Is the "married"/attached Part the Actual Attractive Quality?

[sally4sara]

You do if you are a married man with a great sense of obligation and duty.

 

Didn't you ever eat the brussel sprouts just to make someone else happy or because you were taught to eat all that was on your plate?

 

True sense of obligation and duty speaks of integrity and would ensure one didn't entertain options that hindered those obligations or duties.

 

in·teg·ri·ty n.

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.

3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

 

 

Just sayin........

[Got it]

True sense of obligation and duty speaks of integrity and would ensure one didn't entertain options that hindered those obligations or duties.

 

in·teg·ri·ty n.

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.

3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

 

 

Just sayin........

 

And reality will tell you that at times you do the best that you can with what you have. No oneshas ever said it is the perfect way of doing things. No one has argued that it is the best. But reality shows that individuals can have a clear sense of obligation to their family and to providing in that manner but still be separate from having a close relationship with another adult individual. That the two can be separate from each other. The latter may not mean that it interferes or hinders the prior.

[Woggle]

Very much so. Any married man will tell you that it is much easier to get a date when you have a ring on your finger than before. There are some women who look at a MM is some prize to win.

[Got it]

As I said before, no one need take my comment personally. I do not know you.

 

Just because I found it humorous does not mean I took it personally.

 

Look, what you were quoting from, your observation, consider the source. What else would the BS say!?! That this person was BETTER for their MP? That they had physical beauty, commendable attritudes, etc? No. You minimize things that threaten you thusly your spouse had to have "affaired down". It puts things back into a comfort zone, it is less threatening.

 

But you didn't answer that question. If both are married and thusly have no dating pool then how does your theory play out?

 

In my case, sMM's wife has many great attributes. I have many great attributes. We are not better or worse than the other.

[skylarblue]

I have never chosen or stayed in a R with a MM because his M shows a willingness to commit. Just the opposite. I usually wanted to prove that he couldn’t or at least I could make him not commit (to his W) and because I knew he was already “committed” I didn’t have to worry about him making a commitment to me and I could exit the A easily. MM started off the same way, however chasing MM is no longer my thing and I have no intentions of becoming involved in another A, and his M is not my motivating factor for staying with him anymore though it had been for a long time. Personally, I have a hard time seeing a MM that hides his A as the committed/commitment type. Even though he has demonstrated that he could be committed, he didn’t honor it so what did it prove? If my MM divorced his W and we were an exclusive couple, I feel like I couldn’t fully trust him. I would want to, but in the back of my mind I think I would always wonder if there was someone else. I feel like I’d be in the same position as his W. I think that would probably suck more than being the OW.

[Fallen Angel]

The short answer is NO.

 

But I will admit that the fact that he takes his obligation to his child so seriously is something that I admire in him.

 

But I would admire it just as well if he were divorced and showing the same level of commitment to his role as parent.

[jj33]

I was going to post this as a response in OWoman's "stay or leave" thread, but felt it might be a threadjack.

 

In her thread she talks about basically taking what one can get from an A and either being satisfied enough with it or getting out if dissatisfied with it.

 

It got me to thinking about the conversations I've had with friends when I was an OW, and with friends that were once OW as well. We seemed to be more willing to hang in there for the attached guy because he was attached. Because he showed a willingness to commit to (albeit, and cheat on) one person.

 

Is it possible that some OP tolerate what I now feel is intolerable because of that very skewed view of "commitment" and what the MP/AP (attached person) is actually doing?

 

I'm not considering the thought of self-respect and the like, just this assumption that the attached person has proven that they like to be attached as a motivator to "stay" with them longer than one might under normal circumstances.

 

It was also interesting (and I think, true) what Got It and 2Sure said about compromising and sacrificing more in a M, than in other Rs. So this question isn't only to OPs, but to MPs as well.

 

Do we stay with them because we might not find someone else that has proven that they will commit, at least for a period of time?

 

Interesting question. I dont think we stay with them or are attracted to them because they are married or I can say that wasnt a factor for me, I was with him despite that

 

However I think that often an AP will excuse behavior or put up with more nonsense and the MPs INability to commit (whether its time emotion etc etc) to them because the MP is married.

