If you are single, and he is married, are you a cheater?

[Ann_Igma]

Yes...a WS chooses to go outside the marriage for whatever either they, or the M were lacking...they turn their back on their family...they defy the vows made to God and their spouse...and the AP is the homewrecker. Right...

 

Whilst I do think that the term homewrecker is extremely over the top for MOST OP and understand that your reaction was based more on that, I'm going to argue the underlying point you've made a bit...

 

I don't think anyone has ever said that the WS is not at fault, and is not MOSTLY responsible for the damage done. What people have said is that the AP is *not innocent* in regards caused to any hurt that may be inflicted on the BS after or even prior to D-Day (for those BS's whose S suddenly becomes distant and/or cold as soon as they start an A, leaving the BS to wonder what's happened.)

 

The two aren't interchangeable. Just because the WS causes most of the damage, it does not mean that the AP is not knowingly engaging in activities which they almost undoubtedly know are going to hurt another fellow human being.

 

I'm not trying to say that someone is a bad person for being an AP. We all hurt people sometimes, and sometimes even knowingly.

 

Whilst there may be some, I doubt there are many on this forum who go out of their way to make sure they know the provenance of ALL products they purchase, to ensure that none have been made in sweatshop conditions.

So here most of us are, enabling these companies, and contributing to pain and suffering of countless people we don't know - just for the sake of a cheap <insert product here>. It's easy to do, it's easy not to properly think about because we don't know those people, and don't truly see the effects. But that doesn't make us innocent or free of wrongdoing. Those companies need enablers to thrive - if nobody bought said products, they would eventually go out of business.

 

It's the same thing if someone is knowingly carrying on an affair with a married person, IMO. What they are doing is *nowhere* near as bad as what 'the company' is doing, but it's still certainly not totally innocent, either.

[Ann_Igma]

Would he be with someone else if I wasn't the OW? I'm pretty sure he'd have some ONS for sure.

 

Would a druglord find another dealer if one of the dealers they had decided to find a more honest job? Of course they would. Does that then make it ok to go out and deal drugs?

 

It's slightly flimsy reasoning, if you ask me. If you feel someone's actions are wrong/immoral, you have a choice and don't have to help them carry out those actions. Sure, they might get someone else to help instead, but at least i'ts not you who will be dragged down with them.

[2long]

Would he be with someone else if I wasn't the OW? I'm pretty sure he'd have some ONS for sure.

 

And you want 2 be this kind of low-life's OW?

 

(never minding for the moment that being an OP is also being a low-life, though perhaps of a slightly different color).

 

-ol' 2long

[silktricks]

The point of your simile involved the dog. You insinuated the WS needed to be taken home rather then find their own way. It could have been any number of things you could have used rather than a dog...my point is the WS has free will and makes a choice. They are where they want to be. If that is home, then that's where they want to be. If they are with the AP, then that's where they want to be. They don't need to be led somewhere...that was the point to my response.

My intent was not that the WS needed to be taken home, as of course it can find its own way, my point was that it was not the child's dog, and that even though it followed her home, she would be wrong to assume that it meant she could now have it. As i said, the point of my simile was not the dog.

 

I do consider porn on the net and lap dances as cheating. They are often things that WS do that they hide from their BS...anything that can't be shared is cheating...that's my opinion so I will keep them on the list.

Many men do not hide these activities from the spouses. Rather they use them for additional fun. If you want to keep them on the list, then have at it, but it completely changes the "nature" of what is cheating, IMO.

 

Providing an avenue and enabling...so I spend time with my MM going to dinner and movies and hiking. We talk and laugh and share loads of mundane things. We are intimate emotionally and that is more extensive than the physical intimacy. I'm merely providing him an avenue to develop that intimacy that he isn't able to achieve at home. My point being...what is enabling if it isn't providing an avenue? You have an alcoholic husband and you find it easier to lie to the family that he's ill when he's blind drunk...you've just provided him an avenue.

Enabling, in the acceptance sense means lying or cooperating in his/her lies to allow his actions to continue. The internet, a brothel, a prostitute, etc. does not do that, they simply exist, one can use them or not. They do not lie or cover for a wandering spouse. An OW does. Thus in my opinion, an OW is an enabler of his actions. She is a co-conspirator.

