Author OWoman Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Oh! Ok! Maybe she has a REAL LIFE!! If by "real" you mean sad and boring, I'd agree. Sitting at home every evening knitting and watching TV with the cats doesn't sound very exciting to me, but I guess she prefers that to spending her evenings in hot passionate love. It's her choice, and she's fully entitled to it, even if it's not the kind of choice I would make. Link to post Share on other sites
Snowflower Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 It is often said that BS win more often than OP. Funny, you'd think they like the phrase, 'All's fair in love and war'. That's because many BS realize they have "lost" (or won, depending on how you look at it) after d-day even when they didn't know they were in a war (i.e. a three-way relationship) until that point. At that point many BS tell their WS to go to their AP. I wasn't going to share the man I was married to with anyone else, no thank you! So, like many BS--I decided to give up the fight. Not to be manipulative, but because I simply couldn't do it...the situation was too unhealthy for me. I remember very clearly when I let my H go when he wasn't sure he could give up the "friendship" he had with OW...it was liberating to me in a sense. I might have lost the war but I had won my dignity back (much more important, IMO ). Link to post Share on other sites
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I don't see anything wrong with Owoman identifying herself as a fOW, now MW. She never hid her A IRL, nor did her fMM, now H, so why would she want to sweep it under the rug now? There are plenty of examples here of OW who lost their MM (to the ugly war games being played), so I think it's great that Owoman continues to offer support and food for thought to those who might find themselves in a similar situation. It would be far easier for her to move on and forget us, but she remains as selfless as ever. I raise my hat in honor of her for staying. It is often said that BS win more often than OP. Funny, you'd think they like the phrase, 'All's fair in love and war'. I guess it is the focus on the "winning" that bothers me, along with repeated digs about the ex wife and how heinous she is. Honestly, once a relationship is established and on a good track, whether the wife "won" her husband back from his affair, or the OW "won" the husband out of his marriage, it does seem to me to be the healthier path to be focussed on the current state of affairs and to leave all of that to fade away. A couple of wives here who have successfully salvaged their marriages from affairs don't constantly continue to post about the nasty qualities of the AP. I don't think they would find that conducive to the continued growth of their marriage. It also smacks of the need to have someone beneath one in order to feel "good." I would think it would work for AP's who "won" as well. That's just me though! Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Willing to move mountains if its true love? Yeah, I agree. But when the options are telling lies before getting to be with someone and ending a marriage before getting to be with someone, seems some people are making mountains out of molehills. Link to post Share on other sites
silktricks Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I don't see anything wrong with Owoman identifying herself as a fOW, now MW. She never hid her A IRL, nor did her fMM, now H, so why would she want to sweep it under the rug now? There are plenty of examples here of OW who lost their MM (to the ugly war games being played), so I think it's great that Owoman continues to offer support and food for thought to those who might find themselves in a similar situation. It would be far easier for her to move on and forget us, but she remains as selfless as ever. I raise my hat in honor of her for staying. It is often said that BS win more often than OP. Funny, you'd think they like the phrase, 'All's fair in love and war'. Could you please expound a little upon the bolded phrase above? My understanding was that the MM goes where he wants. That he isn't "owned" by anyone, either BW or OW. He follows his heart, isn't that right? Link to post Share on other sites
Spices Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 "If he loves you, he'll move mountains to be with you"... So true. If he loves you he'll be willing to give up the world. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Interesting topic. Yes, I believe a man will move mountains to be with you. He will also build mountains to ensure you do NOTexperience anyone else while he is. Isn't that a very good protective strategy that exists during an affair? I think yes. Keeps all his options over. Like Snow and Seren, I too said go be with her. I too loved him enough to wish him happiness and needed to regain my dignity. I surrendered to the obvious victor (his OW) and made plans to learn and conquer new territory in my life. No one was more stunned than I when it seemed like the last thing he wanted as he retreated from her. Out of fear, she was retreating from him too; scared of the consequences; scared of me. So, I guess I was engaged in a conflict I knew nothing about. I took the high ground, planted my flag in integrity, and felt peace in not engaging, along with trememdous sadness of what could have been. I guess I lost many, many battles I did not know I was a participant in; but I suppose I ultimately won the war. In IC after DDAY, my H told the counselor that he realized the depth of my love for him because I had "fought" for him in a way she did not; she was still sitting back waiting to be chosen by him. For the life of me, I cannot remember this 'fight for him', unless he was speaking of how I had always fought for him to be the best man he possibly could be, even with the choice of a new woman and a new future in front of him. Link to post Share on other sites