 

So perhaps some APs stay in an A longer than they would in a relationship with a single person because they believe that while xyz may not be as I wish it was, thats only because he or she is married and if he (or she) wasnt married things would be different.

[Susmay]

 

But I will admit that the fact that he takes his obligation to his child so seriously is something that I admire in him.

 

 

This is so sad for you as you cannot see what is right in front of you.

[Fallen Angel]

This is so sad for you as you cannot see what is right in front of you.

 

Save your pity for someone who wants or needs it, I do neither. I see what is in front of me very clearly. I live my relationship, I am quite certain that I understand it far better than you.

[D-Lish]

The fact that someone is attached and willing to cheat tells me that the person wouldn't make a valuable partner - whatever their motivations behind straying.

 

If an attached man hits on me, the thing that immediately runs through my head is that they would treat me with the same disrespect, and that he is capable of major deception.

[dazzle22]

The MM was intelligent, more considerate, more Communicative, humorous, more romantic, more Communicative, more mannerly, more considerate, sweeter, handsome, attractive, more Communicative ... than others out there ...

 

 

Yes, just exactly as he was to his wife too, when he was wooing her... Now that he sees her in her PJ's and curlers, and has to take out the garbage and so on,, all the patina is off that silver plate service, so it is exciting to "date" all over again, with someone fresh who doesn't know how annoying he is when he farts or snores or leaves his wet towel or dirty shorts and socks crumpled up on the floor for the wife to pick up.....

 

Studies do show that women are more attracted to taken men. Old adages are always based on truth: 1)familiarity can breed contempt 2) stolen waters are sweet 3) the grass always looks greener on the other side.....

[Susmay]

Save your pity for someone who wants or needs it, I do neither. I see what is in front of me very clearly. I live my relationship, I am quite certain that I understand it far better than you.

 

I have enough compassion to go round. For his wife and child and even you. I can see it goes over your head, what a pity as sometimes we all need some sympathy.

[Susmay]

Save your pity for someone who wants or needs it, I do neither. I see what is in front of me very clearly. I live my relationship, I am quite certain that I understand it far better than you.

 

I have enough compassion to go round. For his wife child and you. It goes over your head though. What a pity as we all need some support and sympathy sometimes.

[xxoo]

Studies do show that women are more attracted to taken men.

 

I believe this is true, simply based on the priniciple people/things seeming more valuable/attractive if other people want them. My kids can prove that in 5 minutes; they don't even WANT that toy until the other has it, lol. A married man implicitly has been chosen by another woman, thus he is valuable. A single man, well...why is he single? (not that that is what I think of single men, but these are some psychological inferences of married v. single)

 

OW here are saying that the married part is in their eyes a disadvantage and an obstacle. That doesn't nec exclude the married as part of the initial attraction. Yes, you'd prefer he is single now, but you might not have been initially as attracted to him if he were single. YMMV, of course.

[califnan]

Yes, just exactly as he was to his wife too, when he was wooing her... Now that he sees her in her PJ's and curlers, and has to take out the garbage and so on,, all the patina is off that silver plate service, so it is exciting to "date" all over again, with someone fresh who doesn't know how annoying he is when he farts or snores or leaves his wet towel or dirty shorts and socks crumpled up on the floor for the wife to pick up.....

 

Studies do show that women are more attracted to taken men. Old adages are always based on truth: 1)familiarity can breed contempt 2) stolen waters are sweet 3) the grass always looks greener on the other side.....

 

-------------------------

 

It was a two year comparison study - done by email only .. Based on one MM against a lot of single of the same age (from singles' sights) .. All and all the MM came out ahead in intelligence, looks, appearance, Compassion, Communication, sweetness, Sensitivity, humor, patience..

[dazzle22]

Actually, the study I am thinking of was done on a college campus, showing coeds pics of guys and asking them to rate guys based on their pictures, and then doing another part of the study rating the same guys with the info that they were in a relationship or not. The same guys, when tagged as "in a relationship" went up on desirability in a statistically significant way.

