Managed Exit

[donnamaybe]

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

And that is when you go to counseling or a divorce attorney, not some other guy's bed.

I do not want to lay guilt on anyone.

Of course not, because then you would have to be willing to accept some yourself.

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.

Sure, if someone considers himself a sinner.

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.

 

I am sure what feels best is to rationalize every action to lessen culpability while trying to demonize anyone who looks askance at what they feel is bad behavior.

[White Flower]

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

And I'll bet you never knew anyone who M for a Green card either.

[anne1707]

And I'll bet you never knew anyone who M for a Green card either.

 

But that is purely a business transaction therefore the concept of "managed exit" is irrelevant because both parties know what they are getting into - assuming all is open and acknowledged beforehand

[thomasb]

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?

 

Actually I have lived in about twelve, I believe. I was an army brat then I joined the army. Left after ten years and went back to school. As an accountant minor, electrical engineering major. Next question!

[thomasb]

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.

 

Oops is indeed done. If you go back and read more carefully, you will notice I said tax reasons.

[seren]

I have known, known of, read about and investigated people who have married for convinience, residency rights, money etc. The common denominator in all these was the contractural understanding between the two people. There were no romantic expectations, no declarations of love or promises, either spoken or avowed, purely business transactions. The marriage was managed, from start to finish, the exit managed in line with the implicit understanding between the two. So very different from a marriage entered into where the common denominator is love and the understanding between two people that fidelity is expected.

 

Of course people change, marriages change and relationships shift and change too, all marriages and relationships have highs and lows, I once read that everyone needs lows to appreciate how good the highs are - I think I agree. Throughout our long relationship and marriage we have had our share of lows, not as many as our highs, but our lows have been dammed low too. Throughout, there was a spoken and implied agreement between us both that fidelity was not so much expected, but a given. It was also a given that if either met another, that we would speak up and deal with it. I know that had I met someone who meant more than my H, I would have said straight out that we needed to look at us and if we were not able to work it out, would leave. Upfront and respect for H and also for myself too.

 

The managed exit, where the WS gaslights and the BS lives with and supports their spouse because they still believe there is a shared understanding of what the marriage is based upon, is such an underhand thing to do. How can someone continue to present a facade of 'allrightness' and togetherness in order to whip the rug out from someone? I don't get it, I am trying to understand but it just doesn't compute at all.

[donnamaybe]

"Managed exit" is just a pretty label designed to mitigate what is merely more sneaky, deceitful, dishonest behavior.

[tami-chan]

Actually I have lived in about twelve, I believe. I was an army brat then I joined the army. Left after ten years and went back to school. As an accountant minor, electrical engineering major. Next question!

 

An army brat...that's different...many do not experience how the "locals" live. Most live on post housing, shop in the PX or the commissary, watch movies in the post movie theater, etc. So unless you had a visa to work in the local economy, and live in the economy with the local folks the most that you were doing was local tours and that numerous festivals, carnivals in the community.

 

How many languages to you speak?

[tami-chan]

"Managed exit" is just a pretty label designed to mitigate what is merely more sneaky, deceitful, dishonest behavior.

 

I disagree. My xH and I did not have a "marriage" in the traditional sense after his first affair. He knew that my goals were to get to a point in my life where I can provide for my child and myself very well-even though he was ( and is) able to do that very well and (he) always thought that it was only a matter of time before I will leave. He also knew that I was not interested in him as a husband- we were partners in raising a child. But he was hoping that I would stay and in time forgive him.

 

My current SO and his wife "managed" their exits very well. She is fine and the kids are fine. It just so happened that he found love first and she is still looking...

[donnamaybe]

I disagree. My xH and I did not have a "marriage" in the traditional sense after his first affair. He knew that my goals were to get to a point in my life where I can provide for my child and myself very well-even though he was ( and is) able to do that very well and (he) always thought that it was only a matter of time before I will leave. He also knew that I was not interested in him as a husband- we were partners in raising a child. But he was hoping that I would stay and in time forgive him.

 

My current SO and his wife "managed" their exits very well. She is fine and the kids are fine. It just so happened that he found love first and she is still looking...

 

It sounds like you and your ex were both aware of the status quo. No sneaking around and manipulating finances so things were skewed in favor of only one party. Nothing deceitful about that.

