"Thrown under the bus"

[Spark1111]

Sometimes. Other times it's to convince the BS that the A is over - while it's just gone underground for a while until it's safe to return to business as usual.

 

Personally, I don't get why a MM would minimise either R. If the A really meant nothing, was it worth risking the M? And, if the M really means so little, why stay in it? I think minimising either R just makes the MM out to have dubious judgment and little agency. That might be fine for some, but I'm done with nappy changing and bottom wiping. I prefer my men grown up.

 

Could not agree more! I would not allow him to minimize the affair in an attempt to reconcile with me.

 

Harder to understand, is why his OW NEEDS to believe I am still the big bad wolf-wifey; that she continues to believe the minimizing of the marriage and his return for reasons of duty and obligation alone.

 

People will believe whatever they need to to heal, I guess.

 

And I do believe TODAY, that while a MM may go to great lengths to not bad-mouth his wife so his intended OW will continue to think him kind and gentlemanly, he WILL IMPLY the marriage is awful to allow her to think she has a shot at an exclusive future with him.

 

And that is just wrong.

[OWoman]

And I do believe TODAY, that while a MM may go to great lengths to not bad-mouth his wife so his intended OW will continue to think him kind and gentlemanly, he WILL IMPLY the marriage is awful to allow her to think she has a shot at an exclusive future with him.

 

And that is just wrong.

 

It's wrong if it's done "with intent". Sometimes, though, the MM does get so caught up in an alternative fantasy world where everything works out perfectly for everybody - including all mutually exclusive possibilities. It's not that he's setting out to deceive, in those cases - he genuinely wants to be able to offer the OW what (he thinks) she most wants (which, come on, HAS to be him...) and helps to embellish her fantasy of "what ifs" without actually thinking through what he's doing.

 

Then again, some MM may need to diminish the M TO THEMSELVES to justify their continued behaviour, contrasting the horrid moments with the evil W with the calm, blissful islands of paradise with the OW.

 

And for some MMs, there may be a realisation that - actually - their M is pretty sad, and that it would be better to leave.

 

(I'm not going to attempt a proportioning of how many MMs to which category... or even pretend that those are all the possibiities!)

 

But for MMs to be honest with either the OW or the BW, first they need to be able to be honest with themselves. And some are not.

[donnamaybe]

Sometimes. Other times it's to convince the BS that the A is over - while it's just gone underground for a while until it's safe to return to business as usual.

 

Sure, for an OW/OM who is content being the side dish. Also, that is why I said:

Of course, sometimes you have a serial cheater on your hands, in which case they'll probably just resume with a different OW/OM once the dust has settled and until the BS figures out their game.

[herenow]

On a similar note - if the M ends after DDay, has the BW been thrown under a bus? Or the MM? Or does it depend on how it was done and who said what?

 

When d-day hit for me, I knew that I had to deal with the fact that divorce was a real possibility. As a matter of fact, in the early days, I thought it was the only option. I needed to make sure I could move forward, do the best for my kids and eventually be happy in whatever my new life was to be.

 

Had my H made the choice to be with the OW, I would not have felt like I was under the bus, I would have gotten into the drivers seat immediately. After all, it's my life, my choices, my consequences. To be under a bus would have been counter productive for me and my kids. IMO

[ladydesigner]

Had my H made the choice to be with the OW, I would not have felt like I was under the bus, I would have gotten into the drivers seat immediately. After all, it's my life, my choices, my consequences. To be under a bus would have been counter productive for me and my kids. IMO

 

Exactly, this would be my POV if my H left for the OW. More power to them I am moving on now.

[Confused4Now]

Had my H made the choice to be with the OW, I would not have felt like I was under the bus, I would have gotten into the drivers seat immediately. After all, it's my life, my choices, my consequences. To be under a bus would have been counter productive for me and my kids. IMO

I have to say....for me this is accurate in a way I felt I was thrown under the bus myself, but right now I feel like I'm in the drivers seat driving the BUS now and I agree its about ME and my kids right now!!!!

