Define rOW...good or bad?

[woinlove]

It was very good that you were able to handle the insults, some, if not most can't.

 

Spark, the sad thing is those same posters that insult in infidelity, insult here too...and it is abusive IMO.

 

There are those on all sides of this triangle that come on these boards very hypersensitive, and some still are...it's not about coddling or wanting to coddle, it's understanding where a person is at and listening...like you for instance, chose to stay with your S, Spark, you should have been supported in that. Trusting that you are a big person and that there might be more to the story, as every single detail cannot possibly be communicated in even several posts.

 

Those were your wishes and that should have been respected.

 

Abuse is against the TOS and it is important to report any incident of abuse when it happens. Abuse should never be tolerated.

 

Having said that I don't think what Spark describes is abuse. For some people any cheating is a deal-breaker and their opinions will get voiced whether they are relevant to the case at hand or not. Things like what was wrong with you or the M that he cheated are also common views that we see on this forum as well. Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own actions and that mindset is going to come out in posts. These type of comments will be painful and probably not helpful, but one hopes there is also some good advice and posts with understanding and compassion too.

 

Some cases call for nothing but support and compassion because the person is in a bad state and there is really nothing they can do about it except try to feel better. My impression is that in such cases, typically, almost all the posts are supportive. In other cases, the person could actually take some action or decision to put themselves in a better position. In the latter case, there are likely to be differing opinions of what that would be and seeing a mix of perspectives can be useful and can ultimately stimulate the person to find their own path. Sometimes the person really will be best served by undergoing a change in their own perspective. I've seen that happen here.

[OWoman]

"former OW that no longer rationalize affairs" seems to be the same concept as reformed OW. Perhaps this is a start of finding a term which suits the group themselves? Could this be a compromise, a truce?

 

I find that term objectionable as it implies that all OWs at some stage rationalise As. I have never rationalised an A, nor needed to. If we're into making up our own names, how about "fOWs who never needed to rationalise As and still don't"?

[Spark1111]

I understand what you are saying, honestly. Again I feel the same sentiment. You are not everyone. And you're referring to an entirely different board. I would expect that a board intended for both BS and WS would be a different flavour than OW.

 

Oh how I wish it were true!

 

But is was a faction on this board that found it necessary to create the label of reformed other woman to distinguish between fOW who regretted their affairs as opposed to those who did not.

 

Could not all current and fOW have something to tell you, Silly Girl? Could you not have learned from all their experiences? Wouldn't you want to be the one to decide for yourself?

 

How sad for this board and its posters to have a group of people decide it was necessary to forewarn others of whose advice would be better for them.

 

Condescending, fractious, clique "ish" censoring and a lot like high school, IMO.

[trinity1]

Oh how I wish it were true!

 

But is was a faction on this board that found it necessary to create the label of reformed other woman to distinguish between fOW who regretted their affairs as opposed to those who did not.

 

Could not all current and fOW have something to tell you, Silly Girl? Could you not have learned from all their experiences? Wouldn't you want to be the one to decide for yourself?

 

How sad for this board and its posters to have a group of people decide it was necessary to forewarn others of whose advice would be better for them.

 

Condescending, fractious, clique "ish" censoring and a lot like high school, IMO.

 

Based on what you are saying, there obviously are two groups of former other women: those who regret the affair and those who don't. That's why I can't see a problem with defining these groups. We all recognize they are there. The question which remains in my opinion is which label to use. So I suggested "repentant" and "unrepentant" former other woman. Why should we refrain from using the language we have been blessed with?

 

We can of course learn from all kinds of other women and others. Defining subgroups does not oppose that fact. It is just a way of making the world easier to comprehend.

 

I believe much of the hurt arrived from the labeling lies in the eyes of the beholder. Interpret the word as you would yourself and there is no problem.

 

Sorry for going on about this. I am just really into semantics.

[Silly_Girl]

Oh how I wish it were true!

 

But is was a faction on this board that found it necessary to create the label of reformed other woman to distinguish between fOW who regretted their affairs as opposed to those who did not.

