Financial Support to OW

[Fallen Angel]

That's why I was "LOL"ing. It was funny.

 

Money is a huge reason behind many a divorce. It doesn't mean that people have their priorities wrong, it means that they recognize the power that it has in a R. Its not wise to ignore that.

 

A man that will waste his family's precious financial resources selfishly, in any endeavor, will find that he has the money struggle in his marriage. I'm sure many a MM complain to the OW that the W just wants "more' money all the time. Truth, as I see it, if he wasn't wasting it behind her back, they might already have more.

 

I can see this as a valid point, but it is not the case in my relationship that there is any financial difficulty placed on the marriage by the tokens of affection afforded me by my sweetheart.

 

What I accept is minimal, what he offers is much more substantial, neither is enough to affect his household's finances negatively enough to cause any sort of hardship.

[White Flower]

What I said was:

 

I don't know much about the blog or who wrote it for sure...

 

Not that OWoman is lacking in any communication skills. I think what is lacking is a respect for her intelligence. Further, I think people who attack her, or anyone as smart as her, are merely jealous or intimidated by her obviously high IQ. ...

 

 

Yet another thread that talks about OWoman's blog. Surely it's worthy of its own thread as we are all so interested... [Otherwise it may remain the elephant in the room for longer than even OWoman is comfortable with.

LOL, much too funny. First I say I'm not sure who wrote it when answering somebody else who brought it up, and then get accused of bringing it up. Nice try.

 

Lolapoloza you say the deleted thread (about the blog) is reproduced on another forum, are you willing to provide a link please; or use PM if you don't want to put it on this forum.

Just curious, but what is the purpose?

White Flower you appear to be trying to sow doubt in people's minds that the blog is/was actually OWoman's. If you know for sure that it wasn't hers then why not say so? She herself hasn't denied it was hers so why the attempt to muddy the waters on your part?

It's not really my place to do so. Actually, I'm more interested in this:

I'm unclear why you think posters should show a particular respect for OWoman's high intelligence. This is not much different to saying we should show respect for FA's beauty or Crayon's artwork. It is of course your prerogative to be in awe of her IQ.

 

I happen to know there is more than one member of a High IQ society on this forum but I don't see why any of us deserve extra respect for it.

Coming from the collegiate society I value and yes respect good argumentation especially when backed by evidence, expertise, experience, or intelligence. I find myself embarrassed for others when they try to argue a pointless point backed by nothing. I respect, value, and defend many posters here such as Spark1111, Reboot, Lakesidedream, and yes, OWoman. Without them, LS would be boring and at a serious loss.

 

I don't know if you went to college, but you seem like an intelligent woman yourself so you probably did. You might remember that papers were not accepted without proper backing. OWoman's posts almost always have proper backing. I'm not ashamed to admire that. And I'm not ashamed to admire Spark or Lakesidedream for that. But they don't get bashed as much and I suppose I'm pretty loyal once someone earns my respect.

 

Cheers.

[White Flower]

A total aside. Please forgive me this threadjack, OP.

 

WF, I have only ever seen you post about OWoman's intelligence and IQ. Each time it comes off in an underhanded way. And, yes, you did do this to me about which we have already posted.

 

But I'm curious as to why you do this? I don't want to attribute to you feelings that you may not have, yet it seems you are the one that's intimidated by her and feel that others should be as well.

 

She has a way with words. True. She does indeed come across as highly intelligent (quite a few other posters do as well, but they don't get this "you ought to respect their intelligence" blip from you), but that's no reason anyone should let what she says that they disagree with go unchallenged. This is a forum, not a classroom. Maybe in a classroom one can demand to not be challenged, but not in an open forum.

 

Just curious.

 

Seems "sockpuppet"-like.

 

ETA - I have no issues with and can't really control what another does, I'm really just curious and too lazy to clear my Inbox to have space to PM this.

Wish I had seen this and added it to my response to Syd Lion. I think I answered most of your questions in that post.

 

I disagree that this is not a classroom. Life is a classroom.

 

And I disagree that I am intimitated by her; I am just in awe of her reasoning skills and aspire to think more logically like her.