herenow Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I applaud you and your happy marriage OW. I do believe that a man in love will do what he needs to be with the woman he loves. I'm happy for you and wish you well. As far as "all is fair in love and war", I was never engaged in war. When the "war" came to my door, I surrendered immediately. I didn't want a love I had to fight for. If my H wanted to be with his OW, then that is where I felt he should be. Having said that, if all is fair in love and war, then no one should have any problems with BW's using whatever they need to get what they want. Not that I agree with using kids, finances, threats of embarrassment (or any of the other threats MM say their BW's use) to get a "man", but if a BW decides to engage in that kind of war, all is fair right? Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That's not what the post was about and is therefore pretty much making OWoman's point for her. It is on point. If "all's fair in love and war," then I guess it's "fair" for a MP to lie to their AP to keep them dangling. Link to post Share on other sites
Author OWoman Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Having said that, if all is fair in love and war, then no one should have any problems with BW's using whatever they need to get what they want. Not that I agree with using kids, finances, threats of embarrassment (or any of the other threats MM say their BW's use) to get a "man", but if a BW decides to engage in that kind of war, all is fair right? If all is fair for one, it should equally apply to everyone. That said, "winning" at the expense of the kids would be a hollow victory, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
MorningCoffee Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 It is on point. If "all's fair in love and war," then I guess it's "fair" for a MP to lie to their AP to keep them dangling. Guess so. Wiki.answers explains the saying thus: It traces its origin back to John Lyly's 'Euphues' (1578). The quote was "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. " John Lyly was a Renaissance English poet and playwright. If the rules of fair play don't apply, then I guess pretty much "whatever" goes. Link to post Share on other sites
lovingwhatis Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Owoman, I disagree with you frequently, but I do appreciate you providing different perspectives, and having the guts to stick around to provide them. You clearly want to win, so the fact that you like this phrase is not surprising. One thing that came to mind though, is that in the case of your M that resulted from an A, you 'went to bat' a number of times, so one may hypothesize that out of many As you finally found one person with who you could have that M after an A. I am against all wars, and certainly against fighting for Love. Love didn't authorize me to fight for it. Before you think I am terribly idealistic for my views on war, I do see how the wars occur, we humans have obviously not evolved past our fight or flight instincts, our dualistic thinking. War is intense self-punishment, for there is no one that is spared. As far as the warfare not having boundaries, we saw what happened as a result in WWII. I have gladly "lost" to another in many Love battles for I have refused to fight. Seems really futile to me. I used to take it as my feelings of inadequacy, but in all instances I don't see myself acting in any other way. You can't lose what wasn't yours to begin with. But that goes with my view that there isn't anything that is 'mine' when it comes to another. Link to post Share on other sites
ladydesigner Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I always tend to think that the one's who gloat the most are the most insecure, otherwise why the need to gloat? Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 It is on point. If "all's fair in love and war," then I guess it's "fair" for a MP to lie to their AP to keep them dangling. OWoman talked of when mountains ARE moved in the name of love. You spoke of when they AREN'T. That's all. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I applaud you and your happy marriage OW. I do believe that a man in love will do what he needs to be with the woman he loves. I'm happy for you and wish you well. As far as "all is fair in love and war", I was never engaged in war. When the "war" came to my door, I surrendered immediately. I didn't want a love I had to fight for. If my H wanted to be with his OW, then that is where I felt he should be. Having said that, if all is fair in love and war, then no one should have any problems with BW's using whatever they need to get what they want. Not that I agree with using kids, finances, threats of embarrassment (or any of the other threats MM say their BW's use) to get a "man", but if a BW decides to engage in that kind of war, all is fair right? And herenow is yet ANOTHER BS who wished her fWS well on the discovery of an OW! Where are all these manipulative, guilting, pull out all the stops, use any tactic available to get these MM back BSs hiding?:) Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 And herenow is yet ANOTHER BS who wished her fWS well on the discovery of an OW! Where are all these manipulative, guilting, pull out all the stops, use any tactic available to get these MM back BSs hiding?:) I think it can be viewed very differently though. My bf's wife SAID "go, go be happy" and then did and said many things in complete contrast to that. I know were she posting now she'd sound the same as many other posters who tried to award their H their freedom. Or perhaps those particular spouses just don't frequent somewhere like LS... probably too busy chatting round the cauldron Link to post Share on other sites
joey66 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The term "all is fair in love and war" is said by those that could care less who they hurt. couldn't care less It doesn't make any sense the other way. Link to post Share on other sites
phillyfan Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 "If he loves you, he'll move mountains to be with you"... Yet when he does (OK, she wasn't quite as big as a mountain...), the nay-sayers don't clasp their hands in delight at the manifestation of true love trouncing the adversity that threatened to obstruct it, instead they mutter darkly about "what he did with you, he'll do to you". That's fine - he made love with me, I'm quite happy for him to make love to me, too :love: Lol yea dude, very nice, why r u tellin us about it on a public forum, betta just keep some things private:D Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 couldn't care less It doesn't make any sense the other way. FINALLY!!!! You've made me a happy lady, thanks Joey. I see this loads on this forum and it quietly drives me nuts Link to post Share on other sites
findingnemo Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Interesting choice of topic title the original comes from a modern take on the following -The English Forum explains it better than I: All's fair in love and war," quotes Frank Farleigh (1850, by Francis Edward Smedley, 1818 - 1864) and is the popular paraphrase of "Love and War are the same thing, and stratagems and polity are as allowable in the one as in the other." - Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616), Don Quixote (1605 -1615)' Which would suggest that the comparison between the two, Love and War, allows for the same strategy or plan when approaching or dealing with either. I have to say I disagree with this when applied to A's. In a war both sides are aware there is conflict, both sides plan and arm themselves with appropriate weapons, depending on their 'enemy' and both sides are aware that there is a desired outcome. If the BS is the enemy, of either the OP or AP then, for there to be a conflict the BS needs to be aware they are engaging in a battle - to use the war analogy. As most BS are unaware the MP has a foot in both camps, it is more akin to espionage or being a double agent. With the WS feeding both sides the necessary information to maintain ther desired outcome. Yes, I do think love can move mountains, the number of succesful recconciled marriages bears witness to that, an A was the biggest mountain H and I have ever had to climb, but we have. Most of us recognise that A's are not the best way of beginning a relationship if only out of empathy for the hurt of another. I include the hurt of an OP being strung along while/if the WS makes a decision. If we are going to war as a comparison to love, then there will always be a casualty, some survive, some don't, but someone is always damaged in some way. I vote for the talks and sanctions model, everything on the table, all sides knowing there is even a conflict about to take place - I so hate the wars when one is a smiling knife, ready to say one thing to your face and stab you in the back while doing so. I agree - "All is fair in love and war". True love, like war, is a matter of life and death. No matter what side you are on, you must play to win and this means winning by any means necessary. It sounds ruthless, but it is still true. Many of us choose to lose because we perceive the price of winning as too high. We do not want to cause BS pain, break up a family, etc. In the 16th and 17th centuries, having an A was almost criminal. In many cases, men would duel over such a matter. Today, we value life more and will not kill each other over love. Today, love is not valued as much and instead material and moral considerations matter more. Because we no longer hold love in such high regard, there are countless unhappy individuals walking around sad and miserable in their Ms and Rs. We all agree that being in an A is counter-productive or as a friend of mine keeps calling it - self sabotage. "True" love is hidden and because of this becomes a dirty thing. The saying still applies here. The only problem is that the OW/OM would prefer to lie to themselves and refuse to declare war openly on BS. But when BS finds out, the atmosphere at home is usually warlike. The BS will declare war on OP and goes on to win by any means possible!! No one ever says that this is unfair. If instead the MP leaves and gets together with the OP and they are happy, nobody really says that it is unfair. All is fair in love and war...but only if you win. If you play hardball and lose, it will seem mighty unfair. Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think you misunderstood the meaning of the saying or cliche'. Here's my favorite explanation of this saying: "All is fair in LOVE and WAR": "You have to pay special attention to 'All' in "All is Fair in Love and War." 'All' in this context is meant to express that nothing is out of bounds when it comes to love and war. Everything is fair game. You might misinterpret this phrase to mean that "love and war is fair," this is likely a common misconception." The Geneva Conventions are evidence to the contrary. Thank goodness those in power do not agree that nothing is out of bounds when it comes to war. It is just a saying. It isn't actually true. Most people can understand that some extreme actions are out of bounds, even in cases of love and war. Link to post Share on other sites
SidLyon Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 FINALLY!!!! You've made me a happy lady, thanks Joey. I see this loads on this forum and it quietly drives me nuts The saying has always been "couldn't care less" in the 2 countries I have lived. I think this forum is mainly Americans and it seems to me the saying has evolved differently there, as many/most/all (not sure) say "could care less". Link to post Share on other sites
climbergirl Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Seren, you know you are my fave rave but I'm going to disagree with a tiny part of your awesome post. What about ambush warfare such as we saw in Viet Nam? In previous wars a line was drawn and strict rules were adhered to by both sides, but in ambush warfare you have surprise attacks. And TBH, I'm sure all warriors during all wars participated in some kind of rule-breaking in order to win. The phrase comes from the idea that wherever there are rules, they were meant to be broken for the greater good. The greater good could be ending slavery (war game) or claiming ones right to true love (love game) so that the outcome would be greater for ALL whether they (the losing party) believe it to be true or not. I think we can all agree that slavery was bad, but there were hundreds of thousands of men who were willing to fight for it to remain a part of daily life before they conceded. Likewise, many BS fight to the tooth to keep a M alive, even if the other party no longer loves them. I am not comparing affairs to slavery, BTW, I'm comparing the ferver and passion of individuals who fight for what they believe in, no matter the lack of wisdom involved with backing that passion. Win? I'm thinking that you really mean survival. I find it disgusting that you would compare vietnam vets with affairs. Complete injustice to those who did what they did to survive to get back to their families. I have no idea why anyone would glorify an affair. Do they happen? Yes. But the intent on hurting people further by gloating baffles me. Link to post Share on other sites
SidLyon Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I just wanted to say I've now done a "straw poll" on the answers and it seems that most people who agree with "All's fair in love and war" are OWs, who also accuse the BW in their own situation of being the same way. Most who disagree have been BWs who also say the OW in their own situation was that way. Hmm; what's true I wonder? My own view is that the OWs are more likely to have that view to justify what they do, and are projecting it onto the BW. If a MM has been using the old excuses of kids/finances etc not to leave before d-day, then it's a bit rich for the OW to accuse the BW of manipulating him with the same things to keep him for herself after d-day. He's already given these as his reasons long before the BW found out. Most BW are too stunned and devastated to do any manipulation around d-day. I know I was. I wasn't one of the BW who actively said "go be with the OW" on d-day, although I did say it later. I did however tell him I wasn't going to knowingly have a third person in our marriage, at all. He chose to "throw her under the bus". She couldn't believe he'd done it. She was recently widowed. The fact that my H could treat both of us so terribly badly still haunts me. The difference is she was willing to share and I never was, so she only got him while I didn't know about the "war". Link to post Share on other sites
silktricks Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The saying has always been "couldn't care less" in the 2 countries I have lived. I think this forum is mainly Americans and it seems to me the saying has evolved differently there, as many/most/all (not sure) say "could care less". Could be an age thing, as I always heard it as "couldn't care less" until the last few years - or possibly regional???? (I'm from the US... ) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts