When The MM Leaves For the OW....

[RedDevil66]

Even if we accept this as true, it doesn't follow that the foundation/"base" of OWoman's marriage is one big fat lie.

 

And are lies really all the same? If I tell someone they don't look fat in a dress, is that the same as telling my SO I'm going out for bagels and instead going to give some OM a BJ? Cause I don't think that's the same at all.

 

no, they are not the same but were talking about the lies of an affair here, not white lies.

 

I never said anyone's marriage was a big fat lie, I said in MY post, which she commented on, that love based on cheating is a lie.

Whether her marriage is a lie or not, I don't care, but when someone is a serial "cheater" they are not basing any of their love on reality, but on lies.

 

Then if you notice, I said, our version of love are not the same

 

and I also commented saying "lies are lies are lies" when you said "Sounds to me like the lies were between her H and his xW, which is a bit different than lies between OWoman and her H"

 

I mean ALL Cheating in ANY form is a lie...........period!

 

Hope this clear it up for you

[Hazyhead]

no, they are not the same but were talking about the lies of an affair here, not white lies.

 

I never said anyone's marriage was a big fat lie, I said in MY post, which she commented on, that love based on cheating is a lie.

Whether her marriage is a lie or not, I don't care, but when someone is a serial "cheater" they are not basing any of their love on reality, but on lies.

 

Then if you notice, I said, our version of love are not the same

 

and I also commented saying "lies are lies are lies" when you said "Sounds to me like the lies were between her H and his xW, which is a bit different than lies between OWoman and her H"

 

I mean ALL Cheating in ANY form is a lie...........period!

 

Hope this clear it up for you

 

All cheating is part of a lie, that's true, but that does not necessarily mean that the love between OW and her husband is a lie just because they've both had love based on lies in the past. It does not matter that this was during their own love as far as whether their love is true or not. You cannot classify them in the same way. If she was honest with her husband and he was honest with her, which to me it sounds like they always were, regardless of what was being done to the others in their lives, then their own love could surely be true.

[NoIDidn't]

That is why doing the work, i.e., going to counseling, etc., is so important when an AP leaves for the OP. If not, he/she is only setting themselves up for future disaster. Knowledge is power and if the new R is going to work at all the new couple need to have a strong understanding of what occured long before the A(s) began.

 

I agree with the content of this, but not with the timing. Why should the OW get the "bettered" partner? I would think this kind of thing should have been done with the W, before the cheating, or after the cheating, but definitely before the leaving.

 

Personally, the W is owed this level of consideration, not the OW. What happens when the OW becomes the W that they now cheat on and go to counselling with/for yet another woman?

 

Its important, to me, that the MM get the knowledge even when it comes to his "old" R, without consideration for any "new" R. Is that what is thought here, that the MM should do everything with consideration for the OW and not for the W, or even himself, for that matter?

 

(WF, this is just in response to your post, not directed at you in particular)

[Brokenlady]

Why should the OW get the "bettered" partner?

 

Is that so terrible?

 

I would think this kind of thing should have been done with the W, before the cheating, or after the cheating, but definitely before the leaving.

 

Perhaps ideally, but it doesn't always work that way. In fact, I suspect it very often can't because people live within systems that are resistive to change. (For instance, if a W tends to be bossy, she will likely be resistive of her H's attempts to be more assertive. She may actively work against him changing because she likes aspects of the ways things are.) Both partners have be be both willing, able, and ready to change and allow change in their partner, and that's a tough mix to get.

 

Personally, the W is owed this level of consideration, not the OW.

 

I really don't like the word "owed" - it conveys an entitlement....if a MM has checked out of a M and doesn't want to be in it anymore, I don't think he "owes" it to anyone to pretend otherwise.

 

What happens when the OW becomes the W that they now cheat on and go to counselling with/for yet another woman?

 

Well, if the above premise happens, that he's "bettered" when the OW "gets" him, it wouldn't be an issue. The trouble is if he doesn't get better at all, he'll cheat on whoever he's with, BS or OW.

 

Its important, to me, that the MM get the knowledge even when it comes to his "old" R, without consideration for any "new" R. Is that what is thought here, that the MM should do everything with consideration for the OW and not for the W, or even himself, for that matter?

 

Honestly I don't think it should be "for" anyone other than the MM. I think a person has to want to change for their own reasons or they are doomed to failure.

