Unacknowledged Financial Motives of OW?

[Steen719]

Even in a no-fault state like Florida, when researching the divorce laws, I discovered the same thing. The attorney I did a consultation with told me that if the person having the affair used a lot of the marital money on the affair, you could use that to your benefit (BS could). Interesting about the cell phone calls, though. My EX's AP lives in one of those states and they talked all of the time...it is how I caught him. Too late and it would have been an uphill battle anyway, but interesting!!

[donnamaybe]

Yes.

 

..........

Which woman would that be?

[Mr_Confused]

Spark,

 

As a retired accountant, I have always managed all of our money and bills. H was given enough cash weekly to buy gas and his lunches.

 

 

Wow - that's quite an allowance.

 

$ has nothing to do with the ability to have an affair. They occur in every walk of life.

[Breezy Trousers]

 

Also I have noticed a lot of OW here who have very independant lives, fincially, emotionally and socially, I would say (not to paint a broad brush, even though that seems to be the flavour here) that it is often the wife who is much more reliant on the MM.

 

This is not a direct response to your comment, BTW:

I just want to point out that I'm not saying OW aren't leading financially, emotionally and socially independent lives. I'm pointing out economic disparities between most OW and MM. There's a distinction.

 

While I respect your experience, it does not appear to be the norm. I spent lots of time over at the OW forum between January and June and saw a high number of single moms and/or subordinate OW represented over there. It matched what I saw in my own life.... There were exceptions over at that forum, of course, as there always are in life.

 

Also, I've noticed that marriage often makes both partners reliant upon each another, and not just financially. Its roots run deep -- often deeper than even then even the marriage partners suspect (until D-Day arrives and reveals).

 

Does ANY woman have an affair with an unemployed, down on the balls of his azz MM?

 

I don't think so. If the first words out of a man's mouth is "What does she look like?" I believe the first words out of a woman's mouth is, "What does he do for a living?"

 

Spark: .... Actually, I have seen financially independent, gorgeous women routinely fall for one relative who is perpetually unemployed. He's charming, brilliant, and handsome --- and a sociopath ... Wife #3 (or is it #4?) is a beautiful heiress to a dairy fortune who supports him. He cheats behind her back with OW ... Wife #3 told me he made her feel "safe" when they first began dating (!!!!) ... She's not alone. I've seen women leave husbands for him and financially independent women open their wallets for him. I wouldn't call it love, though. It resembles addiction.

 

And maybe you are right: It has less to do with the bank account than the appearance of power; for women, the alpha males are the most desirable and that includes MM who are proven in the sense that they can provide and protect the clan and sustain a long-term relationship with a woman (the spouse).

 

It makes them more attractive to females, whether the seduction is financial or the ability to change their lives for the better, or to provide for or protect them.

 

Women need to feel safe, so would they choose to date an unemployed drug addict?

 

I think not.

 

Great point! It's probably the illusion of security & safety we're really talking about here, not an OW's pursuit of money or power. The money/power is just a symbol for something else altogether. It's illusory because we will never find security/safety through someone else, only through ourselves.

 

I do not want to be flamed here, but the OW in my sitch had my fWS pay for trips, limos, fine dining, gifts for her and her child, house repairs, and when they had broken up after DDAY, STILL tried to have him pay for a trip to a well-known, very expensive, theme park.

 

I cannot even fathom it.

 

She had him convinced that she was struggling to make ends meet (she may have been) but denied herself nothing; designer suits, hair extensions, salon treatments, gym memberships, lovely home won in the divorce, a boat, a bank account, a family support system, and acrimonious law suits against her xH regarding inheritance properties.

 

Give me a break.

 

All I initially heard was "Poor BLANK, she has no money. She could never afford that." When I began to point out all the things she seemingly could afford, his head began to explode.

 

She had him snowed, all to her financial benefit.

 

That was OUR CHILDREN's money; that was OUR money; and it still makes me angry crazy that she told him that our children should be more self-sufficient. But her child? My stupid fWS could spend every dime on her child.

 

Ayeyayyay!

 

You shouldn't be flamed for sharing an honest experience, Spark. I have no doubt it happens to many BS. I'm witnessing this with a friend and it's terribly painful. Her WS has spent family money on OW. He recently lost his job as a result of an confrontation with OW at work, so the financial burdens are now on her shoulders alone. This BS has withstood things I'm not sure I could/would endure but this last crisis will likely be her tipping point ....

 

Ahh... your comments about OW's child ...