 

FWIW, it is never intended to come off in an off-handed way. I honestly believe most people poke at her because deep down they know she makes sense and it ticks them off. An old pastor of mine once said that when you throw a stone into a pack of wolves the one you hit cries the hardest. People tend to cry (or become inflamed) when she drives her point home. It must frustrate them to know someone they hate is right.

 

I do believe this could have been sent in a PM. My apologies to the OP for the t/j.

[SidLyon]

What I said was:

 

I don't know much about the blog or who wrote it for sure...

 

Not that OWoman is lacking in any communication skills. I think what is lacking is a respect for her intelligence. Further, I think people who attack her, or anyone as smart as her, are merely jealous or intimidated by her obviously high IQ. ...

 

 

 

LOL, much too funny. First I say I'm not sure who wrote it when answering somebody else who brought it up, and then get accused of bringing it up. Nice try.

 

I didn't accuse you of bringing it up - I just selected you to reply to. Sorry about that as it didn't occur to me that you thought I was suggesting that you brought it up on this particular thread.

 

 

Just curious, but what is the purpose?

 

I was hoping to read what was posted in the deleted thread again. However although I've now received the details, it only links back to the LS thread which of course has disappeared now.

 

It's not really my place to do so. Actually, I'm more interested in this:

 

Coming from the collegiate society I value and yes respect good argumentation especially when backed by evidence, expertise, experience, or intelligence. I find myself embarrassed for others when they try to argue a pointless point backed by nothing. I respect, value, and defend many posters here such as Spark1111, Reboot, Lakesidedream, and yes, OWoman. Without them, LS would be boring and at a serious loss.

 

Oh well not everyone has the same good powers of argumentation. But simply arguing a point well, does not make the person right. I guess I don't particularly respect the content of what some people say and especially I found what was in that blog to be extremely distasteful. Even if it was well argued and well written, I felt that any good argumentation techniques were overshadowed by the content. Same with some posts here on LS. But overall I agree it's best to argue a point from a sound basis I just don't therefore accord more respect to the person making the argument because of it. I try to evaluate what is behind that in deciding who to respect. I don't expect other posters on LS to do the same as me though, nor do I assume that because they don't they must therefore be intimidated or lacking in due respect. My experience is usually that when people are intimidated it is because the person is attempting to intimidate or bully.

 

I don't know if you went to college, but you seem like an intelligent woman yourself so you probably did. You might remember that papers were not accepted without proper backing. OWoman's posts almost always have proper backing. I'm not ashamed to admire that. And I'm not ashamed to admire Spark or Lakesidedream for that. But they don't get bashed as much and I suppose I'm pretty loyal once someone earns my respect.

 

To be honest I rarely find posts on LS to have "proper backing" in the academic sense. Yes I have a University education.

 

Cheers.

 

Comments in bold. Really sorry for the t/j but nobody wants to start a new thread but some want to discuss (myself included) LOL.

[NoIDidn't]

Wish I had seen this and added it to my response to Syd Lion. I think I answered most of your questions in that post.

 

I disagree that this is not a classroom. Life is a classroom.

 

And I disagree that I am intimitated by her; I am just in awe of her reasoning skills and aspire to think more logically like her.

 

FWIW, it is never intended to come off in an off-handed way. I honestly believe most people poke at her because deep down they know she makes sense and it ticks them off. An old pastor of mine once said that when you throw a stone into a pack of wolves the one you hit cries the hardest. People tend to cry (or become inflamed) when she drives her point home. It must frustrate them to know someone they hate is right.

 

I do believe this could have been sent in a PM. My apologies to the OP for the t/j.

 

"Awe"? Really? That alone explains a lot.

 

Life is a classroom, but this is still just a forum and I don't think anyone came here to be schooled by us "know it all" posters. LOL.

 

Thanks, though. I really feel that you just said you defend her because you really like her and want to be like her.

 

Again, apologies OP and OWoman for this.

[White Flower]

Comments in bold. Really sorry for the t/j but nobody wants to start a new thread but some want to discuss (myself included) LOL.

