Jump to content
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I have been reading on these boards the last couple of weeks, and after sifting through a lot of unhelpful info, have found some really insightful information. And garnered a lot more info re people and how they think. I am noticing some trends.

 

One trend I am noticing is that many BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Another trend is that there seems to be differing groups, possibly by generation, that view marriage, and its purpose and value very differently.

 

But one trend is really standing out, and that is that many others seem to be very independent. Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves. Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me? I have heard many BS state that their WS separated the family (a social construct requiring a male dad, female mom, and children), destroyed their financial security (a belief that financial security is a reason to marry or maintain marriage?), or that marriage should be preserved at all costs (social demand that marriage is forever whether it is pleasant or not and divorce is wrong?).

 

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others? That if they were less independent, and fell into societal line, that they would not be others? Or that if they believed the societal push for marriage at all costs, and not always for love or compatibility, that they wouldn't exhibit the independence of stepping outside of those lines to obtain what they believe is important in relationships?

 

Of course I know all situations are different and varied, but is there some correlation here perhaps?

Edited by AnotherRound
  • Like 1
Posted

LOL ...... um no there is no correlation. I think that there are a great number of similarities between betrayed spouses and other men / women. One of them is that they try to understand why their partners behave the way they do and they try to deduce the truth from the lies. Both groups tend to post when they are hurting. In terms of differences I think the betrayed tend to be angrier at their partners than the OW / OM are at their partners. This is probably becuase they differ in their expectations... maybe, I dont know.

  • Like 2
Posted
I have been reading on these boards the last couple of weeks, and after sifting through a lot of unhelpful info, have found some really insightful information. And garnered a lot more info re people and how they think. I am noticing some trends.

 

One trend I am noticing is that many BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Another trend is that there seems to be differing groups, possibly by generation, that view marriage, and its purpose and value very differently.

 

But one trend is really standing out, and that is that manHy others seem to be very independent. Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves. Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me? I have heard many BS state that their WS separated the family (a social construct requiring a male dad, female mom, and children), destroyed their financial security (a belief that financial security is a reason to marry or maintain marriage?), or that marriage should be preserved at all costs (social demand that marriage is forever whether it is pleasant or not and divorce is wrong?).

 

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others? That if they were less independent, and fell into societal line, that they would not be others? Or that if they believed the societal push for marriage at all costs, and not always for love or compatibility, that they wouldn't exhibit the independence of stepping outside of those lines to obtain what they believe is important in relationships?

 

Of course I know all situations are different and varied, but is there some correlation here perhaps?

 

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others?

 

This relates only to what exactly, cheaters?

  • Like 1
Posted

AR,

 

I, like jade eyes, find your assumption to be offensive. You are assuming just because someone is married that they are not independent, and that they are only married because of social restraints.:rolleyes:

 

I got married because I was in love and wanted to have kids.(not illegitimate)

I also believe in marriage as a healthy structure in which to live your life and raise kids in. Regardless of your religious beliefs, marriage is still a viable option for many people around the world.;)

 

In her research,Dr. Shirley Glass found that the spouse that cheated was the one that contributed less in the marriage.(wasn't pulling their fair share):( That is why they had the extra time and energy to fit an affair into their life)

 

Many women(and men) stay at home a short while when the kids are babies because both spouses want their children to have that extra love, attention, and bonding when young. A marriage provides the financial structure so that one brings in the money during this time.(there are many more men doing this now than ever before-if the wife is the larger wage earner):)

 

I was a SAHM when my kids were babies, then went on to a full time successful career until I retired. As much as I enjoyed my career/money, my family has always been my top priority!:love:

 

Women and men can have it all these days! There are no repercussions for people who choose to stay single or not have kids!(in the US) I know many people like this, and they are happy and have full lives! They are not outcasts, they are part of all of our family gatherings. They have our love and support in every part of their lives.(just like the married ones do):bunny:

  • Like 3
Posted

Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

If it feels good do it? You think others exhibit a higher level of critical thinking? Where did you glean that piece of information?

 

In my personal experience, the others/intruders I have personally known, have been uneducated, single parents, looking for a man to take care of them. They also were self absorbed and narcissistic enough to believe that someone elses need what was actually about them.

  • Like 1
Posted
I have been reading on these boards the last couple of weeks, and after sifting through a lot of unhelpful info, have found some really insightful information. And garnered a lot more info re people and how they think. I am noticing some trends.

 

One trend I am noticing is that many BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Another trend is that there seems to be differing groups, possibly by generation, that view marriage, and its purpose and value very differently.

 

But one trend is really standing out, and that is that many others seem to be very independent. Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves. Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me? I have heard many BS state that their WS separated the family (a social construct requiring a male dad, female mom, and children), destroyed their financial security (a belief that financial security is a reason to marry or maintain marriage?), or that marriage should be preserved at all costs (social demand that marriage is forever whether it is pleasant or not and divorce is wrong?).