[Snowflower]

On a similar note - if the M ends after DDay, has the BW been thrown under a bus? Or the MM? Or does it depend on how it was done and who said what?

 

IMO, the BS was thrown under the bus the moment the WS chose to embark on an affair. The problem is that most of the time the BS doesn't even know they were tossed under the wheel, at least until D-Day.

[donnamaybe]

IMO, the BS was thrown under the bus the moment the WS chose to embark on an affair. The problem is that most of the time the BS doesn't even know they were tossed under the wheel, at least until D-Day.

 

They don't know about any bus because the MM/MW is intent on keeping the A a secret in nearly every single case, while they don't mind telling the OW/OM to take a hike. That, in itself, tells the story. They may be doing things they shouldn't be doing, but they would prefer the BS not find out they're a lying sneaky self-serving whatever while they don't care if the OW/OM knows.

[OWoman]

Sure, for an OW/OM who is content being the side dish. Also, that is why I said:

 

Of course, sometimes you have a serial cheater on your hands, in which case they'll probably just resume with a different OW/OM once the dust has settled and until the BS figures out their game.

 

I wasn't referring to serial cheaters, nor to MMs who simply take up with another OW, but to LTAs where the MM minimises the A to the BS so that he and the OW can pick up where they left off.

 

These OWs are not always "content being the side dish" - sometimes it's simply that the DDay was "premature" in the controlled exit strategy of the MM, and that not all his ducks are in a row yet to leave.

 

Other times, the A is the primary R in the MM's life, but it needs to remain an A because that is what the OW demands. I recently (well, about 2 years ago, now) saw this play out with a friend of mine, who has been the OW to her MM for about 16 years. The A has lasted through 4 Ms (two each) and 2 kids (hers) - there have been times when he was M and she was S; when she was M and he was S; when they were both M; and when they were both S - yet she has throughout maintained that she wants him as a part-time lover, not a full-time H. She is currently S, he is currently M. Two years ago there was a DDay when his current W found out about the A and went ballistic. He minimised the A to her, to appease her wariness, so that he could get right back to it (as he has). I know he would prefer a full-time R with his OW, but since that is not on, a part-time one is better for him than nothing. And, while he has no kids, he and his W own property together, work together on several projects, are reputationally bound to one another and would stand to lose a lot if they split. It suits him to remain M, so he's going to try to keep it that way - even if it means having to lie to his W about the significance of the A.

[jennie-jennie]

That might be fine for some, but I'm done with nappy changing and bottom wiping. I prefer my men grown up.

 

I am thinking more and more this is the problem with many MM. They have not taken charge of their own lives. They have not stood up and claimed the right to live their lives as they prefer. Perhaps it is time now for that teenage revolt they never had?

[silverplanets]

I am thinking more and more this is the problem with many MM. They have not taken charge of their own lives. They have not stood up and claimed the right to live their lives as they prefer. Perhaps it is time now for that teenage revolt they never had?

 

I would argue it is more that they haven't taken responsibility. Any one can act "in charge" ... but taking resonsibility for yourself and your actions ... that require a real man (or woman:))

 

I would also challenge the argument that they are not living the lives they prefer ... as far as I can tell they are living exactly the life they prefer ... they have their career, their family, the benefit of joint finances/descision making etc and also the support and adoration of the OW/OM. I believe they are exactly where they want to be right at this point in time. Even if they say they can't leave because of the kids/wife/family etc then they are still saying that they are choosing to stay there .. the reasons are irrelevant, it is they that make their individual choice about the priorties of those reasons v the OW/OM.

 

I suspect that rather than having the teenage revolt they never had they would be better placed to finish growing up.

 

...not aimed at you or your man Jennie, I realise you're there by choice ... just my pov on the points raised.

