Do you think OW / MM are character damaged?

[alexandria35]

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.

 

 

Oh yeah, I'm sure thats what all cheating married men say to their wives. rotflma....

[eleanorrigby]

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.

 

By the same token, I don't imagine that an OW would be consoled much being barred from the hospital and the funeral and being left to mourn the MM's death on internet forums and with a few loyal friends.

[Silly_Girl]

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.

 

Happily I don't conduct any part of my life through the courts on a day to say basis and nor do my peers

[jwi71]

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.

 

That's just it...in an A, its near IMPOSSIBLE to tell which R the WS holds as primary.

 

A BS can make the case its him or her.

An AP can make an EQUALLY powerful case.

 

I can't tell from the outside. The AP can't REALLY tell and the BS doesn't even KNOW to make the evaluation.

 

The only one who DOES know (and even that's a maybe really) - is the WS. And Im not certain trusting/believing the WS is the best decision.

 

Which is why I say...who or what does the WS protect?

 

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 do not believe the AP's choice is between people - its between the life offered/obtained/achieved/"or the potential to do so" in each of the two R's.

And yes, I am saying the WS has de-humanized the BS and the AP and views it as this life vs that life.

 

I agree that choices are ultimately about protecting the WS, and not necessarily about what the person values most.

 

I do not agree.

Its hard for me to accept that the WS is protecting the BS by HAVING or HIDING the A. (the WS protects him or herself)

Its equally hard for me to agree that the WS protects the AP by REMAINING M or by "virtue" of keeping the A secret. (again, protecting him/her self)

 

The WS is valuing his/her needs above all else - and will go to great lengths to do so.

 

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

 

What I think you are missing is that the choice of the easy path is what he or she values - the status quo. People choose what they value. And yes, it can and frequently does change.

 

In an A, the WS chooses BOTH M and A with each, in combination, fulfilling his/her needs. Separately, neither R is sufficient.

 

For me, when A has become ingrained in both the WS and AP's life, there is only one true way to know what he values - force a d-day. Give the third leg the information and by so doing, the WS will be forced to choose what is to be lost (stereotypically) - and what he chooses is not the PERSON he values but the LIFESTYLE he values most.

[veryhappy]

By the same token, I don't imagine that an OW would be consoled much being barred from the hospital and the funeral and being left to mourn the MM's death on internet forums and with a few loyal friends.

 

Different expectations. A spuse would expect to stay the primary emotional R, an OW should better not expect to be at the hospital/funeral/getting money and assets. By being an OW, one signs on the invisible dotted line for acknowledging a list long of things (well most people don't think in advance, but shouldt).

 

Most life for most people is made by day to day routine and most people only die once. If the AP needs to be at the hospital/funeral/get the money he/she should do something about it before 3, 5, 10, 20 years pass by.

 

I still think the BS's superiority for getting that is short lived and bitter. Unless that person had checked out of the marriage long ago and didn't care anymore anyway. No woman in love thinks "One day when you'll love another woman I'll be fine with just being legally bound to you". We start out by desperately wanting the other person.

Edited August 15, 2012 by cutedragon

[Furious]

That's just it...in an A, its near IMPOSSIBLE to tell which R the WS holds as primary.

 

A BS can make the case its him or her.

An AP can make an EQUALLY powerful case.

 

I can't tell from the outside. The AP can't REALLY tell and the BS doesn't even KNOW to make the evaluation.

 

The only one who DOES know (and even that's a maybe really) - is the WS. And Im not certain trusting/believing the WS is the best decision.

 

Which is why I say...who or what does the WS protect?

 

 

I do not believe the AP's choice is between people - its between the life offered/obtained/achieved/"or the potential to do so" in each of the two R's.

And yes, I am saying the WS has de-humanized the BS and the AP and views it as this life vs that life.

 

 

I do not agree.

Its hard for me to accept that the WS is protecting the BS by HAVING or HIDING the A. (the WS protects him or herself)

Its equally hard for me to agree that the WS protects the AP by REMAINING M or by "virtue" of keeping the A secret. (again, protecting him/her self)

 

 

The WS is valuing his/her needs above all else - and will go to great lengths to do so.

 

What I think you are missing is that the choice of the easy path is what he or she values - the status quo. People choose what they value. And yes, it can and frequently does change.

 

In an A, the WS chooses BOTH M and A with each, in combination, fulfilling his/her needs. Separately, neither R is sufficient.

