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

  • Author
Posted
exactly...

if someone, for whatever reason, is not cut out for monogamy, then at least have the decency to be honest. I don't understand how lying, deceit or having one's needs met on the backs of other is in any way "enlightened"....this applies to most ( if not all) aspects of life, so why not relationships too?

 

 

Why are you assuming that all As include dishonesty? How are you defining dishonesty here? If by dishonesty you mean, the wife does not know, then that is false. In many cases, the BS DOES know. So, no dishonesty.

 

Or, do you mean dishonesty as in, "not full disclosure"? As in, the spouse is aware but isn't getting the details? This is an interesting point to me too, as I would assume (as a former BW) that if a spouse is going along with it (by agreeing or simply refusing to address it and disagree with it), would not want the "details".

 

And again, "having ones needs met on the backs of others" is an assumption. This is not always the case in As. It's interesting to me that you do assume that all As are dishonest. Is that bc there truly is dishonesty, or bc you consider it dishonest to be in a relationship outside of a marriage certificate, even when the spouse is aware?

Posted
Why are you assuming that all As include dishonesty? How are you defining dishonesty here? If by dishonesty you mean, the wife does not know, then that is false. In many cases, the BS DOES know. So, no dishonesty.

 

Or, do you mean dishonesty as in, "not full disclosure"? As in, the spouse is aware but isn't getting the details? This is an interesting point to me too, as I would assume (as a former BW) that if a spouse is going along with it (by agreeing or simply refusing to address it and disagree with it), would not want the "details".

 

And again, "having ones needs met on the backs of others" is an assumption. This is not always the case in As. It's interesting to me that you do assume that all As are dishonest. Is that bc there truly is dishonesty, or bc you consider it dishonest to be in a relationship outside of a marriage certificate, even when the spouse is aware?

 

Again, the standard terminology here is one uses the word affair if there is a betrayed, a wayward and an affair partner. If everything is out in the open and honest, then we do not call it an affair. For example, when you are dating non-exclusively, you don't typically call some of the dates an affair and refer to the person as an affair partner.

  • Like 4
Posted

Another Round, if you just want to discuss out in the open relationships which don't involve any deception, betrayal, just use a different term than affair and there won't be any confusion. I've come across this with another poster, who kept referring to his affair partner and wife or ex-wife, but then explained him and his then wife had an explicit agreement that they did not need to be exclusive or tell each other about other relationships. That is not an affair. That is just another relationship, that all have agreed to.

  • Like 3
Posted
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!

 

I think you missed my point. I never said anything aobut BSs not being educated or being educated. You refered to independence by having education to provide for oneself and connected this to choosing to be a WS or AP. I was pointing out that one can have independence, education and the conditions you mention and choose not to be a WS or AP because one values honesty and openness. Values are more relevant for this choice than education or independence.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
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.

 

I've attempted to respond to your response to my post lol :laugh:. I didn't wan to do all the quoting, so my response is below and generally each part is more or less a response in order of the comments you made:

 

 

I think some parameters need to be defined in this discussion. First, I think defining what is considered an A might be necessary. I often see here about people speaking about non-dishonest As or As where everyone knows. I do not consider that an A but some kind of alternate arrangement and most wouldn’t either. I think when As are discussed most people are using the standard definition of what an A is, which is usually a secretive EMR. My answer is reflective of the classic A…those are the parameters for my answer.

 

I also find it a bit rude to speak about lower level thinking skills. It doesn’t bother me personally, as I know for a fact that my thinking skills are above average, but I think you’re conflating a misunderstanding and a matter of semantics to lower level thinking skills. Someone misunderstanding or using a common definition, when you are thinking of a more obscure one is not because they lack critical thinking skills. That’s why I said the parameters need to be defined, as if something is ambiguous then it’s unfair to judge people as “lower level thinking” when they are in fact making valid arguments, just not along the lines of your definition of the word/concept.

 

When I said pick and choose, I was not talking about having wishy washy morals. You misunderstood me, yet I’m not going to insult you and say you are using lower level thinking. I meant that we live in a society with a range of choices. Every day we have simple choices, from what cereal to eat and more sophisticated ones like what set of morals and values govern us. We have to weigh things every day, some are without thinking and on autopilot and some are more conscious. All of these choices are governed by our socialization to some degree and we often opt out of some societal norms but adhere to others, and often many are things we do on autopilot. You say you know several people who don’t conform in any way. I doubt that is possible…unless one is raised by wolves or you live outside of society, literally. The fact that we also have laws makes it increasingly difficult for people, even if they wanted to, to opt out of certain societal rules. Can you give an example or two of someone you know who is void of any societal restrictions and follows no societal codes. I truly can’t think of any person like this. I know people who are non-conformist to lesser or more degrees, but the nature of humanity and our world makes it almost impossible to still live within society and not conform at all.

