An observation re: OW vs BS on this forum

[NoIDidn't]

Yikes, I was typing so fast I called my H's former OW "that woman". Believe me, it was supposed to be "the woman".

 

Apologies.

[HarmonyHope]

 

I don't get it. The talking out of both sides of the mouth that Harmony is doing. On the one hand, there is complaining about being called names, or names being implied. But then to turn around and say that she can actually respect OO's stance as being honest about her feelings? Ridiculous.

 

Not really, there are some BS's here that act like they are safe to talk to and then they blast the OW. At least IO is clear that she'll blast you. She doesn't pretend she'll be nice. Not naming any names, but I think you know who I mean.

 

Silktricks - re: the emoticons - I honestly have no issue with the emoticons themselves, they can be helpful. What I was referring to was a habit NoIDidn't seems to have of mocking people with them. There was definite mocking of howcouldInotknow in the other thread. I've noticed it other times as well. Other times she can be very empathic. I guess we all have our moods.

 

Name calling and implied name calling are both not neccessary and hurtful. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's ok to bash someone up one side and down the other and then claim impunity because you didn't use the offensive word that you spent paragraphs trying to imply.

 

You are right though that it is hard to glean true meaning from typed words. And sometimes it's a problem of perspective. A BS may think she's helping an OW by saying the MM doesn't love her, but it's really not helpful and puts the OW in a position of trying to prove the MM loves her. The BS doesn't mean to be hurtful, but it is. For instance, years ago, I had a miscarriage. My family told me "oh well, you'll have another". At the time it felt heartless and diminished my loss, but they really thought they were being helpful. It was really just a poorly worded attempt at empathy. Based on this experience, I try harder to see things from other's perspectives. I wouldn't try to gloss over someone's loss (a MM, an H, a happy M, whatever) or make them feel moronic for feeling that way.

Edited October 29, 2009 by HarmonyHope

[donnamaybe]

A BS may think she's helping an OW by saying the MM doesn't love her, but it's really not helpful and puts the OW in a position of trying to prove the MM loves her. The BS doesn't mean to be hurtful, but it is.

 

I think what people are trying to do when they say things like this is to help the OW/OM out of that helpless feeling and into a feeling of justifiable anger at the MM/MW who is dangling them on a string. Yes; there are affairs that result in the M dissolving and the AP's becoming a couple in every sense. But how many? Not many. And of those that DO happen, the OW/OM forced the MM/MW into making a decision. THAT is what they SHOULD be doing. It's about hoping people won't waste year upon year upon year of their lives for what? An MM/MW who REALLY only wants variety.

[HarmonyHope]

I think what people are trying to do when they say things like this is to help the OW/OM out of that helpless feeling and into a feeling of justifiable anger at the MM/MW who is dangling them on a string. Yes; there are affairs that result in the M dissolving and the AP's becoming a couple in every sense. But how many? Not many. And of those that DO happen, the OW/OM forced the MM/MW into making a decision. THAT is what they SHOULD be doing. It's about hoping people won't waste year upon year upon year of their lives for what? An MM/MW who REALLY only wants variety.

 

I agree. I do think it's very well intentioned. But I've noticed that the 1st thing OW do when a post like that appears is to reassure the OP that the MM does love them, he's just weak. It strikes a raw nerve, it seems. And the OW reads that as "I'm only good for sex", which further compunds the feelings of unworthiness. It's possible that a BS telling an OW that their MM doesn't love them has more to do with reassuring themselves about their own situation than helping the OP. I've yet to see a poster telling a BS that their H doesn't love them and he's just using them to get sex, but it's possible it's happened and I missed it. That feels more like an attack on the BS than the character of the MM. The point is that sometimes the best of intentions go awry. But sometimes, really and truly, the intention isn't good. Is this making any sense?

Edited October 29, 2009 by HarmonyHope

[NoIDidn't]

You are right, we all have our moods. I think what you are misreading as animosity is just the frustration of seeing the train coming while the OP swears its "the light at the end of the tunnel". Everyone is screaming to them to get off the tracks, but they don't listen. And when it is coming from one that has identified as a BS in the past, its taken as ill-intended.

 

Or the few times there have been posters that certainly don't have the emotional readiness or maturity to be in a regular relationship, much less an affair. I think its bad form to ask a poster how old they are, but I've done it and been totally confused by the answer that is returned.

