Do you think OW / MM are character damaged?

[MissBee]

you're seriously suggesting the BW, who is actively deceived and kept in the dark, is in a better position than the OW who may have "some aspect she's not privy to"??

 

What?

 

I suggested nothing. What I said had nothing to do with BWs.

 

What I said was a broad statement about affairs and being the other person and how you'll always, especially in this society, have to justify and try to prove your legitimacy.

 

Not sure where you gathered that I was saying a BW is better off.

 

A OW dating a cheater is no better off than a BW dating one. Both are with an unscrupulous man. One with full knowledge who has decided to accommodate his behavior and the other unaware.

 

DDAY is when all get to be on a more even playing field IMO.

[MissBee]

In terms of the original question, I answered before and would like to add an amendment:

 

We all make mistakes and all of us have flaws and do the wrong thing and act selfishly and so on. Everyone. However, the difference is in our response to such actions and whether or not we grow in empathy and compassion or we continue in that way.

 

I think choosing to be in an A is a flawed decision. I don't think you should be crucified for it. I do think the point is whether you grow from it and how you interpret it.

 

For me: I would deem someone as having a character flaw or some kind of emotional/psychological issue if they habitually get into As and/or if they interpret them as completely fine and always defend them.

[MissBee]

Which will differ from situation to situation, and depend on timing and readiness, etc. in my case, I was the public partner, the R he tried to maintain, and she was the one thrown under the bus, that he could afford to let go. Even though she was the one "who was before". For some others it will be thus, and for others different. There isn't a single rule that fits all, no matter whose name is on the piece of paper.

 

And how typical do you think this is?

 

And if you were his public partner, why did he need to have an affair? I wouldn't consider my relationship an A in that case...unless calling it an A adds some special pleasure and spice to it lol.

 

I don't get it.

 

Personally, all affair stories that state that everyone knew about the A/OP and only the BS didn't know, or the BS knew etc. to me are anomalies and the average person when they talk about an A are talking about most As, which include the OW/OM being a secret to all or most and to the BS.

 

I am not doubting such As exist, if people here say so...then hey, I have to take their word. But on LS I can count the amount of people who had such an A...and it is still puzzling to me everytime. But it seems largely that when most talk of affairs, it is not a case that the public partner is actually the OW/OM while the BS is some random phantom in the shadows. It reads like some kind of bunny boiling fantasy. Note, I'm not calling you a bunny boiler or anyone else, just imagining that since I hardly hear about such cases...that the cases that do exist, every bunny boiler would want that for herself, where she gets to be the reigning Queen, overturning the usual role of the OW being the secret.

[xxoo]

I disagree that character is "set" at a given age. Human development is lifelong, and our life experiences shape our character--both for better and for worse. Your marital experience may have hardened you over the years, allowing you now to hurt another woman in a way that may not have been in your character 10 years ago.

[alexandria35]

It's not my place to explain LFH's situation, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, but from what she's spelled out and from simple logic, I'd hazard:

 

 

 

If she has told him she does not wish him to leave, and he then leaves, he is disregarding her wishes. I can't speak for LFH since I do not know her beyond what she has written here, but I can say that if I were to have disregarded my wife's wishes on an important matter like that then she would dumped me instantly, as it would have been an indicator to her that what we wanted was not aligned, and that I placed a lower priority on her wishes than she would have liked.

 

 

 

No one is keeping the BW there. The BW is choosing to stay. That is entirely up to her. I'm sure she could leave at any time if she wished. To blame LFH for the BW's unwillingness to leave an "unhappy" marriage (the description of which appears to suit her very nicely) seems misplaced.

 

 

 

Presumably for the standard reasons: losing 24 hour access to the children, the disruption of divorce, financial losses, moving home, etc. Many people put up with a less than optimal marriage unless they have a better option. If LFH has stated that she does not want him to leave, then his "better option" would be restricted to living alone, with neither woman, in reduced comfort, with less money, and only part-time access to children. Unless his marriage is unbearable, that may not seem like a "better" option to him.

 

The bolded is absurd. Are you telling me a man should stay in a marriage he doesn't want to be in anymore if his OW tells him too? Ending or continuing a marriage should be based solely on the marriage and the people within that marriage. I couldn't imagine never leaving someone who I didn't want to be with anymore because someone outside the relationship was bullying me into staying. How lame is that? What if the BS leaves? Does the OW still dump the MM in that situation? Should she hunt down the BS and tell her that she's not allowed to end the marriage either. LOL...so silly.