 

While I agree that the MM needs to change within the context of ONE relationship without consideration for the other, I disagree that it must be the M. I think it ought to be within whatever relationship he wishes to pursue, not the marriage by default.

[OWoman]

Is that so terrible?

 

 

 

Perhaps ideally, but it doesn't always work that way. In fact, I suspect it very often can't because people live within systems that are resistive to change. (For instance, if a W tends to be bossy, she will likely be resistive of her H's attempts to be more assertive. She may actively work against him changing because she likes aspects of the ways things are.) Both partners have be be both willing, able, and ready to change and allow change in their partner, and that's a tough mix to get.

 

 

 

I really don't like the word "owed" - it conveys an entitlement....if a MM has checked out of a M and doesn't want to be in it anymore, I don't think he "owes" it to anyone to pretend otherwise.

 

 

 

Well, if the above premise happens, that he's "bettered" when the OW "gets" him, it wouldn't be an issue. The trouble is if he doesn't get better at all, he'll cheat on whoever he's with, BS or OW.

 

 

 

Honestly I don't think it should be "for" anyone other than the MM. I think a person has to want to change for their own reasons or they are doomed to failure.

 

While I agree that the MM needs to change within the context of ONE relationship without consideration for the other, I disagree that it must be the M. I think it ought to be within whatever relationship he wishes to pursue, not the marriage by default.

 

Agreed.

 

IC should benefit the MM, primarily - and any R he has thereafter, whether with the W, the OW, or anyone else.

 

Whether MC is indicated or not is a separate issue. But in the absence of MC - or even resistance to it by the BW - why should the W be "owed" any benefit from work the MM is prepared to put into change, when she's not putting in any effort herself?

[NoIDidn't]

Agreed.

 

IC should benefit the MM, primarily - and any R he has thereafter, whether with the W, the OW, or anyone else.

 

Whether MC is indicated or not is a separate issue. But in the absence of MC - or even resistance to it by the BW - why should the W be "owed" any benefit from work the MM is prepared to put into change, when she's not putting in any effort herself?

 

I agree that IC should benefit the individual. But when that individual is married, that change benefits the spouse directly, not anyone peripheral.

 

The W is "owed" because it was "vowed". This isn't about what the W is or isn't doing. Its about the MM and what he is or is not doing.

 

The entire premise of this thread is the MM, not the OW, and certainly not the W. Its about him breaking his vows instead of doing the hard work that marriage requires. If he decides to divorce, that should be his decision, made independently of someone hanging out in the wings, IMO.

[jennie-jennie]

The entire premise of this thread is the MM, not the OW, and certainly not the W. Its about him breaking his vows instead of doing the hard work that marriage requires. If he decides to divorce, that should be his decision, made independently of someone hanging out in the wings, IMO.

 

In a perfect world perhaps, but that is not how it happens a lot of times in real life. I know my MM would never leave his wife if not for me. His marriage is okay, but he wants more. He wouldn't leave what he has for less, when what he wants is more. That would not make any sense.

[NoIDidn't]

Is that so terrible?

 

Yes, I think it is. When you vow to spend your life with someone, they should get the best of you, not someone else. This is a basic premise of many marriages.

 

 

 

{snip}

 

 

I really don't like the word "owed" - it conveys an entitlement....if a MM has checked out of a M and doesn't want to be in it anymore, I don't think he "owes" it to anyone to pretend otherwise.

 

In today's climate, words like "entitlement" and "owed" have taken a negative connotation, but they are not bad words. There is nothing wrong with a W being "owed" respect from her H. There is nothing wrong with a W feeling and being entitled to him putting his best foot forward in the marriage. Children are entitled to their parents love, why not spouses? Yes, I know that spouses are adults, but that doesn't change these "entitlements". In no way, is a MP "entitled" to a R outside of their M, either.

 

We are talking about a MM that is considering leaving the M for the OW, though, right? So he's already pretending for the W if she doesn't know about the OW, IMO. He's giving her everything he thinks he should give her while he makes his secret deliberations, so who says he's not already "pretending otherwise"?

 

Well, if the above premise happens, that he's "bettered" when the OW "gets" him, it wouldn't be an issue. The trouble is if he doesn't get better at all, he'll cheat on whoever he's with, BS or OW.