 

You would be right if you are calling me out about venting my frustrations sometimes. I'm not going to qualify it by saying that other posters do it too, this is my doing. I own it. I work on it too. But I am not posting from a place of anger, or sanctimoniousness (is that a word). Its very hard to gauge tone in print - especially from someone like me that has such a hard time expressing one idea at a time.

 

There are definitely people that post on this forum who don't have intentions of being respectful or helpful to the OPs here. But to have it implied all the time that its the BSs doing it strikes me as disingenuous at best.

[donnamaybe]

I've yet to see a poster telling a BS that their H doesn't love them and he's just using them to get sex, but it's possible it's happened and I missed it.

 

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. After all, the MM/MW is already married to the BS, and most OW/OM wishes the MM would LEAVE said BS, therefore, the BS already has what the OW/OM wants. The full home life, etc. whereas all the OW/OM has IS sex and stolen moments.

[NoIDidn't]

I've yet to see a poster telling a BS that their H doesn't love them and he's just using them to get sex, but it's possible it's happened and I missed it. That feels more like an attack on the BS than the character of the MM. The point is that sometimes the best of intentions go awry. But sometimes, really and truly, the intention isn't good. Is this making any sense?

 

Oh it has happened. And it was an attack on BSs in general.

 

There have been posters that actually have liken BWs to prostitutes claiming that they were only in the marriage for the H's money.

 

To tell a BS that their H is using them to get sex just doesn't make any sense though. Married people are expecting to have sex with each other. But, some have actually taken that illogical leap right off a cliff.

 

Silk was right when she said that things are tame now in comparison to a few years ago. There were so many driveby posters - from all sides. It was a very volatile board back then.

[silktricks]

Not really, there are some BS's here that act like they are safe to talk to and then they blast the OW. At least IO is clear that she'll blast you. She doesn't pretend she'll be nice. Not naming any names, but I think you know who I mean.

 

Having at times been guilty myself of coming across as "blasting" when it was the furthest thing from my mind at the time, I can understand how that can happen - I can also understand how it feels to be "blasted" when you're in pain. At times this place is a no-win situation, but overall I believe that the intent of most people is not a bad intent.

 

{snip}

 

Name calling and implied name calling are both not neccessary and hurtful. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's ok to bash someone up one side and down the other and then claim impunity because you didn't use the offensive word that you spent paragraphs trying to imply.

And of course you are correct - implied name calling can be almost as bad as using the forbidden word (or words) themselves. What causes me grief is how some people can so blatantly treat BS with disdain and then get their panties in a twist when the flayed BS hits back. Some posters I have felt have done that little act purposely so they could report the BS to the mods and have them cut off from LS.

 

BS have a bad name here with OW, and some of us richly deserve it. OW expect other BS to rein in the offenders. However some OW here are equally offensive to BS. Other OW react to those offensive posters by cheering them on. I'm not a big fan of double standards, so tend to be offended by the double standards that I feel exist.

 

You are right though that it is hard to glean true meaning from typed words. And sometimes it's a problem of perspective. A BS may think she's helping an OW by saying the MM doesn't love her, but it's really not helpful and puts the OW in a position of trying to prove the MM loves her.

Yes, and I agree this can happen. It can also happen, however, that EVERYONE is telling the OW that the MM is just using her. The OW in question will start to talk about the "bitter BS" who are being offensive and all of a suddent the entire thread turns into a bashing of BS, when in reality it was not necessarily BS at all who were telling the woman to wake up and smell the coffee...

 

The BS doesn't mean to be hurtful, but it is.

That's true, it is, and it also isn't helpful.

 

For instance, years ago, I had a miscarriage. My family told me "oh well, you'll have another". At the time it felt heartless and diminished my loss, but they really thought they were being helpful. It was really just a poorly worded attempt at empathy.

I'm sorry for your loss. As you say, often peoples attempts often fall far short of their aim.

[HarmonyHope]

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. After all, the MM/MW is already married to the BS, and most OW/OM wishes the MM would LEAVE said BS, therefore, the BS already has what the OW/OM wants. The full home life, etc. whereas all the OW/OM has IS sex and stolen moments.

 

Would a better analogy be - "your H obviously doesn't love you because he's cheating on you"? My point is that telling someone they aren't loved implies they aren't love-able. It's hurtful.