[OWoman]

I have known, known of, read about and investigated people who have married for convinience, residency rights, money etc. The common denominator in all these was the contractural understanding between the two people. There were no romantic expectations, no declarations of love or promises, either spoken or avowed, purely business transactions. The marriage was managed, from start to finish, the exit managed in line with the implicit understanding between the two.

 

That is not the situation I am describing - where two people with no previous romantic R entire into a transaction, purely for tax (or other convenience) purposes. The situation I am describing is where there WAS a pre-existing romantic R, mostly with cohabitation (usually already for a lengthy period) where all of those expectations about what the R included and excluded had long been thrashed out. And then, owing to changes in circumstance (externally imposed, like a change in economic circumstances, tax regime, etc) or internally imposed (like my friends' health scare) leads them to consider entering into a contract with the state (via, formalising the R into an M) in order to tap into economic or other benefits to address this change in circumstances.

 

In the case of myself and my H, we had an existing romantic R. Were we able to do so without M, we'd simply have moved in together in his country or in mine, and lived happily ever after without M. However, because of visa requirements, we needed the piece of paper. We complied with the piece of paper because it was necessary for us to achieve the R we wanted, ie living together full time, permanently. We did not comply with the piece of paper because we believed in some list of vows prescribed by state or church (we wrote our own and had a private ceremony; but had we opted for the registry office or a church, we'd have had a form of service thrust on us by church or state that we'd have had to mouth our agreement to in order to comply, while in our hearts knowing we were ignoring the bits we disagreed with and consenting only to that which characterised our preexisting R).

 

Those are the situations I'm describing here.

 

So very different from a marriage entered into where the common denominator is love and the understanding between two people that fidelity is expected.

 

The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive. In the situations I'm referring to, the common denominator is definitely love. however, that does not necessitate an expectation of fidelity.

 

Perhaps this is also a cultural / generational / political thing. People who view M as fundamentally oppressive, privatising the (re)production of labour and domestic labour and rendering "women's" work invisible and thus without value; people who celebrated "free love" and who view the personal as political and the political as personal and who reject the intervention of state and church in interpersonal relationships of love and sex; people who view their bodies as their own, to share with whom they please and not something to be governed by state decree or church taboo; people who still in their hearts wear flowers in their hair and dance barefoot in the rain. Equating "love" and "fidelity" would be like equating birds with cages!

 

(Which is not to say that one cannot practice sexual monogamy of one's own free choice - my H and I have been sexually exclusive with each other for many years now, and continue to be so, because for both of us our sexual attraction exists only towards each other. )

 

But to have the EXPECTATION of fidelity - especially where one has previously discussed and rejected the idea, and never then re-discussed and renegotiated a different position on that view - IMO that is unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement without even notifying the other party. If the previous agreement and understanding was no sexual exclusivity, and the R has existed happily for a good length of time based on that, and that agreement has never been superceded by another, then why should the mere fact of signing a piece of personally meaningless paper change those expectations?

[OWoman]

It sounds like you and your ex were both aware of the status quo. No sneaking around and manipulating finances so things were skewed in favor of only one party. Nothing deceitful about that.

 

who says the bolded is characteristic of managed exits? It may certainly happen in some cases, but certainly not in most!

[OWoman]

but id there is no expectation of fidelity, how can someone having a sexual relation outside of the marriage be considered to be having an affair?

 

Most people are talking about the type of marriage where fidelity IS expected, and , the examples you cite are irrelevant to a discussion about affairs. ( you can't "break the rules" where no such rules exist)

 

if the only reason that two people get married is for tax reasons, immigration, etc., then I would have to think that they should have very little expectation of the marriage lasting very long and they should plan accordingly.

 

I think many people are thinking more about a "managed exit" in a marriage where fidelity WAS expected, where the reason for marriage was mutual love for one another and not some ulterior motive and therefore both parties set out with the expectation that the marriage would last. This is an entirely different "kettle of fish", and your examples are not relevant to that situation.

 

Huh? Why should there be no expectation of a M lasting very long where the couple have already been together for decades? Why would that suddenly change?

[AuthenticBliss]

But to have the EXPECTATION of fidelity - especially where one has previously discussed and rejected the idea, and never then re-discussed and renegotiated a different position on that view - IMO that is unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement without even notifying the other party. If the previous agreement and understanding was no sexual exclusivity, and the R has existed happily for a good length of time based on that, and that agreement has never been superceded by another, then why should the mere fact of signing a piece of personally meaningless paper change those expectations?