 

But the issue isn't with the counselling or that he's "bettered" (a contradiction, it seems), its the thought of a MM going to counselling to benefit someone other than himself, his W, and their family.

 

 

 

Honestly I don't think it should be "for" anyone other than the MM. I think a person has to want to change for their own reasons or they are doomed to failure.

 

But their own "reasons" could very well be that they want to be a better H "for" their spouse, and a better father "for" their children. I think we are saying the same thing, but its being overshadowed by the fact that I am saying it should benefit the marriage. If I better myself, my family indirectly benefits from that. I didn't do it "for" them, but they do get the benefits of it.

 

While I agree that the MM needs to change within the context of ONE relationship without consideration for the other, I disagree that it must be the M. I think it ought to be within whatever relationship he wishes to pursue, not the marriage by default.

 

A MM pursuing a R other than his marriage? The ultimate of contradictions, huh? LOL. I don't think it makes sense to go to counselling so you can pursue another R while you are still married.

 

Are your responses assuming the MM is going to counselling behind the W's back, and not including her in the knowledge that he is improving himself? If so, that would be part of the problem in the marriage as well. Of course a M isn't going to benefit from the counselling if the W doesn't even know he's going.

 

And if he's doing it to benefit the OW, that too takes away from the marriage. My feeling is that if he is going to do the work WHILE married, it should benefit his M, not his A. What kind of sense does that make? Why stay married and better yourself for your OW continuing to destroy your M when you have no intention of staying? Definitely divorce and pursue the OW and counselling then.

 

(I think I rambling, so forgive me. I'm in a rush. LOL. I hope you find my main idea in here somewhere. )

[White Flower]

I said, 'That is why doing the work, i.e., going to counseling, etc., is so important when an AP leaves for the OP. If not, he/she is only setting themselves up for future disaster. Knowledge is power and if the new R is going to work at all the new couple need to have a strong understanding of what occured long before the A(s) began.'

 

I agree with the content of this' date=' but not with the timing. Why should the OW get the "bettered" partner? I would think this kind of thing should have been done with the W, before the cheating, or after the cheating, but definitely before the leaving.[/quote']I think whoever lands up with MM should get the 'bettered partner'. Perhaps I could have posted that any R he ends up with should have a better man who has worked on all of his issues.

 

Also, and I'm not saying this is the case, but it COULD be that the W in any given scenario is the reason he wanders. Or maybe he wandered for other reasons yet did not find his W valuable enough to do the work for. Sad, but true in some cases.

 

Personally, the W is owed this level of consideration, not the OW. What happens when the OW becomes the W that they now cheat on and go to counselling with/for yet another woman?

Hmm, I think both are deserving of this level of consideration especially given that he is confused and trying to make a decision. Why wouldn't the OW be owed the same consideration, if not moreso, if the loves her best? Vows? He defiled the vows a long time ago.

 

Further, if he has truly done his work then he probably won't fall into the same habits. Education and self-awareness bring about change..

 

Its important, to me, that the MM get the knowledge even when it comes to his "old" R, without consideration for any "new" R. Is that what is thought here, that the MM should do everything with consideration for the OW and not for the W, or even himself, for that matter?

 

(WF, this is just in response to your post, not directed at you in particular)

I do believe MM is getting help for himself. He is not interested in working on his M because he knows he defiled it throughout its history. What he is working on is how to stop pretending, how to let her down gently, how to make positive changes for the future and how to bridge all that with what he wants. He knows his M is not worth saving, his counselor knows it, and he wants me to know it.

 

I appreciate your clarifying that your comments are directed at my post and not at me. FWIW, I tend to side with the M. I don't like to see Ms fall apart. However in this case if he stays and I leave he will cheat on her again. I'm just not going to help him do it anymore. I am standing firm on this and allowing him time for counseling and reflection.

 

I honestly believe he is working on himself and is working his way to me. This is case specific and the earlier post was not intended for MM in counseling in general.

 

Yet, if any MM knows what he wants for the rest of his life whether it be W or OW, he should work diligently on that pursuit.

[White Flower]

Is that so terrible?

 

 

Well, if the above premise happens, that he's "bettered" when the OW "gets" him, it wouldn't be an issue. The trouble is if he doesn't get better at all, he'll cheat on whoever he's with, BS or OW.

 

 

Honestly I don't think it should be "for" anyone other than the MM. I think a person has to want to change for their own reasons or they are doomed to failure.