 

Could not all current and fOW have something to tell you, Silly Girl? Could you not have learned from all their experiences? Wouldn't you want to be the one to decide for yourself?

 

How sad for this board and its posters to have a group of people decide it was necessary to forewarn others of whose advice would be better for them.

 

Condescending, fractious, clique "ish" censoring and a lot like high school, IMO.

 

We're getting somewhere!!!! No Spark. NO!!! I couldn't have learned something from all posters. Dexter being one. Angry, recently-hurt people looking for sport (don't pretend it doesn't happen). No. No use to me at all when I rocked up on to an OW support board feeling like my life had been thrown up in the air and I wasn't sure where, when or how it would land.

 

So that would have been fine for you, but not my preference. We are different. Wonderfully different.

 

And because everyone is different you get those who think a newbie needs some tough love and a wake-up call and others who want to give them a metaphorical hug and sugary cup of tea and a bit of a hand-hold before they even start talking. And all sorts in between. And they all 'live' here. Might as well get used to it.

[donnamaybe]

 

And yet, like the MM gaslighting his W, you understand it and refuse to elaborate. Could it be that both know its wrong but refuse to address it?

That's exactly the same feeling I got from that exchange. Purposely obtuse.

[Owl]

Based on what you are saying, there obviously are two groups of former other women: those who regret the affair and those who don't. That's why I can't see a problem with defining these groups. We all recognize they are there. The question which remains in my opinion is which label to use. So I suggested "repentant" and "unrepentant" former other woman. Why should we refrain from using the language we have been blessed with?

 

We can of course learn from all kinds of other women and others. Defining subgroups does not oppose that fact. It is just a way of making the world easier to comprehend.

 

I believe much of the hurt arrived from the labeling lies in the eyes of the beholder. Interpret the word as you would yourself and there is no problem.

 

Sorry for going on about this. I am just really into semantics.

 

The problem with "defining" these two groups is that it doesn't end there.

 

And the real issue is what those "definitions" and "labels" are used for.

 

As I've said...I'm ok with labelling MYSELF within the context of a thread to better explain my viewpoint/advice. I think most people often do the same.

 

It's when someone else labels me (or others) with the intent to discredit the other person's viewpoint/advice/support/comments...and this intent is often disguised as a "warning to newbies"...that there's a real problem with using labels to define groups.

 

I just don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

[Silly_Girl]

That's exactly the same feeling I got from that exchange. Purposely obtuse.

 

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

 

I know exactly what I'm saying. It's clear as day. To ME.

 

I've been honest and upfront about the situation as I see it, attempting to explain the actions of others even if I don't agree with them myself, just in the pursuit of enlightenment and mutual understanding.

[donnamaybe]

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

 

I know exactly what I'm saying. It's clear as day. To ME.

 

I've been honest and upfront about the situation as I see it, attempting to explain the actions of others even if I don't agree with them myself, just in the pursuit of enlightenment and mutual understanding.

That wasn't in question. It was the lack of effort in understanding others, or rather the refusal to acknowledge another's point.

[Silly_Girl]

It's when someone else labels me (or others) with the intent to discredit the other person's viewpoint/advice/support/comments...and this intent is often disguised as a "warning to newbies"...that there's a real problem with using labels to define groups.

 

I just don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

 

If, in MY view, someone is getting beaten up on when they're hurting and have come here for support, what EXACTLY is wrong in me saying 'OP, I think Poster X's hostile post is not necessarily directed at you but is in part because she caught her man at it with her mum last week. Please don't take it to heart'?

 

'Cos I don't care what any of you say. IF I thought someone was getting a hard time in that way, on this SUPPORT board, I'd speak up.

 

And if someone thought I was giving irresponsible 'ooh DO stay in the affair at any cost' type advice, they'd be right to speak up too.

 

It's so simple but being made complex.

[Silly_Girl]

That wasn't in question. It was the lack of effort in understanding others, or rather the refusal to acknowledge another's point.

 

There's no truth in that from where I'm sitting, I can assure you.

