waytogo Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 More than 1 question actually. 1st, after reading a number of members stating they just don't want to have someone around all the time, it brings a question. What couple does anyone know that are right next to each other all the time? Starting with work schedules, just isn't true. I know several couples who own businesses together. Even their time right next to each other isn't every minute, separate travel, tasks, etc. In FT R there are individual hobbies & friends. Even retired couple can have this. 2nd, a # of posters say they only want PT R due time constraints, yet they take time to seak a support forum to tell strangers they are great with the arrangement & debate why they are & try to justify the arrangement is with someone comitted to someone else. Can anyone explain this to me?
MissBee Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) It quite frankly makes no sense to me... I started a thread about that a while ago titled "Part Time Relationshps" You're in a relationship or not, I don't see how it is full or part time. What constitutes the two? You're in a relationship or not..and then if you're in one you make the time availibility to suit you. If I'm dating an athlete or musician who is often traveling, am I in a PT relationship? OR am I simple "in a relationship", where my SO travels sometimes. Can you imagine everytime your SO is not around you say you're in a part time relationship now? Makes no sense... Is a boyfriend a part time relationship and a marriage a full time relationship since you most likely live together and may have kids and other joint things in the latter? You're in a relationship or not...and you arrange time to suit your schedules...you don't have PT/FT feelings...just like you can't be a PT/FT mother. You may be a busy mom, a stay at home mom, working mom, but you're not a PT/FT mom. I'm a busy gf, working gf, stay at home gf, but not a PT/FT gf. I'm your gf or not..not today I am and then sometimes I'm not since it's part time. In an affair though, your part time status makes more sense and is guaranteed as indeed some of the times and to most people you are not this MP's significant other. So only sometimes, in your own world together does the relationship exist and is it legitimate, and then that I suppose is the part time. When I was the OW in his world, where he lived, to his family and kid, I did not exist as his girlfriend or in a relationship with him, but when he came to visit me, in my world he was known as my bf openly and we had a relationship. So truly, it was part time...as only part of the time, only sometimes and only in specific settings are we in a relationship and others, we are not. However, for me, that is just not acceptable anymore. I'd rather a bf who is my bf ALL the time, in all worlds...but we fit our schedules to suit our needs rather than he truly is only my PT bf in a limited capacity and space and depending on who's looking or not looking rather. Edited July 1, 2011 by MissBee
Author waytogo Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 It quite frankly makes no sense to me... I started a thread about that a while ago titled "Part Time Relationshps" You're in a relationship or not, I don't see how it is full or part time. What constitutes the two? You're in a relationship or not..and then if you're in one you make the time availibility to suit you. If I'm dating an athlete or musician who is often traveling, am I in a PT relationship? OR am I simple "in a relationship", where my SO travels sometimes. Can you imagine everytime your SO is not around you say you're in a part time relationship now? Makes no sense... Is a boyfriend a part time relationship and a marriage a full time relationship since you most likely live together and may have kids and other joint things in the latter? You're in a relationship or not...and you arrange time to suit your schedules...you don't have PT/FT feelings...just like you can't be a PT/FT mother. You may be a busy mom, a stay at home mom, working mom, but you're not a PT/FT mom. I'm a busy gf, working gf, stay at home gf, but not a PT/FT gf. I'm your gf or not..not today I am and then sometimes I'm not since it's part time. In an affair though, your part time status makes more sense and is guaranteed as indeed some of the times and to most people you are not this MP's significant other. So only sometimes, in your own world together does the relationship exist and is it legitimate, and then that I suppose is the part time. When I was the OW in his world, where he lived, to his family and kid, I did not exist as his girlfriend or in a relationship with him, but when he came to visit me, in my world he was known as my bf openly and we had a relationship. So truly, it was part time...as only part of the time, only sometimes and only in specific settings are we in a relationship and others, we are not. However, for me, that is just not acceptable anymore. I'd rather a bf who is my bf ALL the time, in all worlds...but we fit our schedules to suit our needs rather than he truly is only my PT bf in a limited capacity and space and depending on who's looking or not looking rather. I've not picked up enough to know if that is your situation at this point. I hope so & he better be AMAZING. If not yet, I've no doubt you will. Positive things happen when we free ourselves of negative situations. Whether a day, month or year or more, the rewards do come. You are very deserving. Same goes some others here from various sides that brought us here. I was about to call off a few names but fear I'd miss someone that should also be named so I'll leave it at that
Shocking Pink Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Well when I was with ex-MM it was pt not just bc of time but also to manage feelings. I had a job and went to school and was a single mom, and it was hard juggling everything! I didn't have time to see anybody very often AND I didn't feel ready to get really emotionally involved and be all angsty but I did want excitement and romance and sex..just, you know, pt. I don't spend that much time on this forum so I can't answer question 2.