 

While I agree that the MM needs to change within the context of ONE relationship without consideration for the other, I disagree that it must be the M. I think it ought to be within whatever relationship he wishes to pursue, not the marriage by default.

Very well stated.

[White Flower]

But the issue isn't with the counselling or that he's "bettered" (a contradiction, it seems), its the thought of a MM going to counselling to benefit someone other than himself, his W, and their family.

What if the counseling is designed to help him out of the M? What if his need of support is so great that counseling is the only way out? This happens all the time due to hysterical or bitter Ws who 'can't deal with it'. This can be a very ominous thing for a man who's always been carefully sensitive toward his W.

 

And why is it a contradiction that he should be bettered in counseling? Isn't that what counseling is for?

 

 

 

 

But their own "reasons" could very well be that they want to be a better H "for" their spouse, and a better father "for" their children. I think we are saying the same thing, but its being overshadowed by the fact that I am saying it should benefit the marriage. If I better myself, my family indirectly benefits from that. I didn't do it "for" them, but they do get the benefits of it.

Why is your value of M more important than his value of the R he wants for himself? What if he knows the M is not worth saving and benefitting? (Especially when kids are long gone).

 

 

A MM pursuing a R other than his marriage? The ultimate of contradictions, huh? LOL. I don't think it makes sense to go to counselling so you can pursue another R while you are still married.

Yet the other R has been long pursued and established. Now a choice has to be made and he finds himself needing support in that decision.

Are your responses assuming the MM is going to counselling behind the W's back, and not including her in the knowledge that he is improving himself? If so, that would be part of the problem in the marriage as well. Of course a M isn't going to benefit from the counselling if the W doesn't even know he's going.

 

And if he's doing it to benefit the OW, that too takes away from the marriage. My feeling is that if he is going to do the work WHILE married, it should benefit his M, not his A. What kind of sense does that make? Why stay married and better yourself for your OW continuing to destroy your M when you have no intention of staying? Definitely divorce and pursue the OW and counselling then.

 

(I think I rambling, so forgive me. I'm in a rush. LOL. I hope you find my main idea in here somewhere. )

Again, if he needs support in order to leave it makes perfect sense.

 

Yes, the counseling should continue after leaving and hopefully with OW before M or moving in, etc.

 

I understand trying to post while in a rush. I have a tax appointment in less than an hour:rolleyes:.

[Brokenlady]

Yes' date=' I think it is. When you vow to spend your life with someone, they should get the best of you, not someone else. This is a basic premise of many marriages. [/quote']

 

But when the MM in question has already decided to give his best to someone else, it's a moot point. The decision was made when he started the affair and if he chooses to better himself on the way out of his marriage and towards the OW, it doesn't mean the work shouldn't be done.

 

 

In today's climate, words like "entitlement" and "owed" have taken a negative connotation, but they are not bad words.

 

In the case of M, I diagree. Would you, or any BS want their H staying with them not out of love, but simply because they "owed" it to her to stick around?

 

There is nothing wrong with a W being "owed" respect from her H. There is nothing wrong with a W feeling and being entitled to him putting his best foot forward in the marriage.

 

Yes, but if he's already decided to exit the marriage, or is even giving it serious consideration, doesn't he owe it to his W to be honest and say his heart isn't in the M anymore?

 

Children are entitled to their parents love, why not spouses? Yes, I know that spouses are adults, but that doesn't change these "entitlements". In no way, is a MP "entitled" to a R outside of their M, either.

 

Children are entitled to their parent's love, but adults are not entitled to love from another adult. All we can hope for is honesty in a relationship - which can sustain love, or let each party know if it is absent.

 

We are talking about a MM that is considering leaving the M for the OW, though, right? So he's already pretending for the W if she doesn't know about the OW, IMO. He's giving her everything he thinks he should give her while he makes his secret deliberations, so who says he's not already "pretending otherwise"?

 

Precisely, so what good is it to pretend he wants his M if he really wants out once the affair is revealed? Why KEEP pretending? It's not fair to anyone.

 

But the issue isn't with the counselling or that he's "bettered" (a contradiction, it seems), its the thought of a MM going to counselling to benefit someone other than himself, his W, and their family.

 

I can see no point in arguing what is or isn't a good reason to go into IC. If a MM is cheating, then IC is exactly where he needs to be, regardless of the reason.