 

My husband would take pictures of OW's toddler home to me and tell me sad stories about how OW was struggling (and she honestly was -- no hair extensions, salons, etc., for her). I was clueless. I felt bad for her and sent her child gifts .... DH still insists they weren't having an affair those years, but I really don't know. Later, during the 2 months they had a PA, DH suddenly alluded to divorcing me. I was shocked. I knew something had turned terribly wrong in the past weeks but couldn't figure it out. (When the truth came out, I was more than happy to give him a divorce - ha!) ... Anyway, here's the thing: If DH left me for OW, he would have been entitled to half my stock portfolio as a marital asset. It was a substantial asset because, though DH didn't really care what I did with my "extras" money, I did. I deliberately lived a low maintenance life for years after DH and I married so I could invest aggressively ... So it's weird that if DH left me for OW, a woman who declared bankruptcy, she would have indirectly profited from my years of saving after indirectly dismantling my life..... That offended me! I didn't care if she benefited from my husband's portfolio or half our home equity but half of what I did without to save?! .... In the end, those feelings were silly because nothing happened. Still--

 

It sure was a wake-up call. I became much more generous toward myself.

[JustK]

My soon to be x's "girlfriend" tramp ho has filed bankruptcy twice. And has 3 kids by 2 different dads. I'm so glad he got fixed so at least none are his. It makes me sick to know he's been spending money that should go on our kids while I have been out working my @$$ off every day for years, while he alternates between low paying jobs and being chronically unemployed. I was so stupid to not see it. The good news is that he isn't entitled to support from me.

 

Of course.. the nearly $8000 that I thought was put away towards investments for our daughter is gone. He gave it to his little ho at some point.

[Breezy Trousers]

Wow - that's quite an allowance.

 

$ has nothing to do with the ability to have an affair. They occur in every walk of life.

 

 

Good point, Confused, but research shows that the higher the income, the higher the tendency is toward affairs. That goes for women, too. Money increases opportunity.

[Mr_Confused]

My soon to be x's "girlfriend" tramp ho has filed bankruptcy twice. And has 3 kids by 2 different dads. I'm so glad he got fixed so at least none are his. It makes me sick to know he's been spending money that should go on our kids while I have been out working my @$$ off every day for years, while he alternates between low paying jobs and being chronically unemployed. I was so stupid to not see it. The good news is that he isn't entitled to support from me.

 

Of course.. the nearly $8000 that I thought was put away towards investments for our daughter is gone. He gave it to his little ho at some point.

 

As a cheater myself, these are the POS scum bags that give us a bad name!!! I say that in jest of course, but seriously, that's PATHETIC. Congrats on getting away from this loser and my apologies and sympathy for what you've endured. Wishing you happiness ahead!

[Breezy Trousers]

Hahaha!

 

Well in my sitch he had just started a new, high-paying, powerful position that came with a generous expense account WE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT.

 

That, and the travel and the long hours were the perfect cover for the affair. I and the kids chalked up his anger and remoteness to the pressures of the new job, one we had been praying for.

 

We also were living very frugally as he wanted to grow "his business." I was working three jobs to get out of the debt we had accumulated while he had been unemployed. Yes, I did and somedays still do, want to hit somebody.

 

Go figure!

 

In Alabama? Or Arkansas? The State Supreme Court just awarded a fBS 87,000 dollars in damages for alienation of affection payable by the OW.

 

The judgement determined, after looking at cell phone bills, that the OW called the WS 3 times as often as he called her and concluded that the fBS would still be married had the OW not interfered in their marriage.

 

Crazier still is that he divorced his BS and married the OW so I guess both are now liable for the money.

 

And (yes, there's more), he and the xW met as APs in his first marriage, but the court refused to hear that from the OW's attorneys, claiming it was predjudicial to this case.

 

Maybe the court is trying to send a message that they are tired of the mess, or is punishing the H as his young son walked in on them having sex, or is saying live honorable lives and stay out of our courts with this nonsense or else.

 

But these suits are growing and most are not winnable, yet the embarrassment factor is a huge consideration as an element of revenge.

 

You can have an affair, but you cannot spend our marital assets to do so.

 

Interesting.

 

Sparks, I'm glad your marriage survived all that but your occasional feelings are understandable. It's especially hard when the BS has weathered intense storms in a marriage, only to watch WS try to create a new, easier identity with OW. The same OW probably wouldn't be attracted to the WS if she truly understood the facts of the marriage. Affairs are often about reinvention and fantasy -- fluff, not facts.