 

AnotherRound, you’ve answered a lot of questions as though I was personally speaking about what I think you did/didn’t do. Should I say you have lower level thinking skills or decide that you lack the ability to think abstractly abstractly and can only answer everything by personalizing it and making it about your specific situation? That's often a sign of someone who can't think critically. Anyway, I wouldn't be that rude, just turning your own rhetorical strategy back on you. I wasn’t talking about you specifically in my response. You proposed a general concept and I gave you my take on it in a general way. It wasn’t directed at you or any individual. You asked if being an “other” required independent thinking, non-conformist attitudes etc. I said no it doesn’t, and went on to give examples of OW/OM who are very much the opposite, you pointed out how much you aren’t led by peer pressure. As I said, this is one of the storylines. There are a broad range of different “type casts” and this is just one, but surely not the “key” ingredient to most As, from what I’ve seen and experienced.

 

Rationalizations, how I meant it, had nothing to do with something being wrong. That is but one definition. You gave me and others flack of taking the standard A definition (i.e. a secret, dishonest one) and answering based on it, yet you too have assumed I’m using rationalize as a finger wagging type thing to say you think it’s wrong so you have to make it right. Didn’t mean tha. I meant rationalization in the larger sense that as humans, everything we do requires a reason. We hardly just do stuff for no reason. This definition was what I was thinking when I said that and not the excuse making one:

 

Noun 1. rationalization - the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

 

Many people are conflicted, in that they are in an A, yet they feel they are going against their morals and they have some sense of guilt because of that conflict. Therefore those people, just look around LS, aren’t “independent thinkers” who don’t subscribe to “societal rules”. They very much subscribe and internalize these rules…yet they make an exception for themselves and experience conflict because of it.

 

Same point applies to your comment about me seeing it as a rationalization and you don’t. My specific quote was that it was a rationale, which again is “a reasoned exposition, esp one defining the fundamental reasons for a course of action, belief, etc.” Which does not hold the same connotation as an excuse and is not tied to one feeling like it is a wrong doing. It simply is that some people reason and explain their A as not anything against their morals or values because they don’t follow society’s rules about relationships, morals etc

 

Again Another, you’ve said where did you say you were above society. I am not speaking about you. You’re not the first to espouse this theory…hence I said it is one of the many types of storylines, as I can think of at least 4 other posters who have shared similar sentiments and I was speaking largely about this notion and the sentiment often attached is one of haughtiness and being above. Sorry if it seemed like I was ascribing that to you as an individual.

 

I’m one who have a VERY nuanced approach to life. I have to. I would not survive in my field if I did not. That said, the idea that absolutely nothing is black and white is a problematic one and I find that only certain types of people feel the need to perpetually reside in gray land, it’s a useful strategy. Some binaries are not useful, agreed, but I think some are and this isn’t about As, but in general. I think the labeling of someone as a black and white thinker is often an insult…let me ask you, if you don’t see things as good or bad, better or worse then why can’t a black and white thinker simply be someone with a different style of thinking…versus the way you’re saying it, which is equating it to lower level thinking? We will have to agree to disagree that nothing is better or worse or black and white. I also think you fall into some of the same traps you say you don’t understand.

Edited by MissBee
  • Like 4
  • Author
Posted
Another Round, if you just want to discuss out in the open relationships which don't involve any deception, betrayal, just use a different term than affair and there won't be any confusion. I've come across this with another poster, who kept referring to his affair partner and wife or ex-wife, but then explained him and his then wife had an explicit agreement that they did not need to be exclusive or tell each other about other relationships. That is not an affair. That is just another relationship, that all have agreed to.

 

Fair enough. But I have always identified my relationship with exMm as an A, bc it WAS outside of his marriage. How would you label that? In that, his wife never agreed, but simply refused to agree or disagree, despite him attempting to discuss the issues, and then telling her how he was going to handle the situation, and then telling her of the As. ????