Author waytogo Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 Well when I was with ex-MM it was pt not just bc of time but also to manage feelings. I had a job and went to school and was a single mom, and it was hard juggling everything! I didn't have time to see anybody very often AND I didn't feel ready to get really emotionally involved and be all angsty but I did want excitement and romance and sex..just, you know, pt. I don't spend that much time on this forum so I can't answer question 2. Thanks for your reply ShockingPink. Your point to the 1st has been heard. As a FOW who was single at the time, you opened a new question. Background to the question, if in a R that involved intamacy, that always meant just the 2 of us for me. If others choose differently without intruding on another, that's a rightful choice. 2 times I was or felt mislead that I was on the same page with men I was intimate with. Many women I know have found themselves in the same sitch at one time or another. Everytime I speak of for myself & others it was with a SG. There are PLENTY of SG's who will be the FWB guy. Why does parttime mean it has to be a MM? I am not knocking you for having made an OW choice. I did that also. Some of what you described was a reason I gave myself also. This question is for me as much as to anyone, if FT wouldn't work, why didn't I just call an SG, obviously I knew some. For me, deep down PT was not what I really wanted. This was someone I already considered a friend & safe territory. I stopped considering what I really felt about right/wrong and did what seemed easy at 1st without thinking of longterm consequenses. PT is available in abundance with single people. PT is usually justified as a desire for no complication. As are rarely without complication. If PT is the true desire, anyone can find a single party for that.
Shocking Pink Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Well in the past I have dated single men a couple times for what we are calling a pt relationship, too. I didn't go out of my way to choose a MM. I have found though that trying to have a pt relationship with a single guy gets messy most of the time, they end up wanting something more or somebody gets hurt somehow and it gets angsty again. I don't know though I think my situation was different than a lot of people bc that MM had an arrangement with his W and he had OW before. I never felt like I had to feel guilty about his W, so it was an easy choice to make. He was discreet bc of his job and to keep his W happy but I wasn't a big secret or a lie, and he told me she has had OM also.
Shocking Pink Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Plus you said something about just calling a single guy that you knew already, like you're just ordering up some service. That wouldn't work for me, I mean I do have to feel attracted to somebody even if I don't want a forever love, I still want some romance and chemistry.
fooled once Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 waytoo, I think people say they don't want a FT relationship because when you are in an affair with a MM, it won't ever be a 'full time' relationship. So to make it sound better, they say they want only a pt relationship. I would bet all of them would be over the moon if the MM dumped the wife and wanted to only be with the mistress. And when you get down to it, what constitutes part time or full time? I am a 'full time' wife, mother and employee. I don't work with my H, wouldn't want to :laugh:. So because we only have nights and weekends, does that mean we are 'part time'? I also see that the people who claim they are ok with part time are usually the same ones who want more time with the MM and who want to go away on a vacation with the MM. Can you only have feelings for a person part time? It is all very confusing to me, which is why when I see someone say they are "ok" with a part time relationship, I figure they are just trying to convince themselves (and others) of this because they are an affair partner and not someone who is actually dating someone. They are a mistress, not a girlfriend.
cheergirl Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Well in the past I have dated single men a couple times for what we are calling a pt relationship, too. I didn't go out of my way to choose a MM. I have found though that trying to have a pt relationship with a single guy gets messy most of the time, they end up wanting something more or somebody gets hurt somehow and it gets angsty again. This has been my experience as well. single guys in their 30s/40s are looking to settle down have kids; they end up wanting more than I can or am willing to give, + I have my kids already been there doing that. Nor did I go out of my way to look for a MM. It just so happens that we are about the same age our kids are the same age and we have more in common than probably most men I've dated life experience wise (as parents).