No problem Sid, it's all good.

Oh well not everyone has the same good powers of argumentation. But simply arguing a point well, does not make the person right. I guess I don't particularly respect the content of what some people say and especially I found what was in that blog to be extremely distasteful. Even if it was well argued and well written, I felt that any good argumentation techniques were overshadowed by the content. Same with some posts here on LS. But overall I agree it's best to argue a point from a sound basis I just don't therefore accord more respect to the person making the argument because of it. I try to evaluate what is behind that in deciding who to respect. I don't expect other posters on LS to do the same as me though, nor do I assume that because they don't they must therefore be intimidated or lacking in due respect. My experience is usually that when people are intimidated it is because the person is attempting to intimidate or bully.

I agree that arguing a point well does not necessarily make the person right. In fact, I revolted at the blog myself and was one of the first posters to jump all over it.

 

I never said the blog was well written, but did say that OWoman argues well.

 

When I defend Lilagirl or November-Rain nobody gives a damn but when I defend an independent and strong woman (not that they aren't--we just don't know them very well yet) everybody gets so defensive. If that were you, I wonder how you'd feel?

[White Flower]

"Awe"? Really? That alone explains a lot.

 

Life is a classroom, but this is still just a forum and I don't think anyone came here to be schooled by us "know it all" posters. LOL.

 

Thanks, though. I really feel that you just said you defend her because you really like her and want to be like her.

 

Again, apologies OP and OWoman for this.

Nothing wrong with that NID, and I wish I had your tenacity!!!

[pureinheart]

I've only read about 4 pages in, so perhaps we are long past this, but I just wanted to comment on the legal issues being thrown around. A *minority* of states are community property states... not all or even most of them. I'm a lawyer in a community property state, and, even in community property states, "community property" doesn't mean that one spouse has to *approve* of everything the other spouse spends... it just means they are responsible for it. For instance, if I was married, and I went on a spending spree and racked up $2,000 in shoes, in a community property state my husband would be jointly responsible for the bill. It doesn't mean he could *sue* me to get his $1,000 back.

 

I'm not sure what cases people are talking about... sure, if we were in the middle of a divorce and I took money out of a joint account to buy shoes or pay for my lover's rent or dinner, etc., he could sue me because there is a freeze on assets after one person files for divorce and the court or the couple figures out what to do with what money. But in a regular old marriage my husband could legally spend money on a mistress just like I could legally spend money on a ton of unnecessary shoes, and I couldn't do a thing about it, except divorce him, and vice versa. Community property means that whatever the person had in her own name before she went into the marriage (assets and debts) stays in her name - her husband takes no responsibility for that debt and gets no right to the assets (and vice versa). But whatever she has after they get married (debts and assets) is legally looked at as belonging to both of them -- so that he can take half of her assets and he is responsible for half of her debts, and vice versa. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that she has to check with her husband before she spends money on her lover or her shoes etc.

 

Now that's the legal position. My own opinion is that a woman should take care of herself financially and never rely on a man to do that-- whether it be her boyfriend, lover, husband, whatever. And vice versa. But there is no law that says one can't.

 

This makes sense as exDM just went through a D (community property state). Thanks Nadia

[MizFit]

A point I want to bring up after reading the pages on this thread left after I went to bed last night...there are some comments that allude to OW/OM wanting the WS for their money and being highly disappointed if there is a settlement or not much left if there's a D.

 

I really hate to say it, but I don't see too many people on here who are golddiggers. I have never been involved with someone for their money and I can't say I ever would be. Other than Califnan's exH W I don't know as I've seen a whole lot of mention about OW after money and such. I know there are some OW who go into arrangements with WS, but they're as few and far between...I also recall maybe Spark mentioned something about each of them using each other for money, but I'm not clear on that so may well be speaking out of place.

 

My comment is that I don't think it's all that often that it's an issue is it? I may be wrong and am seriously throwing the question out.

