Part Time Relationships

[MissBee]

I find the idea of relationships with limited capacity very interesting...

 

I was browsing a couple threads and a few posters in the OW position stated that part time relationships (exact phrasing) upon her assessment were good for her and a healthy choice at that point in time.

 

Another poster had stated that some people don't want a relationship with full availability so As worked in that regard.

 

My question is: if for whatever reason you decide that you want a part time relationship or the fringe benefits of a relationship without the full responsibilities...are married or otherwise taken people more suitable or appealing for that than a single person wanting the same thing? If so why?

[Tenacity]

I find the idea of relationships with limited capacity very interesting...

 

I was browsing a couple threads and a few posters in the OW position stated that part time relationships (exact phrasing) upon her assessment were good for her and a healthy choice at that point in time.

 

Another poster had stated that some people don't want a relationship with full availability so As worked in that regard.

 

My question is: if for whatever reason you decide that you want a part time relationship or the fringe benefits of a relationship without the full responsibilities...are married or otherwise taken people more suitable or appealing for that than a single person wanting the same thing? If so why?

 

I used to tell myself exactly that... that I didn't want a full-time committed relationship and the setup I was living for 4 years with a MM was perfect for that reason. That was just one of the lies that I forced myself to believe.

 

The only time that could be true is if it were ONLY sex. That's usually not the case. If there is an emotional investment and love involved, I don't believe that anyone would truly, really want to share someone and think that was the best option for them.

[waytogo]

I used to tell myself exactly that... that I didn't want a full-time committed relationship and the setup I was living for 4 years with a MM was perfect for that reason. That was just one of the lies that I forced myself to believe.

 

The only time that could be true is if it were ONLY sex. That's usually not the case. If there is an emotional investment and love involved, I don't believe that anyone would truly, really want to share someone and think that was the best option for them.

 

I'm with Teacity on this 1. I told this myself this also. For a time, it felt true. The more I relied on a person for intamacy, weighing certain decisions, the more it felt like that should be a full-time person.

 

Big scale tipper was when he faked being sick at his stomach at work to leave early and surprise me. I worked at home then. I was happy to see him and his flowers but I still had work to do. His impatience was rediculous. Was he going to pay my bills if I didn't get my work done? NNNOOO. Sure glad I didn't have 3 of his effin' kids when he was in the mood for no reality. It still took a few months, but the equations actually started lining up in columns instead of all over the page. I didn't need a part time or a full time any kind of R to get away from and get my head clear of that.

 

If someone one wants only part time, nothing serious IMO they should just go for a single party who wants the same. Even if you are nothing serious to another party, if you are with a MP, you are in just the serious situation you said you didn't want.

Edited June 24, 2011 by waytogo

[Loni]

I don't think any single woman has sex with a man, especially a MM, thinking of china patterns, white dresses and having his cherubic babies at the onset. It's fun and intoxicating all this attention.

 

MM is making an effort to woo you because for every single woman who will sleep with a MM there are 90 who won't. You are a catch that he does not want to let get away because you are not easily replaceable. He is going to pull out more romance than you can handle. If he is moneyed you will get flowers, fancy dinners and expensive gifts and you will interpret that to believe he loves you. Usually (and I am bolding the usually part) they do not love you. They like you; a lot. The SW can fall into the trap of falling in love with an image.

 

The only times I have seen this work out is when the SW is a gold digger looking for a sugar daddy. They both understand the score.

[Tenacity]

I don't think any single woman has sex with a man, especially a MM, thinking of china patterns, white dresses and having his cherubic babies at the onset. It's fun and intoxicating all this attention.

 

MM is making an effort to woo you because for every single woman who will sleep with a MM there are 90 who won't. You are a catch that he does not want to let get away because you are not easily replaceable. He is going to pull out more romance than you can handle. If he is moneyed you will get flowers, fancy dinners and expensive gifts and you will interpret that to believe he loves you. Usually (and I am bolding the usually part) they do not love you. They like you; a lot. The SW can fall into the trap of falling in love with an image.

 

The only times I have seen this work out is when the SW is a gold digger looking for a sugar daddy. They both understand the score.

