The truth about d-day

[Owl]

I have personal knowledge that it is in fact very common for OW/MM to have an agreement that anything that is said by the MM in connection to Dday should be disregarded as it is likely to merely be the MM trying to avoid to hurt his wife further and thus has no actual bearing on reality.

 

I would not be surprised by such an "agreemant", although I'd personally suggest that the motivation is less wanting to "hurt his wife further" (as he has all kinds of options if this were truly his concern) and more around "maintaining the status quo".

 

He tells her that the OW meant nothing, it was an accident, he'll never do it again, etc...

 

He tells the OW that his wife means nothing, their marriage was a mistake, and someday he'll leave his wife for her...

 

Which is the truth, and which the lie? The only way to find the "truth" is to observe the actions, and disregard the words.

[redcurls]

I would not be surprised by such an "agreemant", although I'd personally suggest that the motivation is less wanting to "hurt his wife further" (as he has all kinds of options if this were truly his concern) and more around "maintaining the status quo".

 

He tells her that the OW meant nothing, it was an accident, he'll never do it again, etc...

 

He tells the OW that his wife means nothing, their marriage was a mistake, and someday he'll leave his wife for her...

 

Which is the truth, and which the lie? The only way to find the "truth" is to observe the actions, and disregard the words.

 

 

Unless, of course, the actions are what is agreed upon between the WS and OW/OM.

[Owl]

Unless, of course, the actions are what is agreed upon between the WS and OW/OM.

 

Not just referring to the "action" of asking OW to disregard the bus tire tracks on d-day. That's really still just words.

 

Overall actions, such as indicating that they intend to end their marriage and leave the spouse...and the action (or inaction) of continuing the affair for months or years without actually doing so, or even taking tangible steps towards doing so.

 

Or, on the contrary...the action of actually ending the marriage quickly, and moving on with life with the OW.

 

It can happen either way...and either one is an action and an indicator of their true intentions.

 

Promises are just words. Delivering those promises are actions.

[thomasb]

I would not be surprised by such an "agreemant", although I'd personally suggest that the motivation is less wanting to "hurt his wife further" (as he has all kinds of options if this were truly his concern) and more around "maintaining the status quo".

 

He tells her that the OW meant nothing, it was an accident, he'll never do it again, etc...

 

He tells the OW that his wife means nothing, their marriage was a mistake, and someday he'll leave his wife for her...

 

Which is the truth, and which the lie? The only way to find the "truth" is to observe the actions, and disregard the words.

 

 

 

I guess the proof is, as they say, in the pudding as to who is really being lied to when DDay occurs. Since only 3% leave for the OP, it suggests they are the ones being lied to. Like you say... actions.

[redcurls]

Well a mm/mw already has demonstrated that don't honor agreements since they aren't honoring the marriage agreement, now are they? So......why should one trust that they will honor anything? I think not. The person cheating is not an honorable person, no matter what kind of spin they put on it.

 

Absolutely true. If you cheat you are not honorable. But most BS believe that the cheating WS is capable of changing and learning to be honorable again, right?

 

So a cheating person, is only able to change and repent when he is expressing remorse to the BS? Or maybe a cheating WS, wanting to be honorable towards their AP, planned and executed their response, as it was strategized with their AP?

[woinlove]

Absolutely true. If you cheat you are not honorable. But most BS believe that the cheating WS is capable of changing and learning to be honorable again, right?

 

So a cheating person, is only able to change and repent when he is expressing remorse to the BS? Or maybe a cheating WS, wanting to be honorable towards their AP, planned and executed their response, as it was strategized with their AP?

 

Change starts with actions. If one is still lying and deceiving then I think it is pretty clear that one has not changed. Usually, one has to stop the actions one wishes to disown or move on from, do the work needed to understand why one chose to behave that way and gather the insight as to how one will not make those same choices again. I think that can occur whether one stays married or divorces and, from what I've learned here, seems to take at least a couple years and usually seems to involve going through a lot of pain. Basically, it hurts so much the person wants to change. D-day stimulates change in some and not in others, but it is only a start.

