Who wants a cheater anyway: why OW wouldn't stay with the MM if they were the BS

[MistyK]

I don't think it can. Most OW/OM think they are changing the MP to begin with. Makes perfect sense that they think that someone can straighten out another person.

 

In a way yes. That's a logical way to explain the inherently illogical.

[NoIDidn't]

From the outside looking into an affair, most people see an affair, a wrong being done to unsuspecting people. To the people in the affair, it isn't an affair. They aren't cheating or helping someone else cheat. No, no, no. Its only love and lollipops.

 

But when the love and lollipops ends and the cold hard reality kicks in that it was an affair, then, and only then does the BS have a "cheater" on their hands.

 

During the affair, there is no cheating, just choosing a better mate, a soul mate. If things end badly, all of a sudden the love of their life is a cheater - but only the BS ever had a cheater is the logic of the OP.

 

This double speak is very confusing. They know the MP they are with is cheating on someone, but they aren't with a cheater. They want the MP to be theirs alone and talk all this talk about "us" and "we" and whatnot, but when things end badly everything is now the problem of the "BS".

 

So, interesting how an OP complains about being alone, but seems to like it that way when they want to conveniently make all the problems belong to the BS.

 

I need to leave this thread alone for a while. This double speak, the justification and rationalization double speak, is maddening.

[MistyK]

So, interesting how an OP complains about being alone, but seems to like it that way when they want to conveniently make all the problems belong to the BS.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The OP likes being alone and leaves the BS behind to deal with the mess?

 

The double-speak you refer to is reflective of the illogical logic that gets used in affairs. It's a defense mechanism, not unlike how BS's sometimes ignore blatant signs of cheating and the WS's justify cheating - we all tell ourselves what we have to until we are "ready" to deal with something.

[redtail]

In order for cheating to occur, one has to promise fidelity. So the MP is cheating on his/her spouse, but not necessarily on the AP. It's fairly unrealistic IMO for an AP to expect fidelity from a MP.

 

Sorry to butt in, however this is intriguing. Is this expectation typical? Could any of the OW/OM comment on this and whether they were told that their married affair partner was not or would not have sex with their spouse?

[NoIDidn't]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The OP likes being alone and leaves the BS behind to deal with the mess?

 

By this I mean, I have read the many times the OPs complain that their MP went home to the spouse and they are all alone. And how after d-days they complain that there is no one to comfort them. But some on d-day say, not my problem, not my spouse. Its like they want the thrill of the A, but not the consequences of being found out. Especially if they felt used by the MP.

 

I'm not saying that the OP likes being alone. Just that when its time to clean up, they bail.

 

The double-speak you refer to is reflective of the illogical logic that gets used in affairs. It's a defense mechanism, not unlike how BS's sometimes ignore blatant signs of cheating and the WS's justify cheating - we all tell ourselves what we have to until we are "ready" to deal with something.

 

Denial. The Language of Denial. Someone should write a book on that.

[MistyK]

Sorry to butt in, however this is intriguing. Is this expectation typical? Could any of the OW/OM comment on this and whether they were told that their married affair partner was not or would not have sex with their spouse?

 

Yes. My MM swore up and down in no uncertain terms and on numerous occasions that no way no how was he having any physical contact with his W beyond hugs.

[MistyK]

By this I mean' date=' I have read the many times the OPs complain that their MP went home to the spouse and they are all alone. And how after d-days they complain that there is no one to comfort them. [b']But some on d-day say, not my problem, not my spouse. Its like they want the thrill of the A, but not the consequences of being found out.[/b] Especially if they felt used by the MP.

 

I'm not saying that the OP likes being alone. Just that when its time to clean up, they bail.

 

 

Well, no one really wants the consequences of being found out. But for the OW, D-day is another waiting game - does the WS recommit to the M or leave it, and sometimes, unbelieveably, the WS finds a way to still not choose definitively one way or the other. That was my scenario. I never felt cavalier about it, and I thought I was prepared for the fallout. I really believed at one time that we could get through anything.

 

If the WS recommits to the BW, there's really nothing left for them to "bail" from. But it does suggest a cheap, superficialty to the A in the first place if the OW is able to walk away happily while the house burns down, so to speak.

[Owl]

Well, no one really wants the consequences of being found out. But for the OW, D-day is another waiting game - does the WS recommit to the M or leave it, and sometimes, unbelieveably, the WS finds a way to still not choose definitively one way or the other. That was my scenario. I never felt cavalier about it, and I thought I was prepared for the fallout. I really believed at one time that we could get through anything.

 

This is one aspect from the OW/OM side that I never really 'got'.

 

How did you NOT anticipate the consequences of being found out?

 

It HAD to happen in order at some point in order for the affair to transition into the relationship that the OW/OM ultimately wanted...one out in the open.

 

Once an affair begins...d-day HAS to happen in order for it to stop being an affair.

 

I know that both my wife and OM never gave this very much thought in their affair...and it seems like a huge gap that they didn't do so.

 

Is this something that affair partners intentionally avoid in order to maintain the glow of the affair at the time?