 

Statistics don't support your claim that for every single woman who will sleep with a MM, there are 90 who won't. Where did you get those data?

 

I can understand what you are saying in the rest of your post. But not all A's can be summed up the way you just did. For me, it had nothing to do with 'romance' or 'flowers' or 'fancy dinners'. In fact I was the one with the money, not him. It just isn't always that simply explained.

 

I agree with you though, that the OW can, and often does, fall in love with an 'image'. Or what she believes him to be.

[Loni]

Statistics don't support your claim that for every single woman who will sleep with a MM, there are 90 who won't. Where did you get those data?

 

I can understand what you are saying in the rest of your post. But not all A's can be summed up the way you just did. For me, it had nothing to do with 'romance' or 'flowers' or 'fancy dinners'. In fact I was the one with the money, not him. It just isn't always that simply explained.

 

I agree with you though, that the OW can, and often does, fall in love with an 'image'. Or what she believes him to be.

 

Go to the MBL sites and forums and you will see the number of men who complain of not being able to find an affair partner in real life or online. This is true even when they are responding to an ad placed by a WOMAN looking for sex with a MM. Women are not exactly falling over themselves for married dyck.

[waytogo]

Go to the MBL sites and forums and you will see the number of men who complain of not being able to find an affair partner in real life or online. This is true even when they are responding to an ad placed by a WOMAN looking for sex with a MM. Women are not exactly falling over themselves for married dyck.

 

TRUE! When xMM 1st said he was going to look outstide his M, and I do think he was thinking maybe me for that then, I thought 'good luck with that'. What woman would, well skipping down the line, me, later. Then everything I told him that even if you found such a person it could get complicated, did. Except, I boiled no bunnies, never told his W or begged him back. I only told him the whole thing was redundant and predictable. Just the things of which he said he had tired. Difference was, I was so tired of it, I actually changed the sitch. Either it's better now for him, and I hope so, or he never got as tired in over 15 years as I got in 2. I have every reason to believe she was offering more along than either he was recognizing, or chose to tell.

[Tenacity]

Go to the MBL sites and forums and you will see the number of men who complain of not being able to find an affair partner in real life or online. This is true even when they are responding to an ad placed by a WOMAN looking for sex with a MM. Women are not exactly falling over themselves for married dyck.

 

I don't disagree with you in general terms. But, if you are going to quote statistics such as 90 to 1, then they should be based in fact and not made up.

 

The fact is that across lifetimes, more women than that will have an affair with a MM, for one reason or another.

 

My apologies for digressing from the original post MissBee. I'm done. It is a great question.

[MissBee]

I'm with Tenacity on this 1. I told this myself this also. For a time, it felt true. The more I relied on a person for intamacy, weighing certain decisions, the more it felt like that should be a full-time person.

 

Big scale tipper was when he faked being sick at his stomach at work to leave early and surprise me. I worked at home then. I was happy to see him and his flowers but I still had work to do. His impatience was rediculous. Was he going to pay my bills if I didn't get my work done? NNNOOO. Sure glad I didn't have 3 of his effin' kids when he was in the mood for no reality. It still took a few months, but the equations actually started lining up in columns instead of all over the page. I didn't need a part time or a full time any kind of R to get away from and get my head clear of that.

 

If someone one wants only part time, nothing serious IMO they should just go for a single party who wants the same. Even if you are nothing serious to another party, if you are with a MP, you are in just the serious situation you said you didn't want.

 

I can relate. Initially when I begin interacting with the taken guy, it was no big deal, but as time went on, he more and more fell into the boyfriend role and began doing the boyfriend things, then that possessiveness and desiring more from him came into play. Then it was that awkward gray area of not knowing what is what and wanting certain things but pretending you don't want it, or trying to get it but not being able to get it fully and trying as best as you can to be fine with what it is, even if inside you're screaming for more.

 

I don't think you can be in a part time relationship...

 

Are you single part of the time and part of the time committed? Which parts? On Mon-Fri you are in a relationship and on the weekend you're not?

