OW had the never to call me.

[White Flower]

Also, in my original post about "rights". I stated that I didn't see anything right about the whole situation. However, that doesn't give me or anyone else the "right" to tell someone else what is "right" for them. IMO.

 

So, back to the topic of this thread. The OOW made the call because she felt she had the right. Who are we to say she is wrong?

Care to elaborate? You've piqued my interest now.

[herenow]

Care to elaborate? You've piqued my interest now.

 

OK, I don't feel that I have the "right" to tell anyone how to act as long as they act within the law. This post is about an OOW who called an OW and her "right" to make that call. IMO, it is not my "right" to tell her that she doesn't have the "right" to make the call.

 

It is the OP's right to listen to the call or not. She can hang up or not take the call. But, to the OOW who made the call, she obviously felt she had the "right" to do so. I don't have the power to tell others what to do. She didn't do anything against the law. She made a phone call. Just because the person she called didn't like what she had to say, doesn't mean she didn't have the "right" to make the call.

 

Again, it doesn't matter if I would make the call, or you would make the call, or the OP would make the call. The caller made the call and it was her "right" to make it. Unless she broke the law in some way that I am not aware of, it's her choice and we are not in the position to tell her she is wrong. Again, I don't have that kind of power.

 

If the OP feels like the OOW has crossed the line legally by calling too much, she should file a complaint. Or, like I said before, hang up or not answer the call. Her choice and "right".

 

Elaborate enough?

Edited April 22, 2010 by herenow

[White Flower]

OK, I don't feel that I have the "right" to tell anyone how to act as long as they act within the law. This post is about an OOW who called an OW and her "right" to make that call. IMO, it is not my "right" to tell her that she doesn't have the "right" to make the call.

 

It is the OP's right to listen to the call or not. She can hang up or not take the call. But, to the OOW who made the call, she obviously felt she had the "right" to do so. I don't have the power to tell others what to do. She didn't do anything against the law. She made a phone call. Just because the person she called didn't like what she had to say, doesn't mean she didn't have the "right" to make the call.

 

Again, it doesn't matter if I would make the call, or you would make the call, or the OP would make the call. The caller made the call and it was her "right" to make it. Unless she broke the law in some way that I am not aware of, it's her choice and we are not in the position to tell her she is wrong. Again, I don't have that kind of power.

 

If the OP feels like the OOW has crossed the line legally by calling too much, she should file a complaint. Or, like I said before, hang up or not answer the call. Her choice and "right".

I see. I suppose you are right, the OOW did have the right to call as it is a free country and the OP had the right to hang up or listen. But the thread didn't suggest anything about rights; it was about having nerve. I suppose, because we live in societies with laws, rules, and social graces, we are dumbfounded when someone steps out of those boundaries such as in the case of a call from the OOW or in the case of your H stepping out with an OW, etc. Sure, it happens all the time but it isn't the social norm because it is supposed to be hidden. But in this case the OOW decided not to be hidden and was staking her claim. I wouldn't have done it but you're right, I suppose the OOW had the right to do whatever she chose.

 

I had the sense that this thread was seeking opinions with regard to the OOWs sense of entitlement rather than rights but it's been interesting nonetheless.

 

Elaborate enough?

As long as you made the point you wanted to make.

[OWoman]

I'm getting a little confused as to who the "OW" and the "OOW" are in the scenario sketched by this thread. AFAIK from the info provided by the OP, there is only one OW - the woman who phoned the OP to tell her to back off from her (the OW's) BF. The OP herself didn't describe herself as an OW, or an OOW, but as some paid professional who provided services in exchange for some form of payment from the MM. IMO that's a transaction, not a R - the "R" they have is client-service provider, not BF / GF, or MM / OW, or even MM / OOW.

 

So, AIUI, the OP's issue is that the OW (or GF, as she seems to consider herself) of the MM phoned her (the OP - a service provider to the MM) to hassle her for providing services (presumably of a sexual nature) to a man she wasn't M to. The OP seems to think it would be fine for the W to do that, but not the GF / OW. To me it's a moot point - why should it be more acceptable for someone to phone and harass the supplier of services WILLINGLY PURCHASED by a third party, just because that person had a piece of paper? Either it's unacceptable for ANYONE else to phone and hassle the OP, or it's OK. IMO, if either woman (W or GF / OW) had an issue with the MM buying sex (or whatever else it may have been) they should take it up with him, and not with the person he's buying it from.

 

But perhaps my understanding of what constitutes a R differs from most people on this thread. I don't consider myself to have a R with the woman in the shop that I buy my newspaper from, nor the guy who fixes the geyser. To me, they're service providers, not lovers. If I paid for the services of an escort, I'd still consider that a service, not a R. But I guess others have a different view, and that's OK too.