 

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others? That if they were less independent, and fell into societal line, that they would not be others? Or that if they believed the societal push for marriage at all costs, and not always for love or compatibility, that they wouldn't exhibit the independence of stepping outside of those lines to obtain what they believe is important in relationships?

 

Of course I know all situations are different and varied, but is there some correlation here perhaps?

 

While I don't go with sweeping generalisations, I do feel your observations are pretty valid for many of us. It's true that to be an OW or OM who is not the "filled with self-loathing" kind, you need to hold views that allow more creative R formats, that celebrate freedom of choice and do not worship at the altar of conformity. It is true that to thrive as an OW or OM you need to be independent and not define yourself in terms of your R status. But it is equally true that an OW or OM needs high EQ to be able to relate on a higher level with their MAP.

  • Like 1
Posted

Let's get this straight here. :D You believe that people who see things as absolute wrong or absolute right and who have no gray areas are inferior, lacking in critical higher thinking skills.

 

Also you think those that believe in marriage and fidelity are less evolved.

 

Instead of dissing and baiting, you ought to think deeply about how you got yourself into a 7 year affair. 7 years is a long time.

 

Sorry if my opinion is not evolved enough for you.

  • Like 4
Posted

Some people you just realize why their partners cheated on them: judgmental, arrogant and devoid of human compassion.

Even a 5-year old could see this. :)

  • Like 2
Posted

Perhaps it's ironic, give the OP's comments about "higher level critical thinking", that few people have actually read the post correctly. Most seem to be assuming the OP is stating that OWs are smart, everyone else is dumb; OWs are independent, everyone else is clingy. She did not say that....

 

She did speculate that in order to carry off being an OW/OM, one needed certain attributes such as independence, critical thinking etc,based on evidence she'd seen here, and I think in some cases she's spot on. Obviously not all, as I don't think one can ever generalise to that degree.

 

Nowhere did she state that people who were not OW/ OM could not also have those attributes. Some people felt slighted because they read it that way, but that was projection on their part as it's not in what she actually wrote. She did state that "many BS" held monochrome views on morality, or traditionalist views of M / family, which is not the same thing at all as saying a BS cannot be independent or have critical thinking aptiudes, even though some chose to I ferret it that way.

 

Perhaps a more interesting way of viewing that correlation would be to explore causality - was it monochrome views on morality and traditionalist views inM / family that led to their being vulnerable to infidelity, or was it infidelity that prompted those views? Personally I would suspect the latter in most cases, ( though not all), which then also raises the issue of those "independent, critically thinking" APs who subsequently experience infidelity and whether that changes their independent, critical outlooks and turns them monochrome lay traditionalist, or whether their independent criticality allows them to process infidelity differently.

 

It's an interesting issue to muse on. If people can overcome a knee jerk defensive assumption that the thread is simp,y "dissing and baiting" and apply some of those higher level critical thinking skills they think they're being accused of not having..

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

I find the points made in the OP simplistic and shallow. I have several university degrees and am in an open marriage, which is definitely outside of societal conventions where I live, but I value honesty and kindness to others, which is why I would not choose to be either a WS or an AP. It is all about values, and not about education or independent thinking.

 

It is what values one has and how one wants to treat others. If one really sees nothing wrong with deceptive affairs, then there is no need to come up with justifications and rationales. When I was selfish, I know I didn't - I simply didn't care what others thought and didn't see anything wrong with being an OW. I think when one tries to justify one's actions through suggesting one is more educated or more open minded than others and that is why one brings dishonesty into one's life, that suggests that honesty and kindness to others probably does mean something to one, but one is suppressing those values for now to serve one's more selfish purposes.

Edited by woinlove
  • Like 5
Posted
I have been reading on these boards the last couple of weeks, and after sifting through a lot of unhelpful info, have found some really insightful information. And garnered a lot more info re people and how they think. I am noticing some trends.

 

One trend I am noticing is that many BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Another trend is that there seems to be differing groups, possibly by generation, that view marriage, and its purpose and value very differently.

 

But one trend is really standing out, and that is that many others seem to be very independent. Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves. Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me? I have heard many BS state that their WS separated the family (a social construct requiring a male dad, female mom, and children), destroyed their financial security (a belief that financial security is a reason to marry or maintain marriage?), or that marriage should be preserved at all costs (social demand that marriage is forever whether it is pleasant or not and divorce is wrong?).

 

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others? That if they were less independent, and fell into societal line, that they would not be others? Or that if they believed the societal push for marriage at all costs, and not always for love or compatibility, that they wouldn't exhibit the independence of stepping outside of those lines to obtain what they believe is important in relationships?

 

Of course I know all situations are different and varied, but is there some correlation here perhaps?

 

If you read some of the threads on LS, you will see that some WS, including serial cheaters, claim to stay married for financial purposes, which is the opposite correlation that you put forward. Could be some people who feel they have to stay married no matter what chose to cheat. Personally, I have never felt I had to be married or had to stay married and so I don't have that "excuse" to make me be dishonest and cheat. Some people seem to feel that is an excuse.