 

When he's at home with his wife, that's the part where you're off duty? But when he's around that's the part when it's a relationship again?

 

I'm really trying to see how it is viewed. When I view it and my former situation, it makes no sense and was just all around inadequate so I want to know how the part time is broken down or perceived.

[Loni]

Correct. The 90 who won't love and respect themselves more than to demean themselves in that manner. Incorrect. The OW is not a catch. She is just willing to stoop to his level.

 

Oh simmer down Glinda. MM do consider it a catch especially if he is lucky enough to find an OW who behaves. I know it's tough as a BS to do this but do try and keep on topic and understand that a lot of men are happier than a pig who missed the bacon cut to have a cooperative OW.

 

This does not mean the MM does not love his wife by the way.

[MissBee]

I used to tell myself exactly that... that I didn't want a full-time committed relationship and the setup I was living for 4 years with a MM was perfect for that reason. That was just one of the lies that I forced myself to believe.

 

The only time that could be true is if it were ONLY sex. That's usually not the case. If there is an emotional investment and love involved, I don't believe that anyone would truly, really want to share someone and think that was the best option for them.

 

I agree.

 

I have been involved with a taken man twice, but one of the times, I don't count it because there was no emotional involvement and no facade of a relationship. I wouldn't do that again either and I don't excuse myself for it, but I wouldn't consider myself the OW as it just was not that serious.

 

The second guy had a gf who lived in another state, when I initially started flirting and talking to him I didn't know, then he told me, and ofcourse threw in some "helpful facts" about the relationship being on the rocks ...I truly didn't care though at the time because I just wanted to sleep with him and had no intention of anything else. That situation "worked out" because it was essentially an acquaintance with benefits/booty call scenario. We didn't hang out a lot or call each other or share our innermost thoughts or did anything that would form that attachment. We did go on dates that lead to sex and that was that. I didn't care about whatever else he did in life, I made no demands on him and his time and I didn't pretend we were in a relationship in any capacity.

 

I don't believe in FWB, in that this person is someone whom you talk to a lot, confide in, share with, hang out with and sleep together...as that is what a relationship is! You are in fact in a relationship, just an open one or you just have no titles, which is why often it turns messy because people do everything you do in a relationship but don't call it that so believe it's something less serious.

 

For me it's all or nothing, because calling a spade a club really doesn't lessen the consequences. I don't do FWB or any kind of part time relationship scenario, as there is too much ambiguity and hidden clauses that I don't like dealing with.

Edited June 25, 2011 by MissBee

[MissBee]

I'm not sure it matters that much if the person is single or not.

 

I like my A /EA because I like a long chase and courtship. I kind of bored once all the initial excitement is gone.

 

So the fact that me and MM have been talking and basically playing cat and mouse for months is okay with me. I love me and MM's slow but always progressing speed, why rush it anyway.

 

Part-time to Full-time to maybe Over-time is cool with me

 

Although a courtship is a process leading to marriage, so I wouldn't use that terminology to describe your situation, but everything else you say actually fits very nicely into my theory and other proposed theories of why limited capacity relationships are appealing.

 

I thought a similar thing recently about a guy I was seeing, and I realized that hmmm wow....so this is what I really feel. For me it was a startling realization and something I need to do something about in order to eventually have a LTR. I too prefered the euphoria and the chase and distance between us as that allowed for limited true intimacy and a sustained relationship to be formed, although in my mind I didn't realize I was in fact getting into scenarios that were filled with obstacles so I couldn't get too cozy.

 

Slow but progressing...and cat and mouse don't seem to go together. Where are you progressing to anyway?

Edited June 25, 2011 by MissBee

[pureinheart]

I used to tell myself exactly that... that I didn't want a full-time committed relationship and the setup I was living for 4 years with a MM was perfect for that reason. That was just one of the lies that I forced myself to believe.

 

The only time that could be true is if it were ONLY sex. That's usually not the case. If there is an emotional investment and love involved, I don't believe that anyone would truly, really want to share someone and think that was the best option for them.