 

 

But their own "reasons" could very well be that they want to be a better H "for" their spouse, and a better father "for" their children. I think we are saying the same thing, but its being overshadowed by the fact that I am saying it should benefit the marriage. If I better myself, my family indirectly benefits from that. I didn't do it "for" them, but they do get the benefits of it.

 

True enough, but if he really wants out, I'm guessing he's not going into IC to be a better H. More likely it's to figure out how he got to that place and where to go from there. How to reconcile their view of themselves.

 

A MM pursuing a R other than his marriage? The ultimate of contradictions, huh? LOL. I don't think it makes sense to go to counselling so you can pursue another R while you are still married.

 

Well, my xDM did exactly that. The expressed purpose of the IC was to help him gain the strength to leave his M. The idea of staying was never on the table. His xW was aware of this, and hated his counselor as a result. I think she kept hoping that his counselor would somehow ignore all her bad qualities and the fact that he wanted to leave and advise him to reconcile with her. It honestly floored her when she was told by xDM that his counselor told him he would be happier if they divorced. In her mind, it just didn't compute.

 

Are your responses assuming the MM is going to counselling behind the W's back, and not including her in the knowledge that he is improving himself? If so, that would be part of the problem in the marriage as well. Of course a M isn't going to benefit from the counselling if the W doesn't even know he's going.

 

I see no reason for an MM to hide going to counseling, even if the purpose is to leave the M. In fact, I think he should be upfront about it. But remember that the point of IC isn't to improve the M, that's what MC is for. The IC is to help the MM grow as a person, and it may so happen that he outgrows his W, a situation that is especially likely if she's not in IC too.

 

And if he's doing it to benefit the OW, that too takes away from the marriage.

 

Of course it does. But if the W knows and chooses to stay anyway, who can argue with that?

 

My feeling is that if he is going to do the work WHILE married, it should benefit his M, not his A. What kind of sense does that make? Why stay married and better yourself for your OW continuing to destroy your M when you have no intention of staying? Definitely divorce and pursue the OW and counselling then.

 

The work he does is going to benefit whatever relationship he chooses to nuture. If he's on the way out, it's pretty obvious which one that will be. It's obvious that MM aren't keen on ending one R before starting another, that's one of the things they need to go to IC to resolve, so it often doesn't work out as neatly as we'd all like.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Brokenlady

[Spark1111]

My bottom line: Wherever you go....well, there you are.

 

If there were issues in the marriage and you contributed to its demise, you must be willing to address those issues so you may be a better partner in your next long-term full-time relationship, whether you be a WS, BS, OW/OM.

 

Otherwise I believe history, your history, will repeat itself after the two-year honeymoon phase of hormones wears off.

 

Rarely is one person in a marriage always right, one always wrong. Very rarely.

 

If I were engaging in a relationship with a DM, I surely would want to know what the issues in the former relationship was. If he started out with a litany of complaints against the xW, I think I would run for the hills.

 

If he showed an introspection of the problems and took a fair share of blame for his part in its demise, I would tend to think....wow, he is pretty evolved and a decent candidate to date, IMHO.

 

I would be looking for clues to his relationship Quotient: If he said, Oh we just grew apart, or she no longer cared for me, I'd be wondering.....Hmmm, how long until he feels the new "we" were growing apart or "she(me)" no longer cares for me....patterns of behavior in opposite sex relationships.

[White Flower]

My bottom line: Wherever you go....well, there you are.

 

If there were issues in the marriage and you contributed to its demise, you must be willing to address those issues so you may be a better partner in your next long-term full-time relationship, whether you be a WS, BS, OW/OM.

 

Otherwise I believe history, your history, will repeat itself after the two-year honeymoon phase of hormones wears off.

 

Rarely is one person in a marriage always right, one always wrong. Very rarely.

 

If I were engaging in a relationship with a DM, I surely would want to know what the issues in the former relationship was. If he started out with a litany of complaints against the xW, I think I would run for the hills.

 

If he showed an introspection of the problems and took a fair share of blame for his part in its demise, I would tend to think....wow, he is pretty evolved and a decent candidate to date, IMHO.

 

I would be looking for clues to his relationship Quotient: If he said, Oh we just grew apart, or she no longer cared for me, I'd be wondering.....Hmmm, how long until he feels the new "we" were growing apart or "she(me)" no longer cares for me....patterns of behavior in opposite sex relationships.

