ADF Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Before I came on LS, I had no idea how rampant the phenomenon of single people dating married people was. No freakin' clue. I knew it happened, of course. I even knew it was common. But I had no idea infidelity was a full-blown subculture all its own. An infidelity subculture, so to speak. I was amazed the infidelity subculture even has its own language, its own vocabulary. For example: BS for "betrayed spouse"; EA/PA for "emotional affair" or "physical affair"; D-Day for the day a clandestine affair is finally revealed. People within the subculture philosophize about its rules and customs and traditions. Does a MM owe anything to his OW after the affair is over? Does a BS have the right to expose an affair after D-Day? Is an EA as bad as a PA? It is just amazing to me. My question is, what is the appeal of the infidelity subculture for those who participate in it? It seems many women seek out MM for affairs, and that MM seek out women interested in affairs with MM. Again, why is this so? It would seem to me that seeking relationships outside the infidelity subculture would be a lot less hassle.
hopesndreams Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I just love the line, "You can't help who you fall in love with."
califnan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 First of all - your title is cute and eyecatching .. as is threads like "bunny boiler" etc .. If you have read the OW / OM stories you will see that they probably didn't "seek out" the married partners - it just happened .. Also in reading you may see that the OW (for instance) have felt that they shared a bond and attraction with the MM that they hadn't seen in others.. Maybe the MM is more sophisticated and tries harder than the SM. Lastly, I think there is greater communication between an OW and a MM than with a SM .. which can be a turn-on..
Circular Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Maybe there are those that do seek these things out. I didn't, I wasn't even considering it. Like a lot of people I even had the mentality "how could anyone ever do a thing like that!". Then I started a friendship with someone I really connected with and over time things escalated and I didn't stop them from escalating because I wanted more of that connection and I had never had felt a connection like I did with this one person. This subculture exists as an outlet for people to understand and navigate what they might be experiencing. I'd say from my own experience, you may find your in too deep before you even realize the house is already on fire. Many of the posts here I've read are people asking what's happening? what should I do? And, there's a lot of sound advice. Hopefully some will turn away from a lot of heartache and disaster, others might just embrace it because their individual needs aren't being met to their satisfaction. Either way it's a community that serves a purpose to educate and provide people the knowledge of their options so they can make sound decisions, right or wrong.
MorningCoffee Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Not a subculture -- that implies more permanence than I suspect most people whose life experience includes an affair (in whatever role) would care to endure. I also think for most people who post here, it is because of their often baffling and overwhelmingly difficult experience, and there are few places to turn for support. The fact that people use abbreviations to avoid repetitive typing when seeking support on this forum does not make a subculture make.
jennie-jennie Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The frequency of extramarital relationships says something about the institution of marriage. Maybe it is time to update how we look at marital vows? Maybe marriage should not be forever?
OWoman Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 But I had no idea infidelity was a full-blown subculture all its own. An infidelity subculture, so to speak. I was amazed the infidelity subculture even has its own language, its own vocabulary. For example: BS for "betrayed spouse"; EA/PA for "emotional affair" or "physical affair"; D-Day for the day a clandestine affair is finally revealed. That is more Bulletin Board subculture - abbreviations for commonly used terms have been the norm since the old Usenet days, long before the WWW. But then, read any dating column and you'll also see an impenetrable morass of abbreviations: GSOH, WLTM, NSAS... Is dating a subculture? Or politics, with its WMDs and NPTs? The fact that most people wouldn't know what CFC stood for, yet they happily throw around the acronym, suggests that it's not just subcultures that use acronyms and abbreviations. People within the subculture philosophize about its rules and customs and traditions. Does a MM owe anything to his OW after the affair is over? Does a BS have the right to expose an affair after D-Day? Is an EA as bad as a PA? It is just amazing to me. If it were a subculture, rules, customs and traditions would be just that - things that everybody knows and most people obey, not things that people have to ask about. It's not philosophising to ask if something is, or what something is. That is information seeking or questioning. If there were rules and traditions, no one would be asking whether a MM owes anything to an OW after DDay - there'd be a norm and everybody would know it. They may ask WHY, but they wouldn't be asking WHAT. My question is, what is the appeal of the infidelity subculture for those who participate in it? It seems many women seek out MM for affairs, and that MM seek out women interested in affairs with MM. Again, why is this so? It would seem to me that seeking relationships outside the infidelity subculture would be a lot less hassle. Again, this assumes that there is such a thing as an "infidelity subculture". Evidence on these boards would suggest the contrary.
OWoman Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The frequency of extramarital relationships says something about the institution of marriage. Maybe it is time to update how we look at marital vows? Maybe marriage should not be forever? Personally, I think M is inherently tied up with the nature of a patriarchal, and now capitalist, culture. It's true that with advances in science, paternity can be reliably established without the need for M, which uncouples the necessary link of M to inheritance, but if one is still going to cling to outmoded notions of nuclear families as some kind of basis for society, then M does have a role in certifying and prioritising some Rs over others. My own view is that we should move beyond such outmoded forms of social organisation to something which more closely approximates the way most people live, which would obviate the role of M entirely.
bentnotbroken Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And some of us just believe in God and marriage means something entirely different than an institution.
bananalaffytaffy Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And some of us just believe in God and marriage means something entirely different than an institution.Amen to that! There definitely is a subculture- otherwise, there would be no need for the likes of Ashley Madison and trash like that.