 

One might argue the more independent one is (in thinking and financially), the more one feels confident to live by one's own values and not feel one has to compromise those values. I feel I can live honestly and authentically no matter what society or others think I should do. Kind of the opposite of the view put forward by you.

 

I really feel everyone should feel free to fully grab their own life and live the way they want and not feel they have to justify their own life choices to others, especially not to strangers on an internet forum. For those who want to be involved in secret affairs, I would say totally own it and say to heck with everyone else if that is what you want to do. However, many involved in secret affairs aren't really happy with the situation, and then I would say, change it, end it - you don't have to be stuck and unhappy. Stop making excuses and rationalizations and just change your life so you are happy and don't need excuses and rationalizations.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
I

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others? That if they were less independent, and fell into societal line, that they would not be others? Or that if they believed the societal push for marriage at all costs, and not always for love or compatibility, that they wouldn't exhibit the independence of stepping outside of those lines to obtain what they believe is important in relationships?

 

Of course I know all situations are different and varied, but is there some correlation here perhaps?

 

I think it's an interesting perspective I see here by some. Among all the story lines that exist, this is one of them. That is, that to be an OW/OM you must be "enlightened" and no you're not involved in anything dishonest or distasteful as you create your own rules that are outside of society, you're simply an out of the box thinker, who does not have black and white thinking and an A is a reflection of this. It's an interesting perspective...

 

We all choose which societal constructs to adhere to and which ones not to and a host of reasons influence that. I'm sure that many OW/OM are "independent thinkers" yet, none of us are uninfluenced by society, it's impossible. We all conform and don't in different ways and that's our choice to make and it's not static. While one is not confirming to "society" by creating alternative reasoning for an A, one conforms in other areas of life. So not sure if it is about independent thinking so much as picking and choosing as one sees fit.

 

I am sure many OW/OM are not independent thinkers so to speak and perhaps are very traditional, easily led by peer pressure, even very religious (I've seen on here very religious OW) but what does that have to do with being in an A? Sometimes it's discussed as though only very archaic people don't believe in As and progressive people do, when that simply is not true. Many people in As are conflicted..i.e. even though in an A, it is not as a result of some kind of enlightened state or stance against society, but a personal choice, with many factors. Lots of factors allow us to engage in behaviors we may not necessarily think are great or that go against societal/moral codes...but then rationalizations get activated to deal with that conflict. Such is human nature. Many OW/OM for example believe in marriage, want to marry their AP and some who eventually get into an open R do. Then funnily, when in a regular non A, they go back to the "normal rules" of society. They aren't in open relationships, they wouldn't be unaffected by an A should their partner choose to have one etc. I think as humans we can compartmentalize, rationalize and we're mutable...we can change our views or at least the story about our behavior in a very pragmatic way.

 

 

I think the independent thinker/enlightened rhetoric is but one of the many many ones different people tack on to. My train of thought would be, what kinds of people use this line of rationale?

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to present BSs and OW/OM as some kind of different species of people. I also think it is actually ironically, a very very black and white line of thinking. It's untrue that everyone who marries or follows ANY societal norm or tradition is simply a slave to society and cannot think for themselves. LOL it's arrogant and it doesn't often take into account, as I said, that usually those who think they are above society, are only discussing SOME aspects and definitely conform in other ways. I am an independent thinker, progressive and open-minded. I had an A. I am nontraditional in many respects and since I'm trained in sociology, I am also good at seeing how much of our world, culture, society are all human constructs...yet that doesn't stop me from being traditional in other ways. The traditions or norms I follow do not make me unenlightened or non-independent and having an A made me no more independent and I didn't really use the rhetoric of being so above society constraints why I had it.

 

It's an idealized and romanticized view to speak of OW/OM as those pursuing love with their enlightened independence...as I said, I think this is just one of the many story lines that exist for why someone is in an A and my focus would not be on saying this is true but rather, it is a storyline, like others, and my concern would be, which kinds of people espouse this view? Why is this rationale useful and to whom?

Edited by MissBee
  • Like 3
Posted
AR,

 

since you put it out there...

 

I am actually ( although you might not guess it from my posts) an educated person, have held very responsible positions with several national not for profits ( chairperson of a board of directors, vice chair of an maritime regional board for one of our countries largest NGOs)...I am independent ( would have walked away from my marriage,kids in tow, if my husband hadn't ended his affair- told him that too)...I'm agnostic, so religion doesn't color my views...

 

when it comes right down to it...to me, cheating or being involved with a married person is wrong...not because society/religion/or anything else tells me so. I tell myself so, because doing so would knowingly cause hurt to someone else, and I am not going to do that. To me, morality has little room for plasticity, especially in areas like this. If I'm not happy being married, I will do what I can to make things work or I will leave. If someone is married ( and I am single), I will not put myself in the position where I will "fall in love" with them...there are many, many MANY single people out there...I'm sure married guy would not be the only guy I could find to love with. If I did fall for a married guy, I'd just have to get over it...it would hurt, but not more than it would hurt to know that i'd violated my own moral code...

