"All's Fair in Love and War"

[bentnotbroken]

There have been a few cases of those who took the saying "all's fair in love and war" to heart. Amy Fisher, Betty Broderick, Steve McNair's young mistress, the astronaut who drove across the country wearing adult diapers. Is all really fair? What is the limit of what is fair? Who gets to decide the limits? How far is too far? Hmmmm.

[Star_Bright]

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 think this post is rather ironic in that those of us who identify as former OWs by CHOICE are often labeled "reformed OWs" as if it's a bad thing and told that we shouldn't be here offering advice to current OWs. So it's okay if an OW got the MM and is okay with having been the OW, but not okay if an OW didn't get the MM and/or isn't okay with having been an OW?

 

White Flower I don't know you very well and I'm not at all saying that you don't think former/"reformed" OW should be here (I have no idea whether you think that or not, but, I will assume not, as I assume about everyone unless I read differently in their posts), but, what I'm saying is that in LS (as well as in real life, no doubt) it seems like whoever is in favor of the argument being advanced thinks that the poster should have a voice, and whoever is not in favor of the argument being advance thinks that the post should not have a voice. If one is in favor of censorship (again, White Flower, not saying you are and in fact I feel you must not be since you were defending a poster for having a voice).

 

I have always been in favor of open discussion and all viewpoints being advanced. I think anyone should say what they think/feel (and opinions/ life experience changes, which is fine), as long as they are not rude or belittling to other people and as long as they don't always try to hog the show for themselves.

 

In terms of what some other posters have been saying about OWoman's posts.... well, I am totally fine with her giving the perspective of someone whose husband left his wife to be with her, of saying sometimes it works out. I don't think that she is one who hand-holds or hands out pairs of rosy glasses or encourages self-destructive behavior based on false hope. On the other hand I do read a lot of vitriol towards her husband's ex wife in her posts and I feel like there is something there that hasn't been worked out. I think that's what other people are trying to say (rather than to "silence" OWoman) but I could be wrong, I don't know, that's just my take on things. I personally find that self-identifying as a former OW holds me back in some respects, or, more accurately, reflects where I am right now: someone who has been an OW in the past, and who regrets that decision but is still trying to learn from it and move on. And perhaps it is different for different people but I can relate to the sentiment of how rehashing the fact that one has been an OW -- whether one is happy about it or unhappy about it -- can be a sign that that person has not moved on from the past and is still in some ways "stuck" in that place. To me I don't see that OWomen encourages OWs to stay in bad affairs but her point is "sometimes it does work out, look at me", which is fine, and at other times her point seems to be like, "acknowledge me, I made it work, we are happy and life is great and his ex wife was a horrible monster," and, just like in real life, if someone insists their life is so great and that someone is sooooo horrible, it makes people think, "yeah right, you are over-compensating." So I naturally start to think that but I'm not a fly on the wall and I have no idea if that's how things are or if that's just how they come across in some of OWoman's posts (to me).

[Spark1111]

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

 

This certainly could be true! I know my emotions were out of control at DDAY.

 

But were you able to verify the information he was telling you?

[Star_Bright]

I'm always in favour when true love triumphs. It's certainly a possibility that he'll do it again but this applies equally to a BW like me. Let's face it, we're both married to cheaters.

 

Wow, SidLyon, this is refreshingly honest and, IMO, totally true. I don't believe in "once a cheater, always a cheater" (although, as with many euphemisms, I feel like it is thrown around a lot for a reason, and is usually or at least sometimes true), but I also believe in "eyes wide open." When an OW gushes that her MM (whether they are now exclusively together or she just hopes they eventually will be) would never cheat on her because they are totally in love and she is so different from his wife and blah blah blah, I think, "okay whatever." And when I hear a wife gloat that her formerly cheating husband will never do it again, I also think "okay whatever." I think no one can change a cheater's actions but the cheater himself. So if he put work into himself and realized why HE HIMSELF cheated and knows he never will again, regardless of the circumstances, I'm a bit more convinced. But often the OW or wife thinks the cheater has come to some sudden realization of love and will never cheat because of HER or even how much he values HER and that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

A cheater, like any other person with any other less than desirable qualities, can only change from WITHIN, for HIMSELF (or HERSELF! -- I know both genders cheat). So if the person is convinced that their partner has changed for themselves, okay, I give that theory some creedance. But if it's just la-la-la-land "love" and blame the OW or blame the BS, I think, no way, they are fooling themselves and that person is going to continue to cheat again, I would bet on it.