NoIDidn't Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I don't know that I would call it a subculture IRL, maybe what is seen on the web can be considered a subculture. I don't think most OW/OM IRL have the candid conversations IRL that they can have online. Once they reveal themselves as the cancer in someone else's marriage, they can expect ridicule and isolation to result. So they hide it. So often its said that the MM is just so much more charming than a single guy, that he pursues harder. I've always likened this to my work as a contractor. I already had a job, just like the MM already has a W. I could make it seem as if I was going all out because a rejection really didn't effect me as much as the client may have thought. Same with an OW. A woman turning down a MM isn't a big deal to him. Eventually, he'll get one that's receptive to his advances - however subtle or overt. And if the A ends, just like my contract jobs, he already had a R with his W.
bananalaffytaffy Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 My own view is that we should move beyond such outmoded forms of social organisation to something which more closely approximates the way most people live, which would obviate the role of M entirely.Just because this is the way you live certainly does not mean this is the way most people live, at least not where I come from. To say that most people are unfaithful is just nonsense. Maybe where you live, but not where I live. I am thankful that I don't live in a place where infidelity is commonplace and acceptable behavior.
jennie-jennie Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And some of us just believe in God and marriage means something entirely different than an institution. And then we have the church, which is also an institution. All aimed at keeping people in check where society wants us.
NoIDidn't Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And then we have the church, which is also an institution. All aimed at keeping people in check where society wants us. This mindset of the *subculture*, as ADF put it, always amuses me. These same people will wait in line at the bank, a societal construct, but refuse to acknowlegde relational boundaries.
jennie-jennie Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 This mindset of the *subculture*, as ADF put it, always amuses me. These same people will wait in line at the bank, a societal construct, but refuse to acknowlegde relational boundaries. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It means that the power is at the local level, not a government or the church steering from above.
sally4sara Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Some of us DON'T believe in god or the bible and still think of marriage as being something more than simple contract and social organizing. The only things that "just happen" are weather patterns and getting old.
NoIDidn't Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Anarchy does not mean chaos. It means that the power is at the local level, not a government or the church steering from above. But ignoring relational boundaries causes chaos in someone's home, and you are okay with that? My home is the start of the "local level" and deserves the same respect, if not more, given in a line at the bank, IMO.
jennie-jennie Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 But ignoring relational boundaries causes chaos in someone's home, and you are okay with that? My home is the start of the "local level" and deserves the same respect, if not more, given in a line at the bank, IMO. I have always encouraged my MM to divorce his wife. It is his choice not to do so.
NoIDidn't Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I have always encouraged my MM to divorce his wife. It is his choice not to do so. And it is your choice to continue with him knowing that he has not done so. This isn't only on him. You enable the A, just as much as he desires it.
Circular Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 But ignoring relational boundaries causes chaos in someone's home, and you are okay with that? My home is the start of the "local level" and deserves the same respect, if not more, given in a line at the bank, IMO. It takes two people to ignore relational boundaries for an A to exist to begin with. I'm not an advocate that people toss away their commitments and intentionally drop to zero integrity but most As happen because there are pre-existing conditions at home, spoken or not for both parties involved in the A. And one can't compare a bank queue with relational boundaries. One is based on following a construct based on logical order, the other most often driven by an unfilled emotionally charged need.
califnan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The frequency of extramarital relationships says something about the institution of marriage. Maybe it is time to update how we look at marital vows? Maybe marriage should not be forever? ----------------------- Many marriages these days aren't forever .. The devil uses others all the time to entice or to break up the unit..
Author ADF Posted June 9, 2010 Author Posted June 9, 2010 Personally, I think M is inherently tied up with the nature of a patriarchal, and now capitalist, culture. It's true that with advances in science, paternity can be reliably established without the need for M, which uncouples the necessary link of M to inheritance, but if one is still going to cling to outmoded notions of nuclear families as some kind of basis for society, then M does have a role in certifying and prioritising some Rs over others. My own view is that we should move beyond such outmoded forms of social organisation to something which more closely approximates the way most people live, which would obviate the role of M entirely. That's sort of happened already. For example, a slim majorityof children in the US now reside with a single parent rather than in a two parent family. The trouble is, our social institutions haven't kept pace with these changes. Almost every other industrialized country has a national day care policy--we don't. Almost every other indsutrialized country provides for extended, paid maternal/paternal leave--we don't. Every other industrialized country has some form of national health care--we don't. Obama's plan isn't national health care. It is a plan to require people to buy private insurance. All families get in the US is holier-than-thou lectures about "values." As a society, we have no serious commitment to helping families.
califnan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 But ignoring relational boundaries causes chaos in someone's home, and you are okay with that? My home is the start of the "local level" and deserves the same respect, if not more, given in a line at the bank, IMO. --------------------- My home hadn't the foundation .. A home must have a foundation of the higher level ..
donnamaybe Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The frequency of extramarital relationships says something about the institution of marriage. Maybe it is time to update how we look at marital vows? Maybe marriage should not be forever? In that case we should erradicate ALL forms of promise making or contracts between parties. What's so tough about just telling the truth? "I am no longer in love with you and want a divorce." There. That didn't hurt much now did it?
Shakz Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Anarchy does not mean chaos. It means that the power is at the local level, not a government or the church steering from above. Actually, anarchy means no government. Your talking about radical federalism, but government is still government, no matter how localised the power.
Recommended Posts