Why is this thread on the Other Woman forum then? There is no affair if the M is open.

[thomasb]

Bingo, we have a winner. If you have no spoken and mutually agreed upon acknowledgment that you are free to have sex or a relationship with the opposite sex, it is cheating. And cheating under ay circumstances is deplorable and morally wrong in my opinion.

[Owl]

But to have the EXPECTATION of fidelity - especially where one has previously discussed and rejected the idea, and never then re-discussed and renegotiated a different position on that view - IMO that is unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement without even notifying the other party. If the previous agreement and understanding was no exclusivity, and the R has existed happily for a good length of time based on that, and that agreement has never been superceded by another, then why should the mere fact of signing a piece of personally meaningless paper change those expectations?

 

I completely agree with this.

 

This would be unilaterally changing what both parties initially agreed upon.

 

If your expectations/hopes for a relationship change over time...you need to COMMUNICATE those changes with your partner and re-negotiate as needed.

 

It doesn't matter if it's going from an "exclusive relationship" to a "non-exclusive relationship" or in the opposite direction...unilaterally changing the "rules" without communicating with your partner is unfair and creates a bad situation.

[donnamaybe]

I completely agree with this.

 

This would be unilaterally changing what both parties initially agreed upon.

 

If your expectations/hopes for a relationship change over time...you need to COMMUNICATE those changes with your partner and re-negotiate as needed.

 

It doesn't matter if it's going from an "exclusive relationship" to a "non-exclusive relationship" or in the opposite direction...unilaterally changing the "rules" without communicating with your partner is unfair and creates a bad situation.

You mean like when someone starts sneaking around behind their partner's back and cheating in what is supposed to be a monogomous relationship?

[Owl]

Absolutely. I disagree with "changing the rules" unilaterally regardless.

 

Now...realistically you'll find that there are far, far more cases where one partner decides to change from being monogamous to cheating than where you'll find where one partner opts to go from open to monogamous.

 

Simply because far, far fewer relationships start out with the expectation of being "open" or "walk away" or whatever...the vast majority of 'couples' have a relationship where fidelity and monogamy are a part of the relationship's founding princiciples.

[HappyAtLast]

I would consider that I left my ex-wife via a managed exit. Except for the fact that my managed exit began 15 years prior to my leaving, when there was not even a glimmer of an OW.

 

Although, I must say, she did not take me seriously and it cost her in the long run. I honestly believe I tried to do the right thing.

[fooled once]

For me, a managed exit was called a divorce

 

Interesting notion though - I wonder how many people really do believe in the "vows" they "swear" when they get M - particularly those who get M in a church where vows still pledge stuff like honouring and obeying, and of course all the "for richer and poorer" bits. I've not heard of a single woman who actually felt in her heart that she was really swearing to obey her H when she made the vows, allowing him to boss her around; Nor any man who felt he was really promising to his W that he would honour, respect and cherish her regardless of circumstances eg if she turned into Jabba the Hutt or Sarah Palin. Certainly every real life couple I have ever met has had their "escape clauses" of what they considered would invalidate their contractual obligations - whether it was the denial / withholding of sex or the acquisition of a few dozen surplus kilograms of spurious body mass, the partner giving up their job and being unwilling to work or the spouse wanting / not wanting kids. Whatever people might CLAIM to be promising (especially if religion is involved) is very different in many - I'd say most - cases from what they in their hearts believe they ARE promising to their spouse. For the rest, it's simply complying with the requirements of the process.

 

Considering my H and I wrote our vows, I believe in them. I wouldn't have said them if I didn't believe in them.

 

As for the escape clauses you mentioned, I have never in my life heard of a clause of "witholding sex or gaining weight" How utterly vain and classless.

 

I really don't understand all your opinions that you try to imply are 'fact'. Such as what I bolded above. You seem to have a very limited view of the world, and especially the US. Whether people marry for religion, love, tax purposes or like you for immigration, that is their business and you really can only discuss YOUR wedding since you aren't in others hearts to know what they are feeling or not feeling. Just because you seem to imply you were forced to be married because of those pesky immigration laws doesn't mean that others don't believe what they stated either in front of God, friends, family, or a JP. For someone who doesn't like sweeping generalizations, you sure do paint with quite a broad brush marriage and vows.