 

You forced yourself to believe lies at that time for four years. I have never seen this before. I have seen people lie to themselves, although it was by choice not by force...I hope your ok now and life is much better for you:)

[Emme]

My question is: if for whatever reason you decide that you want a part time relationship or the fringe benefits of a relationship without the full responsibilities...are married or otherwise taken people more suitable or appealing for that than a single person wanting the same thing? If so why?

 

From what I know of people who are in seeking married people, it's all about convenience. Many women who are too busy and love life they would prefer a married man as opposed to a "single" man. One reason is he's taken cared of... he has a wife. She doesn't have to do anything for him. Another reason I have heard is emotions. Some woman are very detached and feel a man who's married won't complicate their lives emotionally. The only thing is some peoples emotions do get involved and they catch feelings... enter drama! But some women play the game as men do. They want to get that wood and leave without a second thought.

[Breezy Trousers]

I don't think any single woman has sex with a man, especially a MM, thinking of china patterns, white dresses and having his cherubic babies at the onset. It's fun and intoxicating all this attention.

 

MM is making an effort to woo you because for every single woman who will sleep with a MM there are 90 who won't. You are a catch that he does not want to let get away because you are not easily replaceable. He is going to pull out more romance than you can handle. If he is moneyed you will get flowers, fancy dinners and expensive gifts and you will interpret that to believe he loves you. Usually (and I am bolding the usually part) they do not love you. They like you; a lot. The SW can fall into the trap of falling in love with an image.

 

The only times I have seen this work out is when the SW is a gold digger looking for a sugar daddy. They both understand the score.

 

I agree.

 

Prostitution is illegal in most states. OW are not. If the MM in my situation got caught soliciting a prostitute for attention and sex, he would lose everything --- his high church image, his Man of the Year reputation, his family's reputation, his license, his career. He's not stupid. That's why he and his middle-aged country club frat brothers solicit people like me -- "subordinates" -- for sex and attention and then toss their "OW" gifts or money as a token of appreciation for sexual access & attention .... This is why Steve Harvey -- a former cheater -- goes to great lengths in one of his books to warn OW not to be flattered by well-to-do men who throw money, jewelry, and new clothes at them and to not believe that any of this stuff represents love. Often the gifts only represent some "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." In MM's view, it's the price of doing business and it's a way of controlling OW. (I'm reminded of Tom Capano, the professional MM in Anne Rule's Never Let Her Go. He bought his OW lots of expensive designer suits, fine meals and getaway weekends but ended up taking her life. So much for love.)

 

Anyway --

 

I think a lot of OW like to tell the story that the affair is just for kicks --- just a one-night stand or a little fling or a little relationship. It gives the illusion of control. The problem is, sex changes things. Anthropologist Helen Fisher says there's really no such thing as casual sex and, hormones being as powerful as they are, we need to be very careful about who we have sex with because we can "fall in love" despite ourselves. In her book, Desire, Susan Cheever tells how husband #3 was just intended to be a (drunken) casual sexual encounter while the wife was away. No big deal. Something shifted after they had sex and they entered into an affair spanning two decades. He ended up being the great love of her life. And her third divorce.

[MissBee]

I agree.

 

Prostitution is illegal in most states. OW are not. If the MM in my situation got caught soliciting a prostitute for attention and sex, he would lose everything --- his high church image, his Man of the Year reputation, his family's reputation, his license, his career. He's not stupid. That's why he and his middle-aged country club frat brothers solicit people like me -- "subordinates" -- for sex and attention and then toss their "OW" gifts or money as a token of appreciation for sexual access & attention .... This is why Steve Harvey -- a former cheater -- goes to great lengths in one of his books to warn OW not to be flattered by well-to-do men who throw money, jewelry, and new clothes at them and to not believe that any of this stuff represents love. Often the gifts only represent some "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." In MM's view, it's the price of doing business and it's a way of controlling OW. (I'm reminded of Tom Capano, the professional MM in Anne Rule's Never Let Her Go. He bought his OW lots of expensive designer suits, fine meals and getaway weekends but ended up taking her life. So much for love.)