cheergirl Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 2nd, a # of posters say they only want PT R due time constraints, yet they take time to seak a support forum to tell strangers they are great with the arrangement & debate why they are & try to justify the arrangement is with someone comitted to someone else. Can anyone explain this to me? I want relationship (of a particular type) and he does too. He likes certain things, his wife doesn't. Apparently she knows, (but does she? and do I care? not really) Que Sera,sera and all that... Anyone else like me out there? As you can see from my post, I am primarily interested in talking to people like me.....(That's assuming s/he exists...) I'm not the judgemental type, everyone is different. I'm happy (sometimes) to debate things through, but don't misunderstand me, I am not here trying to justify myself. I couldn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about my decisions in my life esp. as it has nothing to do with them. It seems the point of your post is to: question why I am here ( it's a public forum and i am on topic)garner support from the forum of your disapproval of me (ain't bovvered) I'll put the same question back to you: Why are you here? Is it your job to police and question the presence of others here? We all have issues, we all try to deal with them; this is one way... Clear now?
cheergirl Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 waytoo, I think people say they don't want a FT relationship because when you are in an affair with a MM, it won't ever be a 'full time' relationship. So to make it sound better, they say they want only a pt relationship. I would bet all of them would be over the moon if the MM dumped the wife and wanted to only be with the mistress. I also see that the people who claim they are ok with part time are usually the same ones who want more time with the MM and who want to go away on a vacation with the MM. Can you only have feelings for a person part time? It is all very confusing to me, which is why when I see someone say they are "ok" with a part time relationship, I figure they are just trying to convince themselves (and others) of this because they are an affair partner and not someone who is actually dating someone. They are a mistress, not a girlfriend. Sigh, where do I begin? Could the "people" you refer to in the 1st paragraph, perhaps include yourself? Your experience is just that, your experience... It doesn't necessarily follow that what has happened to you, ("your experience") is the same as what has happened to others. Look up "projection"... You would lose your bet on me as I would not be over the moon if he dumped his wife. If there were any possibility of that I'd be off. Like I said i've been married before, I have 2 children instead of 3 now, would never go back to that situation. So whatever a person says, you "figure" you know better what they think. Omniscience, or projection (again...)? FYI, i've been a wife and a gf and tbh, mistress looks a whole lot more attractive to me now...
fooled once Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Sigh, where do I begin? Could the "people" you refer to in the 1st paragraph, perhaps include yourself? Your experience is just that, your experience... It doesn't necessarily follow that what has happened to you, ("your experience") is the same as what has happened to others. Look up "projection"... You would lose your bet on me as I would not be over the moon if he dumped his wife. If there were any possibility of that I'd be off. Like I said i've been married before, I have 2 children instead of 3 now, would never go back to that situation. So whatever a person says, you "figure" you know better what they think. Omniscience, or projection (again...)? FYI, i've been a wife and a gf and tbh, mistress looks a whole lot more attractive to me now... ?? I wasn't speaking to you or about you. Not sure why I can't have a different view. Why so dang defensive? I was NOT SPEAKING TO YOU OR YOUR SITUATION....understand now??? I was expressing my view. And I am hardly projecting :laugh::laugh::laugh: but if you need to think that to feel good, have at it. For a newbie, you are quite defensive about others views.
Silly_Girl Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 I think it can be hard to find someone who's willing to date casually and doesn't want to integrate you in to their life, if that's what you want. It's absurd to say 'I work in the day so my marriage is part-time', no one is suggesting the default position is to be stuck together 24/7. There have been times in my life I'd have had no hope (or wish) to invest time in growing a relationship in what I'd call the traditional sense. And I have a friend who feels that now. But as humans we like company, we like to connect with another. My friend is in a position I've been in, single mum, studying (exams looming), working, with a half-decent social life. Stands to reason a R would not be near the top of the list. I don't think that makes anyone 'unhealthy' or 'unnatural'.
