MizzBlue72 Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I started thinking after talking and reading on here. How many of us OW would actually put up with the demands / requests that the MM have asked for if they were single? For example, many of us have been told to be patient by the MM, that they are working things out to be with us. If we (the OW) were asked the same thing by a single guy we were dating, would we be more patient? Or waiting for the phone calls, texts, IMs from the MM. If a single guy were to do this to us - how long would we let this go? I am really interested in your replies. I think I already have my own answer, but I wonder what you guys think or how you would handle it.
skywriter Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 MizzBlue72, I have asked myself this question so many times. I know I would never put up with the things that I tolerate with the MM. I make excuses for his "lack of" because he is a MM. It shouldn't matter or be excusable, because he's married. Being married is like giving him a "free pass, to be all the things he expects from me! It is really frightening to me, when I realise how "brainwashed" a person can become all for the sake of another person.
Author MizzBlue72 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Posted November 2, 2009 I agree. I don't think I would put up with as much as I do from a single guy ...
Spark1111 Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Mz.Blue, I wouldn't accept it from a spouse, let alone a dating partner, married or unmarried. Which really boggles my mind in terms of how compartmentalized his psyche must have been to have an affair for 18 months, unbeknownst to me. I mean, really, how few were the crumbs she did accept from him during that time. And I often think, why? And I do believe, even in this regard, he should be ashamed of himself to not only have disrespected me and my feelings in the most painful way possible, but to have never had the courage to commit fully to ONE OF US until after DDay. And he is....ashamed of how he treated her....now. But, she also allowed it, like you stated, making many excuses because he portrayed himself to be in a loveless, marriage, get the baby to college, save some money....blah, blah, blah!
mybrowneyedgirl Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Hell no i wouldnt. But its a terrible place to be the OW. You tell yourself you deserve this treatment because you're willingly in this situation which you knew from the start. The OW, by participating, is willingly accepting these actions from the MM. It breaks you down and crushes you as a person. And, if the MM truly loved the OW he wouldnt allow her to be treated that way.
DiDi123 Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 No- I wouldn't put up with this crap from any single guy I was dating. I actually was thinking about what you said, because in my situation he's away with his friends golfing (yes he's really with them and I was supposed to join him but I had surgery) anyway, the point is there is NO ONE preventing him from calling me anytime of the day or night and is he? NO. I haven't heard from him since Thursday night. Would I put up with this from a single guy who I was seeing exclusively, no. So of course this begs the age old question of why-oh-why do we allow this? Grrrrrrrr........
Impudent Oyster Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 So of course this begs the age old question of why-oh-why do we allow this? So what's the answer?
carhill Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 A single guy is free. A married guy is taken by another female. Simple female competition puts an edge on the rules of the affair vs the rules of dating. I've seen the same on the other side (BS-side). It's literally like two dogs competing over a piece of meat when there's a whole side of beef hanging nearby. I say that as a past OM. I put up with 'it' because I was too stupid and/or ignorant to see the unhealthiness of my psychology.
beachbabyblues Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 question for spark1111, curious, who did he "choose" after d-day?