 

Anyway --

 

I think a lot of OW like to tell the story that the affair is just for kicks --- just a one-night stand or a little fling or a little relationship. It gives the illusion of control. The problem is, sex changes things. Anthropologist Helen Fisher says there's really no such thing as casual sex and, hormones being as powerful as they are, we need to be very careful about who we have sex with because we can "fall in love" despite ourselves. In her book, Desire, Susan Cheever tells how husband #3 was just intended to be a (drunken) casual sexual encounter while the wife was away. No big deal. Something shifted after they had sex and they entered into an affair spanning two decades. He ended up being the great love of her life. And her third divorce.

 

Very true! I love Helen Fisher's work btw.

[Silly_Girl]

From what I know of people who are in seeking married people, it's all about convenience. Many women who are too busy and love life they would prefer a married man as opposed to a "single" man. One reason is he's taken cared of... he has a wife. She doesn't have to do anything for him. Another reason I have heard is emotions. Some woman are very detached and feel a man who's married won't complicate their lives emotionally. The only thing is some peoples emotions do get involved and they catch feelings... enter drama! But some women play the game as men do. They want to get that wood and leave without a second thought.

 

It's often mooted that a MM would prefer a MW over a single, as an AP, to keep risk/mess to a minimum so I can understand how that mentality can occur in other situations.

[Emme]

I recall a friend of mine who was ready to leave his wife. He was strung out. I mean I thought his affair partners coochie was magic. He was ready to give his wife the house and just walk away... no kids.. he'd give her whatever she wants. His affair partner was married and her husband would call him constantly telling him I'm gonna kill you... I know your f*king my wife. Now that's one reason to let go but he wouldn't. Second reason this woman wasn't just cheating on her husband, she was cheating on him with a new boyfriend. So this one woman has 3 men strung out.. a husband, fiance, and boyfriend. I think people just underestimate what emotions can do. You might think it's a safe zone to do the dirty deed with someone who is already hitched and there would be no emotions involved. The thing is it's the worst thing to actually do.

[OWoman]

I find the idea of relationships with limited capacity very interesting...

 

I was browsing a couple threads and a few posters in the OW position stated that part time relationships (exact phrasing) upon her assessment were good for her and a healthy choice at that point in time.

 

Another poster had stated that some people don't want a relationship with full availability so As worked in that regard.

 

As one of the people you may have been quoting, I'll attempt to answer this from the perspective I held at the time when part-time Rs were what I wanted. Obviously, since I'm no longer in that headspace, this is based on reconstruction and may not completely capture what I thought and felt at the time.

 

My question is: if for whatever reason you decide that you want a part time relationship or the fringe benefits of a relationship without the full responsibilities...are married or otherwise taken people more suitable or appealing for that than a single person wanting the same thing?

 

IME, most definitely!

 

If so why?

 

Because SGs may claim to want the same thing, but seldom do. Mostly they soon progress from being OK to see you as and when you have the time and inclination to fit them into your schedule to wanting more... Especially when they know they are one of several. Their pride or sense of competition or whatever makes them want to be THE one, not just one of... They want to matter more to you than those other things (or people) in your life that you are choosing to invest your time and interest in over them when you're not with them. They want to kiss and cuddle after sex while you want to get back to the rest of your life. They want to meet your kids and your friends and your dog and they want to see your home and fix the roof and take you to their business function and parade you to their friends and plant their spawn in your uterus.

 

And for those few who really do just want a part-time R, they want it on THEIR terms, not on yours. They want to be the ones who call the shots, who decide when to see you, what will and won't be on the agenda. They don't want to be the disposable sex toy - they want you to play that role for them. Sorry, I don't do that. I know which side of the power dynamic I stand on.

 

Which is why a MM is much more suitable. They accept their limitations, they know you're the one doing them one hell of a favour by choosing them, that you're the one with options and choices, so they accept that it's on your terms. And because all of their other needs are at least nominally getting met elsewhere, in theory they are less likely to want you to do all that other stuff for them. They have someone else to plant their flower borders and fawn over them in public and grace their arms at business events and wash their socks and spawn their offspring. You're less likely, in theory, to be painted into pictures of picket fences and happy ever afters.

