Summer Breeze Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Not sure which "all" you are referring to here, as I haven't seen you or others supporting BB labelling or berating other posters. I agree with your general sentiment that the manner of communications is noticed. The 'all' are just what I said-the posters after hers. Off the top of my head Silly Girl and then I quoted her post about BB and supported it completely. Can't tell you if there is anyone other than us but I don't remember anyone saying anything negative about her at all. I don't believe anyone intentionally comes in to thwart anyone's progress. I think that we are all doing what we think is right. It's just different styles and sometimes they're effective and sometimes they aren't. That was just a very general comment and not in reference to your post woinlove.
Author findingnemo Posted March 6, 2011 Author Posted March 6, 2011 I have been labeled with being rOW. I don't care for the label because it's been used in a derogatory way at times. I regret that I was involved in an affair, it was against my beliefs and my moral code but yet I did it anyway. I stumbled upon LS because I still had unresolved issues about it several years later. A lot has happened since I first came here and I'm even more convinced now that it's on my top five list of things I wish I'd never done. However.........with that said, I try to remain compassionate and I hope that sometimes I can help. Thank you. Ok this is my experience from lurking before I registered... Many different types of OW are lumped into this category. Sometimes even those who were OW who married their MM. Because they didn't ALWAYS approve of what an OW was doing. To me, a ROW is someone who gives cookie cutter advice to get out of the A NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. No matter if the OW is happy with her R, no matter if the MM treats her well and probably better than his own W. A ROW thinks that EVERY OW should go NC and leave the A. And forget that she ever loved the MM and wanted a life with him. Now a fOW gives advice based on the situation. She takes into consideration the length of the A, the treatment the OW receives, if the OW is basically happy and just needs support or if they OW is really unhappy and wants out. She looks at the facts and then tries to help the OW decide what THEY really want out of the R. And she points out that the OW probably doesn't have ALL the information she needs to make an informed decision. Because really, NO ONE has all the information in these types of R's. Not even the MM because the OP has her/his perspective and the BS has their perspective. So sometimes people who have pointed out flaws in thinking have been branded ROW. When they really just wanted people to know not to believe everything that they are told because they've already been down that road and know that people will say what they need to say to keep things the way they want them. The real ROW are the ones that are questioned as OW in the first place. The ones who never felt the need to post during the A but come here years later and give cookie cutter advice to EVERY OW to go NC and betray their love. That's my opinion. This is probably why it is confusing. I am sure findingnemo already has an idea who these "reformed" OWs are, or at least have an idea. If not, I am sure she will make it her business to know-given that she has come up with all these thoughtful, innocent, truly-just-wanting-to-understand questions/scenarios...one more research would not be too much. or..you can always just go back and re-read your own posts. TC, clarify.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'm trying to understand if there is a difference between the concept former other woman and reformed other woman. Are all former other women reformed? If not, the use of the term seems warranted in my opinion. Or better yet, if the term is perceived as derogatory by the very group which by others is called reformed, why not suggest a term of your own which distinguishes you from other former other women?
anne1707 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Or better yet, if the term is perceived as derogatory by the very group which by others is called reformed, why not suggest a term of your own which distinguishes you from other former other women? Or better yet, let's not label people other than using the accepted abbreviations as per LS http://www.loveshack.org/forums/faq.php?faq=messages#faq_acronyms and stop using alternatives to try and insult/discredit posters which happens far too often. The point of this site is that we all come here with our own history, our own viewpoint and our own truth. Just because my truth does not correspond with someone elses, it does not mean that one is less valid than the other. If we only wanted to listen/read one viewpoint then LS is not the place to be.