 

be safe

Chris

[jennie-jennie]

I would argue it is more that they haven't taken responsibility. Any one can act "in charge" ... but taking resonsibility for yourself and your actions ... that require a real man (or woman:))

 

I would also challenge the argument that they are not living the lives they prefer ... as far as I can tell they are living exactly the life they prefer ... they have their career, their family, the benefit of joint finances/descision making etc and also the support and adoration of the OW/OM. I believe they are exactly where they want to be right at this point in time. Even if they say they can't leave because of the kids/wife/family etc then they are still saying that they are choosing to stay there .. the reasons are irrelevant, it is they that make their individual choice about the priorties of those reasons v the OW/OM.

 

I suspect that rather than having the teenage revolt they never had they would be better placed to finish growing up.

 

...not aimed at you or your man Jennie, I realise you're there by choice ... just my pov on the points raised.

 

be safe

Chris

 

Well, that is the continous debate of whether they are all cakeeaters or not. If you read tbone's thread over in Infidelity, you could see how he stated he was even pshysically sick:

 

"And I am seriously on the brink of collapse. I"m having major neck pain, migraines, and fatigue from the stress of this."

 

This I believe is the reality for many of the MM who are not cakeeaters, but deeply conflicted what to do. You can't exactly believe that any man wants to have it like that.

 

In my opinion a teenage revolt is needed to finish growing up, to take responsibility for your own life and happiness and not just live life like "you are supposed to", like your parents, church and society told you to.

 

Oh, and I am not here by choice, but I am staying by choice. I never expected to become the OW.

[donnamaybe]

I wasn't referring to serial cheaters, nor to MMs who simply take up with another OW, but to LTAs where the MM minimises the A to the BS so that he and the OW can pick up where they left off.

 

These OWs are not always "content being the side dish" - sometimes it's simply that the DDay was "premature" in the controlled exit strategy of the MM, and that not all his ducks are in a row yet to leave.

 

Other times, the A is the primary R in the MM's life, but it needs to remain an A because that is what the OW demands. I recently (well, about 2 years ago, now) saw this play out with a friend of mine, who has been the OW to her MM for about 16 years. The A has lasted through 4 Ms (two each) and 2 kids (hers) - there have been times when he was M and she was S; when she was M and he was S; when they were both M; and when they were both S - yet she has throughout maintained that she wants him as a part-time lover, not a full-time H. She is currently S, he is currently M. Two years ago there was a DDay when his current W found out about the A and went ballistic. He minimised the A to her, to appease her wariness, so that he could get right back to it (as he has). I know he would prefer a full-time R with his OW, but since that is not on, a part-time one is better for him than nothing. And, while he has no kids, he and his W own property together, work together on several projects, are reputationally bound to one another and would stand to lose a lot if they split. It suits him to remain M, so he's going to try to keep it that way - even if it means having to lie to his W about the significance of the A.

 

In your first example, IF the OW/OM continued in the affair after discovery, even though their MM/MW refused to leave the marriage, those are the type I feel are content to take the crumbs. It's sad. Similarly, OW/OM who remain in an A for year after year after year (and we see MANY of them on LS) are also accepting less than they should. Of these, I see many claiming they're fine with it while, at the same time, making posts about how they wish their MM/MW would leave the M. This is completely contradictory. Either you're fine with it (in which case I would think an OW/OM would rather their MM/MW NOT leave the M since the status quo is what you want), or you're not (which is why they say they wish their MM/MW would divorce).

 

And, yes. We all know there are some who would just as soon the M remain intact. I can understand that. If someone's life is all good and all they want is some good sex when they feel like it, why ruin it?

[greengoddess]

It really has nothing to do with liking or disliking someone. Ignorant behavior is ignorant behavior and I call them like I see them. It could very well be belittling them but is it disrespectful if it is the truth? What I said was somebody's certain behavior was small and ignorant because she tried to belittle someone herself without having even known that person which is a very premature action (and quite ignorant). I stand by that.

 

I totally disagree. You can have an opinion on someone by their actions without actually having met them. To her, your actions are that of a woman who is interested in her husband, a mm. To her your actions are of chasing after her husband. To her she considers that behavior, persuing a mm, to be that of a s*&%. She doesn't need to know you to come to that conclusion, she knows of your actions FROM HER HUSBAND who lets her believe that.

