Involved in the marriage?

[Cb3657]

Seems like you could look to the law with respect to crime.

Let's say you are hanging out in a with another person, a bypasser walking towards you, the partner says let's rob this person you say no I don't want to be involved but you do nothing to stop it and hang out while the bypasser is robbed. You had no involvement, you had the impact of giving the impression your partner had backup. Are you guilty. Laws say yes you are guilty of robbery, you didn't think of it or carry it out but did nothing to stop something you knew was wrong.

Guilt is a funny thing noone wants to think of themselves as a bad person but in the situation of being a OW or OM you have accountability for hurting people when you could stop it, this is clear to me.

[seren]

While I always put the blame for hurting our marriage by having an A firmly on H's shoulders, I also acknowledge that the OW colluded with H to do so. The role of the AP as an enabler surely cannot be denied, knowing that the actions of the WS would hurt the BS and being complicit in that, means that they, by their role as an AP, enabled the A and by doing so, had a hand in the hurt that follows. I too would find far more respect in the AP who came at me from the front and said they were having an A with my H and asked what I was going to do about it. My answer would have been, I would lay my line in the sand, tell my H and wait for his reaction - which is of course what happens many times on D Day and why the AP will never do that.

 

I think it is possibly La La Land for an AP to say they have no responsibility in the hurting of the BS and again, far more respect for those who at the very least acknowledge that by enabling an A at least one person will hurt. My whole life is built on the premise that I don't hurt another by my actions, to do so is an anathema to me and if I were knowingly hurting another, it would hurt me more. I know that the OW suggested to my H that I may be having an A, I know that H said she knew nothing about me and that I had integrity and so wouldn't do that. I also know that anything I had done, she attempted to compete with, again, waste of time.

No matter, she chose to interfere and become entangled with mine and H's marriage when it suited her and shrug all ownership of hurt when it didn't. Selective involvement is possibly what I would say it was and yes, H enabled her to do that as much as she enabled him to have an A. Both had a part in my hurt, but it was H who allowed it.

 

He allowed her to hurt us, she enabled him to do so, I would say she was involved in the attempt to destroy our marriage and had said so after D Day, was quite calculated in her actions, but afterwards? no, not at all. D Day is the leveller, when the AP has no hand in it and that is why it is feared by AP so much.

[2sure]

When my xH cheated with women that didn't know he was married, they didn't participate in my life. They banged a man that didn't exist.

 

When I told them he was married, to me specifically, they apologized but clearly had done nothing to me.

 

When he cheated with a woman wo knew he was married to me, she secretly participated in MY life. I don't care at all who invited her to the party, its my party. I had no qualms secretly involving myself in her life. None.

 

My marriage was a part of my life and my x sh*t all over that himself without the help of any OW. But...she secretly involved herself in my life. No, doesn't fly.

[whichwayisup]

Seems like you could look to the law with respect to crime.

Let's say you are hanging out in a with another person, a bypasser walking towards you, the partner says let's rob this person you say no I don't want to be involved but you do nothing to stop it and hang out while the bypasser is robbed. You had no involvement, you had the impact of giving the impression your partner had backup. Are you guilty. Laws say yes you are guilty of robbery, you didn't think of it or carry it out but did nothing to stop something you knew was wrong.

Guilt is a funny thing noone wants to think of themselves as a bad person but in the situation of being a OW or OM you have accountability for hurting people when you could stop it, this is clear to me.

 

Close, but not exactly. Bystander is more like the person driving the get away car or the person on the look out. they aren't the actual ones 'doing the crime' but their hands are dirty by helping. It is a choice.

[mercy]

My whole life is built on the premise that I don't hurt another by my actions, to do so is an anathema to me and if I were knowingly hurting another, it would hurt me more.

 

That has been engrained in me for as long as I can remember. It would be foreign for me to live any other way.

 

Deny self, deny ego. Respect others, whether they are strangers or friends, never seek my happiness on the back of another persons pain. I just couldn't live with myself. Not because I'm better but because it is the way of life.

 

You Seren, are a beautiful person.

[2sunny]

I agree that the OW is not involved though, and by telling the spouse would become so.

 

The OW has no influence on how the MM behaves within the marriage and most do not contact the spouse at all, the marriage is a separate entity.

 

The OW takes time and energy (mental, emotional and physical) from the M and directs it toward his OW.

 

How can that not directly affect the M? It does!

 

And if the W is paying attention - it's usually what triggers her to "know something is off!"

 

It's the same as stealing. You are taking what he SHOULD or COULD be putting into his primary relationship - his marriage!

[Summer Breeze]

I haven't read through everything written since my last comment but what I have makes it clearly obvious that posters are putting focus on assigning and accepting blame. The thread was about involvement and I gave my opinion.