[silktricks]

You were too quick Harmony--- I wanted to make the following change to my above post:

 

And of course you are correct - implied name calling can be almost as bad as using the forbidden word (or words) themselves. What causes me grief is how some people can so blatantly treat BS with disdain and then get their panties in a twist when the flayed BS hits back. Some posters I have felt have done that little act purposely so they could report the BS to the mods and have them cut off from LS. And probably the opposite is true as well.

[NoIDidn't]

Oh silk, you have hit on a sore point for me: the posters that baited BSs just so they could report them.

 

Its was sick the way some of the OW (yes, it was only OW doing it) would practically plan to bait some BS posters they didn't like. The bad thing is that they were getting away with it until other posters started reporting them for starting the nastiness.

 

Now, instead of the multiple personality posters that were baiting BSs with their many usernames - we get posters that just run away when they hear what they don't like. I guess in a way that's better...until they return with a new name and a beef with the posters that disagreed with them.

 

This is a topic that truly angers me because the other OW on the board would act like nothing happened. Silence was condoning that sick behavior.

[NoIDidn't]

What I was referring to was a habit NoIDidn't seems to have of mocking people with them. There was definite mocking of howcouldInotknow in the other thread. I've noticed it other times as well.

 

 

I am still looking for this post to HCINK that you speak of. Since you mention it, can you tell me which thread its in? I want this specific one since it stood out to you so much.

 

Thanks.

[Fallen Angel]

I personally think it is wrong to condone bad behaviour by anyone, no matter who they are OP/BS/WS. It just doesn't make any sense. But it happens a lot.

 

Member of position A in the triangle feels attacked by member of position B, and cries out... other members of A come running and start fighting with not only the original B, but every B they see as "defending" B's statements. So now rather than just one A and one B fighting, there are 10 of each going round and round, and each time it gets uglier, and more people get drawn in.

 

Not one group here is any better than the other. I have seen it started by people in all the positions of the triangle, hell.. I have seen it started by people who have never been in a triangle at all, and just like being judgemental, or want to pick at a sore spot and sit back and enjoy the cat fight that ensues.

 

Sometimes if you just hang back and watch you can see these people working somewhat behind the scenes.. as soon as things appear to start to calm down and people start treating each other with more respect, back in comes the OUTSIDER again with one post that now jabs at the opposite group and round it goes again.

 

Sad thing is even in this thread there seems to be an us against them attitude... funny you rarely see OWs saying that OWs "generally start this" or BWs saying it is BWs...

 

But I will say this.. the majority of BWs here have been very kind to me! A few of them kinder than I have ever been to myself. But some BWs have been unkind.

 

The majority of OWs have been very kind to me. And some of my fellow OWs have been less than kind.

 

And I have seen OWs start fights.

And I have seen BWs start fights.

And I have seen what I coin as "ALWAYS ANTAGONISTIC" posters start fights. (no need to point fingers we all know who they are )

 

It is not a persons position in the triangle, I think it has to do with where they are emotionally as to if they are here to help, or hurt.

[Dexter Morgan]

Dexter - you continue to use the word action. As I stated before I used the word position.

 

position, action...doesn't matter....ok, now on with the post.

 

 

So... here's MY opinion.

 

1. You have stated many times that in your opinion that a BS who chooses to stay in a marriage where they have been betrayed is never going to have a good marriage. They will always have a scar. They are taking "leftovers"

 

no, in my opinion they are settling, when there is someone out there that will be true to them and is better for them.

 

 

That is IMO an indefensible position. There are a number of fBS who either have posted in the past or post here now who have actual experience with choosing to recover our marriages.

 

but you conveniently leave out that even though thats my position, I will not BEST or look down on anyone that chooses to stay. I understand the pain and confusion someone betrayed is going through. If they stay, I hope they can at least come to some level of happiness.

 

its not indefensible at all because its not in any way saying that those that stay with a cheating spouse are idiots, morons, or stupid. I don't hold that view and never will.

 

You are seeing it as indefensible because you are assuming I think that people that stay are idiots.....no? well its not the case. its an opinion.

 

 

We have lived the choice we have made. Some of those who have chosen to attempt recovery have failed most miserably and decided they could not get past the pain of betrayal. Others have succeeded.

 

I say this position of yours is indefensible because you simply choose to ignore success stories and state that it is impossible when it clearly is not.