RedDevil66 Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 A single guy is free. A married guy is taken by another female. Simple female competition puts an edge on the rules of the affair vs the rules of dating. I've seen the same on the other side (BS-side). It's literally like two dogs competing over a piece of meat when there's a whole side of beef hanging nearby. I say that as a past OM. I put up with 'it' because I was too stupid and/or ignorant to see the unhealthiness of my psychology. Same here, I put up with my OM's nonsence because I was only half a person with no sense of self. Great reply
learnfrommymistakes Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 AMEN ladies I agree, I would never put up with this from a single guy I dated, not a chance. We loose control and self respect in these A I think, and we are sucked in...and we just get to the point where we are so into it, it is hard to get out, and we take the crumbs, tiny peices they give, thinking more crumbs will actually fall and turn into BIG ASS crumbs...lol or even a whole cookie, but it seems, we settle. It seems we agree to do it their way because we sort of have to play it that way, or say goodbye. Surely we chose to be OW and that in itself says something I guess..."other" means something else, in addition to, etc...we are not the main gig, we are a side dish of sorts. Even if the love is real, and i know many of us have been with wonderful men who loved us, we still chose to be one of three people in a relaionship....and hmmm..how often does that work out, lol I am probably scarred for life for my A, in so many ways. I dont trust men, I dont trust that men wont cheat and I cant believe I would have an A, and know the man i was crazy about was lying his ass off to his wife, mother of his kids, to be with me. It never felt ok, it almost drown me...really. I will never forget what i did and all the pain it caused me, ...who knows if he felt any pain, his marriage was in bad shape before we met...etc... I send support and feel your pain LFMM
Spark1111 Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 question for spark1111, curious, who did he "choose" after d-day? So strange, but when i threw him out and hated his guts....he chose me and kept turning up like a bad penny. He even had the gall to be sitting at her kitchen table moaning about how much he wanted to come home. My heart BROKE for her. Can you imagine? He damgles the possibility of a future with her for 18 months, and when push comes to shove he starts wailing about....me? And i didn't want him at the time, but I believe she did...hoping he would get frustrated with my rage and ....choose her. In retrospect, I think she should have been less...kind and considerate of him and his feelings and said "Okay, now make a choice." But he waffled for a while and I think she took hope in that. She shouldn't have.She should have grown a back bone and given him an ultimatum soon within the onset of the affair, IMHO. Unfortunately, some men always desire the thing or person they can't have. He was one of those. Others do not appreciate what they have or had, until it is walking out the door forever. Very sad. for all of us.
OWoman Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 For example, many of us have been told to be patient by the MM, that they are working things out to be with us. If we (the OW) were asked the same thing by a single guy we were dating, would we be more patient? Or waiting for the phone calls, texts, IMs from the MM. If a single guy were to do this to us - how long would we let this go? I would never put up with waiting for any guy, S or M. I never have, and have never had to. If a guy knows you won't settle for ****, he makes sure he delivers - whether he's S or M. His being M is no excuse for treating you badly - it's a choice he's making, and you do not have to put up with it. Set your standards and it's up to him to meet them nor not - there really is no need to settle for scraps, even from a MM. I suspect that some OWs do settle for the phone-call-when-she's-out-of-the-room or the quick-text-from-the-bathroom or the hurried-kiss-in-the-lift because they worry that if they did stand up for themselves and demand to be treated properly, they'd be dropped - and they'd rather not face up to the quick, cruel delivery of the verdict that they're second best... so instead they choose to savour the slow, long drawn-out version instead. Which then dooms them to being second best - it never gives the MM the chance to meet their demands, to treat them properly and to show that yes, they are worthy of that respect and of being treated decently. They devalue themselves from the outset - and then, down the line, grumble when they are nto treated any better - having indicated all along that that's how they're happy to be treated! It's like parents who allow their kids to treat them like rubbish, and then complain that their kids don't respect them. There is nothing inherently disrespectful in the structural position of being the OW. It can be a position of immense power, a position which provides all kinds of affirming and enhancing experiences. But some people choose to live on its dark side, and to inhabit the space from a position of weakness rather than of strength. It's a choice, and I'm sure each person has their reasons for choosing one way or the other.
RedDevil66 Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 There is nothing inherently disrespectful in the structural position of being the OW. It can be a position of immense power, a position which provides all kinds of affirming and enhancing experiences.. There is nothing respectful about being OW! There is a total loss of power when one choses lies over truth.