MissBee Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) I think it can be hard to find someone who's willing to date casually and doesn't want to integrate you in to their life, if that's what you want. It's absurd to say 'I work in the day so my marriage is part-time', no one is suggesting the default position is to be stuck together 24/7. There have been times in my life I'd have had no hope (or wish) to invest time in growing a relationship in what I'd call the traditional sense. And I have a friend who feels that now. But as humans we like company, we like to connect with another. My friend is in a position I've been in, single mum, studying (exams looming), working, with a half-decent social life. Stands to reason a R would not be near the top of the list. I don't think that makes anyone 'unhealthy' or 'unnatural'. Wellllll from my experience and the plight of many women out there...it seems to be the opposite. Many women I know are looking for a commitment and integration into the lives of single men who seem to be thinking more casually. I hear more women complaining about men not being there enough rather than them needing to fight off men rushing for full commitment that they're not ready for. I do not believe the case to be that most single men out there are rushing to form these committed relationships therefore it's best to get a married man if you don't want that.... Maybe it depends on your age as well....but at my stage in life, many men and women are forging their place in the world, still trying to build their careers and lives and are therefore quite busy as well and it seems the vast majority would have no problem in a relationship that is not full on from jump. Maybe if you're at a certain age and with kids married people seem like a better bet....maybe the older you get more men are looking for something serious...maybe less older men are willing to be casual or are they? If I were older, I'd probably be a cougar (singles only though) if I wanted companionship and romance without too much pressure lol. In fact for me, I was saying to a friend that I do want to get married within the next 5 year; however, right now, I'd just like to be in a friendship with a man that develops into a slowww courtship overtime. I don't need to meet you now and be your gf a few weeks later and then run down the aisle in a year. I'd like something that I can build on eventually, but that starts off more like a friendship, for the connection and companionship, as you said, but with room to grow should we see it fit. I just find that many single people are in loosely binding arrangements, FWB scenarios, low maintenance relationships, see each other only on weekends things, long distance flings and all sorts of arrangements to tickle your fancy and that it is really not that rare at all. I have friends in med school, law school, PhD programs who are moving around, studying often, holding down jobs etc and for companionship and relationship purposes they have managed to find other single people that work with that. I therefore find that choosing someone married for that type of arrangement speaks to something peculiar... I also like the idea of having room to grow SHOULD you choose to solidify and build that later on, as if you have feelings for this person (unless these affairs are purely sexual and casual, which they are often not) you often grow to a point of wanting more or you can't really predict that your feelings won't grow to wanting more...with a married person, you pretty much go into something limited from the jump that doesn't take that into account or will be a lot more difficult to transition from "part time" to "full time". I choose the former, as I see many single people offering low maintenance benefits but the relationship's potential isn't capped from day one, should our needs change and grow towards wanting more. Edited July 2, 2011 by MissBee
Stung Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 I wanted to be taken out and have great sex, that was about it. So that was pretty part-time and I understand that. What I don't understand is why some people seem to think that they can't have that with a single guy. I'm sure noone is so hot that every man immediately falls in love with them on sight. Except Lizzie of course While I agree with the sentiment and certainly advocate choosing single men, I do think the bolded is rather disingenuous. Two posters mentioned that in their experience FWB situations often got messy and emotional, "angsty"--that's after time spent together, having sex, getting personal. I have had similar experiences, and from reading the dating boards I'm sure many others could agree. Neither of them came close to suggesting that every man who sees them falls in love at first sight, that I saw. I can understand why it might seem that somebody with a pre-established commitment would have firmer boundaries, although I still do disagree with choosing to pursue the committed person for the sake of your own rather selfish convenience.