 

It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the theory, and on balance there's a better chance of it working out with MMs than with SGs, IME.

[OWoman]

I think a lot of OW like to tell the story that the affair is just for kicks --- just a one-night stand or a little fling or a little relationship. It gives the illusion of control.

 

It needn't be just an illusion. IME the OW really does have control.

 

The problem is, sex changes things.

 

Sometimes, yes. But often not. Have you fallen in love with everyone you have ever had sex with? I've only fallen in love once, with my current H, and I've certainly had more sex partners than just him...

 

Anthropologist Helen Fisher says there's really no such thing as casual sex

 

I would disagree with her. I've had casual sex, and I've had the other kind too, and I can certainly tell the difference.

 

and, hormones being as powerful as they are, we need to be very careful about who we have sex with because we can "fall in love" despite ourselves. In her book, Desire, Susan Cheever tells how husband #3 was just intended to be a (drunken) casual sexual encounter while the wife was away. No big deal. Something shifted after they had sex and they entered into an affair spanning two decades. He ended up being the great love of her life. And her third divorce.

 

Indeed. My H was also just a casual fling, at first. But we allowed ourselves to fall in love and as a result we chose to be together and here we are. But none of my previous As had that trajectory. It's a risk, sure - but I don't find the odds overwhelming, IME.

[MissBee]

As one of the people you may have been quoting, I'll attempt to answer this from the perspective I held at the time when part-time Rs were what I wanted. Obviously, since I'm no longer in that headspace, this is based on reconstruction and may not completely capture what I thought and felt at the time.

 

 

 

IME, most definitely!

 

 

 

Because SGs may claim to want the same thing, but seldom do. Mostly they soon progress from being OK to see you as and when you have the time and inclination to fit them into your schedule to wanting more... Especially when they know they are one of several. Their pride or sense of competition or whatever makes them want to be THE one, not just one of... They want to matter more to you than those other things (or people) in your life that you are choosing to invest your time and interest in over them when you're not with them. They want to kiss and cuddle after sex while you want to get back to the rest of your life. They want to meet your kids and your friends and your dog and they want to see your home and fix the roof and take you to their business function and parade you to their friends and plant their spawn in your uterus.

 

And for those few who really do just want a part-time R, they want it on THEIR terms, not on yours. They want to be the ones who call the shots, who decide when to see you, what will and won't be on the agenda. They don't want to be the disposable sex toy - they want you to play that role for them. Sorry, I don't do that. I know which side of the power dynamic I stand on.

 

Which is why a MM is much more suitable. They accept their limitations, they know you're the one doing them one hell of a favour by choosing them, that you're the one with options and choices, so they accept that it's on your terms. And because all of their other needs are at least nominally getting met elsewhere, in theory they are less likely to want you to do all that other stuff for them. They have someone else to plant their flower borders and fawn over them in public and grace their arms at business events and wash their socks and spawn their offspring. You're less likely, in theory, to be painted into pictures of picket fences and happy ever afters.

 

It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the theory, and on balance there's a better chance of it working out with MMs than with SGs, IME.

 

 

I see....makes sense.

 

So based on what you've said, would you suggest that it is misguided then for a single person wanting a "full relationship" to be involved with a married person, since most often than not there is no great need for them to have a full relationship with you, since they have that somewhere else already?

 

From what I've seen and read here on LS, there seems to be some type of dissonance where many OW are quite possessive of "their guy" and very much speak of the relationship as something more than part time or come quite distraught about some situation in the relationship that really shouldn't be of much concern if it is "part time". But again the term part time relationship is a misnomer in my mind as IMO what you've describe I wouldn't call it a relationship as much as an arrangement of convenience.

 

I think relationships are either on or off...which is also why when people say they're "on a break", I'm like no, you're broken up, the only difference is you MAY be considering it to not be final but nonetheless you can't take a break from your relationship, if you're on a break you are no longer in the relationship. Relationships in my experience are things that have to be continuously nurtured..so would part time relationships be nurtured part of the time? I feel like it has to be either or. It's either some arrangement of convenience for sex and companionship that really is not a relationship but has the fringe benefits of such or it is a relationship that has a foundation that is being continuously nurtured.

