Managed Exit

[daisy love]

Great the BF just read this thread b/c he wanted to know what was making me laugh and he said he wants it written in our vows that calling him hunky hunk is a dealbreaker.

 

In all seriousness, I worry about Daisy. If her posts are true and not intended to be inflammatory, it seems she wants so badly to believe things that she can't see the facts clearly and that makes me worry.

 

Daisy, you can say he is managing his exit, and that is all well and good, but the fact is that you have no proof of this and you have no idea what he does when he is 3,000 miles away. I am afraid that you will be devastated when and if he pulls the plug on this or that you will waste 5 more years of your life waiting for someone who will leave you high and dry. Most OW are aware of their MM's plans when he is planning a managed exit, as evidenced in this thread. The MM has things he needs to figure out, and the OW is kept up to date as to what is going on. Your MM just placates you by telling you once he hides his assets and gets his Bentley he will leave. If you are truly happy, that is fabulous. But if he loves you in the way you love him, you would have a clear timeline - he wouldn't keep you sitting around waiting, waiiting, waiting with no changes and no visible moves to change his siituation. That is all people are trying to say in an effort to help you see another point of view, and you consistently respond by calling us all bitter or insulting people. Most of us found LS as a result of being hurt or going through a terrible time in our lives. Maybe at some point you will see that other people do have valuable advice. You don't have to agree with it, but opening yourself up to other points of view isn't a bad thing. You don't have to make it your reality, but everyone who has offered you advice has been in a siituation very similar to yours. That would be enough to make me listen to what others have to say without insulting them.

 

I haven't insulted anyone. I have said what I feel. I thought this was the OW part of this forum, and I would be safe to do that!!

[daisy love]

Get a feeling of deja vou. Can anyone say sock puppet?

 

GREAT!! I'm a troll and now a sock puppet!! And alls you people want me to post all the juicy details so you can pick me apart!! FORGET IT!!

You don't like me! I GET it! I'm in love with a MM and you hate me for it! I get that!! I came here to talk to other OW and people tell me that I'm fake or that I don't know my man or that he'll never leave. Whatever!!

[LifesontheUp]

GREAT!! I'm a troll and now a sock puppet!! And alls you people want me to post all the juicy details so you can pick me apart!! FORGET IT!!

You don't like me! I GET it! I'm in love with a MM and you hate me for it! I get that!! I came here to talk to other OW and people tell me that I'm fake or that I don't know my man or that he'll never leave. Whatever!!

 

Dear me. Did I mention you specifically? Where did I say I don't like You?

[Rose1977]

GREAT!! I'm a troll and now a sock puppet!! And alls you people want me to post all the juicy details so you can pick me apart!! FORGET IT!!

You don't like me! I GET it! I'm in love with a MM and you hate me for it! I get that!! I came here to talk to other OW and people tell me that I'm fake or that I don't know my man or that he'll never leave. Whatever!!

 

 

:lmao::lmao:Lord Daisy, I hope that in a moment of clarity you can re-read this and laugh as hard as I just did. This sounds like a 5 year old having a tantrum. No one hates you. I do hope you get your happy ending and the Bentley. I hope his managed exit continues to go as planned so that you can come back in a few years and educate the rest of us on how to properly execute a managed exit. I'm being serious. Maybe out of all of this you can come back and help others and give them hope that they too can have a happy ending.

[Rose1977]

Bolded. Is that what it is?

 

 

No, it's certainly not my idea of a happy ending, but she seems to feel he is a prize, so when he finishes his managed exit I imagine it will be her happy ending.

[seren]

It's not always the vows said before others that are the dealbreakers, rather the personal spoken vows that people say when they discuss boundaries. The telling that if there were someone else they would say, the believeing because someone says and continues to say that they love and want you. The showing of love and desire, either by endearments, love making or the little day to day gestures that show a person loves and cares for another.

 

This is what makes gaslighting and a managed exit so difficult. The continuance of the normal day to day marriage, without major change lulls the BS into a false sense that all is well. To find out that the person who has been saying the ILY's who still shares your bed and who still plans for the future, has been discussing an alernative future with another must be absolutely sould destroying. Nothing remotely nobel or clever than that. Just plain old cowardly and nasty. I simply cannot imagine enabling that.

 

Someone being honest and admitting that things had changed and they wanted to leave, Heartbreaking, but honest, upfront and in time, manageable. It leaves your (general) trust intact.

[Owl]

It's also not just the "spoken vows" that are an issue...but the implied ones as well.