 

what is "success"? I could concede that if someone stays and the marriage has "recovered" and all seems good, yes....I believe that can happen.

 

but it is my OPINION, that it isn't a total "success". Why? can you tell me that you don't think about the betrayal here and there? You aren't reminded of it from time to time? And when reminded of it, it doesn't hurt? If "success" means you can keep a spouse from cheating and they never do it again....well then.......ok.

 

 

 

Indefensible position.

 

2. Statement is made that ALL OW are lacking in something and that is why they "allow MM to use them". Clearly this is true for some people. It is NOT true for all.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment there at all. However, it doesn't mitigate the less than admirable behavior of an OW/OM.

 

 

 

Indefensible position

 

3. Some OW were told the man they were seeing was single - is that their fault? clearly it is not. They didn't set out to break up a marriage, they were sucked in. Yet they are portrayed by some as terrible homewreckers.

 

Nope, if an OW/OM is lied to, not their fault at all. What matters is how they proceed once they do find out they have been lied to.

 

Now, you highlighted those which you consider indefensible "positions".

 

I will now address the indefensible "actions". There are people on this forum that will defend someone:

 

1) cheating: saying that they must have had good reason to cheat and laying blame on the betrayed.

 

THAT is an indefensible action being defended.

 

2) who is sleeping with someone elses spouse: saying that they have no obligation to do the decent thing and can sleep with someones spouse without guilt or compassion for the BS

 

THAT is an indefensible action, and position, being defended.

[HarmonyHope]

Its was sick the way some of the OW (yes, it was only OW doing it) would practically plan to bait some BS posters they didn't like. The bad thing is that they were getting away with it until other posters started reporting them for starting the nastiness.

 

Have these threads been deleted? I don't recall seeing such planned baiting, but then I don't spend too much time in this particular forum. Who are you referring to? That is terrible if that's happening.

[NoIDidn't]

Have these threads been deleted? I don't recall seeing such planned baiting, but then I don't spend too much time in this particular forum. Who are you referring to? That is terrible if that's happening.

 

No, they haven't been deleted. They are just very old posts. If you have time and want to go back to 2006 posts in this forum, you will find them.

 

I don't know if those posters were banned or if they just stopped having fun baiting posters. I did see them try that same MO in other forums and get their hats handed to them, though.

 

It was a rough time for posters that weren't OPs back then. You were treated as suspect whether you were or not. And that didn't help the forum at all.

[HarmonyHope]

No, they haven't been deleted. They are just very old posts. If you have time and want to go back to 2006 posts in this forum, you will find them.

 

I don't know if those posters were banned or if they just stopped having fun baiting posters. I did see them try that same MO in other forums and get their hats handed to them, though.

 

It was a rough time for posters that weren't OPs back then. You were treated as suspect whether you were or not. And that didn't help the forum at all.

 

On further thought, I do recall seeing a couple threads more recently that were specific to baiting BS's. But not a whole lot.

[HarmonyHope]

I am still looking for this post to HCINK that you speak of. Since you mention it, can you tell me which thread its in? I want this specific one since it stood out to you so much.

 

Thanks.

 

I think it was in the evil wife thread, and given the fray over there, I don't even know how many of the posts are even still there. I'd have to look at it again, but I remeber feeling like you were poking fun at HCINK's discussion around her engagement ring, which was obviously pretty painful to her. Again, you aren't the only one guilty of it, HCINK used a bunch of smart-allecky smileys too.

[NoIDidn't]

I think it was in the evil wife thread, and given the fray over there, I don't even know how many of the posts are even still there. I'd have to look at it again, but I remeber feeling like you were poking fun at HCINK's discussion around her engagement ring, which was obviously pretty painful to her. Again, you aren't the only one guilty of it, HCINK used a bunch of smart-allecky smileys too.

 

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2448629&postcount=57

 

My response to this post is what you referring to?

 

That whole post was an attack on BSs and on the one her ex went back to, in particular. She sought to validate a relation based on the carats in a ring. And then showed that she took pleasure in the possibility of that ring causing another woman pain. But we managed to change the tone after those responses. I'm sure she was still smarting over a relationship that ended a few weeks ago.

 

I don't think HNICK was an OP, the man was separated and actually still is while working on his M possibly. I think he did an honorable thing in letting her go knowing he was working on his marriage.