[OWoman]

I would argue it is more that they haven't taken responsibility. Any one can act "in charge" ... but taking resonsibility for yourself and your actions ... that require a real man (or woman:))

 

I don't think there is a OSFA on this. I think in some cases it's "responsibility", and in other cases it's "charge". Looking at my own H - he certainly took on more than his share of responsibility, doing the knight in shining armour thing, looking after everyone ahead of himself - and taking more than his fair share of blame, even for things way beyond his (or anyone's, in some cases) control. This "kind" of MM is not used to takeing charge of their own lives - they live a life of service, deriving their meaning from being of benefit to others, constantly at the service of others. They're big on responsibility, duty and obligation, but very low on even knowing what it is THEY want or need.

 

The low on responsibility type are something else altogether.

 

I would also challenge the argument that they are not living the lives they prefer ... as far as I can tell they are living exactly the life they prefer ... they have their career, their family, the benefit of joint finances/descision making etc and also the support and adoration of the OW/OM. I believe they are exactly where they want to be right at this point in time.

 

I think that's true for the low-responsibility guys, but not for the low-charge guys. For the low-charge guys, they're in perpetual torment and conflict - between the "old" way (duty, obligation, responsibility) and the "new" way (love, support, passion). They see the "new" way as selfish, and dislike themselves for indulging in it - but at the same time, it feeds a very deep hunger within them that they struggle to deny having had to confront it. It's not an easy place to be. It's certainly not where they'd choose to be, and the longer they remain in that space, the greater the likelihood of their becoming depressed. While the low-resp guy feeds off and draws energy from the A, the low-charge guy struggles and suffers.

[OWoman]

I totally disagree. You can have an opinion on someone by their actions without actually having met them. To her, your actions are that of a woman who is interested in her husband, a mm. To her your actions are of chasing after her husband. To her she considers that behavior, persuing a mm, to be that of a s*&%. She doesn't need to know you to come to that conclusion, she knows of your actions FROM HER HUSBAND who lets her believe that.

 

:lmao: If my H was texting and mailing some woman, and she responded to his messages, and he then told me she was a slut for responding to his messages... I think I'd have to be VERY STUPID to believe him! :lmao:

[jennie-jennie]

I don't think there is a OSFA on this. I think in some cases it's "responsibility", and in other cases it's "charge". Looking at my own H - he certainly took on more than his share of responsibility, doing the knight in shining armour thing, looking after everyone ahead of himself - and taking more than his fair share of blame, even for things way beyond his (or anyone's, in some cases) control. This "kind" of MM is not used to takeing charge of their own lives - they live a life of service, deriving their meaning from being of benefit to others, constantly at the service of others. They're big on responsibility, duty and obligation, but very low on even knowing what it is THEY want or need.

 

The low on responsibility type are something else altogether.

 

 

 

I think that's true for the low-responsibility guys, but not for the low-charge guys. For the low-charge guys, they're in perpetual torment and conflict - between the "old" way (duty, obligation, responsibility) and the "new" way (love, support, passion). They see the "new" way as selfish, and dislike themselves for indulging in it - but at the same time, it feeds a very deep hunger within them that they struggle to deny having had to confront it. It's not an easy place to be. It's certainly not where they'd choose to be, and the longer they remain in that space, the greater the likelihood of their becoming depressed. While the low-resp guy feeds off and draws energy from the A, the low-charge guy struggles and suffers.

 

I never liked the term cakeeater, but I love these two terms: "low-responsibility" versus "low-charge" MM. They cover it all.

[pureinheart]

I never liked the term cakeeater, but I love these two terms: "low-responsibility" versus "low-charge" MM. They cover it all.

 

Where did that term come from anyway? I think in most cases it's a case of confusion...M not working, vulnerability etc.