 

The vast majority of people enter marriage expecting that fidelity is part of that agreemant, whether or not it's "OFFICIALLY" part of the spoken vows or not.

 

If that's NOT part of the agreemant...it needs to be spelled out clearly, up front, and agreed to openly by both parties that their expectations of each other differ from the standard expectations of marriage.

 

The problem with the "managed exit" as it's listed as here is that this method basically requires the WS to "lie by omission" on their way out...which I personally don't feel is ever the honorable route.

[OWoman]

If I read the post correctly, she said they they intentionally left infidelity out of their vows, but included these.

 

You didn't. I don't know whether that was by accident or by design as it seems to happen frequently when you "read" my posts.

[jthorne]

Eh nevermind. Not worth it.

Edited April 26, 2011 by jthorne

[Silly_Girl]

Eh nevermind. Not worth it.

 

Dupe post JT!!!!

 

[bc83]

GREAT!! I'm a troll and now a sock puppet!! And alls you people want me to post all the juicy details so you can pick me apart!! FORGET IT!!

You don't like me! I GET it! I'm in love with a MM and you hate me for it! I get that!! I came here to talk to other OW and people tell me that I'm fake or that I don't know my man or that he'll never leave. Whatever!!

 

OK, I'll bite: so just what did you want from this site, if everything is going so well for you and you are so comfortable with your situation? Maybe I missed something you wrote -if so, please excuse my ignorance.

 

And what's a sock puppet or troll?

[herenow]

Wow Daisy, if you can't deal with strangers on an internet forum, how are you going to deal with the real life fall out from Mr. Hunky Hunk's wife?

[OWoman]

It's also not just the "spoken vows" that are an issue...but the implied ones as well.

 

The vast majority of people enter marriage expecting that fidelity is part of that agreemant, whether or not it's "OFFICIALLY" part of the spoken vows or not.

 

If that's NOT part of the agreemant...it needs to be spelled out clearly, up front, and agreed to openly by both parties that their expectations of each other differ from the standard expectations of marriage.

 

In the case of a couple who have been cohabiting for years, out of choice, because neither "believes in M" or wants to tie themselves into a system they view as oppressive, who both make it plain that they find the concept of M reactionary and unnatural... but who then as a concession, for financial considerations when a tax regime is altered, decide to go through with it so as to comply nominally with the State's requirements, while still telling themselves that they're just going through the motions, and that this will change nothing WRT their R.... surely that would meet your requirement? So that, at the point of M, both knew where they stood?

 

And surely then if, subsequently, one of those parties WITHOUT TELLING THE OTHER changes their mind over time to feel that actually the "traditional" constraints of M should apply after all, retrospectively, whether or not their partner consented to that - surely THEY'RE the one who's being dishonest?

 

The problem with the "managed exit" as it's listed as here is that this method basically requires the WS to "lie by omission" on their way out...which I personally don't feel is ever the honorable route.

 

I don't see that that is necessarily the case. If a couple is not in the habit of sharing their doubts, their concerns, their dreams, their fantasies - why would they suddenly do that before they were certain that they really wanted - and were able - to leave?

 

I can understand that in cases like this:

 

To find out that the person who has been saying the ILY's who still shares your bed and who still plans for the future, has been discussing an alernative future with another must be absolutely sould destroying.

 

but in cases where there is none of that, merely living past each other... why put the entire family through the stress and insecurity of 1 000 maybes until you're at least sure in your own mind that leaving is actually what you're wanting to do?

[jthorne]

Wow Daisy, if you can't deal with strangers on an internet forum, how are you going to deal with the real life fall out from Mr. Hunky Hunk's wife?

I was wondering about that when I read the (now deleted) thread about protection. I was wondering is she wasn't seeking protection from the wrong BS's.

 

In the case of a couple who have been cohabiting for years, out of choice, because neither "believes in M" or wants to tie themselves into a system they view as oppressive, who both make it plain that they find the concept of M reactionary and unnatural... but who then as a concession, for financial considerations when a tax regime is altered, decide to go through with it so as to comply nominally with the State's requirements, while still telling themselves that they're just going through the motions, and that this will change nothing WRT their R.... surely that would meet your requirement? So that, at the point of M, both knew where they stood?

 

And surely then if, subsequently, one of those parties WITHOUT TELLING THE OTHER changes their mind over time to feel that actually the "traditional" constraints of M should apply after all, retrospectively, whether or not their partner consented to that - surely THEY'RE the one who's being dishonest?

