When MP blames A on OP

[White Flower]

Ahh...that's because you have true class.....

 

Some OW try to engage the MM in maligning the wife, in pointing out all flaws, real or imagined; of creating non-existant scenarios to make themselves appear like the better choice, the better partner, the better steward of having a reltionship with him.

 

Imagine that?

I agree with you Spark, they are out there. Just as not all W, BW, WH, etc. are not the same, not all OW are the same.

[White Flower]

KISA is really a nice way of saying 'teflon guy' He wants what he wants, he says and does what he needs to get it, and he avoids the inevitable fall out as much as possible by blaming other people when the crap hits the fan.

Love it! The teflon guy...

[White Flower]

Sounds like insecurity to me, whether it's an OW, a BW or anyone else doing that. People who are secure in themselves and know their own worth do not have to score points against anyone else.

Well said OWoman.

 

Not to get off topic, but this is how I felt about MM's W on D-day when she called me names. I never resorted to calling her names even after he painted a picture of a very ignorant, naive, and vindictive woman. Again, I squelched talk like that but I'm sure he doesn't squelch talk like that about me when she goes off on him.

As a BS...if my H had in any way blamed an OW for any part of his infidelity I think I would have had to react more extreme than I did.

Even the thought that an OW could be expected to be partially responsible for his actions...is beyond the pale.

 

But...also as a BS - I did end up personally blaming several OW ( there were a few) for taking part in my life without my knowledge. The 2 that knew me personally - had hell to pay and it had little to do with my husband's part in it. It was because they knowingly took part in my life secretly and I would have reacted the same whether the circumstances of that participation involved my husband, my family, my finances, my business etc. Even then, if my H had blamed them for his actions - I would have defended them.

You got me curious 2sue, how did they knowingly take part in your life? I'm so far removed that I couldn't imagine so I appreciate your sharing. You can PM me if you like.

[White Flower]

WF, frankly I am surprised by this. You know me better, or so I thought.

 

My entire thread is reposted here.

 

Why not ask me directly on my thread what I meant?

 

What I thought?

 

Why I think it impedes healing?

 

Why my H had lost respect for his former OW?

Spark, I clearly state that this thread was not meant to bash any poster. There were points on your thread that I felt became off topic and I didn't want to take the glory away from how wonderful things had become in your M. Had I hashed everything out over there, it might have taken the wind out of your sails. The subject, THE SUBJECT, interests me, not that this happens to be a subject in YOUR M.

 

I welcome you on this thread and to answer any questions you just brought up. You know I respect your opinions, your mind, and your class. I always have.

 

Obviously, she didn't want your answer; she wanted others answer about you.

Never in a million years. BTW, LSers sooner or later figure out that those who shoot out one-liners usually don't have much to say.

 

I knew Spark would find this thread, there is no hiding in these forums. I welcome her opinion, VALUE her opinion, and often seek her opinion.

 

I just didn't want to question her on a slightly different subject on her thread which could have shot her joy down. It takes a long time for a BS to feel joy again.

[White Flower]

This is unreal and cruel.

 

Isn't it against the TOS to post about another member? I'm sure no one would like to open up LS one day and see their situation being discussed as a topic on a thread that someone else started.

 

If anyone is that curious about the situation, just ask the poster directly.

Refer to my above post. I took one point out of a thread to start another thread. It is quite the norm and quite expected around LS.

[SidLyon]

This is unreal and cruel.

 

...

 

QUOTE]

 

I agree with Snowflower and if this means I don't have much worthwhile to say because it's a one-liner then so be it. Anything else will probably earn me an infraction anyway.

[White Flower]

I'm sure no one would like to open up LS one day and see their situation being discussed as a topic on a thread that someone else started.

 

If anyone is that curious about the situation, just ask the poster directly.

Hmmm, I guess you didn't see the two threads started with the intention of blasting me and me alone. Those BS never asked me one question on my thread, but felt the need to start another thread each with the intention of bashing me personally.

 

And I never reported them. They had every right to express themselves.

 

And, once again, I clearly state that I am not bashing anyone on this thread. I know Spark stands up for my right to question a perspective in an A situation just as she does. I look for clarity just as she does.

 

Now can we get back on the subject of WS's blaming OW's?

[SidLyon]

In many ways it can be irrelevant whether the MP blames the OW/AP.

 

If the OW has knowingly behaved in a certain way or taken certain actions in her life that she knows have the capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others (eg BW and family) then she is responsible for the consequences of her actions.

 

That the MM is also responsible, is not relevant to the culpability of the OW.

[jennie-jennie]

I just learnt last weekend when I visited my ex that an OW he had 15 years ago was very predatory. He never told me before. He always took the full blame himself. Thus I have always liked her and never held anything against her. I don't feel any different now either.