 

 

For me, when A has become ingrained in both the WS and AP's life, there is only one true way to know what he values - force a d-day. Give the third leg the information and by so doing, the WS will be forced to choose what is to be lost (stereotypically) - and what he chooses is not the PERSON he values but the LIFESTYLE he values most.

 

 

 

Every affair has a different set of circumstance and it's very evident that people in affairs believe their affair is the exception to the stereotype.

 

But if you look closely at the very basic elements that sustain an affair they all share the cardinal rule that the betrayed spouse must be kept in the dark as the #1 rule.

 

Why is that? Who does this serve?

 

Not the OW/OM, because as evidenced the OW/OM does not gain in this scenario, when more often than not, they want the WS to divorce so they can be fully and honestly together.

 

The only person who truly gains from keeping the betrayed spouse in the dark is the WS. This is about control and selfishness. This is about holding all the cards and playing it to their advantage.

 

D-day is when the playing field is leveled.

 

Discussion and debate as to the nuance of who is what to who, who is irrelevant, primary or secondary is a useless and mute point until all three in a triangle are face to face.

 

The truth, transparency must be avoided by all cost to ensure that the WS sits at the top of the triangle.

[MissBee]

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'm not sure if I post more than any other poster...

 

But in any case, I don't come here to explain and argue about the relationship I'm in.

 

And after posting so much here...it has lead to that exasperation and relief that I don't live these relationships and once I log off it's not my life or problem to contend with. That was literally my train of thought after exiting one thread and coming into this and posting...I was like you know what, this is all too much. I prefer simplicity. A or no A...any relationship where I have to justify it and explain it all the time, where it always becomes one big argument or I simply avoid telling anyone except online people is just not worth it for me.

[eleanorrigby]

 

So, what difference does it make who is the primary relationship? What value does it add?

 

It must make some difference because we have been going back and forth on this issue for the last three pages.

[cocorico]

Why is MM with the wife and not you?

 

I don't get it.

 

If I was married and fell that much love for the OW I would end my marriage in a heartbeat.

 

He is with me.

 

Fortunately he did not end his M "in a heartbeat" . He took time to work things through properly, sought counselling, spoke to those he trusted, made choices he believes In and can sustain. if he had simply dumped her the instant he clapped eyes on me I would have been deeply suspicious and would have questioned his ability to commit.

[cocorico]

That's just it...in an A, its near IMPOSSIBLE to tell which R the WS holds as primary.

 

A BS can make the case its him or her.

An AP can make an EQUALLY powerful case.

 

I can't tell from the outside. The AP can't REALLY tell and the BS doesn't even KNOW to make the evaluation.

 

The only one who DOES know (and even that's a maybe really) - is the WS. And Im not certain trusting/believing the WS is the best decision.

 

Which is why I say...who or what does the WS protect?

 

 

 

I do not believe the AP's choice is between people - its between the life offered/obtained/achieved/"or the potential to do so" in each of the two R's.

And yes, I am saying the WS has de-humanized the BS and the AP and views it as this life vs that life.

 

 

 

I do not agree.

Its hard for me to accept that the WS is protecting the BS by HAVING or HIDING the A. (the WS protects him or herself)

Its equally hard for me to agree that the WS protects the AP by REMAINING M or by "virtue" of keeping the A secret. (again, protecting him/her self)

 

The WS is valuing his/her needs above all else - and will go to great lengths to do so.

 

 

 

What I think you are missing is that the choice of the easy path is what he or she values - the status quo. People choose what they value. And yes, it can and frequently does change.

 

In an A, the WS chooses BOTH M and A with each, in combination, fulfilling his/her needs. Separately, neither R is sufficient.

 

For me, when A has become ingrained in both the WS and AP's life, there is only one true way to know what he values - force a d-day. Give the third leg the information and by so doing, the WS will be forced to choose what is to be lost (stereotypically) - and what he chooses is not the PERSON he values but the LIFESTYLE he values most.

 

I agree with most of this. But I don't think a DDay is the answer. I think a DDay simply forces a crisis and panicked reaction, and for something as important as this I would far rather a careful, informed, reasoned decision was reached which could be sustained because it was a resolution, rather than simply a waypoint.

[cocorico]

It must make some difference because we have been going back and forth on this issue for the last three pages.

 

It mattered to me. It mattered at the point that I decided I wanted to be with this man. If he did not want that at least as much as I did, the R would have been skewed and not worth my bothering with.

 

I'd I had no desire for a long-term future with him, it would not have mattered to me. But when I did, that became important because it indicated where he saw his future lying.