 

I do think that change can start by the MM/MW coming clean to his/her spouse and family and AP and leaving the M under those conditions. Many MM/MW who leave, leaving it still lying and deceiving though.

Edited May 1, 2012 by woinlove

[redcurls]

Change starts with actions. If one is still lying and deceiving then I think it is pretty clear that one has not changed. Usually, one has to stop the actions one wishes to disown or move on from, do the work needed to understand why one chose to behave that way and gather the insight as to how one will not make those same choices again. I think that can occur whether one stays married or divorces and, from what I've learned here, seems to take at least a couple years and usually seems to involve going through a lot of pain. Basically, it hurts so much the person wants to change. D-day stimulates change in some and not in others, but it is only a start.

 

I do think that change can start by the MM/MW coming clean to his/her spouse and family and AP and leaving the M under those conditions. Many MM/MW who leave, leaving it still lying and deceiving though.

 

 

I agree. Change is a process. For some WS this process starts when them discover, upon meeting someone more suitable for them, and having a relationship with them, that they are in fact, not satisfied with their lives and wish to make changes.These changes, that involve kids, finances, property, and affection towards their BS, are not something that can be implemented overnight.

 

More often than not, D-Day is unplanned by the WS, so coming clean with their BS, right then and there, is sometimes untimely or inconvenient, for whatever reasons. So then a plan, that was decided upon between the WS and their AP, is executed, to allow the process of change by the WS, to proceed as planned.

[Owl]

 

More often than not, D-Day is unplanned by the WS, so coming clean with their BS, right then and there, is sometimes untimely or inconvenient, for whatever reasons. So then a plan, that was decided upon between the WS and their AP, is executed, to allow the process of change by the WS, to proceed as planned.

 

Non sequiter.

 

It was planned. They executed a plan of deception that they had prepared prior to d-day.

 

Ergo...no change or process to change. Simply a continuance of the original "plan".

 

Nor does the WS "plan" on changing and become a more honorable person. They typically already see themselves as honorable, albeit in a 'bad situation'.

 

Your logic doesn't really track here.

 

If they plan on changing and becoming better...how does the deception today, and the plan to deceive on d-day firt into all of this?

[trinity1]

For the MM that said they left or filed for divorce, how do you know if it wasn't really the wife that kicked him out and filed for divorce?

 

We know for a fact the majority of divorces in the US are filed by the wife.

 

What difference does it make if the wife kicked him out or he chose to leave himself? The reasons he is staying have likely more to do with other things than love so they are not relevant to the OW anyway.

[Owl]

Change (for the better) usually occurs when someone has reached a point of pain that demonstrates to them that change is required. Normally that happens when faced with the potential of traumatic loss.

 

In an affair...nearly always that catalyst for change is when they realize that they're about to lose their spouse, their family, their current life due to their choice to have an affair.

 

They realize that they can only have one or the other...not both.

 

Until that point...their goal is nearly always to continue to have BOTH...not to choose between one or the other.

 

(I will grant that there can be exceptions to this, but they are that...exceptions...not the general rule.)

 

As a result...they are FORCED to make change as a result of a choice to remain with their BS. The BS typically REQUIRES this change in order to consider a further relationship with this person.

 

The AP typically has no such expectation of change from their MM/MW. They 'assume' that the deception and dishonesty will end when the marriage ends...and most often find themselves sadly mistaken at a later date when they learn that this didn't happen, and they were in fact as blatantly deceived as was the BS.

[Owl]

What difference does it make if the wife kicked him out or he chose to leave himself? The reasons he is staying have likely more to do with other things than love so they are not relevant to the OW anyway.

 

Good question.

 

Would you rather be the person he left for...or his fall back plan because he was unable to reconcile his marriage?