 

My ex's relationship with this OW caused him to move out for 1 1/2 years, so it had a great impact on our family. Yet why would I or he blame her?

Edited August 24, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[OWoman]

In many ways it can be irrelevant whether the MP blames the OW/AP.

 

If the OW has knowingly behaved in a certain way or taken certain actions in her life that she knows have the capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others (eg BW and family) then she is responsible for the consequences of her actions.

 

When I choose to get into my car and drive to the shop, I know it has the "capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others" - a tyre could burst causing the car to mount the pavement and run over a mother pushing her newborn in a pram; I could have a heart-attack and lose control of the car and plough into a group of cyclists; a small child could break free from its mother's hold outside a shop and run into the road in front of me before I had the chance to brake. I know this - as I know that driving my car is contributing to global warming through the air pollution, consumption of petro-chemicals and other ungreen practices that driving a car entails. But I still do it - I weigh up the risks and benefits, the likelihood of something terrible happening and the severity of the long-term impact of my driving against the costs of not going, or of walking down, or of ordering online and having someone else carry the risk and the bad karma for a few quid more... and I act accordingly.

 

If we were all to censor our behaviour so that we never did anything that had any capacity to cause any harm to anyone, we'd never eat (workplace injuries, worker exploitation and geopolitics in the food industry are appalling), we'd never go out, we'd never do pretty much anything. Life is about taking risks.

 

Most of my As had no discernible impact on anyone besides the MM and myself - and that impact was positive. My last A had a very positive impact on a great many people, with the potential for a positive impact on even the BS. Doees the actual impact matter - whether it turns out to be negative, neutral or positive - or does the intention matter? Or both? Or neither?

[SidLyon]

When I choose to get into my car and drive to the shop, I know it has the "capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others" - a tyre could burst causing the car to mount the pavement and run over a mother pushing her newborn in a pram; I could have a heart-attack and lose control of the car and plough into a group of cyclists; a small child could break free from its mother's hold outside a shop and run into the road in front of me before I had the chance to brake. I know this - as I know that driving my car is contributing to global warming through the air pollution, consumption of petro-chemicals and other ungreen practices that driving a car entails. But I still do it - I weigh up the risks and benefits, the likelihood of something terrible happening and the severity of the long-term impact of my driving against the costs of not going, or of walking down, or of ordering online and having someone else carry the risk and the bad karma for a few quid more... and I act accordingly.

 

If we were all to censor our behaviour so that we never did anything that had any capacity to cause any harm to anyone, we'd never eat (workplace injuries, worker exploitation and geopolitics in the food industry are appalling), we'd never go out, we'd never do pretty much anything. Life is about taking risks.

 

Most of my As had no discernible impact on anyone besides the MM and myself - and that impact was positive. My last A had a very positive impact on a great many people, with the potential for a positive impact on even the BS. Doees the actual impact matter - whether it turns out to be negative, neutral or positive - or does the intention matter? Or both? Or neither?

 

I expect most posters understood what I meant.

[Fallen Angel]

I expect most posters understood what I meant.

 

I suspect you are avoiding answering the questions because you can not argue against the logic in OWoman's post.

 

Sometimes answering for the things you do and say is not easy, but if you want the right to do or say them, you should then be willing to deal with the consequences that result.... Just saying.

[SidLyon]

I suspect you are avoiding answering the questions because you can not argue against the logic in OWoman's post.

 

OWoman may be logical but what she was talking about was not directed at the destruction that almost invariably results from known affairs. She was talking about activities not inherently destructive and also her own non-destructive affairs. I assumed these questions were not directed specifically at me because I was talking only about affairs that are destructive as most are. I cannot answer any questions about these supposedly non-destructive affairs. The ones i have direct experience of were life-altering and all but life-destroying.

 

Sometimes answering for the things you do and say is not easy, but if you want the right to do or say them, you should then be willing to deal with the consequences that result.... Just saying.

 

Absolutely agree - just like IMO an OW should be willing to be accountable for her own destructive actions.

 

 

My reply in bold.

[OWoman]

OWoman may be logical but what she was talking about was not directed at the destruction that almost invariably results from known affairs. She was talking about activities not inherently destructive and also her own non-destructive affairs. I assumed these questions were not directed specifically at me because I was talking only about affairs that are destructive as most are. I cannot answer any questions about these supposedly non-destructive affairs. The ones i have direct experience of were life-altering and all but life-destroying.