[MissBee]

I've never actually made ethe case for it either way. I've held mine up as an example of time... and interaction, but I'd never say I was his primary relationship. Frankly, I don't think his wife is either.

When you ask who he is protecting, well... he protects and cares for us both. The label of who is more important is just stupid. It's not a competition.

All I care about is this.

When he is with me, he is with me. He is engaged in our discussion or activity and is with ME.

Just because he loves her, doesn't mean he loves me any less, and in the flip side of that, just because he loves me doesn't mean that the love he has for her is less.

Love isn't finite. No 2 relationships will ever be the same, so comparing is an exercise of futility. You can even ask a couple of the rekindled relationships, probably even some of the married couples that have reconciled, and THOSE relationships at different points in their lives are completely different and probably shouldn't be compared.

 

So, what difference does it make who is the primary relationship? What value does it add?

 

So much you post reminds me of my former A.

 

The idea that love isn't finite is so interesting, because I was reading something the other day and the author was discussing that love itself isn't finite but human capacity is limited: we can't be in two places at once, we have limited energy, resources etc and all that affects the expression of love and its ability to thrive. That makes sense to me. I think love as a mere feeling is limitless but for example if I was in love with 15 men, no matter how I felt about them, my capacity, resources, energy etc. to show it wouldn't be equal..simply because I am but one finite person.

 

In any case the bolded is how my exAP discussed things. He said he loved me and he loved her too, and one didn't have anything to do with the other. He did go out of his way to not make me feel secondary...yet since he is finite, sometimes it didn't work and eventually things had to end because it was impossible for him to divide himself between two women, especially secretly (probably in polygamous relationships it is easier since you don't have to hide it so you can plan and coordinate out in the open for equity...but that also poses its own challenges) and have it be satisfying, to me anyway.

 

To the final question: I'd say it does make a difference. Well to me and probably to many others. Who doesn't want to be the Queen of their man's castle and heart? Being in both an A and normal single relationships, I can say that I knew I was primary, in fact, I was the only, so saying primary is redundant, in the single one and that made the dynamic very very different. With my exAP I felt primary....but it would depend. I think that was the difference...one was a feeling and it was sort of unstable while one was more stable. I don't know...with an A, I feel like there is always a caveat to everything. That's how I felt anyway. Like no matter how primary I felt, it was just a feeling and it was an unstable dynamic. With my single boyfriend I didn't feel that way, like our status was unstable and came with some caveat. I was his gf morning, noon and night, to whoever was looking, in whatever city, state or country, to his family and friends and there was nothing to explain about that....and how I knew I was primary was that if he had an OW she'd be the one to know about me and not me her. I didn't know about another woman he was sharing life with...I doubt he ever cheated, but if he did, I didn't know and ironically that tells me I'm primary as he would have had to hide anybody else that comes after me. Probably that is my simple definition or litmus test: do you know of a wife or other woman he is with? If yes, you are not primary, as chances are the primary is the one who doesn't know. Well except for a MM who is lying about his status, then you may not know, but then there are other clues too. So if you're dating a "single man" and he avoids letting you meet his family and friends and so on...be suspicious.

Edited August 15, 2012 by MissBee

[jwi71]

I've never actually made ethe case for it either way. I've held mine up as an example of time... and interaction, but I'd never say I was his primary relationship. Frankly, I don't think his wife is either.

When you ask who he is protecting, well... he protects and cares for us both. The label of who is more important is just stupid. It's not a competition.

All I care about is this.

When he is with me, he is with me. He is engaged in our discussion or activity and is with ME.

Just because he loves her, doesn't mean he loves me any less, and in the flip side of that, just because he loves me doesn't mean that the love he has for her is less.

Love isn't finite. No 2 relationships will ever be the same, so comparing is an exercise of futility. You can even ask a couple of the rekindled relationships, probably even some of the married couples that have reconciled, and THOSE relationships at different points in their lives are completely different and probably shouldn't be compared.

 

So, what difference does it make who is the primary relationship? What value does it add?

 

Are you directing that AT me?

Edited August 15, 2012 by jwi71

[jwi71]

I agree with most of this. But I don't think a DDay is the answer. I think a DDay simply forces a crisis and panicked reaction, and for something as important as this I would far rather a careful, informed, reasoned decision was reached which could be sustained because it was a resolution, rather than simply a waypoint.

 

That was unintentionally funny Coco....because A's are so full of careful, rational and reasoned thought right?

 

I understand your point though - and agree. But sometimes what is "the answer" on paper isn't so easily accomplished IRL - you know, those pesky emotions.