I respect so much what you said here. I here too often from D'd people that 'we just grew apart' and I'd think to myself, 'What a blanket answer'. How easy to throw simple statements out like that and yeah, I'd also think who is the next victim to be grown apart from?

 

You work on yourself and/or your M to the Nth degree. When all your work produces zero results, then you D.

[OWoman]

My feeling is that if he is going to do the work WHILE married' date=' it should benefit his M, not his A. What kind of sense does that make? Why stay married and better yourself for your OW continuing to destroy your M [b']when you have no intention of staying[/b]? Definitely divorce and pursue the OW and counselling then.

 

Many, if not most, MMs undergo IC before leaving in order to ascertain whether this is, really, truly, what they want, and what will be best for them, and not some fleeting fantasy. They want to be sure that the decisions that they are taking - which may be irrevocable - are sound... so that whatever R they have in the future, with W, OW or someone else, have a better chance of being healthy and sustainable.

 

And, even if they have decided that they want to leave, they may have issues which keep them stuck, unable to do so - and need to develop strength and courage through IC in order to be able to make the break. (Or, perhaps, to stay - but to make an active choice to do so, rather than a passive choice not to leave.)

 

A MM who leaves, then undergoes IC, and then takes up with the OW or someone else, is in a very different space to the MM who needs the rigorous interrogation and introspection that IC forces in order to know that he should - or shouldn't - leave, and then to be able to act on it. The former MM is likely to see the problem as a personal one, regarding himself as toxic and wanting to withdraw from any R while he purges and purifies himself (a serial MM, perhaps, or a MM with a history of failed Rs). The latter MM is more likely to have been in a longer, more stable M, with kids, and all kinds of other ties that make it more difficult for him simply to shake off. He's less likely to have had a series of As, or failed Rs, and so less likely to see himself as the toxic factor and more likely to feel confused, overwhelmed, uncertain... (Or perhaps to be a hybrid of both - having had some As on the side while in a long term, stable R, replete with kids and other ties, confusing him as to which is the "authentic" him - the philanderer or the devout, devoted H).

 

Point is, the first MM is likely to have already diagnosed himself as the toxin, and to want to address that in isolation from any Rs so that he can focus down on the real issues. The other MMs are not sure where the problem lies - possibly within them, possibly within the M - nor are they sure what the answer would be... to stay? to leave? how, where, with whom? They are paralysed with indecision and uncertainty. They need that clarity - and for that they need IC.

[OWoman]

I never said anyone's marriage was a big fat lie, I said in MY post, which she commented on, that love based on cheating is a lie.

Whether her marriage is a lie or not, I don't care, but when someone is a serial "cheater" they are not basing any of their love on reality, but on lies.

 

So who are these mythical serial "cheaters" you speak of, since you claim to know so much about me and my H?

 

He has had one A ever - with me - after more than 30 years faithful, sexually exclusive M. How you'd define that as "serial" I don't understand.

 

I've never cheated. I've always been completely upfront and transparent about who I'm shagging - or at least, that others exist besides them (without naming names). I have never had a hidden anybody on the side. How you'd define honesty and transparency as "cheating" I also don't understand.

 

Perhaps it's a limited vocabulary, or perhaps it's a limited worldview, but either way, sloppy use of language really destroys any credibility an argument might have had....

[White Flower]

I respect so much what you said here. I here too often from D'd people that 'we just grew apart' and I'd think to myself, 'What a blanket answer'. How easy to throw simple statements out like that and yeah, I'd also think who is the next victim to be grown apart from?

 

You work on yourself and/or your M to the Nth degree. When all your work produces zero results, then you D.

Boy oh boy was I in a hurry during that post. Homonym anyone?

[RedDevil66]

So who are these mythical serial "cheaters" you speak of, since you claim to know so much about me and my H?

 

He has had one A ever - with me - after more than 30 years faithful, sexually exclusive M. How you'd define that as "serial" I don't understand.

 

I've never cheated. I've always been completely upfront and transparent about who I'm shagging - or at least, that others exist besides them (without naming names). I have never had a hidden anybody on the side. How you'd define honesty and transparency as "cheating" I also don't understand.

 

Perhaps it's a limited vocabulary, or perhaps it's a limited worldview, but either way, sloppy use of language really destroys any credibility an argument might have had....