[Owl]

If, in MY view, someone is getting beaten up on when they're hurting and have come here for support, what EXACTLY is wrong in me saying 'OP, I think Poster X's hostile post is not necessarily directed at you but is in part because she caught her man at it with her mum last week. Please don't take it to heart'?

 

'Cos I don't care what any of you say. IF I thought someone was getting a hard time in that way, on this SUPPORT board, I'd speak up.

 

And if someone thought I was giving irresponsible 'ooh DO stay in the affair at any cost' type advice, they'd be right to speak up too.

 

It's so simple but being made complex.

 

If you feel someone is getting beaten up...report it.

 

You're not a moderator...neither am I.

 

Neither of us have the authority or power to try to control how others post here. That's the moderator's job. The only 'appropriate' tool to correct those kind of issues is to assist the moderator in enforcing the TOS.

 

I've gotten more infractions than I can bother to recall for trying to play forum police...I don't do so anymore.

 

I don't agree with a lot of your advice/support, SG. But...that doesn't give me the right to try to discredit or limit your viewpoint. It works all directions.

[woinlove]

I think it is simple too, but in a different way from SG.

 

My own view, is: just stick to responding to the OPs or arguing for or against someone else's response using your own arguments or perspective and all is fine. No reason to give a run-down on what kind of person you think is behind the post. In fact, best not to publicly judge other posters that way at all. Respond to their posts, to their ideas, to the actions, feelings, opinions,... they describe.

[Owl]

i think it is simple too, but in a different way from sg.

 

My own view, is: Just stick to responding to the ops or arguing for or against someone else's response using your own arguments or perspective and all is fine. No reason to give a run-down on what kind of person you think is behind the post. In fact, best not to publicly judge other posters that way at all. Respond to their posts, to their ideas, to the actions, feelings, opinions,... They describe.

 

exactly!!!

[Silly_Girl]

If you feel someone is getting beaten up...report it.

 

You're not a moderator...neither am I.

 

Neither of us have the authority or power to try to control how others post here. That's the moderator's job. The only 'appropriate' tool to correct those kind of issues is to assist the moderator in enforcing the TOS.

 

I've gotten more infractions than I can bother to recall for trying to play forum police...I don't do so anymore.

 

I don't agree with a lot of your advice/support, SG. But...that doesn't give me the right to try to discredit or limit your viewpoint. It works all directions.

 

I can report it TOO Owl. Of course. But that helps a newbie with no PM privileges how much? Not at all in my view.

 

I don't even necessarily support the practice of which we speak, I just think that it's being taken as something far more sinister than it actually is.

[Owl]

I can report it TOO Owl. Of course. But that helps a newbie with no PM privileges how much? Not at all in my view.

 

I don't even necessarily support the practice of which we speak, I just think that it's being taken as something far more sinister than it actually is.

 

And that's the beauty of this.

 

We can disagree.

 

I think it's every bit as sinister as it's been described. It's intentional discrimination and deliberately creating/using labels to discredit a group of posters based on those labels.

 

It's been used here on LS to attempt to force other posters to stop posting, or to discredit their posts and viewpoints.

 

The use of rOW and BS/BBS both fit into this category...just as I've seen posters try to discredit advice/support from posters because they were OW/fOW or WS/fWS on the Infidelity side.

 

I DO believe it's an intentional, deliberate effort.

[woinlove]

I don't even necessarily support the practice of which we speak, I just think that it's being taken as something far more sinister than it actually is.

 

Not sure about the bolded. I think most people see it as mean-spirited, disrespectful and not conducive to good discussion. It is not unusual to encounter an individual poster with those traits, but when it spreads to a group who mimic each other (as seems to be the case here) then it is pretty distasteful.

[Owl]

I can report it TOO Owl. Of course. But that helps a newbie with no PM privileges how much? Not at all in my view.

 

Wanted to address this part too.

 

Reporting it helps everyone...because it brings it to the moderator's attention and he can enforce the TOS by dealing with the offending individual. Eventually, those posters will either learn and change...or no longer be able to post.

[Silly_Girl]

Wanted to address this part too.