 

And just because YOU don't believe in the respect, fidelity, honor, obey, or whatever vows that others say, that doesn't mean that they are wrong, stupid, or bad -- no matter how you try to belittle others who do believe in marriage and monogamy.

 

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.

 

Great post Seren! Truly great!

 

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

 

Me neither. Nor have I ever met anyone who married for a green card. I guess I am a romantic at heart and would never vow to be with someone for a green card, especially if I was a card-carrying anti-marriage person.

 

And I'll bet you never knew anyone who M for a Green card either.

 

Nope. I haven't.

 

An army brat...that's different...many do not experience how the "locals" live. Most live on post housing, shop in the PX or the commissary, watch movies in the post movie theater, etc. So unless you had a visa to work in the local economy, and live in the economy with the local folks the most that you were doing was local tours and that numerous festivals, carnivals in the community.

 

How many languages to you speak?

 

What does how many languages a person speaks have to do with the original topic of this thread? How do you know what military brats experience? Most? And you found these facts where?

[seren]

A managed exit, if managed properly, would involve both people in the relationship working to dissolve said relationship, with an agreed timescale for both, possibly, if married with the help of lawyers, like a divorce maybe. A managed exit where one is doing the planning and managing is obviously intended to blindside the other and so obviously done this way because the blindsider wants to hold onto something the other might have a claim to and put up a bit of a fight. I am trying to find a redeeming quality in the blindsiders actions, but cannot find any, maybe if there is the threat of violence then yes, but otherwise, no.

 

If a relationship is entered into and I am going to add rules - all relationships have rules or boundaries, whether written, avowed or spoken. How else are people supposed to know what the other expects, will accept or the nature of the realtionship? Had both entered into the realtionship with the view that infidelity (even defining what infidelity meant) was acceptable, then neither would find themselves hurt if the other had sex or an emotional connection (if that is the definition that works for them) with another. If both agreed that they contributed equally to the realtionship, either through monetary, emotional or practical support, then managing an exit to prevent the other 'claiming' their share of the profits from the contributions is breaking the terms of their agreement.

 

In most relationships there are discussions about fidelity, the 'it would break my heart if' conversations, the dealbreaker boundary settings and the 'if this, then I expect that' agreements, when both agree that fidelity is not so much expected or because of a contract, marital or otherwise, the breaking of that is not trivial, being married isn't always about caging a bird, most cages have doors, if the caged bird isn't happy just fly the dammed cage but be prepared to have the door shut and no food and water left out. For the birdie to just keep flitting in and out taking advantage of the comfort of the cage only to sing elsewhere is taking advantage of the feeder - personally, I would feed the birdie to the cat! if it continued.

 

Informed choice should be afforded to everyone, to deny that does, IMHO, deny a person individual choice and freedom, the freedom to decide if they accept their situation, to not know that the situation has changed, to be managed by another is so outside respect for the other's autonomy. It is also taking advantage of another for personal gain. How many BS would work their a**** off to contribute to the family pot if they knew that the WS was planning an exit. Hell, most would blow it on shoes and champagne or go out and have fun instead of working for a future they will never have with the WS - despite there being a planned future in place. I wonder how OW/OM feel when hearing the WS managing an exit along the lines of, I will leave when .... that too is a managed exit, dammed if I would stick around and put my life on hold while someone did that.

[turnstone]

who says the bolded is characteristic of managed exits? It may certainly happen in some cases, but certainly not in most!

 

It seems you claim an unassailable knowledge of a number of things, how on earth can you know this one?

[donnamaybe]

I would consider that I left my ex-wife via a managed exit. Except for the fact that my managed exit began 15 years prior to my leaving, when there was not even a glimmer of an OW.

 

Although, I must say, she did not take me seriously and it cost her in the long run. I honestly believe I tried to do the right thing.

So, in reading the bolded, I would assume she knew what was coming which is a FAR cry from completely blindsiding someone, having previously lined up everything in favor of only one side and not allowing the other person to prepare.

[donnamaybe]

It seems you claim an unassailable knowledge of a number of things, how on earth can you know this one?

Wouldn't it be rather arrogant to make such a claim?

[wheelwright]

I am sure what feels best is to rationalize every action to lessen culpability while trying to demonize anyone who looks askance at what they feel is bad behavior.

 

Never seen such a cup half empty version of compassion. You live and learn.