OWoman Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 I think people say they don't want a FT relationship because when you are in an affair with a MM, it won't ever be a 'full time' relationship. So to make it sound better, they say they want only a pt relationship. I would bet all of them would be over the moon if the MM dumped the wife and wanted to only be with the mistress. Another generalisation based on a myth! I wanted PT because I wanted PT, not because I couldn't get FT. FT is the default, FT is easy. FT you have to fight off, it comes at you from all sides! If I'd wanted FT, why would I have dumped those MMs who dumped their Ws in the hope of pursuing FT with me instead of being "over the moon"? When my circumstances and my needs changed and I wanted FT, I got FT. But that in no way negates wanting PT previously, and being happy and fulfilled with PT. Wellllll from my experience and the plight of many women out there...it seems to be the opposite. Many women I know are looking for a commitment and integration into the lives of single men who seem to be thinking more casually. I hear more women complaining about men not being there enough rather than them needing to fight off men rushing for full commitment that they're not ready for. That's certainly the stereotype, but that wasn't my experience. My experience was definitely the opposite - I had a very full life and wanted something/s PT, as and when it suited me. SGs and D guys would soon morph from the "casual" or PT they claimed to want to wanting more. Maybe it depends on your age as well....but at my stage in life, many men and women are forging their place in the world, still trying to build their careers and lives and are therefore quite busy as well and it seems the vast majority would have no problem in a relationship that is not full on from jump. Maybe if you're at a certain age and with kids married people seem like a better bet....maybe the older you get more men are looking for something serious...maybe less older men are willing to be casual or are they? I certainly think that's part of it. Guys in the age range that attracts me have already carved out their niche in the world, have the dream job and nice house and professional reputation (or whatever their goals were) and are either taken, or S for a reason or D and looking for the next Mrs to share the fruits of their labours with. Perhaps if I'd been prepared to drop my standards and take up with a younger guy I might have found some of those mythical SGs who only want something PT and casual (and not only on their terms...) but honestly, why put yourself through pain for something that's supposed to be pleasurable?
Got it Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 More than 1 question actually. 1st, after reading a number of members stating they just don't want to have someone around all the time, it brings a question. What couple does anyone know that are right next to each other all the time? Starting with work schedules, just isn't true. I know several couples who own businesses together. Even their time right next to each other isn't every minute, separate travel, tasks, etc. In FT R there are individual hobbies & friends. Even retired couple can have this. 2nd, a # of posters say they only want PT R due time constraints, yet they take time to seak a support forum to tell strangers they are great with the arrangement & debate why they are & try to justify the arrangement is with someone comitted to someone else. Can anyone explain this to me? Really? Do you not see the option that people may be on a forum to discuss something of interest to them and not because they are necessarily seeking support? Based on that logic I am assuming you are here because you are seeking support? And what support are you seeking? Why are you here? What value are you adding? What value are you hoping to achieve for yourself? I guess there are many forums about different hobbies, interests, loves, that are along there becauase of the sad and lonely souls.
MissBee Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Another generalisation based on a myth! I wanted PT because I wanted PT, not because I couldn't get FT. FT is the default, FT is easy. FT you have to fight off, it comes at you from all sides! If I'd wanted FT, why would I have dumped those MMs who dumped their Ws in the hope of pursuing FT with me instead of being "over the moon"? When my circumstances and my needs changed and I wanted FT, I got FT. But that in no way negates wanting PT previously, and being happy and fulfilled with PT. That's certainly the stereotype, but that wasn't my experience. My experience was definitely the opposite - I had a very full life and wanted something/s PT, as and when it suited me. SGs and D guys would soon morph from the "casual" or PT they claimed to want to wanting more. I certainly think that's part of it. Guys in the age range that attracts me have already carved out their niche in the world, have the dream job and nice house and professional reputation (or whatever their goals were) and are either taken, or S for a reason or D and looking for the next Mrs to share the fruits of their labours with. Perhaps if I'd been prepared to drop my standards and take up with a younger guy I might have found some of those mythical SGs who only want something PT and casual (and not only on their terms...) but honestly, why put yourself through pain for something that's supposed to be pleasurable? I live that "myth" and "stereotype" everyday....so do my friends and other people I know. So I need to come to your neck of the woods where all these legendary single and divorced guys who want more are.... But seriously speaking, I appreciate every person's unique experience, but I also am apt to see overarching trends (the sociologist in me) versus what happens to the few. But I do concede that age range and life stage may change the game but most importantly the individuals playing the game with each other. I've had casual relationships with single guys...more than once and thy didn't try to turn it into more...and admittedly, some of the times I did want more. Likewise, the one time I was in an OW relationship, it started casually for me and HE was the one who wanted titles and all this extra. You speak about single guys wanting things on their terms, in other threads you've mentioned this as well...so whose terms do MM make it on? Wouldn't it be theirs too? Or is it more mutual terms? Or does it not matter the single or married part so long as the arrangement is on your terms and not theirs?