 

I absolutely will respectfully agree to disagree...I am clear in my thoughts on the blame in an A. I don't expect people to fall into line on them, but they are mine. They were the same when I was a BS...it's not like they changed overnight. Thank you for a good discussion and good points brought up.

I've enjoyed the discussion with you, and like you, I don't expect people to agree with my views. They are mine - and, again like you, they've always been my views.

 

I hope you have a good night's sleep. I should be there myself.

Edited June 4, 2010 by silktricks

[MizFit]

I don't disagree with you at all. The cheating married person is the real louse.

 

But this thread is about a question of what the interloper is, isn't it?

 

You are absolutely correct, but in the course of the discussion it naturally came up what peoples opinions were. I was responding to that...I don't believe that was exactly threadjacking...you're welcome to if you'd like. The point was valid and it has been discussed for pages.

[MizFit]

Oh, on this we agree! He did make me vulnerable to this mess. But it wasn't like the AP is a total innocent in this situation.

 

Everyone has to believe the same old sorry script that the MM/MW is oh so unhappy at home; that the attraction is/becomes intense between the MM/MW and OM/OW, and that a million steps are taken, no CHOSEN, to fuel that attraction until it becomes an affair.

I agree I have chosen where I am, but that makes no difference to the responsibility falling onto MM. I realize most As aren't like mine and the WS has lied and cajoled...mine has been much different. To me those As actually validate my point even more to the WS owning the full responsibility.

 

There is a shared culpability between the two affairees to not only minimize the marriage and the unsuspecting spouse, but to mostly keep it all secret and to be complicit in the keeping of secrets, not only from the spouse, but from everyone in the married partner's life; children, friends, extended family, the boss, the co-workers.

You hold that belief and I don't.

 

That's a lot of work and energy and efforts in deception, IMHO.

I've put in zero work, energy, or effort into deception. MM has done all of that.

 

I personally, couldn't do it for love, or money, or lust, or validation.

 

I understand it. But I could not be that person.

Perfectly understandable...everyone does different things and FYI-before I met MM I said I could never have an A with someone. I had a background that would have supported that decision. I went from being 20 something to being late 40 something with that firmly in my head...and then I met him. I'm not saying it would happen to you or anyone else, but I just never had any interest in a M man and then there he was. Yes, I am a firm believer of falling in love. You don't dribble into love and you don't decide who to love...you fall. You scrape your hands and knees and you cry when it's a tough one.

 

I have no issues with my integrity whatsoever. I have strong views on a situation most disagree with...my views were forged many years ago when my mother was a BS and then I became one. My views from then have never waffled...it's not a case that when I was a BS the OW was an ogre that lived under the bridge at the end of the lane and now I'm all roses and light. My view on the responsibility of the WS and the role of the OW have been consistent no matter what my vantage point.

 

I also would like to note that you've done something that I could never do...I honestly don't know if I ever could in the future, but I'm a girl for never saying never. You took someone back who had been unfaithful. I wouldn't have the fortitude to do that...you have. My point is we are very different people with very strong and very deep convictions. I truly hope you're doing very well and have a great weekend.

I'd be cheating myself of my integrity.

Oops sorry...see the previous bolded section

 

I had written much more, but my computer decided to have a coma moment. My shortened answers are in bold.

[MizFit]

Okay, fair enough...it was a comment. I've just seen a lot of 'comments' from posters (not all OW) about reconciling BS and if they are happy with how their marriage is recovering, then they are seen as being fake. It's annoying, that's all.

I, for one, do not think it's fake. I am absolutely amazed it happens and I have the utmost respect for people who can put the pieces back together. If you look objectively at the forum as a whole (on OW/OM and Infidelity) there are 'comments' from posters who are bent on disproving everyone else's happiness. The digs and comments are understandable because there are clear divides and 'sides'...we just all need to be mature enough to discuss, accept the differences, and move on.

 

 

Oh probably...but the OP seemed to kind of set that up with the start of thread. The us against them mentality. It's why I chose to stay off the thread until today.

I absolutely agree the thread is definitely designed for us v them...and guess what, it worked! I am stubborn and opinionated...but I have no problem with everyone else being the same.