 

I think I'm better placed to comment on what I was and wasn't talking about, and I disagree with the above assessment. I was commenting directly on the claim that an OW bears responsibility for the consequences of her actions where she knowingly engaged in actions that had the "capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others" - actions which, as I pointed out, could include those as seemingly innocent as driving to the shop. Many, if not most, of our everyday actions have the capacity to harm - yet we knowingly take risks every day. If we are to be held responsible for the consequences of (some of) our actions - as the assertion claimed - then what should be the informing basis behind that? Is it purely outcome? Intention? Both? or Neither?

 

This is a general point and has little to do with red herrings about whether or not one has direct life-experience of situations described, imagined or otherwise constructed. An assertion was made that an OW is responsible for (certain) actions. I asked for clarity on the basis informing that, and was met with a smokescreen of diversionary tactics. I could draw my own conclusions from that - and may have to, if no answer is forthcoming - but the attempt at reconstructing what I pretty clearly stated as something entirely else isn't something I will quietly go along with.

[Spark1111]

When I choose to get into my car and drive to the shop, I know it has the "capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others" - a tyre could burst causing the car to mount the pavement and run over a mother pushing her newborn in a pram; I could have a heart-attack and lose control of the car and plough into a group of cyclists; a small child could break free from its mother's hold outside a shop and run into the road in front of me before I had the chance to brake. I know this - as I know that driving my car is contributing to global warming through the air pollution, consumption of petro-chemicals and other ungreen practices that driving a car entails. But I still do it - I weigh up the risks and benefits, the likelihood of something terrible happening and the severity of the long-term impact of my driving against the costs of not going, or of walking down, or of ordering online and having someone else carry the risk and the bad karma for a few quid more... and I act accordingly.

 

If we were all to censor our behaviour so that we never did anything that had any capacity to cause any harm to anyone, we'd never eat (workplace injuries, worker exploitation and geopolitics in the food industry are appalling), we'd never go out, we'd never do pretty much anything. Life is about taking risks.

 

Most of my As had no discernible impact on anyone besides the MM and myself - and that impact was positive. My last A had a very positive impact on a great many people, with the potential for a positive impact on even the BS. Doees the actual impact matter - whether it turns out to be negative, neutral or positive - or does the intention matter? Or both? Or neither?

 

I disagree with your capacity analogy.

 

None of us are responsible for randon events occuring outside the scope of our control.

 

I agree if we worried about it all, we would never take a risk.

 

But the spouse of your MP is not a random occuring event outside the scope of your control.

 

He/she TRUSTS they are in a committed relationship with their spouse.

 

OW/OM and MP are taking risks outside the capacity of the BS.

 

The AFFAIR is the unknown event in the BS's life, just like the child about to dart out in front of the car.

 

This sounds too much like what they don't know cannot hurt them. It is cowardly IMHO.

[Spark1111]

In many ways it can be irrelevant whether the MP blames the OW/AP.

 

If the OW has knowingly behaved in a certain way or taken certain actions in her life that she knows have the capacity to cause devastation and destruction in the lives of others (eg BW and family) then she is responsible for the consequences of her actions.

 

That the MM is also responsible, is not relevant to the culpability of the OW.

 

I agree. We are all responsible for owning the consequences of our actions, our behavior, in all of our relationships.

 

This is not a moralistic judgement, just the way I feel.

 

If you love your MM, at some point you have to not care of the feelings of his wife; there must be indifference to her, otherwise you could not truly commit your emotions to him.

 

You would feel too guilty, too empathetic, to do so, IMHO.

[lilbunny]

I think the idea of blame and responsibility are different things.

 

I am responsible for what I have done and I am willing to deal with whatever happens as a result. It wasn't a situation I enjoyed or relished. It isn't an easy thing to put the feelings of a complete stranger you have never met and know little about above your own.

 

Blame is about pointing the finger and usually involves passing the buck. I didn't make any promises or committments to the injured party, someone else did that. I didn't make them break those promises. It was a choice made with free will.

 

If I am to blame then isn't that just someone else not being willing to take responsibility.

[Hazyhead]

I agree. We are all responsible for owning the consequences of our actions, our behavior, in all of our relationships.

 

This is not a moralistic judgement, just the way I feel.

 

If you love your MM, at some point you have to not care of the feelings of his wife; there must be indifference to her, otherwise you could not truly commit your emotions to him.

 

You would feel too guilty, too empathetic, to do so, IMHO.

 

Good post, Spark. As the OW I knew the potential consequences of my actions, but I continued regardless. In all honesty, I didn't have any guilt towards his wife for a long time (but then I was in a relationship myself at the start). Towards the end the guilt crept in. She became more real as a person the more I knew about her. And now... I harbour more feelings of sorrow towards her than I do towards him... if that makes sense.