[pureinheart]

I will 'take up' or defend many on LS and probably even you. I try to see things from all perspectives in order to learn more and have a bigger understanding of things. Try me, or look at my nearly 3 years of posting here. I especially enjoy defending those who seem to be misunderstood due to their lack of communicating skills no matter what side of the fence (or pond:laugh:) they're on. Not that OWoman is lacking in any communication skills. I think what is lacking is a respect for her intelligence. Further, I think people who attack her, or anyone as smart as her, are merely jealous or intimidated by her obviously high IQ. But I am not saying this about you personally.

 

About her taking assets from MM; she has already discussed at great length that her fMM turned H and his exW had a financial agreement to keep certain assets separate. This allowed for him to spend HIS money on whoever he wanted including his mother, children, father, postman, and OWoman. I think she's explained herself, not that she owes anyone an explanation.

 

Had you posted this, I would have stood up for you as well. Please remember that.

 

ExDM had a similar situation as his exW has an extreme spending problem, he on the other hand saved his money...

 

While we are at it:D, I appreciate OWomans posts. Having two very well educated parents, have a great respect due to my inability to "sit still". I wanted to party and could not handle sitting in a classroom. A few years ago I found out that I am hyperthyroid so am thinking that had a lot to do with not being able to sit still...I've been a "hyper" person all of my life to some degree. I really enjoy her communication skills and have learned a great deal from her and others.

 

For the mostpart men have always spent money on me...I 've always supported myself and have had my own income...actually the men I dated felt it was a given that they pay, and infact insisted...thinking back, I really appreciated that.

 

Concerning exDM, he spent a good amount of money on me, although I did a lot for him also, it was reciprocated (not sex).

 

Oh and BTW, I really enjoy your posts WF, and have learned a lot:D

[Fallen Angel]

A point I want to bring up after reading the pages on this thread left after I went to bed last night...there are some comments that allude to OW/OM wanting the WS for their money and being highly disappointed if there is a settlement or not much left if there's a D.

 

I really hate to say it, but I don't see too many people on here who are golddiggers. I have never been involved with someone for their money and I can't say I ever would be. Other than Califnan's exH W I don't know as I've seen a whole lot of mention about OW after money and such. I know there are some OW who go into arrangements with WS, but they're as few and far between...I also recall maybe Spark mentioned something about each of them using each other for money, but I'm not clear on that so may well be speaking out of place.

 

My comment is that I don't think it's all that often that it's an issue is it? I may be wrong and am seriously throwing the question out.

 

I have said it before (and been called a liar for it) but I would rather live in a cardboard house with the man I love in my life, than live in a mansion without him in my life.

 

I swear it on all that I hold dear.

 

Money certainly makes life easier, but it in no way makes love stronger.

 

If my sweetheart told me that he was divorcing tomorrow, but felt that he needed to give her everything they owned, everything he worked his whole life for, and he could only come to me penniless; I would rejoice in his love, bask in the warmth of his heart and celebrate the start of a new life for us together.

[pureinheart]

A point I want to bring up after reading the pages on this thread left after I went to bed last night...there are some comments that allude to OW/OM wanting the WS for their money and being highly disappointed if there is a settlement or not much left if there's a D.

 

I really hate to say it, but I don't see too many people on here who are golddiggers. I have never been involved with someone for their money and I can't say I ever would be. Other than Califnan's exH W I don't know as I've seen a whole lot of mention about OW after money and such. I know there are some OW who go into arrangements with WS, but they're as few and far between...I also recall maybe Spark mentioned something about each of them using each other for money, but I'm not clear on that so may well be speaking out of place.

 

My comment is that I don't think it's all that often that it's an issue is it? I may be wrong and am seriously throwing the question out.

 

I think you are right...

[califnan]

NID

 

I over-summarised the position as it is in the UK - sorry

 

Support does also depend on whether a career was abandoned to raise a family and the level of skills of that particular parent. If highly skilled then they are less likely to get support when the children are older.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it is not 100% guaranteed that support will be paid contrary to how some poster may think/believe

 

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

 

It isn't guaranteed that support will be paid .. nor guaranteed of the judgement ..