 

 

No, I have noticed and that is why I was surprised at the comment about BS, at least initially.

Thanks...I always hope that my previous posts give validity so that when I'm misunderstood I've at least laid some solid footing. Thanks Snowflower...I had a great nights sleep and hope you have a fabulous weekend.

 

 

Good night!

 

Responses in bold...

[MizFit]

My intent was not that the WS needed to be taken home, as of course it can find its own way, my point was that it was not the child's dog, and that even though it followed her home, she would be wrong to assume that it meant she could now have it. As i said, the point of my simile was not the dog.

I absolutely understand, but you offered that particular simile and I'm responding to it. Someone else offered one about a camera being lost at a picnic area and I responded to that. What I would do with an inanimate (I know dogs are not that, but for these purposes...) is completely different to what I would do with a possession. If I were to find a possession, or a vulnerable being (person or dog), then I would either get them home or to a person in authority. The MM is not a possession, nor are any I've met vulnerable and not able to make decisions on their own. I'm sorry, but the simile doesn't work because the responses from 'me' would be different.

 

Many men do not hide these activities from the spouses. Rather they use them for additional fun. If you want to keep them on the list, then have at it, but it completely changes the "nature" of what is cheating, IMO.

That's absolutely correct and many men don't hide sleeping with others-open marriages and completely change the nature of what is cheating. If someone is hiding it, cheating...if not, open. I'll keep them on the list because they are 'possibilities'.

 

Enabling, in the acceptance sense means lying or cooperating in his/her lies to allow his actions to continue. The internet, a brothel, a prostitute, etc. does not do that, they simply exist, one can use them or not. They do not lie or cover for a wandering spouse. An OW does. Thus in my opinion, an OW is an enabler of his actions. She is a co-conspirator.

In some cases I will absolutely agree...I do disagree about the role of enabler however.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion with you, and like you, I don't expect people to agree with my views. They are mine - and, again like you, they've always been my views.

Thank you for the respect you've shown about a topic you feel so passionate about. Thank you for sharing your views as well...I love a well thought out debate and this was one.

 

I hope you have a good night's sleep. I should be there myself.

 

Hope you slept well and enjoy your weekend thoroughly!

 

 

Responses in bold...off to work now!

[MizFit]

Whilst I do think that the term homewrecker is extremely over the top for MOST OP and understand that your reaction was based more on that, I'm going to argue the underlying point you've made a bit...

 

I don't think anyone has ever said that the WS is not at fault, and is not MOSTLY responsible for the damage done. What people have said is that the AP is *not innocent* in regards caused to any hurt that may be inflicted on the BS after or even prior to D-Day (for those BS's whose S suddenly becomes distant and/or cold as soon as they start an A, leaving the BS to wonder what's happened.)

 

The two aren't interchangeable. Just because the WS causes most of the damage, it does not mean that the AP is not knowingly engaging in activities which they almost undoubtedly know are going to hurt another fellow human being.

 

I'm not trying to say that someone is a bad person for being an AP. We all hurt people sometimes, and sometimes even knowingly.

 

Whilst there may be some, I doubt there are many on this forum who go out of their way to make sure they know the provenance of ALL products they purchase, to ensure that none have been made in sweatshop conditions.

So here most of us are, enabling these companies, and contributing to pain and suffering of countless people we don't know - just for the sake of a cheap <insert product here>. It's easy to do, it's easy not to properly think about because we don't know those people, and don't truly see the effects. But that doesn't make us innocent or free of wrongdoing. Those companies need enablers to thrive - if nobody bought said products, they would eventually go out of business.

 

It's the same thing if someone is knowingly carrying on an affair with a married person, IMO. What they are doing is *nowhere* near as bad as what 'the company' is doing, but it's still certainly not totally innocent, either.

 

Late getting ready for work...will respond tonight!

[Snowflower]

Hope you weren't late for work! Okay, you keep mentioning that everything (by this I mean the deception, the lies, the covering-up, etc) are all done by the MM in your situation. OTOH, you are a separate entity, involved with your MM but not a part of the/his deception? Am I correct with this line of thought? Please correct me if I'm not.

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, MizFit. It appears to apply to your situation. I don't agree with it, but we don't need to go there.

