can't speak for Lizzie, but the "class mistress role" was never on the agenda for me. Classically, a mistress was "kept" by a man, was sexually exclusive with him and made herself available to him at his whim. It was very like the role of a wife, except normally in addition to that role, and without the domestic drudgery and with nicer lingerie. My Rs with MM were very different. For a start, if there was any sexual exclusivity it was on their part - most (if not all) of them ceased sexual relations with their Ws during the A, while I had several MMs in my harem at any given moment, during that phase of my life. Availability was determined by me, not by them - they had to be available when summoned, as part of the upfront agreement - and because they knew that if they weren't, there'd be someone else to take their place, they made damn sure they were. Nor was I ever "kept" by any man - I am simply far too independent to allow that kind of power imbalance - though there were plenty of gifts and treats and a great deal of spoiling. I think the "classic mistress" role is far more likely to happen in the context of an A founded on love - who else would be prepared to sit at home and "keep herself" just for one guy whose attentions are often elsewhere (with his W)?
LakesideDream Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 O'Woman, It's all the rage today (especially in todays world) to underestimate the power of love. When you are in love, everything is possible, everything is worth the effort. Every day is a good day. Most of us reach for that. And why not? Aren't the best memories the memories of loving moments? Isn't that something worth risking everything for? I can't hate the OW/OM. I understand them. They are no different from other people, they are just less lucky. The lacked the good fortune of falling in love with someone "available". The ones I dislike are what we call "serial cheaters" here at LS. Especially the men who have random sex and affairs with anyone available leaving a wake of pain and destruction behind them. I suppose I'd feel the same about a woman who did the same, I've just never personally met one. But, alas I'm not much of a judge. I'd trade a month of true happiness for twenty years of joyless success.
wildsoul Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I can't speak for Lizzie, but the "class mistress role" was never on the agenda for me. Classically, a mistress was "kept" by a man, was sexually exclusive with him and made herself available to him at his whim. It was very like the role of a wife, except normally in addition to that role, and without the domestic drudgery and with nicer lingerie. My Rs with MM were very different. For a start, if there was any sexual exclusivity it was on their part - most (if not all) of them ceased sexual relations with their Ws during the A, while I had several MMs in my harem at any given moment, during that phase of my life. Availability was determined by me, not by them - they had to be available when summoned, as part of the upfront agreement - and because they knew that if they weren't, there'd be someone else to take their place, they made damn sure they were. Nor was I ever "kept" by any man - I am simply far too independent to allow that kind of power imbalance - though there were plenty of gifts and treats and a great deal of spoiling. I think the "classic mistress" role is far more likely to happen in the context of an A founded on love - who else would be prepared to sit at home and "keep herself" just for one guy whose attentions are often elsewhere (with his W)? Sorry OW, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were in it for the cash/prizes! Hope I didn't offend you. All I meant was that you seem to have deliberately chosen to be an OW, because it suited you. To me, that's also what I consider a "classic" mistress arrangement: someone who CHOOSES it, not just accepting the limitations, but desiring them. I'll shut up now. Not trying to speak for you.
OWoman Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Sorry OW, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were in it for the cash/prizes! Hope I didn't offend you. All I meant was that you seem to have deliberately chosen to be an OW, because it suited you. To me, that's also what I consider a "classic" mistress arrangement: someone who CHOOSES it, not just accepting the limitations, but desiring them. I'll shut up now. Not trying to speak for you. Hey WS, no offense taken I was simply disagreeing with your picture of the "classic mistress" as someone who would be in it for "pragmatic" rather than "love" reasons. I think anyone who WILLINGLY gives up their sexual freedom for a life of monogamy - at least, from their side - must have feelings of some kind for the guy, to forsake all others for him... especially if they're only getting a slice of him, as in the "classic mistress" scenario. One is always SOMEONE'S mistress, never simply A mistress. And to me, it's that notion of "belonging to" someone that differentiates those who're in it for the lurve, from those who're in it for the sex or for the goodies. So I think we have different readings of the term.
Recommended Posts