White Flower Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Perhaps she still has a lot of (misplaced) trust in her husband...or maybe she doesn't want to move on. Assumptions and conjecture for everybody. I guess the lesson here is to never trust anyone...ever. I'm sure your post is meant to jab but that's ok, I don't flinch easily. Misplaced trust or head-burying? It's a choice, she makes it. Conjecture? I know too much to participate in conjecture. Trust is a gift more than something earned. Hard to encompass, I know, but so very true.
OldOnTheInside Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 I'm sure your post is meant to jab but that's ok, I don't flinch easily. Nope, it wasn't. And that's why you shouldn't make so many assumptions.
White Flower Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Nope, it wasn't. And that's why you shouldn't make so many assumptions.Well, this is an internet forum with hundreds if not thousands of anonymous posters. Hard to tell them all apart.
OldOnTheInside Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Well, this is an internet forum with hundreds if not thousands of anonymous posters. Hard to tell them all apart. Mmhmm. Well, this is just something I've learned from my own experiences in life (not from being an OW obviously but just from life in general). If your assumptions about your MM's wife are true, then you have made a few lucky (and possibly informed) guesses, but if you are wrong, then you usually end up being way off. That's why I don't recommend making presumptions about this woman. Nobody really knows what's going on in her head but her.
White Flower Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) He's taken great measures to be with you in an affair. How meaningful is that? Do you not see the irony in this paragraph? Nope. 'affair' might be an awful word to you, but I'm just fine with it. And it's a very meaningful affair. Just as you are taking him back knowing he is still married,not even separated, creates a contract to continue that cycle. Not many people would be ok with that, or with another person being exposed to all the hurt, physical, mental and emotional. 'Not many' BW you mean? You're assuming I'm ordinary, but I'm not. I was exposed to hurt when I was M, much more hurt. And the benefit to having an A for the OP is that we can get out any time we want. Win/win for me. I have never seen a BS, or any other wife for that matter, claim to 'own' their husband. *That's an immature and childish mindset. * Then you haven't been reading these boards much. However, I have seen OW claim that the BS thinks she owns her husband, which seems more like sour grapes because the husband acts that way in the OW mind, because he's not leaving his wife anytime soon. This is plausible, but not in my MM's case. She told him on Dday that if he drives away with that packed bag that he better not introduce me to her MIL because that was HER MIL. She even owns the inlaws, lol. Oh, and he can't visit his own town, speak to his own adult kids, nor keep any of the friends she has met through him. Nope, she doesn't claim to own him. So you don't 'own' him but you 'own' his heart? *So what does that mean? *You'll rip it from his body if he throws you under a bus?Nice try T, But I'm fairly certain you already know what it means. You just don't like it. What you actually mean in all the flowery words, is he loves you and you love him. *It means nothing without the actions to back it up. I never met a woman who disliked flowers before but there's always a first. And who says he isn't backing up his love with actions? He's been to every medical appointment with me, helped with my daughter's birthday party, drove me to traffic court just to support me in that. My H never did those things, minus the birthday party, and he basically just showed up for that. So in a very real sense, T, MM is backing up his love with actions. Why do you assume that his leaving his W and M me is the only viable action? Probably because you think it'll pour salt into wounds that don't exist, though I'm sure you wish they did. Don't worry T, he's not the user you think he is, nor am I the clinger you think I am. At the end of the day, you have to accept that some APs actually love each other. And the actions he is providing for me is all the validity I need. Edited June 5, 2011 by White Flower