 

My statement was made according to Knowledge (not "think/believe") of a portion of the US. (didn't speak for the UK) ..

[califnan]

It was intended simply as a joke.. i know, i was there at it's conception.. lmaooooooo.

 

Money is a very touchy subject, more so than I realized prior to this thread. It somewhat bothers me that many seem more upset that an OW would accept small monetary gifts, than that she is having sexual and emotional relations with the man. Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage.

 

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

 

And I have noticed that as this thread has progressed the O Womens' admittance of monies taken - has become more and more minimized..

 

"Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage" .. Of course you wish to wonder .. Minimizing the importance of the H and W relationship in a marriage is what you do .. makes for a more comfortable MM/OW relationship...

[Fallen Angel]

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

 

And I have noticed that as this thread has progressed the O Womens' admittance of monies taken - has become more and more minimized..

 

"Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage" .. Of course you wish to wonder .. Minimizing the importance of the H and W relationship in a marriage is what you do .. makes for a more comfortable MM/OW relationship...

 

The H minimizes the relationship with his W when he falls in love with the OW. Makes love with the OW. Make gifts to the OW. Shares his innermost thoughts with the OW. Shares his time with the OW... etc. etc. ad nauseum.

 

I have no need to minimize the relationship between my sweetheart and his wife. He has minimized it enough, both literally and figuratively.

[MizFit]

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

 

And I have noticed that as this thread has progressed the O Womens' admittance of monies taken - has become more and more minimized..

 

"Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage" .. Of course you wish to wonder .. Minimizing the importance of the H and W relationship in a marriage is what you do .. makes for a more comfortable MM/OW relationship...

 

I think it's become more and more minimized because it's not a huge issue in the scheme of things. I realize your situation was very different, but as I said in another post I don't see where the money is much of an issue for most of the OW/OM. It appears that most pay their own way on a day to day basis and if there ever was a separation and a permanent relationship started they aren't looking for anything there either.

 

I do realize there are exceptions, but by and large that seems to be the situation of most.

 

As far as minimizing the relationship...the WS is cheating on their partner/spouse...how much more minimizing can be done? May be my black and white view on WS, but it's really that simple to me.

[Silly_Girl]

It was intended simply as a joke.. i know, i was there at it's conception.. lmaooooooo.

 

Money is a very touchy subject, more so than I realized prior to this thread. It somewhat bothers me that many seem more upset that an OW would accept small monetary gifts, than that she is having sexual and emotional relations with the man. Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage.

 

Oh no I think that's complete tosh. If you started a thread such as 'Affairs are good for marriages 'cos....' you'd see that there certainly is more passion in terms of the existence of the relationship per se, than what amount of monies flow out of the household as a result. The money issue is the purpose of the thread, I think it's unfair to suggest that BS's care more about what's being spent than what their husband is up to.

[Susmay]

Oh no I think that's complete tosh. If you started a thread such as 'Affairs are good for marriages 'cos....' you'd see that there certainly is more passion in terms of the existence of the relationship per se, than what amount of monies flow out of the household as a result. The money issue is the purpose of the thread, I think it's unfair to suggest that BS's care more about what's being spent than what their husband is up to.

 

It's called baiting the BW. A thread gets started saying "are BWs concerned when X happens", then when a few answer "yes" and why, it's twisted around to say that BWs care more about X than the fact that their Hs had an affair.

 

I'm not suggesting the OP did this with baiting the BW in mind but just that some opportunities can be too good to resist.

[MizFit]

It's called baiting the BW. A thread gets started saying "are BWs concerned when X happens", then when a few answer "yes" and why, it's twisted around to say that BWs care more about X than the fact that their Hs had an affair.

 

I'm not suggesting the OP did this with baiting the BW in mind but just that some opportunities can be too good to resist.

 

We've all been witness to the baiting of all parties...it isn't something exclusive to BS.

 

I'm not convinced FA is one of the posters that would bait someone or just put her honest opinion forward.

[Susmay]

We've all been witness to the baiting of all parties...it isn't something exclusive to BS.

 

To be fair, you are right it can happen on either side of the great divide.