MissBee Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) Really? Do you not see the option that people may be on a forum to discuss something of interest to them and not because they are necessarily seeking support? Based on that logic I am assuming you are here because you are seeking support? And what support are you seeking? Why are you here? What value are you adding? What value are you hoping to achieve for yourself? I guess there are many forums about different hobbies, interests, loves, that are along there becauase of the sad and lonely souls. I think the forum in it's statement about what it is about uses the term "support forum", and for better or for worst, the words you choose to describe something, sets the tone of that something and connotes a particular thing. A "support forum" versus a statement like "a gathering of like-minded people"...connotes a very different thing. I go on other forums, but the hobby type forums, do not use the words support and the like to denote what they're about.... Edited July 2, 2011 by MissBee
Author waytogo Posted July 2, 2011 Author Posted July 2, 2011 I think the forum in it's statement about what it is about using the term "support forum", and for better or for worst, the words you choose to describe something, sets the tone of that something and connotes a particular thing. A "support forum" versus a statement like "a gathering f like-minded people"...connoted a very different thing. I go on other forums, but the hobby type forums, do not use the words support and the like to denote what they're about.... Excellent MissBee, as always. So many times when a general question or topic is posted, all kinds of defensive responses come out of the woodwork. I wasn't pointing a finger at the poster you quoted. It looks like she took it that way. I don't think I've ever posted to any thread of hers, tho it's possible. Seems she also didn't read the topic very well. Then came at me as if she was I mod I had to justify my membership to Oh well. Sounds a nerve I wasn't striving for was hit. The response from her only makes me question what she believes of what she is writing. The beauty for me is, it makes no difference to my life if she does or doesn't.
Stung Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 You think I'm being false when I say I'm sure noone is so hot that every man immediately falls in love with them on sight? C'mon, you don't really believe that. And I've nowhere accused anyone of saying that, either. I was exaggerating to make the point. Personally, I think the excuse OW use for have MM as FWB is just that, an excuse for their affair(s). I have no idea what on earth threatens them about single men, or why they find it impossible to have an adult conversation with one about FWB to the extent that they will target MM instead. And before anyone starts with the snide comments about 'Turnstone obviously can't be all that' - whatever. No, I thought you were being false in making a gross exaggeration/twisting of words and then acting as though it were the obvious and only interpretation of what others were saying. I have no idea if you're all that. I'm not sure that necessarily has anything to do with one's experiences in this area. I myself am probably not "all that" but I have had the experience being debated here of having single and divorced men get more emotionally involved with me than I wanted them to, several times, when I was trying to maintain a casual dating atmosphere. I don't think it's as rare as some people are making it out to be, although of course it's more stereotypical when the genders are reversed. I do agree that it's still an attempt to justify something that's wrong, interloping in a marriage. Better to just suck it up and take the risk of angstiness with a single FWB.
Author waytogo Posted July 2, 2011 Author Posted July 2, 2011 No, I thought you were being false in making a gross exaggeration/twisting of words and then acting as though it were the obvious and only interpretation of what others were saying. I have no idea if you're all that. I'm not sure that necessarily has anything to do with one's experiences in this area. I myself am probably not "all that" but I have had the experience being debated here of having single and divorced men get more emotionally involved with me than I wanted them to, several times, when I was trying to maintain a casual dating atmosphere. I don't think it's as rare as some people are making it out to be, although of course it's more stereotypical when the genders are reversed. I do agree that it's still an attempt to justify something that's wrong, interloping in a marriage. Better to just suck it up and take the risk of angstiness with a single FWB.[/QUOTE] I agree with the bolded. FWB was what my A, & the start of many are supposed to be from the start. Over time, shared intimacy with shared secret becomes a separate R. Bonding & feelings will happen over time. This brings me to another question. SOW make the argument, God help me, pretty sure I did to, they aren't comitting infadelity as they made no vows. They refer to their MM and even their BW. They use terms of ownership of both the man & woman with no responsibility that MM wasn't that without you & BW wasn't that without your participation. How is an OW not just as guilty as infadelity?