 

But, the point many on this thread have been trying to make is that in THEIR situation the AP was a co-conspirator. Not absolving the MP of any blame (the poster An Igma explained it really well above) but some of us, me included, believe the AP was partially responsible...because we saw what happened in our situations.

 

I want to explain why some BS believe the AP is at least partially to blame. Let me try to give you the Cliff's Notes version of a very specific example from my H's affair. We lived apart for a couple of weeks after d-day. My H moved out to be by himself. We still talked during this time and he was still talking to the OW. I knew he was still talking to her at that point.

 

We tried to reconcile-he moved back home. One morning, I awoke to a strange sounding alarm in our house. I searched out the source of the noise and found an unfamiliar cell phone in my husband's coat pocket. Long story short, he admitted that the OW had forwarded it to him via a 3rd party (another enabler) a few days prior while we were still separated. I traced the number and found it was listed under the OW's name. My H hadn't gotten a new phone...he still had his regular one. She had given it to him--to help keep me in the dark. From what I can tell, a secret cell phone under her name would have been untraceable by me.

 

I figure that she probably knew I was onto who she was and how much the two of them were talking...so she gave him a secret cell phone.

 

Yes, she was enabling the A. She wanted to keep it going--and she had to know I was in the loop now. She was trying to continue the dynamic

 

He mailed the phone back that same day and it was the end of it. I wish now I had run it over with my car first!

[Owl]

Another example of the same.

 

OM was an IT guru. He walked her through all of the steps she needed to be taking to avoid getting caught. Had her install several programs to check if I had a keylogger, taught her how to sweep and clear all of her caches/cookies/histories/etc...

 

He just didn't count on what I would do once I truly decided to snoop.

 

But he was clearly a participant in the deception that was going...doubly so since he claimed to be a friend.

 

And he had the nerve to try to tell her that she wasn't doing anything wrong and I'd have no reason to really be upset.

[Snowflower]

Aren't you a techie-kind of guy anyway, Owl? If so, it was really stupid for the OM to even consider that you wouldn't catch on...

 

MizFit, can you at least see the point some of us are trying to make? So you're not responsible for the deception your MM is doing.

 

But many of us witnessed APs who were guilty of their own deceptions...

 

Again, we are not absolving our spouses of the incredibly terrible things they did.

[NoIDidn't]

Another example of the same.

 

OM was an IT guru. He walked her through all of the steps she needed to be taking to avoid getting caught. Had her install several programs to check if I had a keylogger, taught her how to sweep and clear all of her caches/cookies/histories/etc...

 

He just didn't count on what I would do once I truly decided to snoop.

 

But he was clearly a participant in the deception that was going...doubly so since he claimed to be a friend.

 

And he had the nerve to try to tell her that she wasn't doing anything wrong and I'd have no reason to really be upset.

 

Exactly! Any OP claiming to not be taking part in the deception is not telling the truth. Just the simple act of not showing up at your lover's home helps with the deception. So, you don't just pick up the phone and call the spouse (and don't claim its because you don't want to cause unnecessary drama or more pain than already caused)? That aids the deception. Why not just contact the children? What? Its not for you to do, the children are none of your business until the MP introduces you? Then that too aids the deception.

 

Denial of any of this is worse than silly.

[donnamaybe]

Exactly! Any OP claiming to not be taking part in the deception is not telling the truth.

 

Ironic, innit?

[Snowflower]

Exactly! Any OP claiming to not be taking part in the deception is not telling the truth. Just the simple act of not showing up at your lover's home helps with the deception. So' date=' you don't just pick up the phone and call the spouse (and don't claim its because you don't want to cause unnecessary drama or more pain than already caused)? That aids the deception. Why not just contact the children? What? Its not for you to do, the children are none of your business until the MP introduces you? Then that too aids the deception.[/b']

 

Denial of any of this is worse than silly.

 

Fantastic points (bolded)...it's simple really.

 

Think about it, if an A was a relationship where everyone was on the up and up, the OP would just present themselves at their MP's home.

 

No problem, right, if the AP isn't the one who is doing the deceiving?!

 

Excellent, excellent point. I had never thought of it that way.

[turnera]

I do not know the W, and am starting to view it as his problem not mine. I certainly am not hiding.