 

I admit to being secretly pleased with cases in which an OW is held financially accountable for breaking up a family by a court of law. I think if people were held responsible for damaging a family, infidelity rates would decrease and truly unhappy spouses would choose divorce over infidelity. Divorce is a lot less damaging to people's lives in the end. Same freedom to choose, just different consequences for all involved.

 

Steen, my state is also a no-fault state. When I spoke to a lawyer during the crisis, I was told I could walk away with a bigger chunk of the marital assets by proving infidelity. I think it's a risky fight, though. I told a friend not to fight after she left an 18-year marriage due to infidelity. She did anyway. She had lots of business assets to worry about. Bad move in the end. Her lawyers made money, not her.

[Mr_Confused]

Good point, Confused, but research shows that the higher the income, the higher the tendency is toward affairs. That goes for women, too. Money increases opportunity.

 

That's news to me, what research supports that assessment? Not disputing it but I have read a lot about affairs and have not run into such information.

 

I know a lot of people are "trapped" in relationships financially so I always thought that would lead to an affair more often than affluence enabling it.

 

Interesting.......

[Breezy Trousers]

That's news to me, what research supports that assessment? Not disputing it but I have read a lot about affairs and have not run into such information.

 

I know a lot of people are "trapped" in relationships financially so I always thought that would lead to an affair more often than affluence enabling it.

 

Interesting.......

 

I'm basing my comment that "research shows that the higher the income, the higher the tendency is toward affairs" on David Atkins' study on marital infidelity. He used income and employment as indicators of opportunity for extramarital sex, to test the hypothesis that when presented with more chances to do affairs, more married people will do it. He found that, "financial means are related to the likelihood of infidelity," but not for people earning under $30,000 a year. Married people who earned more than $75,000 a year were 1.5 times as likely to have extramarital sex as those earning under $30,000 which reflects a floor effect -- if you're poor, infidelity is harder, but as you become wealthier, it becomes easier.

 

I do think infidelity can be related to economic variables. As women becoming more financially independent, affairs are increasing. And it's interesting to see what men are doing in relation to that. Here's an interesting article exploring how economic sensitivities can affect infidelity:

 

www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/642146.html

 

 

Anyway, I'm glad you challenged me on this for two reasons, Confused. I really shouldn't cite studies here. The first reason is that researchers say the biggest problem they have with infidelity studies is that people who cheat tend to lie about it. The second reason is that, for three years or so at a young age, I had to craft persuasive arguments for a living. When I would tell my boss that facts weren't in our favor, I was told to go back to my office and get creative -- I wasn't paid to report the facts but to persuade people to perceive "reality" through a particular lens. So I did. I did it well, too. It was a valuable experience because it caused me to question what society presents as being "fact" and "truth" and led me to deeper spiritual questions. However, I now know better than most that "truths" and "facts" are often self serving and used to support bias. Sorry.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Breezy Trousers

[beenburned]

BreezyTrousers,

I have read the same stats on numerous websites and I agree with them.

 

MrConfused,

My H came from a family that never bothered to teach him how to manage money. He didn't have a checking account because he didn't know how to write out a check.

 

Before our marriage, he held a good job with average pay and good benefits. However, he continued to live with his parents and blow EVERY cent he earned. At the time we married he didn't have 2 dimes to rub together.

 

Since we had only dated long distance, I was totally unaware of all the above facts until after our marriage.

 

I have always loved accounting. I even took college level classes while still in high school. I always had my own accounts, checking and savings, and paid all my own bills while still living at home with my parents. I understood how to stick to a budget to acheive goals you want.

 

I can assure you my H has never done without anything he wanted. With

his work ethics and my frugal accounting we have much more than the average person that is our age.

 

By the way, I have always had the same allowance he did!

[Breezy Trousers]

My soon to be x's "girlfriend" tramp ho has filed bankruptcy twice. And has 3 kids by 2 different dads. I'm so glad he got fixed so at least none are his. It makes me sick to know he's been spending money that should go on our kids while I have been out working my @$$ off every day for years, while he alternates between low paying jobs and being chronically unemployed. I was so stupid to not see it. The good news is that he isn't entitled to support from me.

 

Of course.. the nearly $8000 that I thought was put away towards investments for our daughter is gone. He gave it to his little ho at some point.

 

(((JustK))) ... I'm sorry you were hurt that way. You're not dumb. I read a book which discusses the "Tom Sawyer" marriage trend in our culture right now --- i.e., wives doing the economic heavy lifting while their husbands coast. You were spared in the end. It sounds like your X met his soul mate! Birds of a feather, y'know.