  • Author
Posted

MissBee... point taken. :)

 

I wasn't assuming you were talking about ME, I was just using myself as an example that was against what you were saying. I didn't take it personally. :)

 

In pointing out the differences in levels of critical thinking, I'm not intending to be rude, just scientifically factual. It is a fact, not my opinion. And I don't place a higher value on humans who utilize higher critical thinking, or lesser value on those who don't. Just noticing the differences, and noting it, and exploring it.

 

I think it's true that I need to clarify MY A, as it apparently was NOT an A, bc exMMs stbxw knew that he was seeing me and didn't object in any way. Nor did she agree in any way... so, she didn't respond in any way at all. So, maybe it's more of just an open relationship?

 

I guess I've always identified it as an A bc it was outside of his marriage. I wonder what the term for this specific situation would be? One where the BS is aware, but chooses to not agree or object, but to just go along with it... ????

 

I'm going to have to either find a term to describe it I guess, or make up my own... lol.

 

Again, I always appreciate your posts Miss Bee, and don't take it personally when you respond. So, please don't think I am simply bc I use my situation as an example. :)

  • Author
Posted
I think you missed my point. I never said anything aobut BSs not being educated or being educated. You refered to independence by having education to provide for oneself and connected this to choosing to be a WS or AP. I was pointing out that one can have independence, education and the conditions you mention and choose not to be a WS or AP because one values honesty and openness. Values are more relevant for this choice than education or independence.

 

I wasn't referring to education in order to support oneself as in it was either/or - that educated people were involved in As, and BSs were uneducated. I was simply noting that it appears, from these boards, that many others are educated and using high level critical thinking skills - and that I was noting that it was MORE evident in the others than the BSs. I do not claim any connection or causation, as these boards aren't nearly a good enough sample to do so. I was simply stating that I noted it, and wondered if anyone else did too. :)

Posted

I agree that things need to be more defined in this topic. I've been reading it and liking posts but feeling uncomfortable to jump in because things are all over the place. I feel like someone trying to jump into the double dutch rope!

 

If we are talking about secret affairs, I'm interested in the topic. Other then that, I'm officially "fine" with open marriages and situations where everyone is fully informed and on the same page.

  • Like 3
  • Author
Posted
I agree that things need to be more defined in this topic. I've been reading it and liking posts but feeling uncomfortable to jump in because things are all over the place. I feel like someone trying to jump into the double dutch rope!

 

If we are talking about secret affairs, I'm interested in the topic. Other then that, I'm officially "fine" with open marriages and situations where everyone is fully informed and on the same page.

 

Lol at double dutch rope!!!! So true!

 

I agree... I guess that is maybe my issue on these boards. That the assumption is that all As are secretive, whereas mine was not, so a lot of the stuff just doesn't fit for me.

 

Any idea what the label would be in my situation? As, the stbxw never agreed to it, nor disagreed with it. Just chose to not confront it in any way, despite knowing it was happening, and not attempting to stop it in any way, shape, or form?

 

Is that an "open" marriage? Bc when exMM brought up "open marriage" to her, she did say that she did not think that would work. But then, he entered the A, she knew, and she didn't respond in any way.

 

Ideas? What would I call it? Or, is it simply an A bc it was outside the marriage?

 

I really never thought about this, despite always feeling like it wasn't a "normal" A in that we weren't lying to the BW.

Posted

Ask the BW (if she actually is) how she would define things.

 

If it's not an affair, no need for cloak and dagger. You should feel free to call his home and ask for him. Coordinate schedules between the three of you. (or at the very least if she won't verbally communicate he could leave notes for her saying "I'm out with AnotherRound, be back by 10pm")

  • Like 1
Posted
MissBee... point taken. :)

 

I wasn't assuming you were talking about ME, I was just using myself as an example that was against what you were saying. I didn't take it personally. :)

 

In pointing out the differences in levels of critical thinking, I'm not intending to be rude, just scientifically factual. It is a fact, not my opinion. And I don't place a higher value on humans who utilize higher critical thinking, or lesser value on those who don't. Just noticing the differences, and noting it, and exploring it.

 

I think it's true that I need to clarify MY A, as it apparently was NOT an A, bc exMMs stbxw knew that he was seeing me and didn't object in any way. Nor did she agree in any way... so, she didn't respond in any way at all. So, maybe it's more of just an open relationship?

 

I guess I've always identified it as an A bc it was outside of his marriage. I wonder what the term for this specific situation would be? One where the BS is aware, but chooses to not agree or object, but to just go along with it... ????

 

I'm going to have to either find a term to describe it I guess, or make up my own... lol.