 

Involvement in regards to OW as referred to in the OP is actively involving themselves in the M. Telling the BS, being friends and betraying the BS, ordering the WS to do things or act a certain way within the M. It's an active thing in my mind because the involvement is almost always mentioned when an OW brings up telling the BS.

 

I suggested there are some posters who are talking about the impact of the A on their M when is no active involvement in the M by the OW. I wasn't saying anything more than that.

 

In being challenged I stated my opinion about the impact and involvement being squarely at the foot of the WS. To me it's the act of betrayal from the WS that is the problem, not the person he was with.

 

Someone mentioned legal issues. Sorry I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. I'm going by what is normally said by OW and BS on these boards about what involvement is. My first post, I don't believe, mentioned blame dodging or not owning what was done. It gave my opinion on where the blame lies (and it's been that way since I was a BS a hundred and fifty years ago) and my thoughts on involvement and impact.

 

Carry on but please don't lose sight of what the OP was posting about because you want to change my mind or degrade me. You won't. I am very clear what I believe and you're not going to change my mind any more than I'm going to change yours. It is my opinion, my firm belief. My xH betrayed me and no one shares that blame -- the choice was all his at every turn.

 

Sorry OP.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Summer Breeze

[Saba]

There is a thread running in the other man/woman section , and one of the points that caught my eye was the idea that an other man/woman shouldn't tell a betrayed spouse about the affair because they shouldn't get involved in the marriage. I find this onset pretty disingenuous, as it's other woman that say this...how on earth can an other woman feel they are not involved in the marriage? Seems sort of hypocritical to me...

 

I know that when my husband way having and affair, it most certainly had an impact on our marriage

 

Impact and involvement are not the same thing but I fundamentally agree that the AP is involved in the marriage. Both parties in the affair are concerned with the state of the marriage because of the limitations (and possible ramifications) that it places on the affair. Unless the OW/OM is not interested in a future with the MM/MW they must feel involved with the marriage.

 

I think that the OM/OW does not increase their involvement if they come clean to the BS. If they were not involved in the marriage to start with there would be no reason to keep the affair secret. Telling the truth does not change what has happened (change what has happened in the marriage) it just brings the BS up to speed.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Saba
tried to make my point clearer but its still a bit jumbled

[cocorico]

I wasn't involved in his M, but I was involved in his life.

 

Every time I had dinner with his family, I was involved, and she wasn't. Every time I attended a work function with him and his colleagues, I was involved and she wasn't. Every time I had sex with him, I was involved and she wasn't. Every time I listened to him, spoke to him, laughed with him, held him, shared with him - I was involved and she wasn't. Is it any wonder that the R he chose to "feed" was the one that fed him? So yes, ultimately I did impact her M - she no longer has one. Because having two Ra gave him a basis for comparison and he dumped the vestigial one and opted for the living one.

 

Some argue that As are triangular Rs, with three points (people) and three lines (Rs between people). They're not (mostly, unless as in those rare cases the OW and BW know each other). They're angular - two lines (Rs) which intersect at a single point, the WS. There is no R between the OW and the BW, no line connects them. They could exist in completely separate dimensions, and often do. It's a convenient fiction to believe otherwise.

 

I was involved in *his* life, because of his and my choice. I was not involved in hers. Of course I had an impact on it, and on her M, but so did many others - her employer, his employer, the taxman, their kids, his family, the neighbours, the builders, his friends... But ultimately, she bears responsibility for her choices, he for his, and I for mine.

[woinlove]

As a former OW, I have no problem accepting responsibility for the role I secretly played in their M. Involvement/impact, whatever, I knew he was married, knew he was keeping our A secret from his W and my actions hurt the M and the BW.

 

However, at the time, I would have said I had no involvement in his M and that it was all on him. It was him lying, not me. I was selfish and didn't care that he was married. For me, it was a lack of connection to and caring about others. I didn't know his W and didn't care how his W was being treated because of our A. I feel much more connected to others now, do care how my actions affect others, even strangers, and I now understand that I was the secret participant, affecting their M. To me that is involvement. It is definitely not something I would want to do again. I don't like to knowingly negatively impact on others and hurt them. I accept responsibility for having behaved that way previously.

 

While having an A with someone's H is almost certainly a hurtful action from the BW's perspective, telling her the truth could ultimately have a positive impact if she is able to ultimately heal and deal with the truth constructively. So, I see the decision to have a secret A as having more of a negative involvement than telling the truth. Of course, if one didn't involve oneself by having a secret A, then there would be no need to tell the BW. In some circumstances, I think the telling could be undoing a small amount the negative impact one has had by finally treating the BW with some respect and giving her honesty.

Edited November 12, 2012 by woinlove

[Cb3657]

SB there is no legal issue, I brought this up to show there is a accepted standard for the involvement/impact conversation. Yourself and others who have the opinion that the AP is not involved in the life of the BS are arguing against this standard. Laws are just written down expressions of cultural standards.