 

The insinuation I do not agree with is that decision making being made w/o the BS' input. In my world, that's not right. However, it may be more expedient - there's that stupid reality again.

[stillwater]

To the final question: I'd say it does make a difference. Well to me and probably to many others. Who doesn't want to be the Queen of their man's castle and heart? Being in both an A and normal single relationships, I can say that I knew I was primary, in fact, I was the only, so saying primary is redundant, in the single one and that made the dynamic very very different. With my exAP I felt primary....but it would depend. I think that was the difference...one was a feeling and it was sort of unstable while one was more stable. I don't know...with an A, I feel like there is always a caveat to everything. That's how I felt anyway. Like no matter how primary I felt, it was just a feeling and it was an unstable dynamic. With my single boyfriend I didn't feel that way, like our status was unstable and came with some caveat. I was his gf morning, noon and night, to whoever was looking, in whatever city, state or country, to his family and friends and there was nothing to explain about that....and how I knew I was primary was that if he had an OW she'd be the one to know about me and not me her. I didn't know about another woman he was sharing life with...I doubt he ever cheated, but if he did, I didn't know and ironically that tells me I'm primary as he would have had to hide anybody else that comes after me. Probably that is my simple definition or litmus test: do you know of a wife or other woman he is with? If yes, you are not primary, as chances are the primary is the one who doesn't know. Well except for a MM who is lying about his status, then you may not know, but then there are other clues too. So if you're dating a "single man" and he avoids letting you meet his family and friends and so on...be suspicious.

 

I don't think it does make a difference. As you allude to, I'd much rather be "only" than primary or secondary. It seems like the argument over primary vs secondary is just fighting over scraps. Maybe it provides comfort for some people knowing they're first, but the fact that there's a second invalidates all that for me. The way I see it, at the end of the day you're still in an affair relationship, the MP is still with their spouse, etc etc. It's like trying to find out if she truly loved me -- maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but it didn't end up making a tangible difference in my life whatsoever.

 

(the general you, not referring to anyone specific here)

[MissBee]

I don't think it does make a difference. As you allude to, I'd much rather be "only" than primary or secondary. It seems like the argument over primary vs secondary is just fighting over scraps. Maybe it provides comfort for some people knowing they're first, but the fact that there's a second invalidates all that for me. The way I see it, at the end of the day you're still in an affair relationship, the MP is still with their spouse, etc etc. It's like trying to find out if she truly loved me -- maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but it didn't end up making a tangible difference in my life whatsoever.

 

(the general you, not referring to anyone specific here)

 

Well yes, I've always said I don't want to be #1, since that implies there is a queue with others.

 

But I also see how it is beneficial if you KNOW you are with someone and they're with someone else, why being #1 matters. You can't pretend they aren't with another person, so being #1 is a better consolation. Hardly any OW thinks the wife is #1 and she secondary...the argument is always that either she is his #1 and the wife an afterthought, or he loves them "differently" and usually the difference is described as "he is in love with me but he loves her"...so it's obviously important...the feeling of being special and different in some way is an important ingredient in an A.

 

In the culture I'm originally from it's accepted as the norm that men will have OW, so people accept this as a reality and the coveted position is being "the wife" or being #1, which comes with the understanding that this is the primary, she get's the lion's share and the OW has to accept that she will be treated well too but she shouldn't attempt to supersede or undermine the wife's role. That's not good for me...but for many they feel every man is going to cheat anyway, so might as well arrange it to suit you and be the woman with the "best" position.

Edited August 15, 2012 by MissBee

[cocorico]

.

The insinuation I do not agree with is that decision making being made w/o the BS' input. In my world, that's not right. However, it may be more expedient - there's that stupid reality again.

 

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure on that. When I decided to leave my xH, did I ask for his input? No, because I knew what he would say. Instead I spoke to good friends, family, a counsellor, and then a lawyer. And when I had decided, I told him what I planned to do. Why should it be different just because an A is involved?

[eleanorrigby]

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure on that. When I decided to leave my xH, did I ask for his input? No, because I knew what he would say. Instead I spoke to good friends, family, a counsellor, and then a lawyer. And when I had decided, I told him what I planned to do. Why should it be different just because an A is involved?

 

An affair changes the entire dynamic. Had my husband just decided to divorce without talking to me about it, sure, there would have been drama. But an affair amped the drama level up to a ridiculous degree.

 

An affair turns a bad situation into a cluster****.

 

I can/could deal with my husband talking to a friend, shrink, or attorney about our marriage. I could not/can't deal with my husband talking to someone he is having sex with about our marriage.