[beenburned]

((JustK)),

I'm so sorry that your X told advantage of you. It seems to be more prevalent today than in years past.

 

My soon to be XSIL's 2 OW both had bad credit, so he co-signed on car loans for BOTH of them. One of them he also co-purchased a timeshare condo at the beach with.

 

Not to mention the thousands he spent over the years on jewelry for them! Thank goodness my D has proof of this to recover from most of the financial loss!

[donnamaybe]

Does ANY woman have an affair with an unemployed, down on the balls of his azz MM?

None that I know if IRL and none that I have ever read about on LS.

[SoMovinOn]

I admit to being secretly pleased with cases in which an OW is held financially accountable for breaking up a family by a court of law. I think if people were held responsible for damaging a family, infidelity rates would decrease and truly unhappy spouses would choose divorce over infidelity. Divorce is a lot less damaging to people's lives in the end. Same freedom to choose, just different consequences for all involved.

 

That's an interesting concept. If the family is broken up, torn apart, and destroyed because one spouse is unhappy - those left behind aren't entitled to a big payday. However, if that unhappy spouse has an A, it changes and now the OW is to blame and should be on the hook for providing cash to smooth over their unhappiness.

 

What a crock. The BS is not responsible for the A, but he/she sure is responsible for the quality of the M. In some number of cases, I have no idea how many, the BS is the main reason for the lousy M.

 

I think it's up to the divorce court to assign "blame" and come up with an equitable distribution of marital assets based on each person's contribution.

[SoMovinOn]

None that I know if IRL and none that I have ever read about on LS.

 

There are a few examples provided in current threads here, including this one.

Edited December 23, 2011 by SoMovinOn

[donnamaybe]

There are a few examples provided in current threads here, including this one.

Ah, yes. I did fine one example in this thread where already successful women were taking up with a mostly unemployed man. These women didn't need his money - in fact, they were the ones in the position of financial power, and some women like it that way.

 

However, the examples of an average or no income woman going after an unemployed "broke on his azz" kinda guy are rare if not non-existent.

[Breezy Trousers]

That's an interesting concept. If the family is broken up, torn apart, and destroyed because one spouse is unhappy - those left behind aren't entitled to a big payday. However, if that unhappy spouse has an A, it changes and now the OW is to blame and should be on the hook for providing cash to smooth over their unhappiness.

 

What a crock. The BS is not responsible for the A, but he/she sure is responsible for the quality of the M. In some number of cases, I have no idea how many, the BS is the main reason for the lousy M.

 

I think it's up to the divorce court to assign "blame" and come up with an equitable distribution of marital assets based on each person's contribution.

 

We were discussing a case where the OW repeatedly pursued WS three times as often as he called her and where the court concluded that the fBS would still be married had the OW not interfered in their marriage. Most prevailing cases have evidence of over-the-top circumstances like this, which is how the BS prevails.... Do you have any clue of how difficult it would be to prevail in a court of law if suing an OW? The BS would have burden of proof there, and it wouldn't be an easy road. Most attorneys would tell the BS to go home and forget about it. Thus, if an attorney even took a case like that on, I'd be surprised. There'd have to be lots of compelling evidence to support such a claim. If a court of law issued an order in favor of the BS saying something is unfair? I'd be shocked -- and I'd have no problem trusting the court's assessment. I know how ridiculously unfair the situation would have to be for a court to consider ruling in that direction.

 

I have a problem with an outsider's over-the-top influence to end another person's marriage. That's different from one of the marriage partners unilaterally deciding to leave. I stand by what I wrote.

 

I was tempted with infidelity and had a happy marriage. Did I blame my husband? Hell no! Never have. Never will.

 

I think it's your assumption that only unhappy marriages experience infidelity that's the problem here. That's a prevailing cultural assumption that my EXPERIENCE taught me was completely bogus. And I'm not the only person on LS who has said this. (I also have research to back this up but will restrain myself!)

 

* * *

 

Logging off for the holidays .... Thanks for a great thread everyone!

Edited December 23, 2011 by Breezy Trousers

[Mr_Confused]

You guys/gals seem to know more about infidelity than most psychologists.

 

I think the reason most states are no fault is that, despite our perspectives on the morality of an affair, assessing fault and determining an appropriate amount of financial compensation is nearly impossible - or will cost more than the real beneficiary would gain if assets were split.

 

My friend's spouse committed adultery in my state and his lawyer told him unless he can track down funds specifically spent on the paramour, or contracted a STD, or was inappropriately "exposed" to the children - it was a useless pursuit.