 

A choice...or a default selection because he had nowhere else to go?

[jwi71]

I agree. Change is a process. For some WS this process starts when them discover, upon meeting someone more suitable for them, and having a relationship with them, that they are in fact, not satisfied with their lives and wish to make changes.These changes, that involve kids, finances, property, and affection towards their BS, are not something that can be implemented overnight.

 

Correct. It is a process and one that can take weeks, months or even years to work through.

 

And in the US, that process is called D.

 

I think what is trying to be said to you is...the words are not being met with actions. The WS says one thing (must process the D) versus actually FILING for D (which is the legal process of disentangling a M) - actions vs words.

 

Why wouldn't the WS file for D and process? Why the need to "process" first then file? Given that the WS phrase of process and the D process are synonymous, I can only see ONE benefit to not filing.

 

And that is not filing.

 

 

More often than not, D-Day is unplanned by the WS, so coming clean with their BS, right then and there, is sometimes untimely or inconvenient, for whatever reasons. So then a plan, that was decided upon between the WS and their AP, is executed, to allow the process of change by the WS, to proceed as planned.

 

I guess I don't understand what processing must take place before the D (which is the formal and legal process to disentangle spouses). Could you help me with that red curls?

 

What processing needs to be done before hiring a lawyer and filing this lawsuit?

Edited May 1, 2012 by jwi71

[redcurls]

Non sequiter.

 

It was planned. They executed a plan of deception that they had prepared prior to d-day.

 

Ergo...no change or process to change. Simply a continuance of the original "plan".

 

Nor does the WS "plan" on changing and become a more honorable person. They typically already see themselves as honorable, albeit in a 'bad situation'.

 

Your logic doesn't really track here.

 

If they plan on changing and becoming better...how does the deception today, and the plan to deceive on d-day firt into all of this?

 

Is there a specific timeline, carved in stone, that dictates when and where a WS should come clean, or implement changes? This is a very personal matter, influenced by many varied and personal circumstances. Why should someone reveal their plans on D-Day, and not another day, when its more suitable for THEM?

 

There is no argument that having a relationship with another man/woman, without the consent of the BS, is deceptive. Of course it is. But each person makes their own decisions as to the way they want to live their lives. Some WS never wants to change and be honorable by leaving the BS or the AP. They are happy continuing the deception for as long as they can. So they appease the BS by going through the motion of D-Day, and go back to their AP as soon as the dust settles. The AP then have the choice of taking the WS back or not.

 

But some WS do want to change and become honorable by leaving their spouses to be with their AP and lead a life that is true and honest for themselves. These people chose their own timing and circumstances as to when to notify their BS of their plans. Some do it on D-Day, some don't. It's their prerogative to pick the right time and place according to their agenda.

[trinity1]

Logically the OP knows more about how the MP thinks during the EMR since he/she doesn't judge the WS for being in one and also spends a considerate amount of time being in the EMR with the WS. The BS however is likely to get a version whose major intent is to pacify the BS and also is delivered during the stress of Dday and after-Dday.

[jwi71]

What difference does it make if the wife kicked him out or he chose to leave himself? The reasons he is staying have likely more to do with other things than love so they are not relevant to the OW anyway.

 

You are correct that the reason he stays is immaterial to the OW.

What matters is the choice to do so and how that choice indicates his priorities. Typically, in an A setting, the MM values the other things more than marrying the OW - as demonstrated by his choices/actions.

 

And THAT trinity1 matters.

 

I would argue that the OW, given a M who chooses to stay for "other reasons", is better suited with a man who chooses to put her first. It's why "don't settle" is so oft heard here.

[redcurls]

Correct. It is a process and one that can take weeks, months or even years to work through.

 

And in the US, that process is called D.

 

I think what is trying to be said to you is...the words are not being met with actions. The WS says one thing (must process the D) versus actually FILING for D (which is the legal process of disentangling a M) - actions vs words.

 

Why wouldn't the WS file for D and process? Why the need to "process" first then file? Given that the WS phrase of process and the D process are synonymous, I can only see ONE benefit to not filing.

 

And that is not filing.

 

 

 

 

I guess I don't understand what processing must take place before the D (which is the formal and legal process to disentangle spouses). Could you help me with that red curls?

 

What processing needs to be done before hiring a lawyer and filing this lawsuit?

 

I would be very weary about someone filing for divorce without taking time to process the significance and implications of such action. Filing for divorce should be done at the END of the process, and after all considerations have been taken into account, and dealt with.

 

The process could be internal debate as to the impact of divorce of all involved. There could be financial aspects that needs to be addressed under certain timeline. There could be physical or emotional health issues that needs to be dealt with before filing. There are numerous reasons why a person would take time implementing a change. I think it's unrealistic, and unhealthy, to expect WS to decide, and hurriedly put into action, such life-altering action such as filing for divorce.

[jwi71]

I would be very weary about someone filing for divorce without taking time to process the significance and implications of such action. Filing for divorce should be done at the END of the process, and after all considerations have been taken into account, and dealt with.

 

The process could be internal debate as to the impact of divorce of all involved. There could be financial aspects that needs to be addressed under certain timeline. There could be physical or emotional health issues that needs to be dealt with before filing. There are numerous reasons why a person would take time implementing a change. I think it's unrealistic, and unhealthy, to expect WS to decide, and hurriedly put into action, such life-altering action such as filing for divorce.

 

Im confused.

 

I thought you were saying there was an agreed upon course of action between MM and OW. What course of action/plan are you referring to in your earlier posts?

 

Are you saying the course of action between WS and AP is for the WS to evaluate if D is "ok" and then file or not?

 

Im on my IPhone and reading and respondings a pain. Apologies if I have confused you with another.

[Owl]

Logically the OP knows more about how the MP thinks during the EMR since he/she doesn't judge the WS for being in one and also spends a considerate amount of time being in the EMR with the WS. The BS however is likely to get a version whose major intent is to pacify the BS and also is delivered during the stress of Dday and after-Dday.

 

I have to disagree.

 

I believe that the OW/OM has to have that same 'belief" that eventually the MM will leave for them...and therefore often the MM has to lie to them to continue to foster that belief.

 

It's not "logical" that the OW/OM "knows more about how the MP thinks". They're seeing another side that the BS isn't...granted. But it doesn't logically follow that they're seeing as much as the BS is/has, either.

 

I think there's a good bit of self-delusional thinking that goes on. The OW/OM has to believe that they're "getting more" than the BS out of the relationship in order to continue the affair. The BS, not knowing about that affair, isn't under that delusion/self-deception.

 

If both the BS and the OW/OM know about the affair, and they both continue the situation unchanged...then very clearly they're BOTH willing to be deluded by the MM/MW who is playing both sides against each other to get what he/she wants from both parties.

 

If they both don't know...then only the side who is aware of the affair has to believe that "somehow he's honest with me when he's not with her".

[Owl]

I have to disagree.

 

I believe that the OW/OM has to have that same 'belief" that eventually the MM will leave for them...and therefore often the MM has to lie to them to continue to foster that belief.

 

It's not "logical" that the OW/OM "knows more about how the MP thinks". They're seeing another side that the BS isn't...granted. But it doesn't logically follow that they're seeing as much as the BS is/has, either.

 

I think there's a good bit of self-delusional thinking that goes on. The OW/OM has to believe that they're "getting more" than the BS out of the relationship in order to continue the affair. The BS, not knowing about that affair, isn't under that delusion/self-deception.

 

If both the BS and the OW/OM know about the affair, and they both continue the situation unchanged...then very clearly they're BOTH willing to be deluded by the MM/MW who is playing both sides against each other to get what he/she wants from both parties.