 

( please note...I'm not trying to sound overly smug or anything...it's just that I know myself well enough to know who I am and how I feel...)

 

I agree.

 

I meant to say that I don't see an A as having much to do with large societal structures, so much as on a very simple level, if you made a promise...you're breaking it...little kids know this is wrong...little kids know this hurts...it's not very complicated. Some of our feelings are socially coded but some I feel are pretty basic things that we didn't need to learn to feel bad about.

 

People can have a variety of beliefs about relationships or marriages but you'd be hard-pressed to find any society, Western or non-Western, that thinks promise breaking, betrayal etc are neutral or good things. Societies vary about their rules and norms...so maybe for some monogamy is not the norm..that's fine, but that specific practice is not to be conflated with general ideas about things being right or wrong or hurtful and anxiety producing. So independent thinking has nothing to do with anything IMO...unless one is saying independent thinkers are void of feelings, cannot be hurt by lies, can't be disappointed etc. as for them anything goes, so no matter what another does, once they claim they are free to do it because they don't conform..then their fellow independent thinkers will feel good about it? :confused:

  • Like 4
Posted

I've always liked independent women, mostly because I can't stand the overly clingy "I need a man" types.

  • Author
Posted
AR,

 

I, like jade eyes, find your assumption to be offensive. You are assuming just because someone is married that they are not independent, and that they are only married because of social restraints.:rolleyes:

 

No, I did not assume that, or say that. I was simply pointing out that I was seeing a trend of independence in the others on these boards. I do not buy into dichotomies - so, one side of the triangle being one thing does not equate to the other side being the opposite. That is YOUR thinking, not mine, in that you seem to believe that if one side is one thing then the other side HAS to be the opposite. False dichotomy, but not my belief.

 

I got married because I was in love and wanted to have kids.(not illegitimate)

I also believe in marriage as a healthy structure in which to live your life and raise kids in. Regardless of your religious beliefs, marriage is still a viable option for many people around the world.;)

 

Maybe, but statistically, non-religious people seem to often view marriage much differently. We just disagree on the importance and efficiency of marriage. I do not see it as a healthy structure, especially since the divorce rate is so high. It is obviously NOT working for a large amount of our population (US).

 

In her research,Dr. Shirley Glass found that the spouse that cheated was the one that contributed less in the marriage.(wasn't pulling their fair share):( That is why they had the extra time and energy to fit an affair into their life)

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I asked? I didn't state that anyone contributed more or less. ???? Although, since you bring it up, I think measuring contribution to a marriage would need to consider a LOT of factors, and I'm not sure that it is really measurable. Unless, you are talking about the material things, which kind of reinforces that marriage is sometimes simply for material security???

 

Many women(and men) stay at home a short while when the kids are babies because both spouses want their children to have that extra love, attention, and bonding when young. A marriage provides the financial structure so that one brings in the money during this time.(there are many more men doing this now than ever before-if the wife is the larger wage earner):)

 

Eh... I can have the same exact set up without marriage. So, again, we disagree that marriage is efficient. Imo, it doesn't "secure" this any more than living together and raising a family together does. Imo, it's a false sense of security that it's more secure simply bc there is a signed document to go along with it.

 

I was a SAHM when my kids were babies, then went on to a full time successful career until I retired. As much as I enjoyed my career/money, my family has always been my top priority!:love:

 

That's great. It doesn't work for everyone. Some women are not looking to get married and have children, as they are focused on other things in their lives. Not saying one is right or wrong, just pointing out the differences that I sometimes see.

 

Women and men can have it all these days! There are no repercussions for people who choose to stay single or not have kids!(in the US) I know many people like this, and they are happy and have full lives! They are not outcasts, they are part of all of our family gatherings. They have our love and support in every part of their lives.(just like the married ones do):bunny:

 

Agreed. :) Although I would disagree that there are "no" repurcussions for women who stay unmarried and/or childless. I would have to say that there are sometimes "some" repurcussions, as far as society goes.

 

I'm sorry that you were offended, that was not my intention. I placed this on the OW/OM boards originally in an effort to NOT offend the BSs that I thought might find my observations offensive. It got moved to general, and that is unfortunate, as many will think I placed it here as "bait", and that couldn't be further from the truth. My intentions, as always, are to think and have others think along with me in an effort to understand something at a deeper level. Nothing more, nothing less. :)

 

PS I cannot see/read JadeEyes responses, as I have her on "ignore", so I cannot respond to any of her posts, and am not claiming to at all in this post (only yours) as I cannot read hers

  • Author
Posted
Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

If it feels good do it? You think others exhibit a higher level of critical thinking? Where did you glean that piece of information?