 

 

 

I don't see that that is necessarily the case. If a couple is not in the habit of sharing their doubts, their concerns, their dreams, their fantasies - why would they suddenly do that before they were certain that they really wanted - and were able - to leave?

 

I can understand that in cases like this:

 

 

 

but in cases where there is none of that, merely living past each other... why put the entire family through the stress and insecurity of 1 000 maybes until you're at least sure in your own mind that leaving is actually what you're wanting to do?

Okay, this makes a bit more sense.

 

You said here that neither believed in marriage, they married for tax purposes, ie convenience. You've also said previously that you and he did not believe in marriage, but did by necessity for immigration purposes (ie convenience). If one doesn't believe in marriage, then they probably don't put much weight into the marriage vows of a marriage they don't believe in. As such, if they see marriage as merely an instrument of convenience, then it seems reasonable to make the most convenient exit when the marriage outlives it's usage and becomes inconvenient.

 

I think where most of us have gotten tripped up is that most of us put a higher importance in the institution of marriage, and it's stated and implied vows. To most people that marry (that I know of anyway), marriage is not something used merely for convenience. Therefore, a managed exit might seem inappropriate.

[Owl]

In the case of a couple who have been cohabiting for years, out of choice, because neither "believes in M" or wants to tie themselves into a system they view as oppressive, who both make it plain that they find the concept of M reactionary and unnatural... but who then as a concession, for financial considerations when a tax regime is altered, decide to go through with it so as to comply nominally with the State's requirements, while still telling themselves that they're just going through the motions, and that this will change nothing WRT their R.... surely that would meet your requirement? So that, at the point of M, both knew where they stood?

 

And surely then if, subsequently, one of those parties WITHOUT TELLING THE OTHER changes their mind over time to feel that actually the "traditional" constraints of M should apply after all, retrospectively, whether or not their partner consented to that - surely THEY'RE the one who's being dishonest?

 

Frankly Owoman...that's such a small subset, with such a different mindset from me that I won't even hazard a response to that.

 

Note at the beginning of my post I'd indicated that the vast majority of people who enter marriage do so with the expectation of fidelity, whether it's formally stated or not.

 

If you don't agree that marriage includes an expectation of fidelity...I struggle with understanding why you'd formalize a relationship in this manner. If it's just a tax or legal dodge...why is there any emotion involved at all?

 

I don't see that that is necessarily the case. If a couple is not in the habit of sharing their doubts, their concerns, their dreams, their fantasies - why would they suddenly do that before they were certain that they really wanted - and were able - to leave?

 

If one person unilaterally decides to alter the agreement and doesn't discuss that change with the other party before taking actions based on the altered agreement...it's a lie by omission, plain and simple.

 

but in cases where there is none of that, merely living past each other... why put the entire family through the stress and insecurity of 1 000 maybes until you're at least sure in your own mind that leaving is actually what you're wanting to do?

 

Again...you should be sure that you want to leave WITHOUT the emotional entanglement of bringing a third party into the picture first.

 

If there's so little respect for the spouse and family that you're willing to bring another person into the mix first, creating that additional pain and strife and confusion...the divorce is just a small addition to the insanity at that point.

[wheelwright]

Oh, so convenient to try to lay guilt on the person the two at issue were screwing over the most.

 

Ever hear the phrase, "You make your bed, you better be prepared to lie in it."

 

Not to mention bringing up "the good book." Seriously?

 

IME it is possible to 'screw' a person you are M to and feel it is wrong.

 

I do not want to lay guilt on anyone.

 

I feel in my soul that infidelity is a difficult subject, especially if the W parties feel some love.

 

I feel there is always something more about the critic than the sinner in a condemnation.

 

Things people do are wrong, and hurt is hard to overcome.

 

But I have reached a phase in my life where I look to the forgiver above the person who blames.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it 'feels' right.

[OWoman]

If you don't agree that marriage includes an expectation of fidelity...I struggle with understanding why you'd formalize a relationship in this manner. If it's just a tax or legal dodge...why is there any emotion involved at all?

 

Cohabitation doesn't indicate a complete lack of emotional investment, necessarily. Many couples who cohabit love each other at least as much as couples who are married - they simply choose not to formalise the R via the State and the Church because of issues that they have regarding those institutions or the institution of marriage.