White Flower Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 'Meaningful affair' - now there's an oxymoron. That's your definition, not that of the majority. Nope, not that many OW. *Including you I can only count a handful who's posts I've read, that are ok with it. *The vast majority of OW are absolutely not ok with being hurt or others being hurt by their actions. If that's true, then I suspect that their main goal is exclusivity, and the possibility they have little experience with romantic Rs altogether. Experience can change one's outlook. So post some links where BS have claimed they 'own' their husbands. Turnstone, it's everything they're not saying that makes it so obvious! And you heard her say all that. * Not everyone has a fantastic ability to recognize a lie. I'm sorry you have trust issues. Yes, of course I understood. *And yes, I can't stand the melodramatic, sickly sweet and emotive wording. Call it what you like T. But I'm thinking what you really can't stand is two APs actually being in love. I don't like your flowery language and you equate that to me not liking flowers? *Ok, and with that you made sure you'd never get any credibility back Is that a promise or a threat? I'm not sure your 'moral majority' views are credible anyway. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I don't try to force my views down your throat; I only answer questions and explain myself when asked, such as on this thread. But it would appear that you are trying to convince me that all As are morally bankrupt. Good luck with that, because 80% of all Ms have experienced As at one time or another, so you're not impressing enough people to stop engaging in 'moral bankruptcy'. Not actions that I would find any comfort in from someone carrying on an affair with me. Again, because your number one priority is exclusivity. And while I agree that exclusivity is a wonderful thing I disagree that other actions are not comforting. Exclusivity isn't the be all end all thing without the aforementioned actions. I had exclusivity in my M, and what a sh*TTY *M it turned out to be. Marrying you? *I don't think I've ever insisted that the only action needed to qualify as love is marriage. *He married his wife for god's sake - and look how 'loving' that turned out to be! Thank goodness we agree on something. I have never called him a user or your a clinger. *Anyone who chooses to be part of an affair has issues though and if that's all the validity you need, they're pretty big ones. *Oh, and just as you don't have to accept that an affair is morally bankrupt, I certainly don't have to accept that an affair has anything to do with love No you don't, you just have to keep turning a blind eye;)
Silly_Girl Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 'Meaningful affair' - now there's an oxymoron. On the contrary, I'd suggest it's rare for affairs to NOT be meaningful to the three main parties (and their families). Regardless of the outcome. If affairs meant nothing then this board would just be tumbleweed and a few bored spammers.
White Flower Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Good luck with that, because 80% of all Ms have experienced As at one time or another, so you're not impressing enough people to stop them from engaging in 'moral bankruptcy'. I left out a couple of words.
donnamaybe Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Of the many AP who have been thrown under the bus, I wonder how many of them would say they think the A was meaningful to their MP.
White Flower Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Of the many AP who have been thrown under the bus, I wonder how many of them would say they think the A was meaningful to their MP. I wouldn't know but I wonder what BW thought of the many letters, pictures, and cards he stored in a 'safe place' after she found them. Even I suspected he might throw them away before arriving home but he kept every one of them.
Silly_Girl Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Of the many AP who have been thrown under the bus, I wonder how many of them would say they think the A was meaningful to their MP. Why deny the OW if it all means nothing? If the A means nothing?
White Flower Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Why deny the OW if it all means nothing? If the A means nothing? Denying the OW when 'it all means nothing' is when the BW is 'believing everything' in hopes of reclaiming 'ownership'. It is easier to believe what you want to believe.
jwi71 Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Even I suspected he might throw them away before arriving home but he kept every one of them. I have a question for you WF. It appears, from the part I bolded, that you are content with him part time as you refer to him "going home" (back to his family home). Do you still entertain the possibility of having him full time, in the open as your H? Or are you satisfied with the status quo? I don't mean this to be dig at all. Quite the contrary. For the better part of two years, I only wanted to "know" a woman until the morning. Eventually, that changed and ONS or dating "for a while" no longer interested me. I wanted more. Just asking where you are in terms of having a full time monogamous R with him (or anyone).
Silly_Girl Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Good grief. Black is white, black is white.......... Affairs are often life-changing for some or all of the parties so I do consider them to be very meaningful.