 

Again, I always appreciate your posts Miss Bee, and don't take it personally when you respond. So, please don't think I am simply bc I use my situation as an example. :)

 

 

No harm done :)

Posted
Fair enough. But I have always identified my relationship with exMm as an A, bc it WAS outside of his marriage. How would you label that? In that, his wife never agreed, but simply refused to agree or disagree, despite him attempting to discuss the issues, and then telling her how he was going to handle the situation, and then telling her of the As. ????

 

I would have to know him and his wife to know if he was honest and open with her and there was no deception or secrecy to make her believe a false reality. If you felt free to call him at home, drop by his house, kiss him, say you love him, etc., when his W was there, talk to his W about your relationship if you wished, then clearly there wasn't any deception.

 

In most deceptive affairs, the A is kept well away from the BS, and one only has the word of the WS to go on as to what the M is like. Only you know what information you have and only the W knows what information she has, unless you talked directly to her. Sometimes you may not know whether it is a deceptive affair or not. We see people coming here, saying they've been told their MP has an open M and the spouse knows everything and yet they don't feel comfortable actually confirming that, so they don't really know. My own experience with open M is they do not work like that - there would be no hesitation in confirming things. The more open and honest, the better, in the open Ms I am familiar with. If there are doubts, chances are there is deception.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

This whole matter of high level of thinking and so on....

 

I'm wondering, maybe there is a correlation between that and narcissism. Perhaps a lot of narcissistic people are high achieving and highly critical, yet lack the ability to empathize. They are good at rationalizing and explaining poor behavior in very intellectually clear ways, yet they can only theorize about their behaviors and intellectualize it but have no process where they connect it outside of themselves or can express feelings about it. One reason narcissists are so difficult to treat is that often many deny a problem and are very matter of fact about it if they do admit it and often will simply think everyone else is some kind of societal pawn or minion who can't possibly understand their more enlightened ways.

 

Psychopaths and sociopaths who are high functioning seem to be this way as well. Maybe there is a correlation between one's level of thinking skills and one's ability to transgress social boundaries other people find it difficult or at least problematic to do. I watched an interview with a sociopathic serial killer. He was indeed a very smart man who did not lack critical thinking skills...what he did lack though was a respect for societal rules, i.e. respect for another's life and choice, honesty, integrity etc. But funnily, even sociopaths conform to society in some ways and for them someone else killing their family member wasn't okay, but when they did it, they could rationalize and separate themselves from it.

 

I am not accusing anyone who thinks that being in an A requires high thinking skills or independence as a narcissist or sociopath, but for the sake of a true discussion, I think it's something to be explored, that perhaps many people whose rationale is along that line where they see themselves as exceptionally high functioning why they can do that, will be people who score higher on narcissistic tests, if there is such a thing.

 

I also find it interesting when people equate rules to restraint. Perhaps that is an exhibition of black and white or non-critical thinking as well. Maybe people with poor impulse control automatically think of a restraint or rule as something stopping their happiness versus something protective and useful for society and social relationships to flourish.

Edited by MissBee
  • Like 2
Posted

I was in an A where MM quickly separated, but and from that point on, things were out in the open. The stbxW was not happy, but we were openly a couple in front of her and there was no deception. I talked to her and knew there was no deception. It's usually obvious if there is no deception and if it isn't obvious, you can check with the W.

Posted

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?

 

So I'll try to answer the question. I don't believe that independence is a required personality trait to be involved in an affair. (if that is what you asked)

 

Based on my observation of many affair forums for over 10 years, I don't see the trend that you see. I have seen many critical thinking, highly educated thinkers on both sides of the fence, and I've never noticed things leaning more to one side then the other.

  • Like 2
Posted

I meant people equating rules to obstacles versus restraint. I think it's an interesting take. Reminds me of kids (who funnily have to learn empathy, as they are often self-centered and have poor impulse control and all they care about are their desires and needs being gratified now, without concern for the larger picture). Often when you say no to a child or have a rule in place, they act like it is about the worst thing, let's not even talk about teens lol. They don't often see that restraint as something that may help them and others and something that allows society and social relationships to flourish, as people simply cannot just do whatever they want, whenever. They usually equate it to some kind of punishment and specific ban on their personal happiness. So perhaps impulse control, narcissism etc have something to do with what story one will have about their A.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
So I'll try to answer the question. I don't believe that independence is a required personality trait to be involved in an affair. (if that is what you asked)

 

Based on my observation of many affair forums for over 10 years, I don't see the trend that you see. I have seen many critical thinking, highly educated thinkers on both sides of the fence, and I've never noticed things leaning more to one side then the other.