What I am saying is your argument has been made many times and the agreed to response is that it is a false rationalization, similar to " I was only following orders" by war criminals or "I didn't know the speed limit" by speeders.

You are free to carry this forward, everyone has their opinion, I just hope you don't carry this thinking to other parts of your life, you could end up in some hot water.

[Sauron]

It is all on the WS. My OW has zero impact on my marriage, we focus on our realtionship and our issues and I do the same with my wife. After so much time with OW though we do know a lot about each other's families, but that's where it ends. My wife doesn't lose anything at the expense of my OW, nor does my OW lose anything.

 

Hey Summer, you are getting hammered for having an opinion that does not line up with the groups, but I am glad at least someone else doesn't mind thinking for their self.

[Cb3657]

I also think SB's moral stand is commendable, she is taking a high road that many would find diffucult to travell, however absolving AP's of their accountability in these things is not a good thing, people should understand and carry their part in these situations. They are a part of the equation, My reading of this is many never understand this untill they are cheated apon.

[ComingInHot]

rationalization, compartmentalization, manipulation, justification, blah blah blah.

 

The OW /OM IS involved regardless of how you twist it UNLESS the OW/OM does NOT know the person is Married.

 

if you know even ONE THING (besides he/she is married) you are immediately Involved.

 

It could be he/she likes sprinkles on their ice cream

He/she was late one day picking up their kids

He/she spent money w/out discussing first... whatever it may be.

 

Analogy time

 

Jury duty. When picking a jury, people are chosen based on ANY type of Prior or Current knowledge of the case including but not limited to past experiences & beliefs that may create an unbalanced and bias jury not allowing for a fair trial. The more information you have will impact the case as the bias will be involved in the decision or vote of the juror whereby affecting the outcome of the decision.

[Spark1111]

SB there is no legal issue, I brought this up to show there is a accepted standard for the involvement/impact conversation. Yourself and others who have the opinion that the AP is not involved in the life of the BS are arguing against this standard. Laws are just written down expressions of cultural standards.

What I am saying is your argument has been made many times and the agreed to response is that it is a false rationalization, similar to " I was only following orders" by war criminals or "I didn't know the speed limit" by speeders.

You are free to carry this forward, everyone has their opinion, I just hope you don't carry this thinking to other parts of your life, you could end up in some hot water.

 

Law is based on intent and knowledge aforehand of the criminal act.

 

Your buddy asks you to stop at a convenience store so he can purchase a soda. He robs the place, hops into your car and has you drop him around the corner.

 

If at any time you became aware of his actions, and do not report it to the police, you will be arrested for aiding and abetting the crime.

 

So, if you knew my man was married, yeah....you had culpability in the demise of my marriage and the breaking of his vow to me.

 

I have many widowed and divorced and single friends. They wouldn't touch a married man with a 10-foot pole. Too much respect for women, themselves, the role of wife, OR believers of the tenet: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

They find MM who play around beneath them. How smarmy is sneaking and f'in around on your wife? Just ewwwwww!

 

I have been hit on a lot, and everytime a man starts to allude to his unhappy marriage, I want to shower. I now recognize it as his hunt for the weak and vulnerable who will engage in an affair. Just yuck.

 

I came to LS to try and understand those who have no problem with it, and frankly, was dismayed by those often articulate and intelligent women who have no problem with it.

[underwater2010]

I agree. The minute you found out that my husband was married, you became involved in our marriage by choice. To little to late to step back afterwards and say I didn't tell because I didn't want to inject myself in the marriage.

 

Then you should have run the other direction as soon as you heard he was married...regardless if you were in "love".

[whichwayisup]

I was involved in *his* life, because of his and my choice. I was not involved in hers. Of course I had an impact on it, and on her M, but so did many others - her employer, his employer, the taxman, their kids, his family, the neighbours, the builders, his friends... But ultimately, she bears responsibility for her choices, he for his, and I for mine.

 

Yeah but those things you listed weren't and aren't a threat to their marriage, to end the marriage, to cause problems enough to get an STD, or cause betrayal, cause a divorce, cause pain and have a family split up.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

[KathyM]

The married couple and the AP are considered to be a triangle because their actions and behaviors affect the other members of the triangle. Whether APs want to believe it or not, their actions affect the BS, obviously. The AP's actions are affecting the marriage and the relationship between the husband and wife. Relationship triangles can come in many forms. If a mother-in-law were too involved in a couple's relationship, that would be a triangle relationship, where the mother-in-law is affecting the relationship between the husband and wife. There can also be a triangle within a nuclear family where a child is made more important to the wife than the husband, and the wife is replacing her needs for attention that she should be getting from her husband all on the child's shoulders, which is also an unhealthy triangle. Relationship triangles are a valid concept in psychology, and they are explained as a triangle because each person of the three affects the other members of the triangle.