If you're not hiding, find his wife and tell her the truth.

[turnera]

He is the one who didn't forsake all others...he is the one taking the decision to give his time to someone else...he is being intimate and sharing things with another woman and she's the homewrecker...right. If there was another affair before that, and before that...were they homewreckers as well? Talk about blameshifting.

A homewrecker is the OUTSIDE person who participates in inserting a destructive act into the mix.

 

Definition:

A woman who knowingly has a relationship with a married man, especially when children are involved.

[NoIDidn't]

Fantastic points (bolded)...it's simple really.

 

Think about it, if an A was a relationship where everyone was on the up and up, the OP would just present themselves at their MP's home.

 

No problem, right, if the AP isn't the one who is doing the deceiving?!

 

Excellent, excellent point. I had never thought of it that way.

 

I dated an older guy that was engaged when I was a teen. I knew he was engaged and completely didn't understand the gravity of what I was a part of.

 

I showed up at his house when his fiance was in the state with his child. He wanted me to meet/see his child. He erroneously thought that I understood that what we were doing was supposed to be a secret. I didn't. When he let me in, I reached out to kiss and hug him as usual. He shied away and looked towards his fiance (trying to look sly, it busted him immediately). She instinctively pulled her daughter away from me. I was just a kid (literally), so she wasn't angry with me. But their R/engagement ended that day.

 

I can honestly say that I made no attempt to deceive her as they lived in different states. But I knew he was engaged. I would not have appreciated someone doing to me what I was doing to her, so I can never claim complete innocence other than my age and ignorance. A woman over 21 should certainly know better than I did back then is my opinion.

[Snowflower]

I dated an older guy that was engaged when I was a teen. I knew he was engaged and completely didn't understand the gravity of what I was a part of.

 

I showed up at his house when his fiance was in the state with his child. He wanted me to meet/see his child. He erroneously thought that I understood that what we were doing was supposed to be a secret. I didn't. When he let me in, I reached out to kiss and hug him as usual. He shied away and looked towards his fiance (trying to look sly, it busted him immediately). She instinctively pulled her daughter away from me. I was just a kid (literally), so she wasn't angry with me. But their R/engagement ended that day.

 

I can honestly say that I made no attempt to deceive her as they lived in different states. But I knew he was engaged. I would not have appreciated someone doing to me what I was doing to her, so I can never claim complete innocence other than my age and ignorance. A woman over 21 should certainly know better than I did back then is my opinion.

 

This is an interesting story...I can empathize with the 'clueless teen' phenomenon...I have an older teen-aged child.

 

So, basically what you are saying is that you didn't know any better at the time to not show up at his house (please, I'm not dissing you, NID). At that young age, you didn't understand all the nuances and seriousness of the situation.

 

Too young to understand the deceitfulness...makes sense.

 

I agree though, APs (and WS for that matter) automatically "know" to not show up at their MPs house. It's part of that deception that they claim they have no part in.

 

If my husband's xOW was not part of the deception, then why didn't she just call me and tell me that she was giving him that 'secret' cell phone?

 

NID, you can take comfort in the fact that it sounds like you inadvertently saved the fiancee a lot of heartache though.

[NoIDidn't]

This is an interesting story...I can empathize with the 'clueless teen' phenomenon...I have an older teen-aged child.

 

So, basically what you are saying is that you didn't know any better at the time to not show up at his house (please, I'm not dissing you, NID). At that young age, you didn't understand all the nuances and seriousness of the situation.

 

Too young to understand the deceitfulness...makes sense.

 

I agree though, APs (and WS for that matter) automatically "know" to not show up at their MPs house. It's part of that deception that they claim they have no part in.

 

If my husband's xOW was not part of the deception, then why didn't she just call me and tell me that she was giving him that 'secret' cell phone?

 

NID, you can take comfort in the fact that it sounds like you inadvertently saved the fiancee a lot of heartache though.

 

Don't worry, I don't feel dissed. LOL.

 

I was really young and stupid, like most other teens. I'm sure I helped her. The others had enough sense not to show up when the fiance was there. I found out about many others when she dumped him. She saved me a lot of heartache too because they all started demanding to be the new main woman. God, I was clueless.