woinlove Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'm trying to understand if there is a difference between the concept former other woman and reformed other woman. Get in line. If you read this thread, you can see the term means different things to different people. Are all former other women reformed? Depends who you ask and what the term means to them. If not, the use of the term seems warranted in my opinion. Or better yet, if the term is perceived as derogatory by the very group which by others is called reformed, why not suggest a term of your own which distinguishes you from other former other women? Most former OW don't feel the need to distinguish themselves from other former OW. Most are happy just posting their opinions and advice in whatever way they think is useful and think their posts should stand on their own merits. While there sometimes has been a few who wanted to be identified together as "unapologetic OW", there doesn't seem to be a similar need or desire expressed from other OW. If it ain't broke,...
woinlove Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'm trying to understand if there is a difference between the concept former other woman and reformed other woman. Are all former other women reformed? If not, the use of the term seems warranted in my opinion. Or better yet, if the term is perceived as derogatory by the very group which by others is called reformed, why not suggest a term of your own which distinguishes you from other former other women? Also, it is a secret list. The posters who use this label for other posters have declined requests to say who they put on their "reformed" list.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Get in line. If you read this thread, you can see the term means different things to different people. Depends who you ask and what the term means to them. Most former OW don't feel the need to distinguish themselves from other former OW. Most are happy just posting their opinions and advice in whatever way they think is useful and think their posts should stand on their own merits. While there sometimes has been a few who wanted to be identified together as "unapologetic OW", there doesn't seem to be a similar need or desire expressed from other OW. If it ain't broke,... I was wondering what to call the former other women who do not consider themselves reformed. Perhaps former unapologetic other women then? The thing is there obviously seems to be a need by some posters to distinguish between specific types of former other women. Why not come up with a terminology which is not considered derogatory then? Edited March 6, 2011 by trinity1
anne1707 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I was wondering what to call the former other women who do not considered themselves reformed. Perhaps former unapologetic other women then? But that is just continuing the categorisation that has been used here a lot to isolate or undermine those with differing viewpoints. If an OW is no longer an OW, how about calling her a fOW or exOW. Plain and simple without any distinction for which side of the fence they may sit. For the newbies, they should be able to determine their own view of which posters are providing the insight/support they require without long term postings as good as telling them who they should and should not listen to.
woinlove Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The thing is there obviously seems to be a need by some posters to distinguish between specific types of former other women. Why not come up with a terminology which is not considered derogatory then? Because I don't think it is possible or desirable. As far as I can tell those posters are looking for one word which means "one of the posters whose views differ from my own and who I not only want to dismiss, I want all other posters to dismiss them and I hope this label does the trick". Or something like that.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I would consider myself a reformed cheater. I did cheat when I was young, but I would never do it again. I see nothing derogatory with that term. To me it means I have left a path which did me harm and am now on another path never planning to go back.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Because I don't think it is possible or desirable. As far as I can tell those posters are looking for one word which means "one of the posters whose views differ from my own and who I not only want to dismiss, I want all other posters to dismiss them and I hope this label does the trick". Or something like that. I don't get it. There are obviously different kinds of former other women. Those who still think it is okay to be an other woman and those who don't. What is so bad with distinguishing these two groups from each other? Labels are something we use all the time in every day life to help us better understand the world. To me it is not something dismissive, it is something explanatory. So let's just figure out a substitute for the label "reformed other woman" which can be accepted by everyone. That would solve the problem in my opinion.
woinlove Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I don't get it. There are obviously different kinds of former other women. Those who still think it is okay to be an other woman and those who don't. What is so bad with distinguishing these two groups from each other? Labels are something we use all the time in every day life to help us better understand the world. To me it is not something dismissive, it is something explanatory. Because while you only see two categories, many people see a whole multitude of responses. Most people's opinions depend on a lot of variables, a lot of experiences, and may even change over the course of weeks. A single post here sometimes changes my perspective on something. Accepted labels on LS label status or former status, not opinions and views. In my opinion, thoughtful people do not try to capture the complexity of another's viewpoint with a label. And the posts I have seen, where someone tries to do exactly that, detract from useful discussion, IMO.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 This reminds me of the abortion debate. The group against abortion didn't want to be called anti-abortion, so they came up with the name pro-life. That's what I'm getting at. By coming up with a term of your own you avoid terms that can be perceived as derogatory. By just objecting to being labeled you leave it to other groups to label you.
anne1707 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 This reminds me of the abortion debate. The group against abortion didn't want to be called anti-abortion, so they came up with the name pro-life. That's what I'm getting at. By coming up with a term of your own you avoid terms that can be perceived as derogatory. But how do others know how membershop of that group is defined. It will just lead to more misunderstanding and bias. By just objecting to being labeled you leave it to other groups to label you. Only from those who like to stereotype people.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 What about repentant former OW? Is that a better term?
anne1707 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 What about repentant former OW? Is that a better term? ...........................................