 

I think it is very similar to the 5 yr olds another poster mentioned, wanting the toy the other kids want. There's obviously no "magic" in being married, so there has to be some other strange human motivations operating here.

[califnan]

Actually, the study I am thinking of was done on a college campus, showing coeds pics of guys and asking them to rate guys based on their pictures, and then doing another part of the study rating the same guys with the info that they were in a relationship or not. The same guys, when tagged as "in a relationship" went up on desirability in a statistically significant way.

 

I think it is very similar to the 5 yr olds another poster mentioned, wanting the toy the other kids want. There's obviously no "magic" in being married, so there has to be some other strange human motivations operating here.

 

-----------------

 

Nope. I did the study (as posted above) ... It had everything to do with him as a person - only ..

[dazzle22]

My point is that the married man shows the woman he wants to have an affair with a very different "charming" side of himself than he is showing his wife at home...

[fooled once]

I was going to post this as a response in OWoman's "stay or leave" thread, but felt it might be a threadjack.

 

In her thread she talks about basically taking what one can get from an A and either being satisfied enough with it or getting out if dissatisfied with it.

 

It got me to thinking about the conversations I've had with friends when I was an OW, and with friends that were once OW as well. We seemed to be more willing to hang in there for the attached guy because he was attached. Because he showed a willingness to commit to (albeit, and cheat on) one person.

 

Is it possible that some OP tolerate what I now feel is intolerable because of that very skewed view of "commitment" and what the MP/AP (attached person) is actually doing?

 

I'm not considering the thought of self-respect and the like, just this assumption that the attached person has proven that they like to be attached as a motivator to "stay" with them longer than one might under normal circumstances.

 

It was also interesting (and I think, true) what Got It and 2Sure said about compromising and sacrificing more in a M, than in other Rs. So this question isn't only to OPs, but to MPs as well.

 

Do we stay with them because we might not find someone else that has proven that they will commit, at least for a period of time?

 

I never thought the guy being married was a show of commitment. Nope, not at all and that was not something that "attracted" me to the guy I had an affair with. In fact, the fact that he can cheat - when I think of it today - should have been a huge red flag that he can't commit, ya know?

[NoIDidn't]

I believe this is true, simply based on the priniciple people/things seeming more valuable/attractive if other people want them. My kids can prove that in 5 minutes; they don't even WANT that toy until the other has it, lol. A married man implicitly has been chosen by another woman, thus he is valuable. A single man, well...why is he single? (not that that is what I think of single men, but these are some psychological inferences of married v. single)

 

OW here are saying that the married part is in their eyes a disadvantage and an obstacle. That doesn't nec exclude the married as part of the initial attraction. Yes, you'd prefer he is single now, but you might not have been initially as attracted to him if he were single. YMMV, of course.

 

LOL at the bolded. My kids too. I used to put their plate in front of me and my plate in front of them to get them to eat their OWN food. It worked every single time. They didn't mind me eating off what they thought was their plate. They only wanted to eat what they thought was mine! LOL.

 

Back to the topic. LOL. I can honestly say, though, that I didn't know the attached guys that I was dealing with most of the time were attached. I generally stopped dealing with them once I found out, but on the odd occasion that I didn't walk away I did seem to want them more.

 

I noticed that trait in myself and set out to change it. The last attached guy that I dealt with, I started off not knowing that he was attached. And walked when I found out that he was. But we went back and forth, out of convenience, not love initially. Once I loved him, I didn't feel that I could "compete" with his GF (turned fiance a little later) since he'd maintained the both of us as a part of his life for three years in some capacity. But this was nearly 15 years ago, and I was in college. So its a little different being the OW to a young guy that doesn't have a lot of time in a R vs. a man that's been married or dating for several years, and actually living with the GF/W.

 

I don't think most of the current OW that posted on this thread set out to get the guy because he was married, though. But I do think that they make or made excuses for the man because he is.

[NoIDidn't]

I never thought the guy being married was a show of commitment. Nope, not at all and that was not something that "attracted" me to the guy I had an affair with. In fact, the fact that he can cheat - when I think of it today - should have been a huge red flag that he can't commit, ya know?