 

oh perhaps it's deep denial.......

[OWoman]

oh perhaps it's deep denial.......

 

If you're referring to me, it's not. If you're referring to yourself, you'd know best...

[RedDevil66]

If you're referring to me, it's not. If you're referring to yourself, you'd know best...

 

When I was 10 yrs old. I told my friend to "shut up" and she replied "no you shut up, I have no shutters"

 

But I was only 10 yrs old

 

You forgot to add at the end of your post "nah nah nah nah nah nah"

[silktricks]

I agree with the content of this' date=' but not with the timing. Why should the OW get the "bettered" partner? I would think this kind of thing [b']should have been done with the W, before the cheating, or after the cheating, but definitely before the leaving[/b].

 

Personally, the W is owed this level of consideration, not the OW. What happens when the OW becomes the W that they now cheat on and go to counselling with/for yet another woman?

 

Its important, to me, that the MM get the knowledge even when it comes to his "old" R, without consideration for any "new" R. Is that what is thought here, that the MM should do everything with consideration for the OW and not for the W, or even himself, for that matter?

 

(WF, this is just in response to your post, not directed at you in particular)

 

Individual counseling should be just that. Individual. For the "betterment" of the individual. Whether or not that ends up being for the "betterment" of the marriage or the relationship with the OW or neither will be determined by the outcome of the counseling.

 

If it's for the "betterment" of the marriage, then it would be Marriage counseling, not individual counseling and truly that is also the case for the "betterment" of the relationship with the OW. Unfortunately, there is no Relationship/Affair Counseling, to the best of my knowledge...

 

It could be that the MM will determine that he should not be with either of the two women, and if that's the case will either of them be OK with it? I think not. Usually, both W and OW will attempt to sway him to choose her, when what he really needs is to choose himself.

[White Flower]

I'm pretty sure that someone with a doctorate in psychology and critical thinking is pretty much tuned in to their self-awareness.

[OWoman]

It could be that the MM will determine that he should not be with either of the two women, and if that's the case will either of them be OK with it? I think not. Usually, both W and OW will attempt to sway him to choose her, when what he really needs is to choose himself.

 

I disagree. Any woman who TRULY loves the MM would want what was best for him, not for her (or for "them"). Anything short of that would be a compromise, and ultimately not in his best interests.

 

I know when my H went through his IC, I was fully prepared to "lose" him, if that was what his IC showed him to be best. And he knew that that was my honest standpoint. It wasn't just altruism - I'm reality-based enough to know that manipulating someone into a choice which they're not ready, willing or able to make freely and informedly is not a sustainable route. I wanted him healthy, happy, and freely choosing, or not at all. I'd seen what compromise had done to him, and I did not want that kind of blood on my hands.

[silktricks]

I disagree. Any woman who TRULY loves the MM would want what was best for him, not for her (or for "them"). Anything short of that would be a compromise, and ultimately not in his best interests.

 

I know when my H went through his IC, I was fully prepared to "lose" him, if that was what his IC showed him to be best. And he knew that that was my honest standpoint. It wasn't just altruism - I'm reality-based enough to know that manipulating someone into a choice which they're not ready, willing or able to make freely and informedly is not a sustainable route. I wanted him healthy, happy, and freely choosing, or not at all. I'd seen what compromise had done to him, and I did not want that kind of blood on my hands.

 

Well, you'll note that I did use the word usually. I agree that any woman worth her salt who truly loves will indeed want what is best for the object of their love. However, I do not think that usually a woman (or man for that matter), whether W or OW will choose her love for the man over the love for herself and what she wants. And, I'd say that I've seen this borne out by post after post after post on this site (amongst others).

[White Flower]

I disagree. Any woman who TRULY loves the MM would want what was best for him, not for her (or for "them"). Anything short of that would be a compromise, and ultimately not in his best interests.

 

I know when my H went through his IC, I was fully prepared to "lose" him, if that was what his IC showed him to be best. And he knew that that was my honest standpoint. It wasn't just altruism - I'm reality-based enough to know that manipulating someone into a choice which they're not ready, willing or able to make freely and informedly is not a sustainable route. I wanted him healthy, happy, and freely choosing, or not at all. I'd seen what compromise had done to him, and I did not want that kind of blood on my hands.

This has always been my stance. I don't need to force anybody's hand. They will choose me of their own doing.