 

Anyway SidLyon I think your post is amazingly true, well-stated and honest.

[Snowflower]

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.

 

 

So, what are you saying, SG? I'm trying to understand...

Are you saying that some BW say "go, be happy" and then backpedal or don't mean what they say?

 

I can't speak for anyone other than myself as someone who told her H to go and find happiness but I did it at least partially for ME as well as my H. Who knows what would have happened if he had actually gone to be with her. Would I have backpedaled? Probably not...because again, I didn't want to share him. Would I have had some emotional outbursts as we worked through our divorce? Probably...because it would not have been the best time in my life.

 

The thing is though, I don't think many MM tell their OW exactly how the "go, be happy" speech goes down between them and their wives. If he tells the OW the truth, it forces the MM to make a choice at that point because if he tells the OW, "yeah, my wife wants me to do what makes me happy..." then the OW will be asking him-with good reason-"then, what are you waiting for?"

[Spark1111]

There have been a few cases of those who took the saying "all's fair in love and war" to heart. Amy Fisher, Betty Broderick, Steve McNair's young mistress, the astronaut who drove across the country wearing adult diapers. Is all really fair? What is the limit of what is fair? Who gets to decide the limits? How far is too far? Hmmmm.

 

I think all could be fair if all three participants are aware of what is at stake.

 

Perhaps that is the case in OW's sitch, that the wife knew of her or her xH's relationship with OW. I do not know her backstory well enough to comment.

 

But I do believe it is inherently unfair to be in a traingle affair dynamic unknowingly.

 

That is the part of the triangle where I lived for a very long time.

 

So is all fair in love and war?

 

Could be, as long as we all know we are in an affair, as we all know we are at war.

[Silly_Girl]

But were you able to verify the information he was telling you?

 

I have never talked to his wife about anything that has happened. So in that respect, no. Likewise, many things he has told me have been borne out either by others who know them both, or things I've discovered myself. I don't disbelieve him. You might, though

[Silly_Girl]

So, what are you saying, SG? I'm trying to understand...

Are you saying that some BW say "go, be happy" and then backpedal or don't mean what they say?

 

My opinion is that she was attempting to call his bluff. Not saying that it's the same for all.

[Silly_Girl]

The thing is though, I don't think many MM tell their OW exactly how the "go, be happy" speech goes down between them and their wives. If he tells the OW the truth, it forces the MM to make a choice at that point because if he tells the OW, "yeah, my wife wants me to do what makes me happy..." then the OW will be asking him-with good reason-"then, what are you waiting for?"

 

Snowflower, that's exactly what I said!!!

[Spark1111]

So, what are you saying, SG? I'm trying to understand...

Are you saying that some BW say "go, be happy" and then backpedal or don't mean what they say?

 

I can't speak for anyone other than myself as someone who told her H to go and find happiness but I did it at least partially for ME as well as my H. Who knows what would have happened if he had actually gone to be with her. Would I have backpedaled? Probably not...because again, I didn't want to share him. Would I have had some emotional outbursts as we worked through our divorce? Probably...because it would not have been the best time in my life.

 

The thing is though, I don't think many MM tell their OW exactly how the "go, be happy" speech goes down between them and their wives. If he tells the OW the truth, it forces the MM to make a choice at that point because if he tells the OW, "yeah, my wife wants me to do what makes me happy..." then the OW will be asking him-with good reason-"then, what are you waiting for?"

 

So true Snowflower!

 

I know for a fact he never told his OW he had my blessing, as hurt as I was, to be with her.

 

And it was exacerbated by the fact that she would never return my phone call. I would have told her personally at the time.