 

Seems if reconciling isn't in the equation, split and run is the most financially advantageous approach.

[SoMovinOn]

However, the examples of an average or no income woman going after an unemployed "broke on his azz" kinda guy are rare if not non-existent.

 

I don't know. Clearly they do exist. I have no ideas what the numbers are. I think broke, unemployed people don't have the means to do much of anything. Then again, if they're sitting around doing nothing all day, it seems it would be pretty easy to hook up with someone else in the same situation.

[Elizabeth Southerns]

It seems a large number of OW -- not all -- had a clear, yet often unacknowledged, financial incentive for engaging with the MM. The majority were either single moms and/or subordinates. Many live beyond their means, though sometimes through no fault of their own (single moms).

 

Why is the assumption that single mothers are living beyond their means, or are not financially successful? I was a single mother for decades. My xH did not pay a penny in child support. Nonetheless I supported my kids without any need for support from elsewhere, we lived within our means and I certainly had no financial incentive for engaging with a MM since I would not have accepted any financial contribution from them towards my household upkeep anyway.

 

My motivation for engaging with MM was the same as my motivation for being completely financially independent - I relished the control it gave me over my own life. If I wanted financial assistance I would have chosen the easy route and gotten remarried.

[Breezy Trousers]

Why is the assumption that single mothers are living beyond their means, or are not financially successful? I was a single mother for decades. My xH did not pay a penny in child support. Nonetheless I supported my kids without any need for support from elsewhere, we lived within our means and I certainly had no financial incentive for engaging with a MM since I would not have accepted any financial contribution from them towards my household upkeep anyway.

 

My motivation for engaging with MM was the same as my motivation for being completely financially independent - I relished the control it gave me over my own life. If I wanted financial assistance I would have chosen the easy route and gotten remarried.

 

 

I didn't make that assumption. I never said all. I'm basing it on the two OW in my own experience and largely what I've seen. I think I said not all were in the same circumstances.

[donnamaybe]

I didn't make that assumption. I never said all. I'm basing it on the two OW in my own experience and largely what I've seen. I think I said not all were in the same circumstances.

Yes, that is what you posted.

 

I have seen several single mom OW on this forum alone who made it very clear that their MM helped them financially.

[Breezy Trousers]

This is not a direct response to your comment, BTW:

I just want to point out that I'm not saying OW aren't leading financially, emotionally and socially independent lives. I'm pointing out economic disparities between most OW and MM. There's a distinction.

While I respect your experience, it does not appear to be the norm. I spent lots of time over at the OW forum between January and June and saw a high number of single moms and/or subordinate OW represented over there. It matched what I saw in my own life.... There were exceptions over at that forum, of course, as there always are in life.

 

Great point! It's probably the illusion of security & safety we're really talking about here, not an OW's pursuit of money or power. The money/power is just a symbol for something else altogether. It's illusory because we will never find security/safety through someone else, only through ourselves.

 

 

Donna, later in the thread I clarified (see above) .... Some are living beyond their means and some are not, but it's really the clear economic disparities between OW and MM that intrigues me. I have been careful to say not all OW fall in this category -- but I think the majority do! Many OW stand to gain something from associating with MM, even if it's only a perceived benefit down the road (e.g., elevated status through marriage). Some may be bankrupt and some may be leading financially independent lives, as I pointed out above, but usually the MM is doing much better financially or, at the very least, is of comparable economic status, and OW stands to gain through that association ...... Even when there's little economic disparity between the two, let's face it: Two incomes ARE better than one.

 

As Sparks alluded, few OW choose someone of lower economic status --- unless they are already independently wealthy or economically successful. I have a independently wealthy friend (trust fund baby, never worked a day in her life) whose husband left her last summer for HER very financially successful lawyer .... We've since learned this lawyer has had three prior affairs with successful men and dumped them. She didn't need or want their money and apparently didn't love them .... Please note the number of affairs she's had! Now that my friend's husband has moved in with the lawyer, the lawyer is dragging her feet, dickering, not "quite sure" she wants to go through with things so fast .... He's being played like an OW. The role reversal is fascinating to watch from afar.

 

Most OW aren't like this, IMO. Usually there's a distinct financial benefit to being associated with MM -- even if only a perceived benefit in the future -- and few OW are content with remaining an OW indefinitely.

[donnamaybe]

I wasn't very clear was I? Sorry about that BT. I was agreeing with you about what you said and that the other poster misread you - likely on purpose IMO.