 

No, not "if it feels good do it"... where are you getting that???? And yes, I am saying that many others on these boards exhibit a higher level of critical thinking. I glean that information from my knowledge about psychology and the classifications of either/or thinking vs maybe/maybe not thinking. It's scientific fact, not my opinion.

 

In my personal experience, the others/intruders I have personally known, have been uneducated, single parents, looking for a man to take care of them. They also were self absorbed and narcissistic enough to believe that someone elses need what was actually about them.

 

I'm sorry that you have seen this trend in your personal life. I haven't seen it, nor read about it. You are seeing exactly the opposite of what I'm observing. I wonder why that is?

  • Author
Posted
AR,

 

since you put it out there...

 

I am actually ( although you might not guess it from my posts) an educated person, have held very responsible positions with several national not for profits ( chairperson of a board of directors, vice chair of an maritime regional board for one of our countries largest NGOs)...I am independent ( would have walked away from my marriage,kids in tow, if my husband hadn't ended his affair- told him that too)...I'm agnostic, so religion doesn't color my views...

 

I have never assumed that you were uneducated or unintelligent. In fact, quite the opposite. I made sure to say "some" bc I was NOT making generalizations, but observing some common denominators in the posting trends.

 

when it comes right down to it...to me, cheating or being involved with a married person is wrong...not because society/religion/or anything else tells me so. I tell myself so, because doing so would knowingly cause hurt to someone else, and I am not going to do that. To me, morality has little room for plasticity, especially in areas like this. If I'm not happy being married, I will do what I can to make things work or I will leave. If someone is married ( and I am single), I will not put myself in the position where I will "fall in love" with them...there are many, many MANY single people out there...I'm sure married guy would not be the only guy I could find to love with. If I did fall for a married guy, I'd just have to get over it...it would hurt, but not more than it would hurt to know that i'd violated my own moral code...

 

( please note...I'm not trying to sound overly smug or anything...it's just that I know myself well enough to know who I am and how I feel...)

 

And know, I know you aren't trying to sound "smug". And I appreciate your feedback. I believe, from reading your posts, that you are a person who is very comfortable in their own skin. This post was not to judge, but to explore, so thank you for participating in that exploration.

  • Author
Posted
Let's get this straight here. :D You believe that people who see things as absolute wrong or absolute right and who have no gray areas are inferior, lacking in critical higher thinking skills.

 

Again, I never said "inferior". Science has verified that our brains are capable of thinking at much higher levels than black/white. So yes, Science dictates that not using that capacity is "lacking in critical higher thinking skills". These are not my words, this is scientific fact. Google it, it's all verifiable, by brain scans and such.

 

Also you think those that believe in marriage and fidelity are less evolved.

 

Nope. Never said that, or insinuated it. I said that it appears that people hold marriage as the end all ultimate goal, and believe that it is an efficient way to "seal" an emotional relationship, are viewing it much different than it appears many others view it.

 

Instead of dissing and baiting, you ought to think deeply about how you got yourself into a 7 year affair. 7 years is a long time.

 

I was not dissing and baiting. I think that maybe some are taking it that way simply bc they ALWAYS think that I am dissing and baiting. No matter what I say, no matter what I express, it can't be taken as honest curiosity, but will always be dissing and baiting to some. I'm sorry that you feel that way and couldn't/didn't/refused to read the post as it was without coloring it with your own defenses. It was an honest observation that I was interested in seeing if anyone else had noticed it too, or if it was just me.

 

Sorry if my opinion is not evolved enough for you.

 

Your opinion is not under my judgment. Your opinion is valid simply bc you have it, regardless of whether or not I agree with it or not. I have no opinion on the level of evolution of your opinion, and I'm not sure why you think I would.

 

My concern is that sometimes it appears that people are ignoring scientific facts and placing their opinions at the same level. An opinion is not a fact, no matter how dearly it is held.

  • Author
Posted
Some people you just realize why their partners cheated on them: judgmental, arrogant and devoid of human compassion.

Even a 5-year old could see this. :)

 

Yes, this is true in some cases.

 

And it's interesting that you mention a 5 year old. 5 year olds, generally and averagely speaking, are not able to use higher thinking skills. Their brains are not developed enough to do so, so their worlds are very black and white.

 

So, this might even back up my original observation that in seeing something so complicated in such simple terms, that higher level critical thinking skills are not being used. Interesting.

  • Author
Posted
Perhaps it's ironic, give the OP's comments about "higher level critical thinking", that few people have actually read the post correctly. Most seem to be assuming the OP is stating that OWs are smart, everyone else is dumb; OWs are independent, everyone else is clingy. She did not say that....

 

She did speculate that in order to carry off being an OW/OM, one needed certain attributes such as independence, critical thinking etc,based on evidence she'd seen here, and I think in some cases she's spot on. Obviously not all, as I don't think one can ever generalise to that degree.

 

Nowhere did she state that people who were not OW/ OM could not also have those attributes. Some people felt slighted because they read it that way, but that was projection on their part as it's not in what she actually wrote. She did state that "many BS" held monochrome views on morality, or traditionalist views of M / family, which is not the same thing at all as saying a BS cannot be independent or have critical thinking aptiudes, even though some chose to I ferret it that way.