 

This is a great succinct answer lol, not one of my strong suits - succinctness that is :laugh:

 

I did not notice this trend either. I have seen that kind of thing before, but I can literally name the posters in my head who have said similar things and who hold views that As are perfectly morally neutral lifestyle/relationship choices.

 

But generally most people in As, esp those coming to LS, to use the sample we're all familiar with, do not seem like non-conformists or any particularly independent, anti-marriage kind of way but often seem to hold very standard views you'd expect the average Joe you go up to in the mall to hold about relationships. Many are the average Jane and Joe who more or less conform to society, and their A often causes conflict for them because they do conform so this interrupts how they feel about themselves and there is some sense of there being a break from the norm for them. The reason I can think of specific posters in my mind who exhibit a high level of intelligence (some of them) and espouse ideas that they are living against the grain is because there are so few, so they stand out as an underrepresented subset of people in As. Most everybody else falls into "As aren't great but I'm doing it because (insert every rationale ever seen here from we're different, we're in love, to I know it's wrong but I don't care).

 

So no..haven't noticed that those predominantly in As are independent thinkers, consciously acting outside of social codes they deem pointless. I have notice though that SOME feel this way and again, my question would be, wonder what kinds of people feel this way? Do they rank higher on narcissism was one possible thing I threw out there.

Edited by MissBee
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

I will start this post by defining my bias - I have never been a BS, WS or OW. I am an environmental biologist and an atheist. I am in a long term monogamous relationship. The following parts in italics are from the initial post:-

 

BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Have you considered that the affair has by its very nature demanded a decision in regards to the compromises that a BS is willing to make in a marriage. This by its very nature will make some things appear either black or white (based on peoples personal experience). I will say there is also lots of understanding (grey) in BS posts although sometimes you may not like the tone of the posts (or maybe you refuse to acknowledge it??).

 

 

In regards to OW/OM - Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves.

 

Disagree. I often think that the posts from OW seem to indicate that they base some important decisions on the willingness and availability of their MM / MW even if (by their own acknowledgement) they do so at their own detriment.

 

In regards to OW/OM - 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.

 

 

LOL. The simplicity of marriage!! Marriage can take many different forms. It is not always monogamous (emotionally or sexually) and it is dynamic. Marriage makes demands (requiring compromises) from both parties. The rules are made up by the parties involved so no two marriages will be the same.

 

It is not “higher level” critical thinking to have different boundaries to other people. I would have thought this point was obvious. You cannot know how much critical thinking has gone into defining a marriage unless you are part of the marriage.

 

There was another thread on this forum which discussed the possible consequences of having an affair in terms of society, work, family, friends etc (I wish I could link it but I’m sorry I don’t know how). The overwhelming consensus was that there maybe some fall out with family and friends but that the larger community would not get involved. Society and its constructs may not be that ‘demanding’ after all.

 

From a different poster:-

 

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.

 

Again... marriage is defined by the people in the marriage. There are lots of differences in the way people live in their marriages. I am not just talking about fidelity. Marriage does not equal conformity. If this poster truly believes this I must ask how marriage differs from a committed relationship... it is after all just a piece of paper people sign.

 

Needs a high EQ to relate on a higher level.... oh dear!!. I didn’t realise affairs were operating at a higher level, my mistake!

 

The quasi - science in this thread is laughable. Come on now....

 

From the original poster -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.

 

What scientific (non-biased) method did you use to deduce that BSs think in black and white? Did you in turn apply this method to OW/OM? Are you more likely to notice opinions that you agree with or disagree with? Are you more likely to remember posts that elicit a strong reaction or posts that make you feel ambivalent? I could go on and on!!!!! Let us not talk facts, nor science.

 

You go on to write -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.

 

Pardon???? I missed the science part. Where is the study in regards to black/ white thinking and betrayed spouses. Please post that link! Otherwise it would just be your opinion right?

Edited by Saba
It was a cut and paste mess!
  • Like 5
Posted
I will start this post by defining my bias - I have never been a BS, WS or OW. I am an environmental biologist and an atheist. I am in a long term monogamous relationship. The following parts in italics are from the initial post:-

 

BSs hold very rigid views of right and wrong, lots of black and white thinking.

 

Have you considered that the affair has by its very nature demanded a decision in regards to the compromises that a BS is willing to make in a marriage. This by its very nature will make some things appear either black or white (based on peoples personal experience). I will say there is also lots of understanding (grey) in BS posts although sometimes you may not like the tone of the posts (or maybe you refuse to acknowledge it??).