 

You bring up another salient point: the "secret" phone. Or the "secret" email account. Or the "secret" handshake. LOL. And all of the other "secret" ways that they communicate with their MP.

 

Why doesn't the spouse know these things? Anyone that claims "privacy" is really not aware of the difference between "secrecy" and "privacy".

 

And not a part of the deception and yet you accept AND USE these things to maintain contact with the MP? Deep, DEEP denial of facts and reality.

 

I'm always amused when OPs claim they wouldn't mind if their SO had those things. They would. And its been proven here time and time again when they find out that what they helped do to the spouse is done to them, they cry foul and unfair.

[Trimmer]

Don't worry, I don't feel dissed. LOL. :lmao:

 

I was really young and stupid, like most other teens. I'm sure I helped her. The others had enough sense not to show up when the fiance was there. I found out about many others when she dumped him. She saved me a lot of heartache too because they all started demanding to be the new main woman. God, I was clueless.

 

You bring up another salient point: the "secret" phone. Or the "secret" email account. Or the "secret" handshake. LOL. And all of the other "secret" ways that they communicate with their MP.

 

Why doesn't the spouse know these things? Anyone that claims "privacy" is really not aware of the difference between "secrecy" and "privacy".

 

And not a part of the deception and yet you accept AND USE these things to maintain contact with the MP? Deep, DEEP denial of facts and reality.

 

I'm always amused when OPs claim they wouldn't mind if their SO had those things. They would. And its been proven here time and time again when they find out that what they helped do to the spouse is done to them, they cry foul and unfair.

 

I wanted to point out that a lot of the current thread of discussion was sparked by MizFit's assertion that she had not invested any energy into the deception of the spouse, and then the discussion took off from there into the "passive" ways (we might call it) that an OP might participate in the deception perpetrated by the WS on the BS.

 

I think these are useful general points - with which I agree completely - but in fairness, I also want to point out MizFit's particular situation that she has described:

 

I would have no problem going to my MMs W and speaking to her about it, but the relationship I have is with him, not her. She and I have had discussions after Ddays and I told her the truth about everything she asked me about. She has my mobile number, my home address and my email address. I will not go to her because my relationship is with him...I, however, will not avoid speaking to her if she seeks me out.

I might suggest that at this point, it appears to be as much of an "open marriage" (perhaps unwillingly on the wife's side) as a secret affair. Going by the information as provided, this "OW" (MizFit) has made contact when reached out to, has answered questions openly, and is available for further discussion if requested.

 

Now, I think it's still a twisted, f'ed up situation, and I also lay that at the foot of the MM. And I'm sure I wouldn't feel quite so sanguine about it if I were in the position of the OP. However, I thought it only fair to point out that the texture of this situation, which sparked this part of our current discussion (I'm not participating in the deception of the BS...) is notably different from the subsequent examples of providing secret phones, etc...

 

Again, it still doesn't make it right, exactly. I believe it's still wrong - just in a different way, I suppose.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Trimmer

[NoIDidn't]

I wanted to point out that a lot of the current thread of discussion was sparked by MizFit's assertion that she had not invested any energy into the deception of the spouse, and then the discussion took off from there into the "passive" ways (we might call it) that an OP might participate in the deception perpetrated by the WS on the BS.

 

I think these are useful general points - with which I agree completely - but in fairness, I also want to point out MizFit's particular situation that she has described:

 

 

I might suggest that at this point, it appears to be as much of an "open marriage" (perhaps unwillingly on the wife's side) as a secret affair. Going by the information as provided, this "OW" (MizFit) has made contact when reached out to, has answered questions openly, and is available for further discussion if requested.

 

Now, I think it's still a twisted, f'ed up situation, and I also lay that at the foot of the MM. And I'm sure I wouldn't feel quite so sanguine about it if I were in the position of the OP. However, I thought it only fair to point out that the texture of this situation, which sparked this part of our current discussion (I'm not participating in the deception of the BS...) is notably different from the subsequent examples of providing secret phones, etc...

 

Again, it still doesn't make it right, exactly. I believe it's still wrong - just in a different way, I suppose.

 

Thanks for the reminder, Trimmer.