 

Perhaps a more interesting way of viewing that correlation would be to explore causality - was it monochrome views on morality and traditionalist views inM / family that led to their being vulnerable to infidelity, or was it infidelity that prompted those views? Personally I would suspect the latter in most cases, ( though not all), which then also raises the issue of those "independent, critically thinking" APs who subsequently experience infidelity and whether that changes their independent, critical outlooks and turns them monochrome lay traditionalist, or whether their independent criticality allows them to process infidelity differently.

 

It's an interesting issue to muse on. If people can overcome a knee jerk defensive assumption that the thread is simp,y "dissing and baiting" and apply some of those higher level critical thinking skills they think they're being accused of not having..

 

Thank you! I was thinking about causality, but was simply starting with my observations and wondering if anyone else was seeing the same trends. From there, I could maybe go on to the causality issue.

 

I agree, it appears that many have misunderstood the post, and/or taken offense to it. I do wish it had stayed on the OW/OM forum bc I was interested in that perspective especially, since they know themselves better than anyone and I really wanted their feedback. To see if this WAS a personality trait that they exhibited. Also, have they exhibited it since childhood? etc. etc. therefore linking in to the whole causality (chicken or the egg) exploration.

 

Thank you for understanding! And, it is interesting that many read the post and immediately made it into a dichotomy - mutually exclusive.

  • Author
Posted
I find the points made in the OP simplistic and shallow. I have several university degrees and am in an open marriage, which is definitely outside of societal conventions where I live, but I value honesty and kindness to others, which is why I would not choose to be either a WS or an AP. It is all about values, and not about education or independent thinking.

 

I wasn't saying that BSs aren't educated. I'm not sure where everyone is getting that? I was saying that I am seeing a trend that it seems that majority of others on these boards are educated. That does not, by mutual exclusivity, mean that BSs are NOT educated. Dichotomies people, that's the ENTIRE point here!

 

It is what values one has and how one wants to treat others. If one really sees nothing wrong with deceptive affairs, then there is no need to come up with justifications and rationales. When I was selfish, I know I didn't - I simply didn't care what others thought and didn't see anything wrong with being an OW. I think when one tries to justify one's actions through suggesting one is more educated or more open minded than others and that is why one brings dishonesty into one's life, that suggests that honesty and kindness to others probably does mean something to one, but one is suppressing those values for now to serve one's more selfish purposes.

 

I have never said that I see nothing wrong with "deceptive affairs". Again, not all affairs are deceptive. That's another false either/or belief. The fact that this is said repeatedly here (mostly by BSs, the trend I'm noting) is telling to me about the thinking patterns of posters here.

 

Some affairs are NOT deceptive. The fact that some people cannot "get their brains around that" is exactly what I'm talking about here. The either/or ... all or nothing thinking. Why is that more prevalent in the BS side of the triangle? That's what I'm exploring. Not saying all BSs, or all OWs... ALL or NONE of anything is erroneous, and is NOT what I'm saying. A trend does not mean all or none. It means many, or most, or some....

Posted
I have been reading on these boards the last couple of weeks, and after sifting through a lot of unhelpful info, have found some really insightful information. And garnered a lot more info re people and how they think. I am noticing some trends.

 

One trend I am noticing is that many BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Another trend is that there seems to be differing groups, possibly by generation, that view marriage, and its purpose and value very differently.

 

But one trend is really standing out, and that is that many others seem to be very independent. Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves. Also independent thinkers in that they seem to exhibit higher level critical thinking, despite the simplixity that society and its constructs try to demand from them.

 

Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me? I have heard many BS state that their WS separated the family (a social construct requiring a male dad, female mom, and children), destroyed their financial security (a belief that financial security is a reason to marry or maintain marriage?), or that marriage should be preserved at all costs (social demand that marriage is forever whether it is pleasant or not and divorce is wrong?).

 

So, is the trend shown that others must be independent to be others? That if they were less independent, and fell into societal line, that they would not be others? Or that if they believed the societal push for marriage at all costs, and not always for love or compatibility, that they wouldn't exhibit the independence of stepping outside of those lines to obtain what they believe is important in relationships?

 

Of course I know all situations are different and varied, but is there some correlation here perhaps?

 

 

Hmmm difficult......I am independant and have been most o fmy life from about lets see 7 years of age i am a classic over achiever.....have done everything and fel t the need to do it myself.I belive in the family unit and i believe in the traditional family unit mum dad kids......I got told once when i first fell pregnant that I did i ton purpose to trap him and he didnt like that much..didnt want me to have her vehemntly tried to talk me out of it....she is 18 now that is m ebeign independent then and now she is 18 i made my choice........that was societal thinking and peers who didnt like my values telling him that was the way that drove him to threaten me even if i ddidnt bow to his will .....i think independence is more about taking responsibility for your actions.....accepting responsibility for choices that you have made and will make and you can do that in a committed relationship and i would stand up and cop whatever i had to to maintain that responsibility....a good man will respect that in me.....lesser men....well bring it....only i dont want lesser men...i have a responsibility to be independently happy..so lesser men i independently stay away from..deb

  • Author
Posted
I think it's an interesting perspective I see here by some. Among all the story lines that exist, this is one of them. That is, that to be an OW/OM you must be "enlightened" and no you're not involved in anything dishonest or distasteful as you create your own rules that are outside of society, you're simply an out of the box thinker, who does not have black and white thinking and an A is a reflection of this. It's an interesting perspective...

 

I'm not saying "enlightened", as that carries a superior connotation, and that is not what I'm thinking at all. And again, I'm seeing the "dishonest" remark about As. Not all As are dishonest... this is the trend I'm seeing, and this post has made it even more evident. That many are using lower level thinking skills and assuming that ALL As are dishonest.

 

We all choose which societal constructs to adhere to and which ones not to and a host of reasons influence that. I'm sure that many OW/OM are "independent thinkers" yet, none of us are uninfluenced by society, it's impossible. We all conform and don't in different ways and that's our choice to make and it's not static. While one is not confirming to "society" by creating alternative reasoning for an A, one conforms in other areas of life. So not sure if it is about independent thinking so much as picking and choosing as one sees fit.

 

Not sure I agree with this. I don't pick and choose, I have a very sturdy set of morals that guide me in life, and they are pretty consistent. I didn't compromise my morals in order to participate in an A, as my A was not on the down low. That would have compromised my morals of honesty, but that wasn't the reality of it, so no compromising or picking and choosing took place. I also disagree that everyone conforms in some way... I can think of several cases of people who definitely are NOT conforming in any way to society's restrictions.

 

I am sure many OW/OM are not independent thinkers so to speak and perhaps are very traditional, easily led by peer pressure, even very religious (I've seen on here very religious OW) but what does that have to do with being in an A?

 

Led by peer pressure? I have to absolutely disagree in my case, as I have never been susceptible to peer pressure. In fact, I would apply this to marriages MUCH more so than As, in that marriage is the "expected" and "accepted" route, not As.

 

Sometimes it's discussed as though only very archaic people don't believe in As and progressive people do, when that simply is not true.

 

Sometimes yes, but not by me. I don't think this, I just mentioned some trends I was seeing here.

 

Many people in As are conflicted..i.e. even though in an A, it is not as a result of some kind of enlightened state or stance against society, but a personal choice, with many factors.

 

Not sure I agree here. Conflicted how? More clarification of what you are saying here before I could respond.

 

Lots of factors allow us to engage in behaviors we may not necessarily think are great or that go against societal/moral codes...but then rationalizations get activated to deal with that conflict.

 

I think this is a black and white thinking pattern too. That people in As are rationalizing behaviors that they "know" are wrong. If a behavior isn't wrong in my world, why would I have the need to rationalize it?

 

Such is human nature. Many OW/OM for example believe in marriage, want to marry their AP and some who eventually get into an open R do. Then funnily, when in a regular non A, they go back to the "normal rules" of society.

 

This is true. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I will never get married again unless it is absolutely necessary for practical reasons. And then, it wouldn't be bc I believe in marriage as a seal of a relationship, but bc it afforded me something that I "needed" legally or such. And, it wouldn't be something I would be happy with - that I have to participate in a marriage to get human right benefits simply bc our society deems marriage the only way to do so.

 

They aren't in open relationships, they wouldn't be unaffected by an A should their partner choose to have one etc. I think as humans we can compartmentalize, rationalize and we're mutable...we can change our views or at least the story about our behavior in a very pragmatic way.

 

Sometimes, yes.

 

 

I think the independent thinker/enlightened rhetoric is but one of the many many ones different people tack on to. My train of thought would be, what kinds of people use this line of rationale?

 

You are seeing it as rationalization, I am not. Interesting.

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to present BSs and OW/OM as some kind of different species of people.

 

I agree. And I did not do that. I simply noted trends... I did not use an either or dichotomy. That was placed into this conversation by other posters, not me.

 

I also think it is actually ironically, a very very black and white line of thinking. It's untrue that everyone who marries or follows ANY societal norm or tradition is simply a slave to society and cannot think for themselves.

 

Agreed, which is why I don't think like that, and why I didn't say that.

 

LOL it's arrogant and it doesn't often take into account, as I said, that usually those who think they are above society, are only discussing SOME aspects and definitely conform in other ways.

 

Where did I say "above" society? I said outside of... Again, the need for some to value and devalue certain things is amazing to me. To assume that because one thing is good, that another thing is bad... that's the black and white thinking I am noticing. I don't think like that. 2 things that are opposite of each other can both be good or both be bad, or both be a mixture... in my world, there is no either/or by default.

 

I am an independent thinker, progressive and open-minded. I had an A. I am nontraditional in many respects and since I'm trained in sociology, I am also good at seeing how much of our world, culture, society are all human constructs...yet that doesn't stop me from being traditional in other ways. The traditions or norms I follow do not make me unenlightened or non-independent and having an A made me no more independent and I didn't really use the rhetoric of being so above society constraints why I had it.

 

Agreed. Again, I never said "above". Above gives it a "better than" sound, and that is not what I was saying at all. I tend not to place things in better than worse than categories. I see that many others do have the need to do so here, and that was a trend that I was pointing out.

 

It's an idealized and romanticized view to speak of OW/OM as those pursuing love with their enlightened independence...as I said, I think this is just one of the many story lines that exist for why someone is in an A and my focus would not be on saying this is true but rather, it is a storyline, like others, and my concern would be, which kinds of people espouse this view? Why is this rationale useful and to whom?

 

I disagree again. We are looking at it very differently. I see no need to rationalize my behavior - my behaviors were not wrong. Had exMMs wife been in the dark, that would have required my rationalization, but then again, had she been in the dark, I wouldn't have participated. I participated only bc she was NOT in the dark, so no lying was happening, so no need to rationalize - as I don't believe that a marriage certificate trumped happiness when the marriage was only existing solely bc of the certificate and nothing else that makes a marriage/relationship.

 

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Posted
I have never said that I see nothing wrong with "deceptive affairs". Again, not all affairs are deceptive. That's another false either/or belief. The fact that this is said repeatedly here (mostly by BSs, the trend I'm noting) is telling to me about the thinking patterns of posters here.

 

Some affairs are NOT deceptive. The fact that some people cannot "get their brains around that" is exactly what I'm talking about here. The either/or ... all or nothing thinking. Why is that more prevalent in the BS side of the triangle? That's what I'm exploring. Not saying all BSs, or all OWs... ALL or NONE of anything is erroneous, and is NOT what I'm saying. A trend does not mean all or none. It means many, or most, or some....

 

As to deceptive affairs - it is just a terminology to describe a case where there is a WS, BS and AP. I'm in an open M and everything is out in the open, no deception, so there isn't a WS or BS or AP, just 3 people who openly agree. I certainly never meant to imply you didn't see anything wrong with deceptive affairs, I was just giving examples of different viewpoints one might hold. If one sees something wrong with deceptive affairs AND one is involved in one, one responds differently than if someone who sees nothing wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Author
Posted
I've read posts a few times on here that seem to espouse the idea that fidelity to one person is somehow archaic and that those who choose to be other men/women are somehow more enlightened than the rest of us...

 

I'm sure that some people believe this, but I am not one of them.

 

I admit that i find that point of view somewhat ironic...

 

the same people who feel that way and feel that their lifestyle choices should respected, if not embraced, by others seem to feel that such respect to the lifestyle choices of others is somehow beneath them...

 

Again with the above/beneath. I just do not understand this need to place things on varying levels of worthiness or value. It's interesting to me. And I respect all people's choices and lifestyles, although I know that there are many in the world who do not.

 

i.e.: someone feels that their choice to be with a partner who is already committed to someone else. they tend to espouse the idea that their choice and relationship should be respected, if not lauded, by others. the ironic thing is that, at it's very core, the relationship is built upon the blatant disrespect for someone else's relationship. is this not being somewhat hypocritical?

 

That's the way you see it. In reality, there does not have to be disrespect for an A to take place. Again, that's the either/or thing kicking in. I do agree that some people think like this though.

 

the same is true for moral relativism...so many so called "enlightened" people heartily endorse this concept, as long as it applies to their behavior towards others...reverse the situation, and it suddenly seems to be a rather upsetting concept..."enlightenment" like so many other things, seems truly to be in the eye of the beholder...

 

I'm pretty sure that I never said "enlightened", but his h as crept its way here. And, not all people believe something only when it suits them. Again, that's a false dichotomy, imo.

 

the same is true for independence...if a woman is independant and does not feel she needs a man to be "whole", then why is she not able to refuse to get involved with a married man?

 

You are assuming again that being involved in an A compromises the OW somehow. Sometimes it does, but there are certainly times that it does not. Times when many other factors are considered. As for me, I do not "need" a man, or I would have one. If I "needed" him, I wouldn't have walked away. But I do find it interesting that when it's the OW people use the "need" word, but when it's a marriage they use the "want" word. Interesting.

 

Seems like there is a whole 'nother way of looking at it, and one's view very likely depends on which role you are in...if you are ( to use the term I heard coined on here a while back ) " an unapologetic other woman" then you will see the situation from a point of view that best rationalizes your actions/choices...the same is true for a wayward spouse or betrayed spouse...

 

I would disagree with the entire last paragraph. It seems that you look at the world and see behaviors that YOU do not agree with it, and then assume that everyone believes as you do, so they must be compromising or rationalizing. I don't see that when I look at the world.

×
×
  • Create New...