 

But, I do think this exchange is a good example of how things go in this forum between OPs and non-OPs. An OP would have responded to her by congratulating her on the ring. Me, a former BW, non-OP didn't see the revelance of the ring and said so. The OP response would have still zeroed in on the ring, but because it was congratulatory it wouldn't have been taken in offense.

 

I didn't see the value of the ring of adding value to her or the relationship. The man could afford the ring, so he bought it. I didn't see the point of being happy that the W might be uncomfortable in the rooms in his home that she helped to decorate while he was separated. And I said those things. Maybe not in the best way, but I said that. And was called "evil" because of it. LOL.

 

This happens so frequently on this forum. A non-OP will point out that *things* aren't important, and the OP reads it as *they* are not important - when that clearly was never stated. And especially not by me!

 

(More to say, but can't decide how to word it.)

[HarmonyHope]

I'm not sure that HCINK ever indicated any degree of happiness that his wife might be hurting. She did mention it as if her "fingerprints" were all over this guys life, and maybe that makes her feel less unimportant, but I see no indication of joy or wanting the wife to be hurt. It was an explanation that the wife was not a factor in their relationship because the marriage was supposedly over, but that she must be a factor in the reconcilation because the wife only seemed to want him when she realized he was serious about someone else. I think she used the engagement ring to illustrate that their relationship was real, and she mattered to him at a time when she is now feeling very insignificant to him. Inferring that she got joy out of that is exactly like Misty inferring myrtle got joy out of the OW's pain. But maybe I'm seeing something that's not really there too. Some of those threads are just painful to read.

Edited October 29, 2009 by HarmonyHope

[donnamaybe]

I'm not sure that HCINK ever indicated any degree of happiness that his wife might be hurting. She did mention it as if her "fingerprints" were all over this guys life, and maybe that makes her feel less unimportant, but I see no indication of joy or wanting the wife to be hurt. It was an explanation that the wife was not a factor in their relationship because the marriage was supposedly over, but that she must be a factor in the reconcilation because the wife only seemed to want him when she realized he was serious about someone else. I think she used the engagement ring to illustrate that their relationship was real, and she mattered to him at a time when she is now feeling very insignificant to him. Inferring that she got joy out of that is exactly like Misty inferring myrtle got joy out of the OW's pain. But maybe I'm seeing something that's not really there too. Some of those threads are just painful to read.

 

When a woman says "Everytime she (meaning the W) walks around his home and looks at rooms I decorated, clothing I picked out for him, and the 3 karat ring he gave me sitting on the dresser I KNOW I am not irrelevant" you can BET she is getting some sort of perverse pleasure in knowing the W will be thinking about her and her prior involvement with her H.

 

And I'm not a BS, so this isn't from that perspective.

[HarmonyHope]

When a woman says "Everytime she (meaning the W) walks around his home and looks at rooms I decorated, clothing I picked out for him, and the 3 karat ring he gave me sitting on the dresser I KNOW I am not irrelevant" you can BET she is getting some sort of perverse pleasure in knowing the W will be thinking about her and her prior involvement with her H.

 

And I'm not a BS, so this isn't from that perspective.

 

Perhaps, but in fairness, that was an assumption of her feelings of perverse joy, no one asked her. And when accused, she denied it.

[donnamaybe]

Perhaps, but in fairness, that was an assumption of her feelings of perverse joy, no one asked her. And when accused, she denied it.

 

Then explain why someone would ever say something like that.

[HarmonyHope]

Then explain why someone would ever say something like that.

 

I'm not going to pretend I know what was in her head anyore than what was in myrtles head when she said what she said. I think those questions are best left to the people who wrote them.

[fooled once]

And didn't you make an assumption of the smilies used??

 

but I remeber feeling like you were poking fun at HCINK's

 

More assumptions....

 

you brought it up in what appeared to be a backhanded defense of other women. I find it offensive any time another woman is called a whore unless she's actually a hooker. That's just the feminist in me. Truth be told, I've noticed plenty of posters (BW's and non-BW's alike) call the other women a whore even if they don't use that exact word. Some of those posts get deleted quickly by the mods so perhaps you haven't seen the ones I've seen.

 

there are some BS's here that act like they are safe to talk to and then they blast the OW.

 

What I was referring to was a habit NoIDidn't seems to have of mocking people with them

 

assumptions abound..........