 

Perhaps he had her convinced I was mentally unhinged, or on the verge of suicide, or truly....who knows?

 

The only texts I was able to intercept after DDAY was his whining to his OW of how unreasonable I was to reconcile; that he was meeting "unwavering hostility," and she was commiserating with him how hard that must be.

 

WTH?

 

He was meeting with unwavering hostility because I DID NOT want to reconcile.

 

Guess he never told her that.

[Star_Bright]

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."

 

I understand the explanation but that doesn't make the saying true. All is not fair just because it's done in the name of love. That would mean that killing someone in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Or, more appropriately to this context, lying to someone and betraying someone you don't love in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Just because someone does something in the name of "love" doesn't make it "fair."

[silktricks]

I understand the explanation but that doesn't make the saying true. All is not fair just because it's done in the name of love. That would mean that killing someone in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Or, more appropriately to this context, lying to someone and betraying someone you don't love in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Just because someone does something in the name of "love" doesn't make it "fair."

 

 

:) applause applause :)

[MorningCoffee]

I understand the explanation but that doesn't make the saying true. All is not fair just because it's done in the name of love. That would mean that killing someone in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Or, more appropriately to this context, lying to someone and betraying someone you don't love in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Just because someone does something in the name of "love" doesn't make it "fair."

 

 

Agree. Acknowledging what the saying means does not equate to the saying is true.

[desertIslandCactus]

I understand the explanation but that doesn't make the saying true. All is not fair just because it's done in the name of love. That would mean that killing someone in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Or, more appropriately to this context, lying to someone and betraying someone you don't love in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Just because someone does something in the name of "love" doesn't make it "fair."

 

I 'third' this ..

[findingnemo]

I think this post is rather ironic in that those of us who identify as former OWs by CHOICE are often labeled "reformed OWs" as if it's a bad thing and told that we shouldn't be here offering advice to current OWs. So it's okay if an OW got the MM and is okay with having been the OW, but not okay if an OW didn't get the MM and/or isn't okay with having been an OW?

 

White Flower I don't know you very well and I'm not at all saying that you don't think former/"reformed" OW should be here (I have no idea whether you think that or not, but, I will assume not, as I assume about everyone unless I read differently in their posts), but, what I'm saying is that in LS (as well as in real life, no doubt) it seems like whoever is in favor of the argument being advanced thinks that the poster should have a voice, and whoever is not in favor of the argument being advance thinks that the post should not have a voice. If one is in favor of censorship (again, White Flower, not saying you are and in fact I feel you must not be since you were defending a poster for having a voice).

 

I have always been in favor of open discussion and all viewpoints being advanced. I think anyone should say what they think/feel (and opinions/ life experience changes, which is fine), as long as they are not rude or belittling to other people and as long as they don't always try to hog the show for themselves.

 

In terms of what some other posters have been saying about OWoman's posts.... well, I am totally fine with her giving the perspective of someone whose husband left his wife to be with her, of saying sometimes it works out. I don't think that she is one who hand-holds or hands out pairs of rosy glasses or encourages self-destructive behavior based on false hope. On the other hand I do read a lot of vitriol towards her husband's ex wife in her posts and I feel like there is something there that hasn't been worked out. I think that's what other people are trying to say (rather than to "silence" OWoman) but I could be wrong, I don't know, that's just my take on things. I personally find that self-identifying as a former OW holds me back in some respects, or, more accurately, reflects where I am right now: someone who has been an OW in the past, and who regrets that decision but is still trying to learn from it and move on. And perhaps it is different for different people but I can relate to the sentiment of how rehashing the fact that one has been an OW -- whether one is happy about it or unhappy about it -- can be a sign that that person has not moved on from the past and is still in some ways "stuck" in that place. To me I don't see that OWomen encourages OWs to stay in bad affairs but her point is "sometimes it does work out, look at me", which is fine, and at other times her point seems to be like, "acknowledge me, I made it work, we are happy and life is great and his ex wife was a horrible monster," and, just like in real life, if someone insists their life is so great and that someone is sooooo horrible, it makes people think, "yeah right, you are over-compensating." So I naturally start to think that but I'm not a fly on the wall and I have no idea if that's how things are or if that's just how they come across in some of OWoman's posts (to me).