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 But how do others know how membershop of that group is defined. It will just lead to more misunderstanding and bias. All words can be misunderstood or perceived as biased. We all know how difficult it is to interpret the written word not being able to see the person's body language. In spite of this it is necessary for us to define what we see around us to be able to communicate with each other.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 ........................................... Is that supposed to be a no? Please clarify.
woinlove Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 By just objecting to being labeled you leave it to other groups to label you. This is an anonymous forum. We all get to read the posts and make up our own minds. When someone chooses to label another poster or group of posters, it tells us something about the person doing the labelling. About the group they are labelling? Not so much, since we don't even know who is in the group!
anne1707 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 All words can be misunderstood or perceived as biased. We all know how difficult it is to interpret the written word not being able to see the person's body language. In spite of this it is necessary for us to define what we see around us to be able to communicate with each other. A agree that because there are no visual cues, it can be more difficult at times to understand intent or meaning of posts. However how do we decide on a common set of definitions that all would be happy with? I don't think that is possible therefore I do not think it is something that should be done. Is that supposed to be a no? Please clarify. I changed my mind about what I posted hence it was as good as a "no response" This is an anonymous forum. We all get to read the posts and make up our own minds. When someone chooses to label another poster or group of posters, it tells us something about the person doing the labelling. About the group they are labelling? Not so much, since we don't even know who is in the group! Totally agree with you Woinlove
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 This is an anonymous forum. We all get to read the posts and make up our own minds. When someone chooses to label another poster or group of posters, it tells us something about the person doing the labelling. About the group they are labelling? Not so much, since we don't even know who is in the group! I don't know which of my acquaintances are democrats and which are republicans. I still know what it means to be a democrat or a republican. And at times I can make a qualified guess based on how each person expresses themselves.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 A agree that because there are no visual cues, it can be more difficult at times to understand intent or meaning of posts. However how do we decide on a common set of definitions that all would be happy with? I don't think that is possible therefore I do not think it is something that should be done. I changed my mind about what I posted hence it was as good as a "no response" Totally agree with you Woinlove Well, my point is labels are being used. It reminds me of affairs. They exist however much we want them not to. So since we can't make posters stop using labels, why not try to change the labels they are using? We can do that by coming up with a label we find more appropriate. (Thanks for clarifying.)
BB07 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'm a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOW, is that a big enough label???? lol Seriously.....this wanting to add another acronym is silly IMO. Anything we write here is purely voluntary, any information we share about our current or former status is voluntary. Most folks can deduce a little about the history of a particular poster by reading a few posts or if they are so inclined they can check the history in depth, or......there is always the option to just come out and ask if the curiosity is that great. :love: It was embarrassing to read the kind things said about me, but thank you. Glad to see you back SG.
trinity1 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'm a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOW, is that a big enough label???? lol Seriously.....this wanting to add another acronym is silly IMO. Anything we write here is purely voluntary, any information we share about our current or former status is voluntary. Most folks can deduce a little about the history of a particular poster by reading a few posts or if they are so inclined they can check the history in depth, or......there is always the option to just come out and ask if the curiosity is that great. :love: It was embarrassing to read the kind things said about me, but thank you. Glad to see you back SG. I guess I am silly then for trying to find a way to solve what I perceived to be an issue on the forum.
.thumb.jpg.09cfccc20b39a14bedb2dfa924b301d2.jpg)
Recommended Posts