 

Oh, I agree. I think I phrased it wrong, but someone caught it.

 

I think very few women go after a guy because he's married. I didn't intend to say that anyone set out for the guy because he was married.

 

I think the fact that his marriage/family still exists during the A is the attractive thing to some. Many excuses are made by the MM about his marriage AND by the OW about his marriage/family.

 

Take for instance an OW saying that the MM is such a dedicated father, when it seems obvious to many that he can't be such a dedicated father when he's stealing time from the kids to cheat with the OW. Now, I happen to know a MM that I think is a very good father to his kids despite his cheating, but in general, the MM aren't like this guy. He stays home with his kids because he basically works nights. But this isn't generally the case.

 

Generally, the MM takes away from the family and spouse, while the OW experiences his "obligation" to them as "dedication" because she generally has to wait until he is able to see/call/text her. He may say he'll leave after this child gets out of High School, and some OW see this as dedication to the child. Others see it as him stalling or, worst yet, attempting to blindside his family. But it often seems that the OW sees this as an attractive quality that he's so committed to the child's successful transition before they uproot their lives.

 

It could be that the OW in my example only see it as dedication because they are being promised the Moon after the child gets out of High School, though.

 

But, no, I was not saying at all the every single OW is only in the A because they go after married guys. I didn't do that either. Now, attached guys that try to hook up are the biggest turn-off ever.

[Lizzie60]

I have to agree that MM have something sooo sexy.. something the single guys don't have..

 

In other words, I think, in many cases, both the W and the OW loves the man for the same reasons..

 

As for me... I prefer MM because they're not available.. and that is exactly what I want.. I do NOT want commitment. I do NOT want a man full time in my house..

 

I love the excitment of the A... the great sex... the way I'm treated.. and adored.. I guess I loooooove the validation...

 

I see them under their best behaviour and in great sexual shape...each and every time...

[Lovelybird]

Because married man is a forever challenge if he is married to another woman. And the forever challenge makes boring life more worth to live, this way can make one ignore her own empty life, and engaging a love-war that drain so much energy from her.

 

People are complicated. A betrayed spouse can be so charming and nice, but at the same time he can be so mean so unfaithful so untruthful. I guess many women choose to only see the bright sides? And OW doesn't have to see his bad sides because they aren't really living together.

Maybe the structure of a marriage they are taught to don't offer a way to intimacy, so they only get it from affairs?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Lovelybird

[NoIDidn't]

I have to agree that MM have something sooo sexy.. something the single guys don't have..

 

In other words, I think, in many cases, both the W and the OW loves the man for the same reasons..

 

As for me... I prefer MM because they're not available.. and that is exactly what I want.. I do NOT want commitment. I do NOT want a man full time in my house..

 

I love the excitment of the A... the great sex... the way I'm treated.. and adored.. I guess I loooooove the validation...

 

I see them under their best behaviour and in great sexual shape...each and every time...

 

You know, Lizzie, I said this when I got married. Of course, I told my H that I would leave him before I cheated on him. But I told myself that if I cheated, it would be with another married person. Someone with as much to lose as I had. Someone that was not available to become a stalker. Someone that was not going to brag about what we were doing to his friends. I hadn't really thought about the "great sex" part, though, LOL.

 

Single guys were not on my list either.

 

Then I got to feel what it was actually like to be cheated on.

 

But I agree with you. Still, if I were ever to cheat (I doubt I ever will because of my experience with it), it would be with guy that's married just like I am. Or at least has a fulltime/long term partner in a R like a marriage.

[Lizzie60]

In my case, MMs are less complicated.. and since I have many MMs.. it's nice to know that they can't 'blame' me for having sex with others... eventhough they never asked me about it.. they just know that I have sex besides them... but they don't know how many (they probably think 1 and probably think he's single).

 

Single guys would never accept that.. (I think)...

 

and I have to add, another benefit of a MM is that it's 'safer' ... a single guy could sleep around and not get tested.. etc... my MM only have me, I don't think they would have time for more.. so I know they're safe.. I get tested each year.

 

Funny thing.. I'm probably the female LSer who had the most sexual partners (over 300) and never got a STD..