 

Reformed OW:confused:? What the heck is that?

 

I must have missed historical posts in which OWoman said things about fBS because when I read her post, I don't sense any vitriol. OWoman made a joke saying that fBS was not really as a big a problem as a mountain. Even if she meant it literally, is this not a forum on which we are supposed to openly express our views? Why are people "offended" on behalf of fBS? Unless she is on this forum too, no one knows her but OWoman. Where does the idea that OWoman is mocking her (unfairly) come from?

 

To the poster who said that OWs are more likely to agree with the saying "All is fair..", and that BS' are not, thank you for doing the census. Did you take into account fBS' who are now OWs? I wonder how accurate your count is.

[fooled once]

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

 

Very telling. Its interesting to me how so many OW hate the wife - who they for the most part do not know at all. So you KNOW what HIS WIFE would be saying? A woman who you don't know at all? interesting....

 

I always tend to think that the one's who gloat the most are the most insecure, otherwise why the need to gloat?

 

Totally agree LD

 

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.

 

Findingnemo, I liked most of your post, except the part where you state love is not valued as much and material and moral considerations matter more. I do not agree with that.

 

And it is kinda hypocritical if a spouse discovers an affair and tries to win their partner back it is called manipulation; but if the affair partner tries to win the cheater, it is okay.

 

Also, Owoman has posted many things over the years about her hatred of her now H's former wife. It sounds like it was a huge competition to win this guy, who was allegedly abused by his former wife.

 

Star Bright - excellent posts!!!

[Silly_Girl]

Very telling. Its interesting to me how so many OW hate the wife - who they for the most part do not know at all. So you KNOW what HIS WIFE would be saying? A woman who you don't know at all? interesting....

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Cheers.

[wheelwright]

I understand the explanation but that doesn't make the saying true. All is not fair just because it's done in the name of love. That would mean that killing someone in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Or, more appropriately to this context, lying to someone and betraying someone you don't love in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Just because someone does something in the name of "love" doesn't make it "fair."

 

SB I feel your posts are good, but in this case not valid.

 

Pedantically speaking, all is fair in love as the saying goes, because love is worth more than anything else. So if you betray someone for it, that's OK. Which may be true.

 

There is nothing about fairness in the saying - that's the point of it.

 

It says there is an override to fairness.

 

You have ignored this override because of your current morality/life perspective.

 

And besides, this saying exists because people kill, abandon, and basically behave out of character if one of these pressures.

 

Nothing else quite cuts that.

[seren]

What an interesting thread! I suppose if the saying was that All was fair to all in Love and War then it would be fundamentally wrong, to say that All is Fair, etc depends on the viewpoint of who is saying it and using it to illustrate what is fair, or not.

 

I remember the OW using the phrase, It takes two to Tango, well yes, of course, but if I'd have known it was an excuse me dance I would have refused or just walked off the dance floor.

 

I do believe that Love moves mountains, that without love there is no point to staying in a relationship. But, I also believe in truth and honesty and see that as an intrinsic part of love and being loved in a long term relationship, otherwise where is trust? So, the All is fair in love and war saying, to me, means that there are lines, battle lines perhaps (assuming all know there is a War) which are drawn and crossed at peril or danger to one's self. If the marriage is seen as the war zone, with the BS believing they and WS are fighting on the same side, (which can also be reverersed as seen from the OP), then the common denominator is the double agent or WS. BS and OP are in a war where neither knows the rules and the only information they have about each other is from the WS, or none in the BS point as they aren't aware a war is taking place. Sounds like unfairness from both sides. The only person to gain is the double agent who maintains the deception for their own ends.

 

Is Love a fair justification for War? depends on your own viewpoint, but, IMHO, no, never. I would move mountains for Love, respect Love and need Love, but to blow up a whole dammed country and inflict a world of pain? No, not at all, it isn't in my nature. My head is now saying, refugees, coalition, collateral damage and now tells me I need sleep.