 

Close friends of ours have lived together for more than three decades. Their kids are both grown and independent adults, and they've settled comfortably into a live of blissful togetherness, never having M. And then she had a health scare. Having retired from employment years before to care full-time for a dying parent, she had lost access to a private medical plan that covered alternative healing therapies that provided relief for the condition she feared she may have. Her SO was still employed, and still had a private medical plan - but it covered only his dependent children and any current legal spouse. So, they went off and got M. Very much a M of convenience - neither felt the need to affirm their life commitment to each other with a piece of paper; they felt their whole lives testified to that commitment already, and the paper was meaningless. But it was required by the medical plan, so they did it. Did the fact that their M was a M of convenience change the fact that they loved each other? Not at all! They still loved each other exactly as much after the paper M as they had before. The M made absolutely no difference at all to them and their R. Nor did it make the slightest difference to how any of us regarded their R, or the permanence of it. The R is what matters, not the piece of paper. The piece of paper is merely to satisfy the bureaucrats.

 

Which is the same with my H and myself. We are together because we choose to be together and because we want to be together, every day, all day. However, in order to be allowed to do that, we need the piece of paper, so we have it - but it's not the piece of paper that conditions our R, it's us. The piece of paper is something in a file to keep the bureaucrats off our backs. We set the terms for our R, and we shape our R the way WE want it to be, not the way some state or church or desk jockey thinks it should be. The piece of paper is a means to an end; it carries no value in and of itself and has no determining impact on the nature of the R.

 

Aside from my religious friends, who invest the whole M thing with other values, pretty well everyone I know views M in this same light. It's not a niche view at all.

[thomasb]

I've never in my forty plus years met a single solitary person who married for 'tax reasons'. Doesn't fly.

[thissecretgirl]

I've never in my forty plus years met a single solitary person who married for 'tax reasons'. Doesn't fly.

 

 

I know a few who have done it.

[jsb58]

I know a few who have done it.

 

It must be specific to Australia then. In The States there is no real benefit to being married. It seems very shallow go get married for monetary reasons. OW must know more shallow ppl than we do.

[Owl]

OK, there's indeed a difference between a "piece of paper" and a relationship.

 

There's the document that the marriage partners sign...and there's the relationship that they share.

 

My point, my perspective is that the vast majority of people who enter that marital relationship do so with the expectation of fidelity.

 

If there wasn't that expectation...there'd be nothing to "formalize" with the documentation as well.

 

When people marry...the vast majority do so with the expectation (implied or stated in their vows) of fidelity.

 

A "managed exit" involving an affair is directly in conflict with that expectation, that agreement (again, implied or stated)...and therefore if it's not done in a completely "out in the open" fashion, it involves lies by omission.

[Silly_Girl]

Mention was made on another thread about a MM planning a "managed exit" and another poster pooh-poohed that idea. IME, the "managed exit" is the BS's worst nightmare - depriving them of what little control they may feel they have after a DDay, or - if there is no DDay - reducing at least some of their history to "lies" or fakery.

 

My H left his xW through a "managed exit", and several other MMs that I've known who have left their BWs for their OWs (and stayed with the OWs - not an "exit A" ) have done the same - including my father. I've always argued that MMs don't leave (sustainably) until they're ready to leave, and the "managed exit" seems to me to be the epitome of that. All their ducks in a row, then... Goodbye. In some cases, they say nothing to the BS before they leave - the proverbial note on the mantlepiece scenario - and in others, they advise the BS they will be leaving, and when, and then do so.

 

I'd be interested to hear whether anyone has had different experiences of a "managed exit" - a WS who left through a "managed exit" but didn't sustain it and returned, say... or an AP who "returned to sender" the WS who had left, no longer interested given the time elapsed... or whatever. From whichever role in the episode.

 

My ex-SO's exit was quite 'managed'. Whilst he was on a 3-day course 5 hours away I moved his stuff, and furniture, appliances etc, in to a flat we owned.

 

He knew it was coming but never thought I'd go through with it. I informed him by text when it was done.

[OWoman]

I've never in my forty plus years met a single solitary person who married for 'tax reasons'. Doesn't fly.

 

How many countries have you lived in? How many of those have undergone changes in tax regimes during the time you were living there? How many people who may have been adversely affected by those changes did you know well enough during that time to know whether or not the changes impacted on their thinking regarding marriage?

[OWoman]

It must be specific to Australia then. In The States there is no real benefit to being married.

 

Nope. Several other countries too. I don't know about the US, but I know of at least three other countries.

[LilyBart]

I've never in my forty plus years met a single solitary person who married for 'tax reasons'. Doesn't fly.

 

You need to get out more.

 

Personally, I've met PLENTY of people who have married for the 'oops reason' (ie. knocked up). And these people wonder why their M isn't "solid". Hell, I would wonder too.