[eleanorrigby]

LFH it sounds like you are saying that the BW is fully aware of the affair and is fine with things the way that they are. If that is the case, then I guess I don't have anything to say about that.

[MissBee]

Even in terms of the idea that the marriage is merely a piece of paper...it just seems awfully inconvenient to have a secret A in light of a piece of paper. If it's just a piece of paper, then okay...no need to go out of the way to preserve the piece of paper. (I'm not picking apart your post btw LFH...your post just has sparked my own thoughts that I've had before).

 

Yes some marriages are bad and the couple don't act like a couple. But in an A that is a secret A where there is an OW and a BS who doesn't know, where the MM lives with this person and keeps up the appearance that they're together, it's more than a piece of paper. Obviously he has to perform other actions and things that look like a relationship, and that are part and parcel of a relationship. I get a lot of cheaters are avoidant types who avoid conflict but it seems an incredible waste to feel like your marriage is only on paper...yet you continue in it year after year, when you supposedly have a new and primary relationship on the side. I understand if you don't want to be alone and have no one in the wings why you'd stay but it seems even more insane when you have had an ongoing A and it's your "primary relationship" to persist with your paper marriage. Then again, I guess such people are just lucky, they get to have it both ways...have a paper marriage that at once tortures them and serves some purpose obviously, then have a "real" relationship with an OW/OM.

 

My exAP wasn't married so there was no "piece of paper" to scoff at...but he was no less in a relationship and what made it a relationship wasn't having a paper or not having one. What made her primary was that she was the woman he chose to be with before, who he was still with, as he never told her otherwise, and at the end of the day he was a huge part of her life, had certain allegiances to her and his life was intertwined with hers. Frankly, the only marriages I consider as pieces of paper, are business marriages where it is CLEAR and agreed...not some one-sided secret agreement, that it's only for business and the partners know this and date other people OPENLY or those who have been separated, live elsewhere, have been living elsewhere, leading separate lives and dating others, but just haven't formalized a divorce OR where if the spouses are alleged roommates, it is likewise not some secret but they both have acknowledged their roommate status and are in an open marriage. Those to me are the only true definitions where the marriage is just paper...anything else becomes very shady where for it to be "just paper" you sure go out of your way to accommodate and keep up appearances for the paper.

Edited August 15, 2012 by MissBee

[Silly_Girl]

I meant to add something similar, that is, add deception to the mix, and things become even hazier.

 

Every time we have to get into all these nuanced arguments about As, I'm just glad to not be in one...for the simple fact that I don't have the time or energy or care to constantly explain or argue about how things appear to be versus how they are, versus this that and the other...and with triangulated relationships, it's always a game of his side, her side and her side (in the case of a MM, BS and OW). The other person will always have to justify their legitimacy and there is always some aspect that you're not privy to, it's just too much....

 

Sorry Miss Bee, I hope you can see why the boldest was so funny to me - you post on the OW board more than any other poster as far as I can see, so the above gave me a little chuckle

[whichwayisup]

Through paperwork, probably so. I think what needs to be decided is what the definiton of "primary"

 

If he lands in the hospital (god forbid), who does he call? you or his wife to his bedside? Who makes the decisions for him if he is unable to (coma, or something)? You or his wife? If the time comes the plug is to be pulled, who makes that decision? You or his wife? Who sits at his funeral at the front? You or his wife? Who gets his money, his house etc? You or his wife?

 

Love has nothing to do with it, he is married and obligated to his wife. She shares his whole life with her in every way and with you, it's on the side. Sure you love him and he loves you, and at times he may put you first but at the end of the day he's still choosing to stay married and have an affair.

[veryhappy]

Hmmmmm.

 

My first read was "Yup, she(?) nailed it"

 

Then I went, no, that's not right.

 

In either case, the MM protects what he values most as is shown in his ACTIONS.

 

IF he/she leaves, he protects what he "gets" from the A and CHOOSES that life. Simply put, he values what he gets from the A more than "logistics" or the life in the M.

 

IF he/she stays, then he/she values whatever needs of his are being met in the M OVER that which the OW/OM provides.

 

In both cases, no matter how one slices it, the WS protects what he values most - and THATS an EMOTIONAL decision, not a "logistical" one. This includes choosing money/assets over the AP - its not a direct comparison but the money provides MORE than the AP. So much so, he/she will remain in a "bad M" simply to keep the money. A value choice if ever there was one.

 

Ultimately, he values HIMSELF most. Witness the above...I do not see him/her putting the interests of others above his/her own.

 

Yes, I am a she

 

When you are talking choice, you are talking about the choice made overall when all dimensions are compounded. Then yes, after making a choice, one would hope the WS would see that as the primary R. I could see how there would be cases where the W would be second during the affair, and become primary once the affair is over and the WS commits to the marriage.

 

Primary simply means "first". What's closest to you? Taken on separate dimensions, it's very common that the WS is conflicted. For emotional and sex needs the A is the primary R, for family, kids & all the other stuff it's obvious that the life at home is the primary R. That's what drives people crazy and ambivalent - hard to compare apples to oranges. Each R is first to them in a way, but on different areas. If the affair is going on, who is the primary R overall? What are we looking at? AP vs. W? AP vs. overall life? It all depends on how you set out to compare and define.

 

I agree that choices are ultimately about protecting the WS, and not necessarily about what the person values most. There are many people who lack the courage to change things even if they want to, or are simply used to take the comfortable, known and easy path. I'm afraid sometimes it comes down to what's easier, not to what's most valued. Most of us value good nutrition, and still eat that cupcake/candy bar you name it. Well good for those of you who don't! I do

[veryhappy]

If he lands in the hospital (god forbid), who does he call? you or his wife to his bedside? Who makes the decisions for him if he is unable to (coma, or something)? You or his wife? If the time comes the plug is to be pulled, who makes that decision? You or his wife? Who sits at his funeral at the front? You or his wife? Who gets his money, his house etc? You or his wife?

 

Love has nothing to do with it, he is married and obligated to his wife. She shares his whole life with her in every way and with you, it's on the side. Sure you love him and he loves you, and at times he may put you first but at the end of the day he's still choosing to stay married and have an affair.

 

This is a recurring theme - the death bed. If my H had an affair, I'd be hardly consoled by the fact that I could see him in the hospital! "Oh, honey, I'm madly in love with her and feel so connected to her, but don't worry, you'll be at my bedside if I end up in an emergency and get my money." I'd probably feel the nudge to put him in the hospital myself right then and there! (just a joke, not approving of violence in any way).

 

I wish people didn't sell themselves so short. The problem is not comparing partners, imoral one vs. legal one, the problem is getting to a stable state, and a stable state doesn't involve a triangle most of the times.

[woinlove]

This is a recurring theme - the death bed. If my H had an affair, I'd be hardly consoled by the fact that I could see him in the hospital! "Oh, honey, I'm madly in love with her and feel so connected to her, but don't worry, you'll be at my bedside if I end up in an emergency and get my money." I'd probably feel the nudge to put him in the hospital myself right then and there! (just a joke, not approving of violence in any way).

 

I wish people didn't sell themselves so short. The problem is not comparing partners, imoral one vs. legal one, the problem is getting to a stable state, and a stable state doesn't involve a triangle most of the times.

 

I'd say getting to an open and authentic state, without the deception. Not sure if that is any different than what you meant by stable.

[Silly_Girl]

If he lands in the hospital (god forbid), who does he call? you or his wife to his bedside? Who makes the decisions for him if he is unable to (coma, or something)? You or his wife? If the time comes the plug is to be pulled, who makes that decision? You or his wife? Who sits at his funeral at the front? You or his wife? Who gets his money, his house etc? You or his wife?

 

Love has nothing to do with it, he is married and obligated to his wife. She shares his whole life with her in every way and with you, it's on the side. Sure you love him and he loves you, and at times he may put you first but at the end of the day he's still choosing to stay married and have an affair.

 

I can see exactly why you'd post this. I just don't agree.

 

I absolutely don't agree with 'shares his whole life with her in every way' because if that were true there couldn't possibly be ROOM for an OW.

 

Things made me feel ours was the primary relationship during the affair:

He finds out his baby brother is getting married, he calls me.

He gets notice of redundancy and comes straight to my house where we talk over the options.

Shoots a PB on the golf course and gives me the blow by blow, but not his wife.

His dad gets a bad result on his hospital test so he calls me but doesn't mention it at home.

We eat more meals together and spend more nights in the same bed.

We make future plans, they make none.

 

When you are living that, day in day out, and so much more than described above, it's impossible to feel you are 'secondary' or 'on the side'. The rules of society allow it to be described that way but the reality is different, I think only some people allow themselves to acknowledge it.

[MourningLosses]

Since the debate had moved to a more long term view instead of just during the relationship...I will add to my view.

 

I think who he chooses on DDay shows a lot. Thats not an expression I was familiar with before LS. But on DDay he chose me, he chose to continue to deceive her. I was the primary relationship and he was most concerned with my well being and feelings.

 

Later though, months later, obviously something changed. He started to ignore me (NC as you call it) and to protect her. What I struggle with now is I don't know what changed. He's never told me if it was something about me, her or him.

 

I freely admit she is now the primary relationship. But during our relationship it wasn't clear. Sometimes I felt I was, other times I didn't.

 

Overall he seems to be staying with her and being mean to me so I guess that makes her the more important to him. But will that last? I am not sure.

 

I think who is the primary relationship is kind of fluid.

[cocorico]

Hmm, your info regarding Home and the marriage comes fom only one source and that source is not reliable.

 

Why do OWs need to validate themselves and pretend to be more pious than Mother Theresa?

 

Just be the a nice OW and don't get involved in his marriage. You don't really know anything about that.

 

From the sex point of view you have a primary relationship. Be happy, no need to keep rationalizing.

 

Only one source? Which would that be? His parents? His friends? His neighbours? His siblings? His colleagues? His cousins? the fact that all of them said exactly the same things, unprompted, sounds to me like triangulation and thus reliability. Please don't assume that all As conform to,some cookie-cutter stereotype perpetuated on daytime TV.

[cocorico]

And how typical do you think this is?

 

It doesn't matter. It was a single example out of many extant variants. As I stated:

 

Which will differ from situation to situation, and depend on timing and readiness, etc. There isn't a single rule that fits all, no matter whose name is on the piece of paper.

 

 

 

 

And if you were his public partner, why did he need to have an affair? I wouldn't consider my relationship an A in that case...unless calling it an A adds some special pleasure and spice to it lol.

.

 

Perhaps it does to those who lol, I wouldn't know about that.

 

As to it being an A, I thought it was a pretty standard definition that if the BS does not know or consent to the R, it's an A. Your own personal view may differ lol and you may call it what you like lol but lol that doesn't change the standard definition or what most people here would agree constitutes an A.

 

Though I do feel a little sorry for anyone whose R is so in need of "spicing up" that they need to dress it up as an A lol.

[woinlove]

Sorry Miss Bee, I hope you can see why the boldest was so funny to me - you post on the OW board more than any other poster as far as I can see, so the above gave me a little chuckle

 

I felt I understood MissBee's comment and could identify. There is a huge difference between, on one hand, posting on a topic one takes an interest in, has some experience in, feels there are important ethical issues and values worthy of discussion that are connected to this topic, and, on the other hand, living one's life mired in the same. The idea that one even has to worry about character damage associated with one's choice in romantic partners (the topic of this thread) is sad and seeing people mired in these issues is not fun at all. But, sometimes one sees signs that discussion here is helping some move to a position of more authenticity, less pain, and that is good.

[woinlove]

It is pretty sad, and a shocking indictment of an intolerant society. It reminds me of the social approbation that used (and still does in some sad places) to surround gay people who came out, putting their careers at risk.

 

Sorry, I don't see the connection. What ethical issues surround being gay? The ethical issues that have the OP questioning herself are not being honest, respectful or kind to others, and/or encouraging such behavior in the one you love and are intimate with. What does this have in common with being gay?

[Got it]

Why the need to judge others???

 

I am confused, as it is not a normal tendency of mine to go and start asking/questioning people, especially groups of people, if they believe they have character flaws? What is the driving need to do this? We all do things that others aren't going to approve of, there are going to be some people who do have much larger issues than others, etc. Lots of people, lots of walks of life, lots of different reasons.

 

But who cares? And I ask that without negativity. I am just curious on the desire to even ask people if they think they are flawed or ask them to judge others. I may not agree with other's choices, I may make decisions in my life if people aren't adding value to it, but I don't spend time determining if they are flawed/evil/damaged. They are who they are, they aren't working positively with/for me, so I cut ties. No fuss/no muss. We all see the world differently, see our circumstances differently, and agree to certain perimeters differently. What I do, say, and feel acceptable may not be the same as someone else and that is okay. I don't feel the desire to impose my belief or judgement onto others because honestly who am I? Who am I to feel I am "worthy enough" to judge another? I am far from perfect (OBVIOUSLY ) but I do not believe I am that different from others. We are human. Humans are flawed. Is a need to be the driving force on someone's redemption? A need to feel better about one's self by denouncing others? Is there any interest in learning why?

 

I don't know, in my eyes it would be like going on an abortion support site and asking if they felt they are murderers and whether or not they thought they were flawed. This isn't thrown up as a straw man but an analogy that has popped into my mind numerous times. Maybe, at the very least, as an exercise in futility.

[woinlove]

Why the need to judge others???

 

I am confused, as it is not a normal tendency of mine to go and start asking/questioning people, especially groups of people, if they believe they have character flaws? What is the driving need to do this? We all do things that others aren't going to approve of, there are going to be some people who do have much larger issues than others, etc. Lots of people, lots of walks of life, lots of different reasons.

 

But who cares? And I ask that without negativity. I am just curious on the desire to even ask people if they think they are flawed or ask them to judge others. I may not agree with other's choices, I may make decisions in my life if people aren't adding value to it, but I don't spend time determining if they are flawed/evil/damaged. They are who they are, they aren't working positively with/for me, so I cut ties. No fuss/no muss. We all see the world differently, see our circumstances differently, and agree to certain perimeters differently. What I do, say, and feel acceptable may not be the same as someone else and that is okay. I don't feel the desire to impose my belief or judgement onto others because honestly who am I? Who am I to feel I am "worthy enough" to judge another? I am far from perfect (OBVIOUSLY ) but I do not believe I am that different from others. We are human. Humans are flawed. Is a need to be the driving force on someone's redemption? A need to feel better about one's self by denouncing others? Is there any interest in learning why?

 

I don't know, in my eyes it would be like going on an abortion support site and asking if they felt they are murderers and whether or not they thought they were flawed. This isn't thrown up as a straw man but an analogy that has popped into my mind numerous times. Maybe, at the very least, as an exercise in futility.

 

If you read Leelou's posts, I think the answer is clear. When one is sorting out important issues for oneself, it is often useful to hear how others think. Often one will hear things one agrees with and some that one disagrees with. But even if one disagrees with everything one hears, it can still be useful for further developing one's own views. I don't see anything strange about that. And, in fact, from Leelou's other thread, I get the impression that just asking this question openly and having some discussion has helped her a lot. I don't think she is judging anyone. She is trying to sort things out for herself. Perhaps it will help to read her other threads if you think otherwise.

Edited August 15, 2012 by woinlove

[Got it]

woinlove, thank you. I am not speaking of leelou at all. It is a bigger picture question really that was prompted by the title/subject of the thread.

[woinlove]

woinlove, thank you. I am not speaking of leelou at all. It is a bigger picture question really that was prompted by the title/subject of the thread.

 

Okay. As I stated in my initial post in answer to the title/subject of this thread, what really matters is what each of us thinks about ourself. Ultimately, I think that is what this thread was really about even though it approached the topic by asking what we thought of others.

[beenburned]

SG,

 

I think what whichwayisup means is that, here in the US, all that legally matters is who the legal spouse is at the time the events she mentioned happens!

 

It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about who the primary relationship is, in the eyes of the law it is the legal spouse.

 

No one else has the power, or authority, to break the law in legal matters such as death, coma, stroke, pulling the plug on life support, etc

 

And in most states the wife/husband are the only benefiaries of all assets, money, real estate, etc. Unless the spouse dies without a will, then in my state, all assets are divided equally between the spouse and all the children.

 

This is all just legal matters, not emotional. The OW might well be the MM's primary emotional relationship, but that doesn't matter in a court of law.

[stillafool]

 

 

I think who is the primary relationship is kind of fluid.

 

The one he lives with and spends the most of his money with is the primary relationship and most of the time that person is the spouse.

[nofool4u]

Do you think OW / MM are character damaged?

 

Absolutely.

 

In a small town everyone knows who the cheaters are, and who the people are that like to sleep with other peoples' spouses.

 

I myself was propositioned by a woman suggesting we hook up. Turned her down flat because she had been with a couple MM before.

 

To avoid confrontation, I didn't tell her why I wasn't receptive to her advances. Finally she pushed the issue and I had to tell her because of her choice in men that her and I wouldn't be a good fit. That was the nice way of putting it.

 

She got defensive, told me to F off, which showed me that my assessment of her character was correct and I felt great about my decision to blow her worthless ass off.