[woinlove]

What an interesting thread! I suppose if the saying was that All was fair to all in Love and War then it would be fundamentally wrong, to say that All is Fair, etc depends on the viewpoint of who is saying it and using it to illustrate what is fair, or not.

 

I remember the OW using the phrase, It takes two to Tango, well yes, of course, but if I'd have known it was an excuse me dance I would have refused or just walked off the dance floor.

 

I do believe that Love moves mountains, that without love there is no point to staying in a relationship. But, I also believe in truth and honesty and see that as an intrinsic part of love and being loved in a long term relationship, otherwise where is trust? So, the All is fair in love and war saying, to me, means that there are lines, battle lines perhaps (assuming all know there is a War) which are drawn and crossed at peril or danger to one's self. If the marriage is seen as the war zone, with the BS believing they and WS are fighting on the same side, (which can also be reverersed as seen from the OP), then the common denominator is the double agent or WS. BS and OP are in a war where neither knows the rules and the only information they have about each other is from the WS, or none in the BS point as they aren't aware a war is taking place. Sounds like unfairness from both sides. The only person to gain is the double agent who maintains the deception for their own ends.

 

Is Love a fair justification for War? depends on your own viewpoint, but, IMHO, no, never. I would move mountains for Love, respect Love and need Love, but to blow up a whole dammed country and inflict a world of pain? No, not at all, it isn't in my nature. My head is now saying, refugees, coalition, collateral damage and now tells me I need sleep.

 

Great post!

 

In my experience, to love a romantic partner deeply and fully and well, it's important to love oneself well. For many people, that means treating others fairly, or even kindly. Some people may find love in (or despite) treating others poorly, but perhaps they would find even deeper and more joyful love if they didn't treat others poorly.

[pureinheart]

All IS fair in love and war. As much as I hate it. I can't MAKE people love me; nor can they make me love them. People love whom they love, or not. That's fair to me. End of story.

 

Wow, awesome OB...you priddy much summed it up:)

[pureinheart]

Ooooookkkaaayyyyyyyy!

So I don't know you, but your avatar's cute and your post kinda well, seemed pointless. Couldn't figure WTH?

So I checked out somma your posts.

 

You are very insecure.

No one as secure as you say you are would post stuff like this. They would move on with their lives.

Kinda sad for you.

 

Be well.

 

Since you checked out OWomans prior posts, I would be curious which one(s) you saw insecurity. Having ready many/most of her posts I have yet to see one that is insecure, or implies insecurity on any level...

 

For such a "pointless" thread many replied..hummmm

 

If you had read her prior posts and understood them, you would have seen her explanation as to why she continues to post in this forum...and this statement FTR addresses the rest who communicated OWomans interest in this forum...this has been addressed previously...I would ask, why are you here?

 

OWoman is a tremendous inspiration for those in all facets of the A. Reading OWomans posts straighten out my mind after it being twisted by some who frequent this forum who don't have a decent thing to say except how screwed up the person is to be in an A to begin with.

 

Her experience is invaluable to those in despair and to those who chose to stay in the A...she can speak to all...

[findingnemo]

Very telling. Its interesting to me how so many OW hate the wife - who they for the most part do not know at all. So you KNOW what HIS WIFE would be saying? A woman who you don't know at all? interesting....

 

 

 

Totally agree LD

 

 

 

Findingnemo, I liked most of your post, except the part where you state love is not valued as much and material and moral considerations matter more. I do not agree with that.

 

And it is kinda hypocritical if a spouse discovers an affair and tries to win their partner back it is called manipulation; but if the affair partner tries to win the cheater, it is okay.

 

Also, Owoman has posted many things over the years about her hatred of her now H's former wife. It sounds like it was a huge competition to win this guy, who was allegedly abused by his former wife.

 

Star Bright - excellent posts!!!