turnstone Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 I would never put up with waiting for any guy, S or M. I never have, and have never had to. If a guy knows you won't settle for ****, he makes sure he delivers - whether he's S or M. His being M is no excuse for treating you badly - it's a choice he's making, and you do not have to put up with it. Set your standards and it's up to him to meet them nor not - there really is no need to settle for scraps, even from a MM. I suspect that some OWs do settle for the phone-call-when-she's-out-of-the-room or the quick-text-from-the-bathroom or the hurried-kiss-in-the-lift because they worry that if they did stand up for themselves and demand to be treated properly, they'd be dropped - and they'd rather not face up to the quick, cruel delivery of the verdict that they're second best... so instead they choose to savour the slow, long drawn-out version instead. Which then dooms them to being second best - it never gives the MM the chance to meet their demands, to treat them properly and to show that yes, they are worthy of that respect and of being treated decently. They devalue themselves from the outset - and then, down the line, grumble when they are nto treated any better - having indicated all along that that's how they're happy to be treated! It's like parents who allow their kids to treat them like rubbish, and then complain that their kids don't respect them. There is nothing inherently disrespectful in the structural position of being the OW. It can be a position of immense power, a position which provides all kinds of affirming and enhancing experiences. But some people choose to live on its dark side, and to inhabit the space from a position of weakness rather than of strength. It's a choice, and I'm sure each person has their reasons for choosing one way or the other. What? An OW by definition, is going to be subject to all the things you talk about. If she's refuses to be treated that way she won't be an OW.
2sure Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 From my own experience and much that I have learned from others: Women who are emotionally strong, independent and healthy do not date unavailable men. A vulnerable woman does. A man being married comes fully complete with all the justification in the world to treat you like a second class citizen. And OW takes it because at least with him, she doesnt have to make it up.
OWoman Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 What? An OW by definition, is going to be subject to all the things you talk about. If she's refuses to be treated that way she won't be an OW. As an OW, I was never treated that way. I had full access on demand, as and when I wanted it. I was never hidden, I was included fully in every aspect of his life in which I wanted to be included, I was in complete control. I was never crowded when I wanted space, I chose who I wanted to spend time with at any given moment, I was treated with respect at all times and had everything my way. There is NOTHING in the definition of an OW which says it has to be the way the OP described it, rather than the way I lived it. That depends on the choice of individual OWs.
OWoman Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Women who are emotionally strong, independent and healthy do not date unavailable men. Perhaps that's the difference: my MMs made themselves available. On demand.
2sure Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Perhaps that's the difference: my MMs made themselves available. On demand. And really, when you think about it, thats the way it SHOULD be. He is married. Tied Down. Claiming unhappiness, lack of sex, etc , whatever. Not much to offer at all. He is the one in need. OW is single. Free. Lots and lots of options. Including him. He is optional. He is lucky to have OW. When she calls, damn right he should come. But as you can see here on LS, in almost of these affairs...thats not whats happening here. Its amazing really, how these men who are the party in need, who are the party with no advantage, who have little to nothing to offer and fewer options...somehow are able to convince these women thats its the other way around. Its concerning.
turnstone Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 As an OW, I was never treated that way. I had full access on demand, as and when I wanted it. I was never hidden, I was included fully in every aspect of his life in which I wanted to be included, I was in complete control. I was never crowded when I wanted space, I chose who I wanted to spend time with at any given moment, I was treated with respect at all times and had everything my way. There is NOTHING in the definition of an OW which says it has to be the way the OP described it, rather than the way I lived it. That depends on the choice of individual OWs. Well I guess we have different definitions of 'other woman', mine would include something kept secret from everyone in the MM's life. I wouldn't be able to describe what I'd define your relationship as.
OWoman Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 And really, when you think about it, thats the way it SHOULD be. He is married. Tied Down. Claiming unhappiness, lack of sex, etc , whatever. Not much to offer at all. He is the one in need. OW is single. Free. Lots and lots of options. Including him. He is optional. He is lucky to have OW. When she calls, damn right he should come. But as you can see here on LS, in almost of these affairs...thats not whats happening here. Its amazing really, how these men who are the party in need, who are the party with no advantage, who have little to nothing to offer and fewer options...somehow are able to convince these women thats its the other way around. Its concerning. No argument there at all!
Recommended Posts