[redtail]

Yes. My MM swore up and down in no uncertain terms and on numerous occasions that no way no how was he having any physical contact with his W beyond hugs.

 

Thanks for the response. So in a way, he swore his fidelity to you also and thereby was cheating on two women at the same time?

[MistyK]

This is one aspect from the OW/OM side that I never really 'got'.

 

How did you NOT anticipate the consequences of being found out?

 

It HAD to happen in order at some point in order for the affair to transition into the relationship that the OW/OM ultimately wanted...one out in the open.

 

Once an affair begins...d-day HAS to happen in order for it to stop being an affair.

 

No, it doesn't. The "plan" was for him to leave his W because the marriage was bad way before any D-day. Turned out he purposely got himself caught in hopes that she'd make it easier for him to leave by throwing him out. But of course, she screwed up his cowardly ploy by begging him to stay. The original idea was to minimize the damage and we'd have stayed underground for a good long while, but that was not to be.

 

I know that both my wife and OM never gave this very much thought in their affair...and it seems like a huge gap that they didn't do so.

 

On the contrary, we gave it ALOT of thought, which is why we got away with it as long as we did. Then he decided he wanted to get busted because he couldn't bring himself to exit without destroying everyone and everything. He made that decision against my wishes, but I suppose I could have stopped it if I really wanted to. I wanted him to make a decision and never imagined that he'd still find a way to sit on the fence for a year after D-Day.

[MistyK]

Thanks for the response. So in a way, he swore his fidelity to you also and thereby was cheating on two women at the same time?

 

Yes. He told me that as far as he was concerned his heart and body were with me - I became his primary relationship - but he struggled with the concept of divorce. (See below) At any rate, he eventually stopped feeling like he was cheating on her because they became housemates and he had been telling her for two years that he was unhappy in the marriage and refused marital counseling. He considered himself to be loyal - to me. So, in his mind, he went from one monogamous relationship to another, but he didn't make a true break with his W.

 

If you look at Devil Inside's thread you'll see the same kind of logic - he stopped sleeping with his W because he felt like it was cheating on the OW. I don't think it's too uncommon.

 

It's not that his issue was divorcing HER, he just didn't want to be divorced. He looks at it like public humiliation a la Scarlet Letter. That, and he had tremendous guilt, a sense of duty to her, and genuine concern about his children.

[Dexter Morgan]

Yes. My MM swore up and down in no uncertain terms and on numerous occasions that no way no how was he having any physical contact with his W beyond hugs.

 

so what? ...

[KonfusedinCanada]

Yes. He told me that as far as he was concerned his heart and body were with me - I became his primary relationship - but he struggled with the concept of divorce. (See below) At any rate, he eventually stopped feeling like he was cheating on her because they became housemates and he had been telling her for two years that he was unhappy in the marriage and refused marital counseling. He considered himself to be loyal - to me. So, in his mind, he went from one monogamous relationship to another, but he didn't make a true break with his W.

 

If you look at Devil Inside's thread you'll see the same kind of logic - he stopped sleeping with his W because he felt like it was cheating on the OW. I don't think it's too uncommon.

 

It's not that his issue was divorcing HER, he just didn't want to be divorced. He looks at it like public humiliation a la Scarlet Letter. That, and he had tremendous guilt, a sense of duty to her, and genuine concern about his children.

 

humm. my MM says the exact same things to me.

[whatisgoingon]

Yes. My MM swore up and down in no uncertain terms and on numerous occasions that no way no how was he having any physical contact with his W beyond hugs.

 

Absolutely so did my MM saying he wanted nothing to do with her, she did not take care of herself.

[silktricks]

not to rain on anyone's parade, but MM aren't exactly paragon's of truth telling.... my husband said similar things to his OW.

 

1. We weren't having sex, and hadn't for quite sometime.

reality: we were still having sex, even though we were separated.

 

2. He was waiting for the right time to break it to me that he was leaving.

reality: I had already left him months before... (except we were still having sex, see above). All he had to do was say "bye"... or even really not even that...

 

3. He wanted to be with her and divorce me as we had nothing in common any longer.

reality: He was begging me to come back to him, and arranging vacations to spend romantic time together.

 

need I say more?

[OpenBook]

not to rain on anyone's parade, but MM aren't exactly paragon's of truth telling.... my husband said similar things to his OW.

 

And I hate to rain on YOUR parade... but how do you know what your H told his OW?

[sadintexas]

Sorry to butt in, however this is intriguing. Is this expectation typical? Could any of the OW/OM comment on this and whether they were told that their married affair partner was not or would not have sex with their spouse?

 

Mine did NOT say he would not or was not having relations with his W. There were circumstances in which I knew intercourse itself was not an option for a period of time, but there are other ways to be intimate. I knew with him being M that the opportunity to have relations with his W could arise at any time and did not expect nor demand that he would be faithful to me. To me, that's unreasonable, and as we all know here, fidelity is a choice.

 

There was an understanding that he was not seeing other women and that I was still free to pursue other relationships when/if I chose to do so but even that was not a demand but only what he chose, and what I chose. We were open about it, I believe.