 

Reporting it helps everyone...because it brings it to the moderator's attention and he can enforce the TOS by dealing with the offending individual. Eventually, those posters will either learn and change...or no longer be able to post.

Just FTR I wasn't suggested not reporting abuse.

[silktricks]

Spark, the sad thing is those same posters that insult in infidelity, insult here too...and it is abusive IMO.

 

Some of the same people who insult in infidelity insult here as well, but at least when I was a newbie, the OW were extremely insulting to BS on the infidelity board. I also heard almost daily the same things Spark heard. He's still seeing her, you should dump him, he'll cheat again, on and on....

 

Everyone really does need to keep in mind that you have to take what you can use and discard the rest (kinda like IRL ).

 

On the original point of the thread....

 

I (personally) do not like the "reformed" label because it carries with it a connotation of "preachiness". I've never smoked, but even I don't like being around reformed smokers... . IMO it also implies that a person who used to be an OW and has chosen to terminate the relationship is somehow a bad person. (I freely admit that is my opinion, and possibly is not what is being implied by the person using the label.)

 

I (personally) do not like the "bitter" label, because it implies (to me at least) that all fBS are bitter - which I do not accept, as I do not feel bitter at all .

 

That said, however, I also do not think it is a bad thing to warn a new poster (from any corner of the triangle) that they will probably not be met only with hugs and coombaya (sp???) and they might need to be aware of the fact that some posters can (and probably will) be fairly insulting. I (personally) would prefer the warnings not be given by the use of labels, as that is also insulting IMO .

 

Sure, everyone here is an adult (one would assume), but that doesn't mean that we all act in an adult fashion at all times. Warning about possible harsh posting is not censorship. The postings will still be made and read. The TOS do not rule against harshness, nor against warnings, nor against labels - I just don't like the labels and wish they weren't used.

 

JMO.

 

Silk

[Silly_Girl]

Not sure about the bolded. I think most people see it as mean-spirited, disrespectful and not conducive to good discussion. It is not unusual to encounter an individual poster with those traits, but when it spreads to a group who mimic each other (as seems to be the case here) then it is pretty distasteful.

 

We can certainly agree there is too much of it. And it isn't only ONE WAY. Which is pretty much the basis of the thread.

[trinity1]

Wanted to address this part too.

 

Reporting it helps everyone...because it brings it to the moderator's attention and he can enforce the TOS by dealing with the offending individual. Eventually, those posters will either learn and change...or no longer be able to post.

 

Nobody answered my question whether using words/labels like "reformed", "unrepentant", "unapologetic" is against the guidelines of this forum. If they are, then the problem would be easily solved by reporting posts containing these labels to the moderator. If they aren't, then they are apparently allowed.

 

Problem solved. No need to discuss it anymore.

[Silly_Girl]

Sure, everyone here is an adult (one would assume), but that doesn't mean that we all act in an adult fashion at all times. Warning about possible harsh posting is not censorship. The postings will still be made and read. The TOS do not rule against harshness, nor against warnings, nor against labels - I just don't like the labels and wish they weren't used.

 

JMO.

 

Silk

 

This is a superb paragraph. I'm in awe and as a result will (finally!!!) STFU.

 

Peace to all.

 

[silktricks]

Nobody answered my question whether using words/labels like "reformed", "unrepentant", "unapologetic" is against the guidelines of this forum. If they are, then the problem would be easily solved by reporting posts containing these labels to the moderator. If they aren't, then they are apparently allowed.

 

Problem solved. No need to discuss it anymore.

 

IMO using those words/labels are not against the guidelines of this forum.

[Owl]

Nobody answered my question whether using words/labels like "reformed", "unrepentant", "unapologetic" is against the guidelines of this forum. If they are, then the problem would be easily solved by reporting posts containing these labels to the moderator. If they aren't, then they are apparently allowed.

 

Problem solved. No need to discuss it anymore.

 

If someone uses any of these, or similar labels to discredit/discourage posting...mine at least...I'll have no issue with reporting it and seeing what the results are.

 

You're right...pretty much nothing to discuss.