 

fooled once,

 

I do not assume that Ws who try to win back their partners are manipulative. I assume that manipulation is one of the tools they use to get H back. There are IMO so many reasons why a W would want her M to continue and many of them have absolutely nothing to do with love. Does this mean that W is a bad person? No, it doesn't. This is a situation where so much is at stake (just like in a war) that moral boundaries get pushed. If W believes that her children/family NEEDS H to survive, she will use psychological, financial and any other type of manipulation possible. Is it fair? To W it is, seeing as OW provoked her anyway and in W's eyes deserves no mercy. OW may find the tactic unfair claiming that MM really wanted to leave but couldn't because.....

 

Ok. Maybe OWoman "hates" her H's former W. I would assume that there was a lot of interaction between them and that as MM made the decision to leave his M, BS should have pulled all the stops to try and prevent that. Yes, it became a competition and must have been so bitter a fight that OWoman still hates fW. I don't think that most people know enough to tell OWoman whether the hatred is justified or not. I think people are uncomfortable that she openly expresses that hatred in a society/group where it is politically incorrect for a fOW now MW to hate a fBS. "A homewrecker has no right to gloat." Seriously? Which victor has ever been denied the right to gloat? We really are being hypocritical.

 

Back to All is fair...The saying to me ignores standard morals and easily deals with the dilemma between right and wrong. When threatened, one will do whatever it takes to survive. Simply put, as long as you win, the means become justifiable. So to the victor, all is fair since he/she achieved the desired results.

[seren]

For what it's worth, I don't think it helpful to attack the OP. I have learned a lot from some of what is said on this board, it feels less like a foot in the enemy camp than being in No Man's Land with most wandering around trying to make sense of it all. OWoman is, IMO, someone who is married and happy and as her experiences on this board are as OW, her advice and observations will help those in the same position. I am identified here as a BS, yet IRL, I don't identify as such as I am reconciled and that label no longer applies, yet for this board that is how I identify myself.

 

We all gloat (I think this is the wrong word) I would say celebrate when things work out the way they should. I am as guilty as the next person. I understood the OP's posing question to be hypothetical and the thread the opportunity to have a non bashing discussion, which is always useful. People can still support people without the labels getting in the way, irrespective of how we feel about their actions.

 

Hurt is hurt, loss, loss etc bashing and name calling is unecessary and goes on from both sides of the camp. Calling anyone anything derogatory reads more like unresolved issues than anything else, but that is just my 2 pennyworth. OWoman is direct, forthright and assertive, which is good as it saves having to look for hidden agendas. I may not always agree with what is said or the tone in which it is said, but I respect the honesty and would defend her right to say it.

 

Sorry, was just trying to be like Switzerland, neutral and now if you just want to send me all your money, it will be safe ..... as an aside, no manipulation here to make H stay, not my style, go or stay and we will work it out, nothing manipulative about that, just honesty.

[woinlove]

Back to All is fair...The saying to me ignores standard morals and easily deals with the dilemma between right and wrong. When threatened, one will do whatever it takes to survive. Simply put, as long as you win, the means become justifiable. So to the victor, all is fair since he/she achieved the desired results.

 

I agree this is the essence of the saying. For thoughtful people, the end justifying the means is often not sufficient, and even in war, even people in the winning camp can reflect on whether their own actions were really necessary or justified. There is disagreement among Americans about dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. For those directly involved, such reflection can forever change them and how they view all of life.

 

When applied to love, the reflection can be equally moving and life-changing for some. I was taken by one woman (elsewhere) who used exactly this phrase (all's fair...) to describe her feelings when both her and her lover, married to others, were so in love and determined to be together no matter what. They "won", but it turned out it was not true love after all, and more than a decade later she was describing the shame and guilt from her actions.

 

Even in cases where the lovers remain together, there is likely to be lingering negative feelings of how one or both treated others poorly (unless they both can dismiss such feelings indefinitely) and it is a part of their love story together. If their love is true and they build something positive, they can surmount this, but I doubt that treating others poorly ever feels like a personal triumph to anyone with compassion for others.

 

So, it strikes me that the phrase is most useful for those who are striving to suppress some negative feelings.