[sadintexas]

How did you NOT anticipate the consequences of being found out?

 

It HAD to happen in order at some point in order for the affair to transition into the relationship that the OW/OM ultimately wanted...one out in the open.

 

Once an affair begins...d-day HAS to happen in order for it to stop being an affair.

 

Not necessarily. If the MP (or even the MP spouse) leaves the M for whatever reasons before d-day, the R between the MP and AP could then become an R out in the open with a d-day ever occuring.

[silktricks]

And I hate to rain on YOUR parade... but how do you know what your H told his OW?

Because I read the emails he sent - as part of our recovery process.

[tami-chan]

No!!! No person can "straighten out" another person. The only person who can straighten out the cheater is the person who cheated.

 

Well, yes, in one aspect you are right. But others need to be shown or lead to realization that he NEEDS to straighten out. So that in that respect the person who was able to open the other's eyes to wanting to change is the one who 'straightened' him out.

 

That may be one of the key differences, in fact. I don't know many fBS who believe they were the person who changed their fWS.

 

The same apparently cannot be said of the OW????

 

I disagree...how many BS's stories have you read where they laid it out to the WS what he would lose, what his life would be without her and the children, etc etc? And by doing so made the WS realize what is important to him, which in turn propelled him to want to change.....so yes, ultimately the desire to be changed or "straightened out" and the work that goes with it will come from the person himself....but instrumental to that is another person who also wants him to change and took the time to make him see the"light"(so to speak)-somebody willing to wait in the wings for him to work on his issues.

 

This is not a BS/OP issue...many OWs do the same.

[tami-chan]

wanting him/her back, and wanting to keep the marriage for the wrong reasons are two different things.

 

Of course they are two different things....I am sorry that you missed the point of the discussion. The discussion is not about WHY you want your WS back-it could be because of the children, for financial reason, for the dog, etc....it is irrelevant on this particular exchange-we are SIMPLY discussing "wanting" him back, for whatever reason. Although, we can probably assume that if a BS wants his/her WS back, it would be to try to keep the marriage...afterall, why fight to have the WS back and then not try and keep the marriage?

 

The "wrong reason" is just your opinion. Any reason would do in keeping a marriage as long as both parties understood and agreed to it.

[VictoryisMine]

Okay, My MM and i started out as an A. He is cheating on his wife.

 

Down the road it turns into a relationship, it is out in the open, we are in love.

 

So, now he is not supposedly sleeping with her, only me (so he claims).

 

IF he were to start sleeping with her, his still wife (divorce not final) it would be cheating on me.

 

So... HELL NO, i don't want a cheater! I wouldn't want to play, deal with that ***** again. I did years ago... never again. In a heartbeat... Love... yeah, love.

[Dexter Morgan]

Of course they are two different things....I am sorry that you missed the point of the discussion. The discussion is not about WHY you want your WS back-it could be because of the children, for financial reason, for the dog, etc....it is irrelevant on this particular exchange

 

its totally relevant, because you talk about it as if the BS only wants them back because they actually "want" their spouse. Alot just want to keep their situation comfortable and familiar.

 

Not missing the point at all, just interjecting a qualifier in there.

 

But nice try at a lame putdown attempt.

[Lovely10]

I find it the pinnacle of absurdity for an OW to buy into the idea that there is no legitimacy to a marriage and that there is no sex in the marriage simply because the cheating spouse 'says so'. If monogamy is important to the OW then ... of course that is what the MM will say. How else can they have their cake and eat it too?

 

There are many reasons for staying married and much to the chagrin of the OW/OM good sex with them doesn't always trump the balance of the relationship with their spouse. Ice cream is nice as dessert but would be downright awful and unfulfilling as a daily diet.

 

As for why a BS keeps a WS? I could only keep a FWS, not someone choosing infidelity as a lifestyle. As for the betrayed promises? Well, that is certainly a difficult road to cross, but one if approached with true commitment may be repaired.

[NoIDidn't]

I find it the pinnacle of absurdity for an OW to buy into the idea that there is no legitimacy to a marriage and that there is no sex in the marriage simply because the cheating spouse 'says so'. If monogamy is important to the OW then ... of course that is what the MM will say. How else can they have their cake and eat it too?

 

There are many reasons for staying married and much to the chagrin of the OW/OM good sex with them doesn't always trump the balance of the relationship with their spouse. Ice cream is nice as dessert but would be downright awful and unfulfilling as a daily diet.

 

As for why a BS keeps a WS? I could only keep a FWS, not someone choosing infidelity as a lifestyle. As for the betrayed promises? Well, that is certainly a difficult road to cross, but one if approached with true commitment may be repaired.

 

I love this post. It actually makes sense to someone that doesn't have their thoughts colored by an affair.

 

I really like the bolded sentence, but would just stop at the first 'marriage' in the sentence. This is where the problem comes in to begin with. And the same OP/OW would expect someone else to respect their marriage, while they've had no respect for anothers. Even to the point of debating "who" the WS "belongs" with.

 

It is absurd.