 

You seriously can't see how an affair changes everything?

[Silly_Girl]

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure on that. When I decided to leave my xH, did I ask for his input? No, because I knew what he would say. Instead I spoke to good friends, family, a counsellor, and then a lawyer. And when I had decided, I told him what I planned to do. Why should it be different just because an A is involved?

 

I can relate to this. I've never viewed it in these terms.

[MissBee]

An affair changes the entire dynamic. Had my husband just decided to divorce without talking to me about it, sure, there would have been drama. But an affair amped the drama level up to a ridiculous degree.

 

An affair turns a bad situation into a cluster****.

 

I can/could deal with my husband talking to a friend, shrink, or attorney about our marriage. I could not/can't deal with my husband talking to someone he is having sex with about our marriage.

You seriously can't see how an affair changes everything?

 

To refer back to the original question about character flaws and As:

 

I would describe someone who sees As as acceptable and sees nothing wrong with them as one who has a character flaw and/or psychological issue.

 

We all engage in less than stellar things at some point or another, but I think our awareness and ability to be self-reflexive as well as see its implications in a wider context determines whether that flaw is something temporary or more chronic and deeply entrenched.

[jwi71]

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure on that. When I decided to leave my xH, did I ask for his input? No, because I knew what he would say. Instead I spoke to good friends, family, a counsellor, and then a lawyer. And when I had decided, I told him what I planned to do. Why should it be different just because an A is involved?

 

Well shyt.

 

You're right - there I said it....happy?

 

I can certainly see what you are saying - I even did the same thing as BS - in fact, I'm sure most D's got his route. AS long as its not one of those "managed exits" - and that was my incorrect assumption - I'm all good.

[jwi71]

I've never actually made ethe case for it either way. I've held mine up as an example of time... and interaction, but I'd never say I was his primary relationship. Frankly, I don't think his wife is either.

When you ask who he is protecting, well... he protects and cares for us both. The label of who is more important is just stupid. It's not a competition.

All I care about is this.

When he is with me, he is with me. He is engaged in our discussion or activity and is with ME.

Just because he loves her, doesn't mean he loves me any less, and in the flip side of that, just because he loves me doesn't mean that the love he has for her is less.

Love isn't finite. No 2 relationships will ever be the same, so comparing is an exercise of futility. You can even ask a couple of the rekindled relationships, probably even some of the married couples that have reconciled, and THOSE relationships at different points in their lives are completely different and probably shouldn't be compared.

 

So, what difference does it make who is the primary relationship? What value does it add?

 

OK, since you asked the Q to me - I'll answer.

 

You aren't likely to like it though - but understand, I'm not taking a shot at you.

 

I re-read the thread, specifically looking for how the issue of primacy developed. I knew I didn't bring it up.

 

Pierre did. And you engaged him because you didn't like the word concubine. That word you took as insult - but its not - its merely a descriptor of hierarchy in this situation. Typically, or maybe I should say historically, the first concubine is subordinate to the legal W - meaning the W is primary and the concubine is secondary. Additional concubines will be subordinate to the others as they are "taken".

 

Tying this back to you - if one accepts the above definition of a concubine - then you are subordinate to the W - the secondary R.

 

Does it make a difference? Apparently it does to you - you're the one who engaged in the discussion and you're the one posting about how he treats as if you are primary. Your words - not mine.

 

Does it make a difference to me? Yes. I think those who want more should ask for it. What's wrong with that? In fact, those in the secondary position, provided they want more, should seek it. Why would I tell someone who wants "the ring" to just suck it up and accept "second place"? You want it all - go get it. (I know you DON'T, generalities there).

 

Can I tell who is primary? Nope.

 

What value does it add? It helps provide possible actions and directions of action to change an unhappy situation.

 

Are any two R's the same? Of course not.

It does, however, get more "interesting" when there are two R's happening simultaneously.

 

I'll stop here despite having more to say - I'm not even sure how well the above will be received - but I'll leave it intact nonetheless.

[OpenBook]

We all engage in less than stellar things at some point or another, but I think our awareness and ability to be self-reflexive as well as see its implications in a wider context determines whether that flaw is something temporary or more chronic and deeply entrenched.

 

"Self-reflexive"? What is that?

[Athena]

"Self-reflexive"? What is that?

 

She clearly meant to write "self reflective"

[mercy]

Self-reflexive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

: marked by or making reference to its own artificiality or contrivance <self–reflexive fiction>

 

You're welcome.