OWoman Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Affairs are often life-changing for some or all of the parties so I do consider them to be very meaningful. Exactly! Why would a BS dump a spouse of decades if she considered the whole episode to be completely meaningless?
donnamaybe Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Why deny the OW if it all means nothing? If the A means nothing? Wha...?! So if the OW/OM gets thrown under the bus, that SOLIDIFIES the "fact" that the A was oh, so very important to the WS? I guess, conversely, that would mean if they left their spouse and stayed with the OW/OM that would make the A meaningless? :confused: :lmao:
Silly_Girl Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Wha...?! So if the OW/OM gets thrown under the bus, that SOLIDIFIES the "fact" that the A was oh, so very important to the WS? I guess, conversely, that would mean if they left their spouse and stayed with the OW/OM that would make the A meaningless? :confused: :lmao: No Donna, if the affair was nothing - literally nothing - there'd be no need to react in any way at all. There'd be nothing. But it's meaningful to all parties, and significant. I don't think I've seen any situation on here where the entire episode was of no meaning or significance to any party. That's all.
silktricks Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 I would have done anything within my power to set him free if my H had wanted her instead of me. {snip} because that line didn't apply to me... I didn't want him to stay because he felt like he had to, that there was no choice in the matter, or even to avoid hurting me. I'm a big girl, I can handle pain. I just can't imagine anyone wanting to make someone stay with them who would rather be with someone else. This is exactly true for me.... But, I am fully aware that it is not true for everyone.
donnamaybe Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 No Donna, if the affair was nothing - literally nothing - there'd be no need to react in any way at all. There'd be nothing. But it's meaningful to all parties, and significant. I don't think I've seen any situation on here where the entire episode was of no meaning or significance to any party. That's all. I don't think that's the particular brand of "meaningful" that was being discussed.
White Flower Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 I have a question for you WF. It appears, from the part I bolded, that you are content with him part time as you refer to him "going home" (back to his family home). Do you still entertain the possibility of having him full time, in the open as your H? Or are you satisfied with the status quo? I don't mean this to be dig at all. Quite the contrary. For the better part of two years, I only wanted to "know" a woman until the morning. Eventually, that changed and ONS or dating "for a while" no longer interested me. I wanted more. Just asking where you are in terms of having a full time monogamous R with him (or anyone).jwi71, I will PM you so as not to t/j.
Silly_Girl Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 I don't think that's the particular brand of "meaningful" that was being discussed. So if it means nothing, why does he consistently and knowlingly choose a path which jeopardises his marriage? I don't mean the silly man caught with his pants down on a stag do.... I mean someone who's done it for months or years. I just don't buy that these things have no meaning. I realise it's a means for anti-ow to try and make people feel like a P.O.S. but it's not an intelligent argument. Particular when it's being said to someone who has experienced multiple D-days. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but there's a lot more to it than a 'you mean nothin to him' jab.
donnamaybe Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 So if it means nothing, why does he consistently and knowlingly choose a path which jeopardises his marriage? Because there are two women willing to let him get away with it.
White Flower Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Because there are two women willing to let him get away with it. That only explains how he gets away with it, not why it isn't meaningful, as you claim.
donnamaybe Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 That only explains how he gets away with it, not why it isn't meaningful, as you claim. I guess that remains to be seen. Simple for him, since no one minds sharing I guess.
silktricks Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Except when it's between a fOW and a fMM, in which case it gets dismissed and denigrated and brushed off I think there's about an equal amount of denigrating fOW/fMM marriages/relationships and fWS/fBS recovered marriages. Neither of those two relationships fit into the "comfort zone" of some people who post here. But that doesn't mean that either relationship is less loving or less real. And MMs who DO shout their love for their OWs from the rooftops and don't hide their OWs are called all kinds of mean names. There really is no way for a MM and an OW's love to win, around here. It's heads you lose, tails you lose... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Of course it used to be that any fWS who did that for his fBS was called all kinds of mean names. LoveShack seems to be one of those places that goes through cycles. Right now it's in the part of the cycle that has fewer active OW/MM (or supporters thereof). Of course, part of that may be because so many active OW left.....
Recommended Posts