 

If they both don't know...then only the side who is aware of the affair has to believe that "somehow he's honest with me when he's not with her".

 

In fact...numerous posts by former OW/OM support my thoughts above.

 

Case in point...look at the thread started by East today. Precisely what I'm talking about. Hard to 'look back' and understand why you believed it while you were in it...but very clearly he DID believe it while he was in it, but now that it's done, the self-deception is over with.

[redcurls]

Im confused.

 

I thought you were saying there was an agreed upon course of action between MM and OW. What course of action/plan are you referring to in your earlier posts?

 

Are you saying the course of action between WS and AP is for the WS to evaluate if D is "ok" and then file or not?

 

Im on my IPhone and reading and respondings a pain. Apologies if I have confused you with another.

 

 

No. The course of action I'm referring to is what is agreed upon between the WS and the OP in the event of a D-Day.

 

There are certain things that are "expected" as the events unfold when D-Day happens. The BS directed NC call/email/text, the minimizing, the re-writing of histories, etc... you know - all that is par for the course.

 

Most WS and AP, in LTA, have a plan in place as to how AP is to interpret the WS responses or actions taken on or following D-Day. It has nothing to do with WS filing or not filing for divorce. This is a plan pertaining only to D-Day and it's aftermath.

[Owl]

No. The course of action I'm referring to is what is agreed upon between the WS and the OP in the event of a D-Day.

 

There are certain things that are "expected" as the events unfold when D-Day happens. The BS directed NC call/email/text, the minimizing, the re-writing of histories, etc... you know - all that is par for the course.

 

Most WS and AP, in LTA, have a plan in place as to how AP is to interpret the WS responses or actions taken on or following D-Day. It has nothing to do with WS filing or not filing for divorce. This is a plan pertaining only to D-Day and it's aftermath.

 

Correct...this isn't an "action" that indicates where the WS's heart lies, nor where his loyalties are.

 

It just indicates that he plans on continuing the deception and lying to keep the affair going.

[trinity1]

In fact...numerous posts by former OW/OM support my thoughts above.

 

Case in point...look at the thread started by East today. Precisely what I'm talking about. Hard to 'look back' and understand why you believed it while you were in it...but very clearly he DID believe it while he was in it, but now that it's done, the self-deception is over with.

 

Now that it's done, the rationalization starts.

[Owl]

Now that it's done, the rationalization starts.

 

Or...now that it's done, the clarity comes in.

 

I think it all depends on which side of "done" you're on.

[redcurls]

Correct...this isn't an "action" that indicates where the WS's heart lies, nor where his loyalties are.

 

It just indicates that he plans on continuing the deception and lying to keep the affair going.

 

 

Until such time, when the WS redeems appropriate to act otherwise, be it leave their BS or their AP.

[Got it]

Change (for the better) usually occurs when someone has reached a point of pain that demonstrates to them that change is required. Normally that happens when faced with the potential of traumatic loss.

 

In an affair...nearly always that catalyst for change is when they realize that they're about to lose their spouse, their family, their current life due to their choice to have an affair.

 

They realize that they can only have one or the other...not both.

 

Until that point...their goal is nearly always to continue to have BOTH...not to choose between one or the other.

 

(I will grant that there can be exceptions to this, but they are that...exceptions...not the general rule.)

 

As a result...they are FORCED to make change as a result of a choice to remain with their BS. The BS typically REQUIRES this change in order to consider a further relationship with this person.

 

The AP typically has no such expectation of change from their MM/MW. They 'assume' that the deception and dishonesty will end when the marriage ends...and most often find themselves sadly mistaken at a later date when they learn that this didn't happen, and they were in fact as blatantly deceived as was the BS.

 

What do you mean when you say both? Both the OP and the spouse?

 

I disagree with that statement as that is not always the case. Some times it is kids an finances that hold them there as well as just fear.

 

So it isn't always a comparison or a choosing of anyone other than themselves.