[greengoddess]

:lmao: If my H was texting and mailing some woman, and she responded to his messages, and he then told me she was a slut for responding to his messages... I think I'd have to be VERY STUPID to believe him! :lmao:

 

That's because you know your husband is a cheater. You know the behavior he displayed with you outside of hismarriage so you would know not to believe he was innocent. Many women have no reason not to trust the men they have shared their lives with for 20 years. Marriage is built on trust. If my husband told me a woman was continually calling and texting him because she wanted him I would believe him and then would draw my own conclusions as to what a woman is who goes after married men.

[White Flower]

I totally disagree. You can have an opinion on someone by their actions without actually having met them. To her, your actions are that of a woman who is interested in her husband, a mm. To her your actions are of chasing after her husband. To her she considers that behavior, persuing a mm, to be that of a s*&%. She doesn't need to know you to come to that conclusion, she knows of your actions FROM HER HUSBAND who lets her believe that.

Actually, I don't believe he 'lets her believe' anything but that is beside the point.

 

The thing that bothers me about this kind of person is that they have no problem blaming one AP but not the AP they are married to (I call us both AP because we are both in the affair therefore equal to each other in position and action). He is just as much as a @#$%$^ as I am but I get the names and he gets the begging, pleading, and forgiveness. It makes me laugh actually.

 

Especially given that her H is very selective.

 

You don't see this kind of behavior from the more intelligent BS here such as Herenow, Spark, and 2sure. They never tried to belittle the OW because they saw them just as hurt as themselves by their H.

[White Flower]

I never liked the term cakeeater, but I love these two terms: "low-responsibility" versus "low-charge" MM. They cover it all.

I agree as well.

 

What is OSFA?

[greengoddess]

He is lying to her correct? She has no clue he is actually having an affair with you correct? She thinks YOU want him? What is she to believe? If her husband would man up and be honest then she could form an honest opinion of him. Instead she is lied to by her husband and led to make her own conclusions on the little information she has.

 

How absolutely sad that YOU LAUGH at her for begging and pleading with HER husbnd. Tell her the truth. She won't beg and plead anymore. Stop being deceptive and sneaking around with you laughing behind her back.

[White Flower]

That's because you know your husband is a cheater. You know the behavior he displayed with you outside of hismarriage so you would know not to believe he was innocent. Many women have no reason not to trust the men they have shared their lives with for 20 years. Marriage is built on trust. If my husband told me a woman was continually calling and texting him because she wanted him I would believe him and then would draw my own conclusions as to what a woman is who goes after married men.

What if your H cheated on you since BEFORE he M you? Would you still believe your M was built on trust? Perhaps you should have said that marriage is SUPPOSED to be built on trust, but often that is not the case sadly.

[White Flower]

He is lying to her correct? She has no clue he is actually having an affair with you correct? She thinks YOU want him? What is she to believe? If her husband would man up and be honest then she could form an honest opinion of him. Instead she is lied to by her husband and led to make her own conclusions on the little information she has.

 

How absolutely sad that YOU LAUGH at her for begging and pleading with HER husbnd. Tell her the truth. She won't beg and plead anymore. Stop being deceptive and sneaking around with you laughing behind her back.

I am not laughing behind anyone's back. However, I do laugh at particular behavior as stated earlier.

 

 

 

I would love to tell her if she would only call me. She has my number but I am sure she is afraid of the truth; therefore, no call. People like that believe what they want. Repeat, what they want. Not what they're told, but what they want.

He is lying to her correct?

He told her he did the pursuing but she decided I was the @#$% for calling him back. Lying to her still? No, just omitting the truth if you want details. Edited March 4, 2010 by White Flower

[greengoddess]

I am not laughing behind anyone's back. However, I do laugh at particular behavior as stated earlier.

 

 

 

I would love to tell her if she would only call me. She has my number but I am sure she is afraid of the truth; therefore, no call. People like that believe what they want. Repeat, what they want. Not what they're told, but what they want.:oHe told her he did the pursuing but she decided I was the @#$% for calling him back. Lying to her still? No, just omitting the truth if you want details.

 

 

LOL talk about denial. You really believe she knows and should call YOU but she doesn't want to know the truth? Maybe she trusts her husband because he gives her no reason not to but you, you know the truth.