MissBee Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 No, I thought you were being false in making a gross exaggeration/twisting of words and then acting as though it were the obvious and only interpretation of what others were saying. I have no idea if you're all that. I'm not sure that necessarily has anything to do with one's experiences in this area. I myself am probably not "all that" but I have had the experience being debated here of having single and divorced men get more emotionally involved with me than I wanted them to, several times, when I was trying to maintain a casual dating atmosphere. I don't think it's as rare as some people are making it out to be, although of course it's more stereotypical when the genders are reversed. I do agree that it's still an attempt to justify something that's wrong, interloping in a marriage. Better to just suck it up and take the risk of angstiness with a single FWB. Agreed. I can't prevent a married or single man from falling in love with me....shoot half of of these posts on LS are about OW whose married man is so inlove with them, while that is arguable....the point still remains that at least an appearance of being inlove is given by these MM. It comes down to what you've agreed upon in your dealings....half of these posts are about "we didn't mean to fall inlove" and then some of these posts are saying MM are better for casual relationships because they won't want you all to themselves...but again many women, myself included have had the experience of possessiveness of a taken man although you're the single one...so maybe it is that MW dating MM is the best deal for the casual, carefree thing to exist... but yet still there are some posts about MW and MM falling inlove and one person divorcing their spouse while the other person does not which leads to bad feelings. It's a big grab bag of surprises....which goes back to your point and mine earlier in the thread, that with a single person, the grab bag is less surprising. The fall out of if a single person falls inlove with you, seems to be way less than if a MP does and with both, you cannot determine beforehand if they will or won't, so might as well go for the one that will have less fall out if YOU or they fall inlove. One has room to grow should love come into play....one has room for sure drama should love come into play.
cheergirl Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Another generalisation based on a myth! I wanted PT because I wanted PT, not because I couldn't get FT. FT is the default, FT is easy. FT you have to fight off, it comes at you from all sides! If I'd wanted FT, why would I have dumped those MMs who dumped their Ws in the hope of pursuing FT with me instead of being "over the moon"? When my circumstances and my needs changed and I wanted FT, I got FT. But that in no way negates wanting PT previously, and being happy and fulfilled with PT. That's certainly the stereotype, but that wasn't my experience. My experience was definitely the opposite - I had a very full life and wanted something/s PT, as and when it suited me. SGs and D guys would soon morph from the "casual" or PT they claimed to want to wanting more. I certainly think that's part of it. Guys in the age range that attracts me have already carved out their niche in the world, have the dream job and nice house and professional reputation (or whatever their goals were) and are either taken, or S for a reason or D and looking for the next Mrs to share the fruits of their labours with. Perhaps if I'd been prepared to drop my standards and take up with a younger guy I might have found some of those mythical SGs who only want something PT and casual (and not only on their terms...) but honestly, why put yourself through pain for something that's supposed to be pleasurable? Wow, that is identical to my experience! Why is it so hard for folks to believe what you say is what you actually mean... Dating is difficult because S and D men always want sooo much more of my time than I am able to give. I am extremely wary now...
cheergirl Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 I live that "myth" and "stereotype" everyday....so do my friends and other people I know. So I need to come to your neck of the woods where all these legendary single and divorced guys who want more are.... But seriously speaking, I appreciate every person's unique experience, but I also am apt to see overarching trends (the sociologist in me) versus what happens to the few. Well, I'm not sure it's so much about the neck of the woods as (perhaps) the specific neck itself... You say you appreciate every person's unique experience, but do you really? I relate to OWoman's experiences... What happens to the "few" if you're one of the few is really important, and worthy of recognition, surely?
Recommended Posts