 

 

In regards to OW/OM - Independent in that they seem to have obtained education that allows them to provide for themselves.

 

Disagree. I often think that the posts from OW seem to indicate that they base some important decisions on the willingness and availability of their MM / MW even if (by their own acknowledgement) they do so at their own detriment.

 

In regards to OW/OM - 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.

 

 

LOL. The simplicity of marriage!! Marriage can take many different forms. It is not always monogamous (emotionally or sexually) and it is dynamic. Marriage makes demands (requiring compromises) from both parties. The rules are made up by the parties involved so no two marriages will be the same.

 

It is not “higher level” critical thinking to have different boundaries to other people. I would have thought this point was obvious. You cannot know how much critical thinking has gone into defining a marriage unless you are part of the marriage.

 

There was another thread on this forum which discussed the possible consequences of having an affair in terms of society, work, family, friends etc (I wish I could link it but I’m sorry I don’t know how). The overwhelming consensus was that there maybe some fall out with family and friends but that the larger community would not get involved. Society and its constructs may not be that ‘demanding’ after all.

 

From a different poster:-

 

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.

 

Again... marriage is defined by the people in the marriage. There are lots of differences in the way people live in their marriages. I am not just talking about fidelity. Marriage does not equal conformity. If this poster truly believes this I must ask how marriage differs from a committed relationship... it is after all just a piece of paper people sign.

 

Needs a high EQ to relate on a higher level.... oh dear!!. I didn’t realise affairs were operating at a higher level, my mistake!

 

The quasi - science in this thread is laughable. Come on now....

 

From the original poster -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.

 

What scientific (non-biased) method did you use to deduce that BSs think in black and white? Did you in turn apply this method to OW/OM? Are you more likely to notice opinions that you agree with or disagree with? Are you more likely to remember posts that elicit a strong reaction or posts that make you feel ambivalent? I could go on and on!!!!! Let us not talk facts, nor science.

 

You go on to write -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.

 

Pardon???? I missed the science part. Where is the study in regards to black/ white thinking and betrayed spouses. Please post that link! Otherwise it would just be your opinion right?

 

 

These are some good points, particularly about marriage being dynamic. It seems some OW/OM who speak negatively about marriage are the ones who they themselves hold rigid views and then project it on to other people. That is, their idea of marriage is that of ball and chain, tradition, conformity etc so with this idea they assume that anyone married is in this particular conceptualization of marriage. That is rigid thinking as well and does not make room for the various configurations a marriage can take. As you rightfully said, marriage is as the individuals themselves decide it will be- that can be as traditional or nontraditional as they wish.

 

Funnily, some former APs who have married their former APs, somehow have a much rosier view of THEIR marriage and describe it in glowing terms....yet some, although no longer in an A and now married, cannot allow for the possibility that some married people have marriages that suit them and are just as much about wonderful things as theirs are. I wonder why?

  • Like 1
  • Author
Posted

I can't address everything on this thread right now, but I did read the responses, and thank you for all who participated.

 

One thing that stuck out is, I still don't have a "label" for the relationship that exMM and I had. I cannot "just call the wife" as she does NOT want to discuss it - with him or with me. She has never wanted to discuss it. And, we have never wanted to throw it in her face.

 

I know she knew, she semi-stalked me. There is no doubt that she knew who I was, where I lived, my phone number, and that she knew that he and I were having an intimate relationship. How much she accepted it is only evident by her choice to never confront me, or him, or talk about it with him when he brought it up. She had a chance (again, I will tell everyone) to ask me ANYTHING, and she didn't. So, I assumed that even though she knew, she didn't want to talk about it and did NOT want details.

 

So, I am not calling her, lol. Besides, she STILL has my number, so she can call me also, and has chosen not to. I have no need to discuss anything with her now, she and her husband are divorcing. She is not relevant to any relationship that he and I may pursue now - other than he would prefer to not hurt her feelings by flaunting me in her face as he believes that she is very insecure re me (he's speculating, as usual, she has never shared with him how she feels, but has apparently made comments re my looks and intelligence and which he got the impression that she felt/feels inferior to me bc of the type of comments she made).

 

So, a label would be nice I guess. I'm not sure it's an "open marriage" in that she just simply refused to communicate, or work on the relationship, and was epically avoidant of anything that wasn't very surface and comfortable for her. So, not sure what that is exactly.