 

I'm not convinced FA is one of the posters that would bait someone or just put her honest opinion forward.

 

This thread was about financial support; not about saying which was worse, so I can't see how the conclusion could be drawn that financial payments to OWs are of more concern than the fact of an affair, unless a BW actually said it. Correct me if I am wrong.

[MizFit]

This thread was about financial support; not about saying which was worse, so I can't see how the conclusion could be drawn that financial payments to OWs are of more concern than the fact of an affair, unless a BW actually said it. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

I absolutely agree with you...hence I didn't defend what FA said, only possibly the intention of the post. I don't think she is someone who baits...I can see how the words could be seen as bait.

[jennie-jennie]

It was intended simply as a joke.. i know, i was there at it's conception.. lmaooooooo.

 

Money is a very touchy subject, more so than I realized prior to this thread. It somewhat bothers me that many seem more upset that an OW would accept small monetary gifts, than that she is having sexual and emotional relations with the man. Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage.

 

I am thinking it could be because one is seen as motivated by love, the other as motivated by greed.

[Ann_Igma]

I am thinking it could be because one is seen as motivated by love, the other as motivated by greed.

 

I am thinking that it could be because that is what this thread is about.

 

It's not a thread about how hurt/offended the BS is at the WS and (possibly, depending on the situation) OM/OW's lies. It's not a thread about how devastated the BS feels at learning that one of the institutions that they most believed in was a lie. It's not a thread about how insulted the BS was when they found out some of the untrue garbage the WS told the OM/OW to help minimize the M and carry on the A.

 

This particular thread is about money. Joint money spent by the WS during the A is just one minor slap in the face in the great big slapfest that an A is.

I doubt there are very many BS'es at all who would find it the most important or even near the most important - just as I imagine there aren't many OM/OW who find having money spent on them to be an important factor of their A- but just like it can be a perk to the OM/OW without being a true priority, it can still be yet another insult to add to the pile for the BS without being a true priority.

[bananalaffytaffy]

It's called baiting the BW. A thread gets started saying "are BWs concerned when X happens", then when a few answer "yes" and why, it's twisted around to say that BWs care more about X than the fact that their Hs had an affair.

 

I'm not suggesting the OP did this with baiting the BW in mind but just that some opportunities can be too good to resist.

By OP, I hope you are not referring to me and my opening post! If you are, I will find it very upsetting, since that was not my intention at all! My issue with my friend is settled, so I was going to let this drop, especially since the thread became some sort of platform for two or three OW's to hash out their views.

 

Someone else here mentioned gold digger. My friend chooses MM that she thinks have money. That is gold digger-ish to me. My intent was to discuss that, but I suppose my thread was not well thought out, as that certainly didn't happen. I don't think what she is doing is right, primarily because of Ann's post below: it's just one other slap in the face to a BS.

 

My issue with my friend is resolved, so the subject of the thread is a moot point for me anyway. But I did want to comment that it was never ever started to bash a BS!

 

I am thinking that it could be because that is what this thread is about.

 

It's not a thread about how hurt/offended the BS is at the WS and (possibly, depending on the situation) OM/OW's lies. It's not a thread about how devastated the BS feels at learning that one of the institutions that they most believed in was a lie. It's not a thread about how insulted the BS was when they found out some of the untrue garbage the WS told the OM/OW to help minimize the M and carry on the A.

 

This particular thread is about money. Joint money spent by the WS during the A is just one minor slap in the face in the great big slapfest that an A is.

I doubt there are very many BS'es at all who would find it the most important or even near the most important - just as I imagine there aren't many OM/OW who find having money spent on them to be an important factor of their A- but just like it can be a perk to the OM/OW without being a true priority, it can still be yet another insult to add to the pile for the BS without being a true priority.

[jennie-jennie]

I am thinking it could be because one is seen as motivated by love, the other as motivated by greed.

 

What I am trying to convey is more the "How could you?" factor.

 

It seems that is greater when it comes to money than when it comes to love.

 

The BS saying to the OW:

 

How could you have an affair with my husband?

vs

How could you accept our money?