[Shocking Pink]

I find the idea of relationships with limited capacity very interesting...

 

I was browsing a couple threads and a few posters in the OW position stated that part time relationships (exact phrasing) upon her assessment were good for her and a healthy choice at that point in time.

 

Another poster had stated that some people don't want a relationship with full availability so As worked in that regard.

 

My question is: if for whatever reason you decide that you want a part time relationship or the fringe benefits of a relationship without the full responsibilities...are married or otherwise taken people more suitable or appealing for that than a single person wanting the same thing? If so why?

 

Well with my ex-MM I did want a part-time relationship, no strings, nothing too heavy. I wasn't looking for a MM but he presented himself as wanting the same things, and he swept me off my feet. He had an arrangement with his wife so it wasn't something I agonized about.

 

I saw some people saying they had convinced themselves that was all they wanted, but it didn't work that way for me, it was all I wanted with that MM. He was dashing and it was exciting but when I was ready for a real full-time relationship I moved on from him. He wasn't somebody I could have settled down with for real.

[Cabin]

My question is: if for whatever reason you decide that you want a part time relationship or the fringe benefits of a relationship without the full responsibilities...are married or otherwise taken people more suitable or appealing for that than a single person wanting the same thing? If so why?

 

I'll share my thoughts from my perspective: a married woman involved with a married man.

 

We were attracted to each other without purpose or plan. Neither of us was looking for someone else. Neither of us thought we'd ever wind up in an affair.

 

I've read that most EAs that become PAs are not conscientious "plans", instead they are about blurring boundaries little by little as emotions intensify. Most married people who have an affair with another married person are not serial cheaters, or even bad people, and most are surprised when they find themselves in the situation. (That is not an excuse, so please don't jump all over me on this point.)

 

In my case, there was certainly a "safety" associated with being interested in another married person. There was balance that way, you know? We each had the same situation: spouse, kids, homes, etc.

 

But that safety was an illusion. Now, almost two years since the feelings and mutual desire first surfaced, neither of us can really imagine life without the other...

[MissBee]

Well with my ex-MM I did want a part-time relationship, no strings, nothing too heavy. I wasn't looking for a MM but he presented himself as wanting the same things, and he swept me off my feet. He had an arrangement with his wife so it wasn't something I agonized about.

 

I saw some people saying they had convinced themselves that was all they wanted, but it didn't work that way for me, it was all I wanted with that MM. He was dashing and it was exciting but when I was ready for a real full-time relationship I moved on from him. He wasn't somebody I could have settled down with for real.

 

Would you consider it a fling looking back?

 

I ask because for me I think I differentiate between flings with little to no deep emotions or future expectations attached and special arrangements that provide for sexual and companionship or even financial needs in isolation versus relationships which to me are not isolating certain needs but are a full enterprise.

 

I was involved with a taken guy before but when I talk of my OW experience I never bring that up as I considered it more of a fling. He provided for my sexual and sometimes companionship and attention needs in isolation. I was under no pretense that we were in any form of relationship, whether part time or what. He wasn't my part time boyfriend or whatnot....

 

Then there was my other OW experience, in which the drama came in because it was considered by both of us to be a relationship, one that we tried to act like was "normal" even though the underlying reality was that it was not a fully available scenario. He did all the bf things and I the gf things and we had the emotional intimacy and everything else and expectations of each other but the fact that he was not fully available was the pink elephant in the room. Which is why I asked OWoman if she thought that women who wanted (or think they want) full relationships but were dating MM or taken men were misguided.

 

From what I'm seeing in these responses and my own experience, it reaffirms my belief that you're in a fling/"arrangement" OR a relationship but part-time relationships don't actually make sense and are just another type of fling that can become crazy if one or both parties is using the part-time title but behaving as though it is full time...which you and OWoman did not do.

[Cabin]

Not to thread-jack, but I also think there is a HUGE difference between a relationship with a MM/single OW and two APs who are both married!