 

And yes, if we decide to pursue a relationship, as time goes by, she would have some interaction with me, and we would not forever hide that from her. And obviously, I would have to have involvement with their child if he and I were together, so, there is no avoiding these interactions if he and I end up together. He's just saying for now that he would prefer not to have it in her face due to her insecurities regarding me. And apparently he did tell her that he loves me, and he is assuming that that is adding to her insecurity re me also, so, would rather ease her into the fact that he wants/or is going to be with me. Not to mention, he is concerned that she will complicate the divorce if she thinks I'm involved simply bc it's me (and her knowing that he had a relationship with me, and loves me, and wants to be with me).

 

So, anyway, like I said, I may have to make a label for it, lol. As, it is a bit of a weird situation in that way. I will try to address all the other comments later, but have a pretty busy few days coming up, so if not... thanks for all the participation.

Posted (edited)
I can't address everything on this thread right now, but I did read the responses, and thank you for all who participated.

 

One thing that stuck out is, I still don't have a "label" for the relationship that exMM and I had. I cannot "just call the wife" as she does NOT want to discuss it - with him or with me. She has never wanted to discuss it. And, we have never wanted to throw it in her face.

 

I know she knew, she semi-stalked me. There is no doubt that she knew who I was, where I lived, my phone number, and that she knew that he and I were having an intimate relationship. How much she accepted it is only evident by her choice to never confront me, or him, or talk about it with him when he brought it up. She had a chance (again, I will tell everyone) to ask me ANYTHING, and she didn't. So, I assumed that even though she knew, she didn't want to talk about it and did NOT want details.

 

So, I am not calling her, lol. Besides, she STILL has my number, so she can call me also, and has chosen not to. I have no need to discuss anything with her now, she and her husband are divorcing. She is not relevant to any relationship that he and I may pursue now - other than he would prefer to not hurt her feelings by flaunting me in her face as he believes that she is very insecure re me (he's speculating, as usual, she has never shared with him how she feels, but has apparently made comments re my looks and intelligence and which he got the impression that she felt/feels inferior to me bc of the type of comments she made).

 

So, a label would be nice I guess. I'm not sure it's an "open marriage" in that she just simply refused to communicate, or work on the relationship, and was epically avoidant of anything that wasn't very surface and comfortable for her. So, not sure what that is exactly.

 

And yes, if we decide to pursue a relationship, as time goes by, she would have some interaction with me, and we would not forever hide that from her. And obviously, I would have to have involvement with their child if he and I were together, so, there is no avoiding these interactions if he and I end up together. He's just saying for now that he would prefer not to have it in her face due to her insecurities regarding me. And apparently he did tell her that he loves me, and he is assuming that that is adding to her insecurity re me also, so, would rather ease her into the fact that he wants/or is going to be with me. Not to mention, he is concerned that she will complicate the divorce if she thinks I'm involved simply bc it's me (and her knowing that he had a relationship with me, and loves me, and wants to be with me).

 

So, anyway, like I said, I may have to make a label for it, lol. As, it is a bit of a weird situation in that way. I will try to address all the other comments later, but have a pretty busy few days coming up, so if not... thanks for all the participation.

 

If you did not talk to the W about what she knew then you can't really know what she knew. LS if filled with stories about OW who thought they knew something about the BW but didn't. If you don't know for sure what she knows, then the most common situation is that there is deception and lies. If there are no deception and lies it becomes pretty obvious. He owned half the house. Did you sleep in the house with him, while his W was sleeping in another room, wake up and saw good morning to him? If so, she knows you were spending nights with her H. That was the situation with me once MM filed for divorce. If you didn't feel comfortable sleeping over at his house when his W was there and you didn't discuss with the W was this was the case, then I would say you don't really know what was going on in their M and what she knew and what she didn't.

 

Sounds like you didn't want to really know what the W knew either, or you would have found a way to communicate with her. There is always an opening one can use - I have something important to tell you that you need to know (throw in for your health, or whatever, as needed, as having another sexual partner concerns health). This is also a common scenario here, where we learn the OW didn't really want to know if the W knew for sure or what she actually knew. That sounds like your case to me. I would say you likely were in a deceptive A. In confirmed non-deceptive affairs, the other person has talked to both spouses and there isn't any uncertainty.

 

There have been examples of MM saying my W knows but she wants me to be discreet and not push it in her face, and the reality is something quite different. Some OW choose to take that on face value meaning they don't really care if it is a deceptive A or not and it almost always is a deceptive A. Some MM even say they are in an open M with consent when it isn't true. If you don't talk directly and frankly with the W, you might as well assume it is a deceptive A if it matters to you.

Edited by woinlove
Posted
back and white thinking and higher level thinking are not mutually exclusive...

 

each is a different way to view the world...

 

i still hold that each has it's benefits, depending one's point of view...

 

if i were involved in an secret affair and saw no problem with it ( or if i were an unapologetic former other woman) i might very well feel that looking at it as a "grey area" would benefit me...i' can't recall any other men/women on here ever saying, " yes, I know it it's wrong, but I don't care"...there's always a rationalization thrown in....seems that "grey thinking" allows one to engage in some pretty hurtful behavior

 

I see it neither as a grey area nor as "I know it's wrong but I don't care". Those are not the only options available. I see it as "I don't care that some see it as wrong. It suits our purposes and produces more good than harm, for more people."

  • Like 1
Posted
I see it neither as a grey area nor as "I know it's wrong but I don't care". Those are not the only options available. I see it as "I don't care that some see it as wrong. It suits our purposes and produces more good than harm, for more people."

 

This is an interesting concept.

 

Whether some see it as right or wrong is a value judgement.

 

What can be disputed is if it produces more good than harm.... for whom?

 

As long as there remains an unknowing spouse, neither the OW/OM or MAP can honestly answer that question for another.

 

EVERYONE wants to assume the spouse knows, but is preferring NOT to know.

 

While that may be true in some cases, it can never be true for all. Otherwise, why is such secrecy needed?

 

If a relationship is NOT a secret from one or two or all, it does NOT meet the definition of an affair.

 

Your statement is an example of very rigid, black and white thinking, IMO.

Posted
I can't address everything on this thread right now, but I did read the responses, and thank you for all who participated.

 

One thing that stuck out is, I still don't have a "label" for the relationship that exMM and I had. I cannot "just call the wife" as she does NOT want to discuss it - with him or with me. She has never wanted to discuss it. And, we have never wanted to throw it in her face.

 

I know she knew, she semi-stalked me. There is no doubt that she knew who I was, where I lived, my phone number, and that she knew that he and I were having an intimate relationship. How much she accepted it is only evident by her choice to never confront me, or him, or talk about it with him when he brought it up. She had a chance (again, I will tell everyone) to ask me ANYTHING, and she didn't. So, I assumed that even though she knew, she didn't want to talk about it and did NOT want details.

 

So, I am not calling her, lol. Besides, she STILL has my number, so she can call me also, and has chosen not to. I have no need to discuss anything with her now, she and her husband are divorcing. She is not relevant to any relationship that he and I may pursue now - other than he would prefer to not hurt her feelings by flaunting me in her face as he believes that she is very insecure re me (he's speculating, as usual, she has never shared with him how she feels, but has apparently made comments re my looks and intelligence and which he got the impression that she felt/feels inferior to me bc of the type of comments she made).

 

So, a label would be nice I guess. I'm not sure it's an "open marriage" in that she just simply refused to communicate, or work on the relationship, and was epically avoidant of anything that wasn't very surface and comfortable for her. So, not sure what that is exactly.

 

And yes, if we decide to pursue a relationship, as time goes by, she would have some interaction with me, and we would not forever hide that from her. And obviously, I would have to have involvement with their child if he and I were together, so, there is no avoiding these interactions if he and I end up together. He's just saying for now that he would prefer not to have it in her face due to her insecurities regarding me. And apparently he did tell her that he loves me, and he is assuming that that is adding to her insecurity re me also, so, would rather ease her into the fact that he wants/or is going to be with me. Not to mention, he is concerned that she will complicate the divorce if she thinks I'm involved simply bc it's me (and her knowing that he had a relationship with me, and loves me, and wants to be with me).

 

So, anyway, like I said, I may have to make a label for it, lol. As, it is a bit of a weird situation in that way. I will try to address all the other comments later, but have a pretty busy few days coming up, so if not... thanks for all the participation.

 

Another plausible scenario is that he convinced her it was over between the two of you so the semi-stalking stopped; or that you were a bat-s@%t crazy woman obsessed with him and nothing happened.

 

Until YOU talk with her, you will NEVER truly know what she knows or what she thinks or if she still truly assumes you are even still in the picture.

 

But, if it makes you happy to think she is fully informed by a man who has proven he is adept at lying to his wife, then please continue with the delusion.

×
×
  • Create New...