 

I was really speaking generally, and not specifically about Mizfit's situation. If the shoe fits, so be it. But I wasn't addressing her situation.

 

The "passive" actions, as you called it (lol), are just like the Lies of Omission. Both wrong, and both are deliberate.

[Snowflower]

I wanted to point out that a lot of the current thread of discussion was sparked by MizFit's assertion that she had not invested any energy into the deception of the spouse, and then the discussion took off from there into the "passive" ways (we might call it) that an OP might participate in the deception perpetrated by the WS on the BS.

 

I think these are useful general points - with which I agree completely - but in fairness, I also want to point out MizFit's particular situation that she has described:

 

 

I might suggest that at this point, it appears to be as much of an "open marriage" (perhaps unwillingly on the wife's side) as a secret affair. Going by the information as provided, this "OW" (MizFit) has made contact when reached out to, has answered questions openly, and is available for further discussion if requested.

 

Now, I think it's still a twisted, f'ed up situation, and I also lay that at the foot of the MM. And I'm sure I wouldn't feel quite so sanguine about it if I were in the position of the OP. However, I thought it only fair to point out that the texture of this situation, which sparked this part of our current discussion (I'm not participating in the deception of the BS...) is notably different from the subsequent examples of providing secret phones, etc...

 

Again, it still doesn't make it right, exactly. I believe it's still wrong - just in a different way, I suppose.

 

Great post, Trimmer. And I did agree a few posts ago that MizFit's situation with her MM appears different than many.

 

I just tried to point out to MizFit and others that what was relevant for her situation isn't what many of us experienced in our own situation involving infidelity...the secret cell phones, or, why not call up the BS directly and telling them, etc.

 

It does sound like MizFit's MM (Miz, I hope you don't mind that we are talking about you here) has opened the marriage, at least from his side. The BW appears to know about the A and while she might not like it, the deception is over.

 

IMO, it's no longer cheating when at least one spouse has said, "yeah, I'm seeing or going to see someone else. My days of fidelity to you are over." At least that is honest. The BS at that point has their own decision to make. It ain't pretty, but it's reality in some cases.

[2long]

I frankly don't see what's "different" about MizFit's si2ation at all.

 

She says she's not refused contact when the BW has had multiple d-days, but didn't answer my question earlier about how can there be any d-days if the BW is aware (and apparently, approving) of the relationship with her H?

 

No, I suspect (she can correct me any time, if I'm wrong) that this is a vanilla affair and that she "justifies" her wrong-doing by at least putting on the appearances of being open and honest about it AFTER EACH D-DAY, for Rice Cake!

 

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

Tide must be out, because this stinks.

 

-ol' 2long

[MizFit]

Great post, Trimmer. And I did agree a few posts ago that MizFit's situation with her MM appears different than many.

 

I just tried to point out to MizFit and others that what was relevant for her situation isn't what many of us experienced in our own situation involving infidelity...the secret cell phones, or, why not call up the BS directly and telling them, etc.

 

It does sound like MizFit's MM (Miz, I hope you don't mind that we are talking about you here) has opened the marriage, at least from his side. The BW appears to know about the A and while she might not like it, the deception is over.

 

IMO, it's no longer cheating when at least one spouse has said, "yeah, I'm seeing or going to see someone else. My days of fidelity to you are over." At least that is honest. The BS at that point has their own decision to make. It ain't pretty, but it's reality in some cases.

 

I don't mind at all...as a matter of fact in many of posts I differentiate my situation to that of most OW/OM. No matter the situation of the OM/OW I still hold my opinion that the A is the responsibility of the WS...that doesn't change. I am abhorred at people who do things such as the OW on Snowflowers post...Spark had one as well. I believe Owl considered me as lying passively...I consider maintaining the relationship that I am in. As you guys noted I have been free with information if she wanted to contact me.

 

I'm not going to jump in here any more than that because you've all heard everything I have to say...I am listening (reading) and will if there's anything that jumps out at me.

 

As far as the poster who gave the definition of homewrecker...I wasn't able to find any definition in several of the online dictionaries, including Oxford. Is this a definition you've come up with or is it actually anywhere you can refer me to?

 

By the way Snowflower-wasn't late to work! Made it with time to spare! Thanks for asking...