 

As for the original post, you'll have to excuse me as I have not the whole thread yet, but my xMM put a lot more blame towards me than he did himself. I think he believed that if they were to have a chance of reconciliation in the future then this was necessary as I was not his first affair. I don't know. However, it makes/made no difference to me what he says because there will never be anything between us again, therefore, I took that blame. I do feel sorry for her though, if she believes him, as I think she will face the same trauma further down the line when he repeats his behaviour. And yet again... it will have been at the hands of the 'manipulative femme fatale'. If I had a do-over, I would not have been as submissively sorry - taking more responsibility for their marriage than I should have done.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Hazyhead

[jthorne]

WF, frankly I am surprised by this. You know me better, or so I thought.

 

My entire thread is reposted here.

 

Why not ask me directly on my thread what I meant?

I saw this too. Your thread must have hit a nerve, since it has sparked a few bash threads thinly quised as spinoffs. The thing to do would have been for WF (or anyone else with questions) to contact you directly, as you said. Assuming you would just "find" the thread is a little inconsiderate in my opinion.

 

I personally think you are owed an apology, but I doubt you'll get it.

Edited August 24, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[OWoman]

But the spouse of your MP is not a random occuring event outside the scope of your control.

 

Yes, she certainly was!

 

I certainly had no control over her existence, nor her actions, nor her personality, her moods, her likes or dislikes. Nor would I have wanted any.

[OWoman]

If you love your MM, at some point you have to not care of the feelings of his wife; there must be indifference to her, otherwise you could not truly commit your emotions to him.

 

This I have never denied. I have always felt indifference toward her - except when her behaviour has prompted me to feel something stronger, like anger, but because she means nothing to me, that is transient and soon returns to indifference.

 

Why should it be different? I don't go around feeling compassion for other abusers I have never met, why should she be different?

[silktricks]

That's not her fault - at all. He was sending tendrils outside the M. She was caught.

 

This is the same old - same old argument that will never ever die .

 

Who is "responsible" for the affair? The WS or the OW? IMO, they both have equal culpability. You don't know if he was "sending tendrils" or if she was. What if she was the aggressor? Does that make him less culpable for taking her up on it? No, I don't think so. What if he was the aggressor? Does that make her less culpable - no. Not if she knew he was married.

 

But back to the OP. Why is it so unreasonable that the WS after reconciling with his wife should not only take responsibility for his actions, but also find the actions of the OW disgusting? One does not preclude the other. Or is there doubt that an OW's actions can be disgusting? Is it only a MM or a BS who can do something objectionable?

[OWoman]

Why not ask me directly on my thread what I meant?

 

Off-topic posts violate the TOS. Not everybody likes to collect infractions.

[OWoman]

Or is there doubt that an OW's actions can be disgusting?

 

Depends how raw the sex is, I guess...

 

More seriously - it would depend on what those actions were. If it were merely the act of engaging in the A, then such "disgust" seems misplaced (to me, anyway). But if her other behaviours were in themselves disgusting, or shed doubt onto why and how she conducted the A, or other such complex reasons, then it does become conceivable that the WS may shift his views about her in retrospect, without seeking to absolve himself of his responsibility.

[silktricks]

Depends how raw the sex is, I guess...

 

More seriously - it would depend on what those actions were. If it were merely the act of engaging in the A, then such "disgust" seems misplaced (to me, anyway). But if her other behaviours were in themselves disgusting, or shed doubt onto why and how she conducted the A, or other such complex reasons, then it does become conceivable that the WS may shift his views about her in retrospect, without seeking to absolve himself of his responsibility.

 

Well, I used the word "can" on purpose. I believe that any person "can" perform actions that are disgusting. It seems to me that many people take the view that only the MM (or possibly the BS, depending upon the day ) - can be disgusting - that somehow the OW is always a person bathed in light . (I must admit that I thought my meaning was fairly obvious from the next sentence - the one you didn't quote... )

 

The MM can easily shift his views about the OW in retrospect, and probably (possibly?) always does if he truly regrets the affair. If he doesn't shift his views about her, then he probably still loves her - in that case he should be with her not his wife (JMO ). The fact that he has shifted his view of her, however, does not mean that the first view was true and the second false - or the reverse. Both views could be equally false (doubtful that both are equally true... ).

 

Shifting his view of the OW, does not in any way absolve him of responsibility. Whether she is the golden lady of his dreams or the depraved person he may later choose to believe she is - regardless - he is the person who chose to have an affair with her. No one forced him. If he "tricked himself" or even if she somehow "tricked him" into believing she was something she wasn't - so what? He had the affair. He bears full responsibility for his part in the affair. And, of course, IMO she bears full responsibility for her part.

Edited August 24, 2010 by silktricks