[cocorico]

Yeah but those things you listed weren't and aren't a threat to their marriage, to end the marriage, to cause problems enough to get an STD, or cause betrayal, cause a divorce, cause pain and have a family split up.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

 

Actually they were very material to their R/ M. We're it not for the taxman they would not have M. And the friends, colleagues, his family, etc - were all wanting him to dump her, so yes, they were a "threat" to the M.

 

And while they posed no threat of STDs, neither did I.

[cocorico]

The line between the AP and the BS is the accountability line to not purposely hurt others this line is made by the AP whether or not the BS is aware, the AP is. If this line did not exist there would be no need to hide the affair

 

I certainly did not hide the A. He did not hide the A - everyone knew except her. She did not know because no one considered her important enough to tell.

[cocorico]

The married couple and the AP are considered to be a triangle because their actions and behaviors affect the other members of the triangle. Whether APs want to believe it or not, their actions affect the BS, obviously. The AP's actions are affecting the marriage and the relationship between the husband and wife. .

 

I do not dispute that. But that in and of itself is insufficient to make a triangular R. It's two separate Rs that intersect at the point of the WS.

 

The other examples you cite may certainly be triangular, because in those cases all three parties (W, H, MIL; or W, H, child) have Rs with each other. But the OW and the W ordinarily have no R with each other whatsoever, although both have Rs with the WS.

[dreamingoftigers]

I really wonder how long this thought process would survive if the tables were turned.

 

For example: it turned out that someone who was cool with being an OW didn't know that her MM was married and that MM and wife were both keeping their own marriage a secret from OW.

 

Than when OW says, "I want to take things to the next level" D-Day were to happen to her in a sense when the "happily married" couple says. "that's not what this is about, you should have known the whole time, we're married. There's no single guy in the relationship here, in doesn't really affect your relationship in any way does it? It just means that he'll never ever be committed to you like he blew smoke up your ass for the last year telling you he was."

[cocorico]

Than when OW says, "I want to take things to the next level" D-Day were to happen to her in a sense

 

Surely that's like any other R where it becomes apparent that the parties (have come to) want different things. An OW who wants to take things "to another level" but her MM doesn't; a W who wants a child but her H doesn't; a GF wants to M but her BF doesn't; a BS who wants exclusivity and monogamy henceforth but the WS doesn't; a new mother who wants to become a SAHM but her partner does not want to be sole breadwinner.... People come to realise that what they want in / from a R differs for what their partner wants, and they either compromise or move on. Happens all the time. Not sure what direct relevance you're seeing for the involvement or otherwise of an OW / OM in their MP's M. Could you clarify?

[woinlove]

I certainly did not hide the A. He did not hide the A - everyone knew except her. She did not know because no one considered her important enough to tell.

 

I don't know how the details worked in your case. But, in general, not letting the BW know is to give her some importance and is to impact on her M as the OP discusses.

 

My own A involved almost no hiding, since we lived in separate cities that MM travelled between frequently. But when I went from a secret A to an out in the open R, while the stbDM had an in-house separation, I got to see quite clearly the difference between an A and an out in the open R where there was no deception involved. And I also came to appreciate the inherent "hiding" in not letting the BW know.

 

When everything was out in the open, I visited stbDM in his home that he still shared with his W, staying overnight, while his W was there too (in a separate bedroom, of course). While our A was secret, I never visited or stayed overnight at his home while his W was there. That was an action we took to keep this secret from his W. Why? Because his W and M clearly had enough significance to him that he wanted to deceive her into thinking he was faithful and committed to the M. When that no longer was the case, he told her, and we became an out in the open couple. While his BW was in the dark, her M was being affected by MM and me, but she didn't know it.

 

I think one may think there is no "hiding" but if one isn't sharing MM's home with him openly, even when his W is present, I would argue there is hiding. And that hiding means there is some importance attached to the BW and there is also impact on the M as discussed in the OP of this thread.

[frozensprouts]

a couple of points after reading this thread...

 

(a)- I honestly don't believe that the other man or other woman or even a wayward spouse can have a place in saying whether or not the other man/woman was involved in a marriage. That is the sole purvey of the betrayed spouse and how they feel.

 

(b) While it may be true that the wayward spouse may have been with someone else if it wasn't the other man/woman ( I don't find that flattering at all..." if it wasn't me, it could have been anyone":sick:)...the fact is that it WAS a particular other man or woman who made the choice to have the affair...whether or not it could have been anyone is immaterial, as it wasn't just anyone, it was them

 

© it has become more and more apparent to me that many other women/men don't view the idea of marriage and commitment with the same view as i do...but that's another topic for another thread:laugh: